This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/15/2021 at 04:29:08 (UTC).

MITCHELL BLOCH ET AL VS HAZIE LAZAROF ET AL

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4336

  • Filing Date:

    09/01/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

HOWARD L. HALM

ROBERT B. BROADBELT

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

BLOCH MITCHELL

BLOCH DANIELLA

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

LAZAROF HAZIE

DOES 1 TO 10

HAZIE LAZAROF MARBLE & GRANITE

MARSH CONSTRUCTION

STEVENSON ENGINEERING INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

ADK CONSTRUCTION INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Cross Defendants

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]

Defendants, Respondents and Not Classified By Court

HAZIE LAZAROF MARBLE & GRANITE

MARSH CONSTRUCTION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

ROSEN GLENN T. ESQ.

ROSEN GLENN TODD ESQ.

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

ROBERTS JASON S.

ROBERTS JASON SKOCZULEK

ROSS TYLER MICHAEL

WESTREICH MEIR J.

ROBERTS JASON S. ESQ.

Defendant and Cross Defendant Attorneys

ROSS TYLER MICHAEL

WESTREICH MEIR J.

WESTREICH MEIR J. ESQ

MADARIAGA DAVID B. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 11/09/2020

11/9/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 11/09/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED BY ...)

11/30/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED BY ...)

Notice - NOTICE OF ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

8/13/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Supplemental Declaration - SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION SCOTT MARSH IN SUPPORT OF REPLY

7/15/2020: Supplemental Declaration - SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION SCOTT MARSH IN SUPPORT OF REPLY

Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT HAZIE LAZAROFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT SCOTT MARSHS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

7/1/2020: Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT HAZIE LAZAROFS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT SCOTT MARSHS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Exhibit List

7/1/2020: Exhibit List

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MICHAEL VILLALBA IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

7/1/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MICHAEL VILLALBA IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

7/1/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Request for Judicial Notice

5/4/2020: Request for Judicial Notice

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

5/4/2020: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Declaration - DECLARATION OF SCOTT MARSH IN SUPPORT OF

5/1/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF SCOTT MARSH IN SUPPORT OF

Notice - NOTICE OF ORDER ON EX PARTE APPLICATION AND NEW TRIAL DATE

1/30/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF ORDER ON EX PARTE APPLICATION AND NEW TRIAL DATE

Order - ORDER ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

1/22/2020: Order - ORDER ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

General Denial

2/13/2019: General Denial

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

9/4/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

PLAINTIFFS MITCHELL AND DANIELLA BLOCH'S NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

4/2/2018: PLAINTIFFS MITCHELL AND DANIELLA BLOCH'S NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

AMENDMENT TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

6/21/2018: AMENDMENT TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

97 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/09/2021
  • Hearing06/09/2021 at 11:00 AM in Department 53 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2021
  • Hearing05/28/2021 at 11:00 AM in Department 53 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2021
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2021
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2020
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2020
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • Docketat 1:37 PM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 12/10/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2020
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
144 More Docket Entries
  • 11/13/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by HAZIE LAZAROF (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2017
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by HAZIE LAZAROF (Defendant); HAZIE LAZAROF MARBLE & GRANITE (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by HAZIE LAZAROF (Defendant); HAZIE LAZAROF MARBLE & GRANITE (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2017
  • DocketCROSS-COMPLAINANT HAZIE LAZAROF'S CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: 1. EQUITABLE INDEMNITY; 2. PARTIAL EQUITABLE INDEMNITY;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by MITCHELL BLOCH (Plaintiff); DANIELLA BLOCH (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by MITCHELL BLOCH (Plaintiff); DANIELLA BLOCH (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC674336    Hearing Date: December 08, 2020    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

mitchell bloch , et al.;

Plaintiffs,

vs.

hazie lazarof ;

Defendant.

Case No.:

BC674336

Hearing Date:

December 8, 2020

Time:

10:00 a.m.

[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

  1. Motion for an Order Establishing Admissions by Plaintiff Mitchell Bloch;

  2. 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