This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/23/2020 at 15:17:07 (UTC).

NICK HALEKAKIS VS. KATHARINE SESTANOVICH, ET AL

Case Summary

On 07/28/2017 NICK HALEKAKIS filed an Other lawsuit against KATHARINE SESTANOVICH. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA A. MATZ and CURTIS A. KIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7057

  • Filing Date:

    07/28/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LAURA A. MATZ

CURTIS A. KIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

HALEKAKIS NICK

Defendants

FUENTES MELINDA

SESTANOVICH KATHARINE

SESTANOVICH KARA

SESTANOVICH ANTHONY

MORENO ANGEL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorney

SHAHRIARI CYRUS E.

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

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

Declaration - DECLARATION KATHARINE SESTANOVICH

7/7/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION KATHARINE SESTANOVICH

Declaration - DECLARATION KARA SESTANOVICH

7/7/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION KARA SESTANOVICH

Declaration - DECLARATION OF MELINDA FUENTES

7/7/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF MELINDA FUENTES

Declaration - DECLARATION KERI HOLLAND

7/7/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION KERI HOLLAND

Declaration - DECLARATION CYRUS E. SHAHRIARI

7/7/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION CYRUS E. SHAHRIARI

Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment

7/8/2020: Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment

Notice of Related Case

7/10/2020: Notice of Related Case

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF NICK HALEKAKIS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT AND VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

8/24/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF NICK HALEKAKIS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT AND VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT AND VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

8/24/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT AND VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Substitution of Attorney

8/24/2020: Substitution of Attorney

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MEGAN LORICK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT AND VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

8/24/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MEGAN LORICK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT AND VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT AND VACATING DEFAULT JUDGMENT

8/28/2020: Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT AND VACATING DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUD...)

9/4/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUD...)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER) OF 09/14/2020

9/14/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER) OF 09/14/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER)

9/14/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER)

Notice of Ruling

9/15/2020: Notice of Ruling

Answer

9/16/2020: Answer

71 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/19/2021
  • Hearing01/19/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department E at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Case Management Conference

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/08/2021
  • Hearing01/08/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department E at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/30/2020
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Nick Halekakis (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/30/2020
  • DocketDeclaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil; Filed by Libby Wong (Attorney)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/30/2020
  • DocketMotion to Be Relieved as Counsel; Filed by Libby Wong (Attorney)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/30/2020
  • DocketProof of Service - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; Filed by Libby Wong (Attorney)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/25/2020
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Nick Halekakis (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/25/2020
  • DocketDeclaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil; Filed by Libby Wong (Attorney)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/25/2020
  • DocketMotion to Be Relieved as Counsel; Filed by Libby Wong (Attorney)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/19/2020
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Katharine Sestanovich (Defendant); Kara Sestanovich (Defendant); Melinda Fuentes (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
105 More Docket Entries
  • 08/04/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Nick Halekakis (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/04/2017
  • DocketDefault Entered; Filed by Plaintiff, & Plaintiff in Pro Per

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/04/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Nick Halekakis (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/04/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Nick Halekakis (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/04/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Nick Halekakis (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Plaintiff, & Plaintiff in Pro Per

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Plaintiff, & Plaintiff in Pro Per

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****7057 Hearing Date: April 29, 2022 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 04/29/2022 – 8:30am

Case No: ****7057

Trial Date: 06/27/2022

Case Name: NICK HALEKAKIS v. KATHARINE SESTANOVICH, ET AL.

TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

RELIEF REQUESTED: Defendants Nick Halekakis and Megan Lorick move for a protective order as to the following discovery propounded by Plaintiff Katharine Sestanovich:

1. Special Interrogatories, Set 2 to Lorick (numbering 518);

2. Request for Production, Set 2 to Lorick (numbering 95);

3. Special Interrogatories, Set 2 to Halekakis (numbering 518);

4. Request for Production, Set 2 to Halekakis (numbering 95);

(collectively “Sestanovich Discovery Set 2”)

The motion is made on the grounds that Sestanovich Discovery Set 2 is unwarranted, unduly burdensome and expensive, duplicative of discovery already served, and seeks privileged and confidential information subject to the right of privacy. This motion is made pursuant to CCP 2030.090(b) and 2031.060(b).

TENTATIVE RULING: This Court orders moving Defendants to follow this Court’s previous 12/21/2021 Order that stated, “This Court appoints Hon. Benny Osorio (Ret.) as a discovery referee in this matter to resolve any further fact discovery dispute that may arise between the parties in Case Nos. ****7057, 20STCV17187, 20STCV17178, and 20STCV17175…” (Minute Order 12/21/201, italics and emph. added.)



Case Number: ****7057 Hearing Date: March 18, 2022 Dept: NCE

Hearing Date: 03/18/2022 – 8:30am

Case No: ****7057

Trial Date: 06/27/2022

Case Name: NICK HALEKAKIS v. KATHARINE SESTANOVICH, ET AL.

Tentative Ruling on 2 MOTIONS –(1) Motion to Quash Deposition Notice and Stay Depositions and Request for Sanctions (2)Motion to Quash Plaintiffs’ Civil Subpoena For Personal Appearance and Production of Documents to Cardinal Financial Company and Request for Sanctions

Moving Party: Defendants, Nick Halekakis and Megan Lorick (collectively “Defendants”)

Responding Party: No Opposition

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): Yes 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): Yes Proper Address: Clarify at hearing – The mailing address on the proofs of service for Plaintiff’s attorney is not what is listed on eCourt. However, the email address listed on the proofs of service appear to be proper, and the proofs of service state the instant motions were served by electronic transmission. However, since there is no Opposition, confirm at the hearing that these motions were properly served.

RELIEF REQUESTED: Motion 1: Defendants Nick Halekakis and Megan Lorick (“Defendants”) move for an order to quash the six deposition notices of:

Ruben Reyes – February 14, 2022 at 11:00am

Joseph Paradiso – February 14, 2022 at 1:00pm

Jack Upchurch – February 14, 2022 at 3:00pm

Benjamin Wieser – February 15, 2022 at 10:00am

Brandon Apple – February 15, 2022 at 2:00pm

Cardinal Financial Company – February 18, 2022 at 10:00am

Defendants also request the depositions be stayed until Plaintiffs can cure Code requirements for proper notice and deposition subpoenas and set dates that do not conflict with Defendants’ or Mr. Halekakis’ unavailability.

Defendants also request the Court impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $861.65.

Motion 2: Defendants Nick Halekakis and Megan Lorick (“Defendants”) move for an order to quash the subpoena issued by Plaintiffs Katharine Sestanovich, Kara Sestanovich, and Melinda Fuentes (“Plaintiffs”) to Cardinal Financial Company, Limited Partnership.

Defendants also request the Court impose sanctions in the amount of $961.65.

TENTATIVE RULING This Court orders moving Defendants to follow this Court’s previous 12/21/2021 Order that stated, “This Court appoints Hon. Benny Osorio (Ret.) as a discovery referee in this matter to resolve any further fact discovery dispute that may arise between the parties in Case Nos. ****7057, 20STCV17187, 20STCV17178, and 20STCV17175…” (Minute Order 12/21/201, italics and emph. added.)



b'

Case Number: ****7057 Hearing Date: December 17, 2021 Dept: E

Hearing Date: ; 12/17/2021 – 8:30am Case No. ;****7057 Trial Date: 03/21/2022 Case Name: NICK HALEKAKIS v. KATHARINE SESTANOVICH, ET AL

TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS

; ; ;

Moving Party: ; Plaintiff, Katharine Sestanovich Responding Party: Defendants, Nick Halekakis and Megan Lorick Oppo and Reply Submitted

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300(c)): ok 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): ok Proper Address: ok

Oppo and reply submitted.

RELIEF REQUESTED ; ; ; Plaintiff Katharine Sestanovich moves for an order to compel Nick Halekakis and Megan Lorick to appear for deposition in this matter in 2021.

BACKGROUND This is a landlord-tenant dispute involving claims of negligence, breach of the implied warranty of habitability, and landlord harassment. Defendants co-own a home. Katharine Sestanovich, Kara Sestanovich, and Melinda Fuentes rented the Property from Landlords/Defendants for several years until August 2019, where they lived with Katharine’s currently six-year old son Anthony Moreno. [Anthony Moreno together with Katharine Sestanovich, Kara Sestanovich, and Melinda Fuentes are collectively referred to as “Tenants”.]

Tenants filed suit against Landlords on May 5, 2020, and later discovered that prior to Tenants filling their lawsuits, Defendant, Halekakis, surreptitiously obtained a default judgment against Plaintiffs. Halekakis’s judgment was set aside on September 14, 2020.

The depositions for Halekakis and Lorick were initially set for September 9, 2021 and September 10, 2021, but Defendants’ counsel served objections asserting that Defendants were unavailable on the noticed dates. Parties met and conferred, took the noticed depositions off calendar, and rescheduled.

Lorick’s deposition was rescheduled for 10-12-2021 and Nick’s deposition was scheduled for 10-14-2021. On October 8, 2021, Defendants served objections asserting they were no longer available for the noticed deposition dates.

Plaintiffs now move to compel the depositions of Defendants.

Plaintiffs argue that objections on October 8, 2021 were untimely because the objections for the October 12, 2021 and October 14, 2021 depositions were due on October 4, 2021 and October 6, 2021, respectively. Plaintiffs argue that since CCP ;2025.401(a) requires personal service of objections to be at least 3 calendar days before the deposition and since the parties previously agreed to add an additional 5 days for documents served by email due to the pandemic, Defendants’ objections were late.

Defendants argue in opposition that since the deposition of Lorick is now set for December 15, 2021, and the deposition of Halekakis is set for December 17, 2021, the instant motion is premature and moot since the parties have agreed on deposition dates.

Plaintiffs argue in Reply that despite this recent agreement on deposition dates, Plaintiffs are concerned that Defendants will suddenly back out last minute as they allegedly did before. Plaintiffs are concerned about trial being only a few months away and protecting their right to take Defendants’ depositions before the end of the year. Plaintiffs argue that an order is needed to ensure Defendants do not suddenly serve untimely objections again.

Plaintiffs also argue in Reply that according to the Court’s online docket, Defendants’ opposition was not timely filed.

“Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, all papers opposing a motion and all reply papers shall be served by personal delivery, facsimile transmission, express mail, or other means consistent with Sections 1010, 1011, 1012, and 1013, and reasonably calculated to ensure delivery to the other party or parties not later than the close of the next business day after the time the opposing papers or reply papers, as applicable, are filed. This subdivision applies to the service of opposition and reply papers regarding motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication, in addition to the motions listed in subdivision (a).” (CCP ;1005(c).) LEGAL STANDARD C.C.P. ;2025.450(a) provides, as follows: “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”

C.C.P. ;2025.450(b) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following:

(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.

TENTATIVE RULING Motion to compel depositions of Lorick and Halekakis are DENIED without prejudice as MOOT.

Moving party cannot move to compel unless the deponent fails to appear for examination. (CCP ;2025.450(a)) Here, both parties acknowledge that new deposition dates have been set for December 15, 2021, and December 17, 2021; therefore, moving to compel the depositions that were noticed for October 12, 2021, and October 14, 2021 are denied as moot since new deposition dates have been agreed to and not yet passed as this is written.

'


Case Number: ****7057    Hearing Date: January 08, 2021    Dept: E

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

[CCP ;284, CRC 3.1362]

Date: 1/8/21 (8:30 AM)

Case: Nick Halekakis v. Katharine Sestanovich et al. (****7057)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Counsel Libby Wong, Esq.’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for plaintiff Nick Halekakis is GRANTED. The Court will sign the Amended Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (filed 11/30/20), and counsel will be relieved effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order upon the client.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer SHAHRIARI, CYRUS E.