On 09/01/2017 MITCHELL BLOCH filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against HAZIE LAZAROF. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are HOWARD L. HALM and ROBERT B. BROADBELT. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
****4336
09/01/2017
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
HOWARD L. HALM
ROBERT B. BROADBELT
BLOCH MITCHELL
BLOCH DANIELLA
LAZAROF HAZIE
DOES 1 TO 10
HAZIE LAZAROF MARBLE & GRANITE
MARSH CONSTRUCTION
STEVENSON ENGINEERING INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
ADK CONSTRUCTION INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
MARSH SCOTT AN INDIVIDUAL DBA MARSH
STEVENSON ENGINEERING INC. [ROE 2]
MARSH SCOTT AN INDIVIDUAL DBA
MARSH SCOTT
ROES 1 THROUGH 100
ADK CONSTRUCTION INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION [ROE 3]
STEVENSON ENGINEERING INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION [ROE 2]
HAZIE LAZAROF MARBLE & GRANITE
MARSH CONSTRUCTION
ROSEN GLENN T. ESQ.
ROSEN GLENN TODD ESQ.
ROBERTS JASON S.
ROBERTS JASON SKOCZULEK
ROSS TYLER MICHAEL
WESTREICH MEIR J.
ROBERTS JASON S. ESQ.
ROSS TYLER MICHAEL
WESTREICH MEIR J.
WESTREICH MEIR J. ESQ
MADARIAGA DAVID B. ESQ.
11/9/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 11/09/2020
11/30/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED BY ...)
8/13/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
7/15/2020: Supplemental Declaration - SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION SCOTT MARSH IN SUPPORT OF REPLY
7/1/2020: Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT HAZIE LAZAROFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT SCOTT MARSHS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
7/1/2020: Exhibit List
7/1/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MICHAEL VILLALBA IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
7/1/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
5/4/2020: Request for Judicial Notice
5/4/2020: Memorandum of Points & Authorities
5/1/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF SCOTT MARSH IN SUPPORT OF
1/30/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF ORDER ON EX PARTE APPLICATION AND NEW TRIAL DATE
1/22/2020: Order - ORDER ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
2/13/2019: General Denial
9/4/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE
4/2/2018: PLAINTIFFS MITCHELL AND DANIELLA BLOCH'S NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
6/21/2018: AMENDMENT TO CROSS-COMPLAINT
Hearing06/09/2021 at 11:00 AM in Department 53 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial
Hearing05/28/2021 at 11:00 AM in Department 53 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference
Hearing01/29/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 53 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment
Hearing01/29/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 53 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (of ADK Construction, Inc. (Roe 3) as to the Cross-Complaint of Hazie Lazarof;) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (of Scott Marsh dba Marsh Construction (Roe 1) to the Cross-Complaint of Hazie Lazarof;) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court
Docketat 1:37 PM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Court Order
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 12/10/2020); Filed by Clerk
DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted (by Plaintiff Mitchell Bloch filed by Defendant/Cross-Complainant on 7/2/20;) - Held - Motion Denied
DocketSummons; Filed by HAZIE LAZAROF (Defendant)
DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by HAZIE LAZAROF (Defendant); HAZIE LAZAROF MARBLE & GRANITE (Legacy Party)
DocketAnswer; Filed by HAZIE LAZAROF (Defendant); HAZIE LAZAROF MARBLE & GRANITE (Legacy Party)
DocketCROSS-COMPLAINANT HAZIE LAZAROF'S CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: 1. EQUITABLE INDEMNITY; 2. PARTIAL EQUITABLE INDEMNITY;ETC
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by MITCHELL BLOCH (Plaintiff); DANIELLA BLOCH (Plaintiff)
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
DocketComplaint; Filed by MITCHELL BLOCH (Plaintiff); DANIELLA BLOCH (Plaintiff)
DocketSUMMONS
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC
DocketSUMMONS
Case Number: BC674336 Hearing Date: December 08, 2020 Dept: 53
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles – Central District
Department 53
|
mitchell bloch vs. hazie lazarof |
Case No.: |
BC674336 |
|
Hearing Date: |
December 8, 2020 |
|
|
Time: |
|
|
|
[Tentative] Order RE: (1) motion for an order establishing admissions by plaintiff mitchell bloch;
(2) motion for an order establishing admissions by plaintiff daniella bloch
|
||
|
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION |
|
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Hazie Lazarof
RESPONDING PARTIES: Plaintiffs Mitchell Bloch and Daniella Bloch
Motion for an Order Establishing Admissions by Plaintiff Mitchell Bloch;
Motion for an Order Establishing Admissions by Plaintiff Daniella Bloch
The court considered the moving, joint opposition, and consolidated reply papers filed in connection with each motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Mitchell Bloch and Daniella Bloch (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action on September 1, 2017, against defendant Hazie Lazaorof, an individual dba Hazie Lazarof Marble & Granite (“Defendant”).
On January 13, 2020, Defendant served his Requests for Admissions, Set One, on each plaintiff. (Ross Decls., filed July 2, 2020, ¶¶ 2.) Neither plaintiff has served his or her response despite efforts by Defendant’s counsel to meet and confer regarding Plaintiffs’ failure to respond. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-4.)
Defendant now moves for (1) an order that the truth of the matters specified in Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, to plaintiff Mitchell Bloch, are deemed admitted, and (2) an order that the truth of the matters specified in Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, to plaintiff Daniella Bloch, are deemed admitted. Defendant also requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs in connection with each motion. Plaintiffs filed a joint opposition to Defendant’s motions.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), if a party to whom requests for admissions are directed fails to serve a timely response, the requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, and for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). “Failure to timely respond to RFA does not result in automatic admissions. Rather, the propounder of the RFA must ‘move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction’ under § 2023.010 et seq.” (Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial, ¶ 8:1370, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The court “shall” grant the motion to deem RFA admitted, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
In opposition to the motion, Plaintiffs submit the Declaration of Glenn T. Rosen, Plaintiffs’ counsel, in which Mr. Rosen states that, on October 15, 2020, Plaintiffs served their verified responses without objections to Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One. (Rosen Decl., filed November 4, 2020, ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs request that the court deny Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions.
In reply, Defendant concedes that Plaintiffs served their verified responses to Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, but contends that an award of monetary sanctions is mandatory under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c). Because Plaintiffs have served their responses to Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, before the hearing on the motion, the court denies Defendant’s motions for an order that the truth of the matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, the court orders as follows.
The court denies defendant Hazie Lazarof’s motion for an order that the truth of the matters specified in his Requests for Admission, Set One, to plaintiff Mitchell Bloch be deemed admitted.
The court denies defendant Hazie Lazarof’s motion for an order that the truth of the matters specified in his Requests for Admission, Set One, to plaintiff Daniella Bloch be deemed admitted.
It is “mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2012.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Defendant requests monetary sanctions in the total amount of $1,045 against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel in connection with both motions. The court finds that $1,045 (5 hours x $185 per hour = $925 in attorney’s fees + $120 filing fee for two motions) is a reasonable amount of sanctions to impose against Plaintiffs. The court therefore orders that plaintiffs Mitchell Bloch and Daniella Bloch shall pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,045 to defendant Hazie Lazarof within 30 days of the date of service of this order. (Code Civ Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
The court orders defendant Hazie Lazarof to give notice of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 8, 2020
_____________________________
Robert B. Broadbelt III
Judge of the Superior Court