This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/25/2022 at 05:38:35 (UTC).

PASADENA HASTINGS CENTER VS MARIE CELESTE CAMPBELL

Case Summary

On 10/06/2017 PASADENA HASTINGS CENTER filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against MARIE CELESTE CAMPBELL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Glendale Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are RALPH C. HOFER and JOEL L. LOFTON. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7192

  • Filing Date:

    10/06/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

RALPH C. HOFER

JOEL L. LOFTON

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

PASADENA HASTINGS CENTER

Defendants, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

CAMPBELL MARIE CELESTE

SAPPHOS NEST LLC

SAPPHOS ENVIRONMENTAL INC.

CALIFORNIA CREATIONS LLC A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

WISHARD DAVID W.

CALIFORNIA CREATTIONS LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

STONE JEREMY DAVID

ZICK RYAN D.

AMSPOKER TODD A.

AMSPOKER TODD ADAMS

Defendant Attorneys

HODGES WARREN OLEN JR

RITT TAI THVEDT & HODGES

JOHNSON KAREN MAYANN

Cross Defendant Attorneys

FAJARDO MILTON VLADIMIR

BARATTA JAMES

 

Court Documents

Response - RESPONSE - PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL

11/22/2022: Response - RESPONSE - PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL

Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service

11/22/2022: Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service

Request for Dismissal

11/21/2022: Request for Dismissal

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT) (STATUS OF THE...)

11/16/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT) (STATUS OF THE...)

Request for Dismissal

11/15/2022: Request for Dismissal

Notice of Continuance

8/17/2022: Notice of Continuance

Notice of Settlement

8/17/2022: Notice of Settlement

Notice of Settlement

8/17/2022: Notice of Settlement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT) (STATUS OF THE...)

8/17/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT) (STATUS OF THE...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT) (STATUS OF THE...)

5/19/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT) (STATUS OF THE...)

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL STATUS

5/20/2022: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL STATUS

Brief - PLAINTIFF PASADENA HASTINGS CENTER'S SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

3/3/2022: Brief - PLAINTIFF PASADENA HASTINGS CENTER'S SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Brief - BRIEF MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS

3/9/2022: Brief - BRIEF MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

3/10/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Objection - OBJECTION PLAINTIFF PASADENA HASTINGS CENTERS OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS NOTICE TO APPEAR AT TRIAL

2/1/2022: Objection - OBJECTION PLAINTIFF PASADENA HASTINGS CENTERS OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS NOTICE TO APPEAR AT TRIAL

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO BIFURCATE TRIAL RE PUNITIVE DAMAGES

2/2/2022: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO BIFURCATE TRIAL RE PUNITIVE DAMAGES

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

2/3/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Trial Brief

2/4/2022: Trial Brief

168 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/16/2022
  • Hearing12/16/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department X at 150 West Commonwealth, Alhambra, CA 91801; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/22/2022
  • DocketNotice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service; Filed by PASADENA HASTINGS CENTER (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/22/2022
  • DocketResponse (- PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL); Filed by PASADENA HASTINGS CENTER (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/21/2022
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by California Creations, LLC, a limited liability company (Cross-Complainant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/16/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department X, Joel L. Lofton, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) ((status of the settlement agreement)) - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/16/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) (status of the...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/15/2022
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by PASADENA HASTINGS CENTER (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/17/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department X, Joel L. Lofton, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) ((status of the settlement agreement)) - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/17/2022
  • DocketNotice of Continuance; Filed by PASADENA HASTINGS CENTER (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/17/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) (status of the...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
253 More Docket Entries
  • 10/16/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by PASADENA HASTINGS CENTER (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/16/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by PASADENA HASTINGS CENTER (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/06/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/06/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/06/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/06/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/06/2017
  • DocketNotice (of OSC)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/06/2017
  • DocketSummons Filed

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/06/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by null

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/06/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: ****7192 Hearing Date: September 24, 2021 Dept: D

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 18

Date: 9/24/2021

Case No.: EC 067192 Trial Date: February 14, 2022

Case Name: Pasadena Hastings Center v. Campbell

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

Moving Party: Plaintiff Pasadena Hastings Center

Responding Party: Defendant Maria Celeste Campbell (No Opposition)

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Terminating Sanctions/Order striking answer. Alternatively, or in addition, monetary sanctions

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff Pasadena Hasting Center alleges that it owns property in Pasadena improved with a commercial retail center and accompanying parking lots and landscaping, which is adjacent to property owned by defendant Sapphos Environmental, Inc. of which defendant Marie Campbell is the Chief Executive Officer.

Plaintiff alleges that in November 2016 defendants contacted the City of Pasadena requesting that the City inspect Podocarpus trees located on plaintiff’s property immediately adjacent to the Sapphos property. The City conducted an inspection and found no violations. Defendants did not inform plaintiff of its inquiry or in any way about their alleged concerns. Plaintiff alleges that despite the City’s findings that the trees were perfectly legal, in April of 2017, defendant Marie Campbell, on behalf of herself and her Sapphos entities, intentionally and willfully and without plaintiff’s consent caused laborers under her direction and hire to enter upon plaintiff’s property and to grievously injure plaintiff’s Podocarpus trees by chopping off major branches and the top 15 feet of the trees.

On December 21, 2018, the court granted a motion brought by defendants Campbell, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. and Sapphos Nest LLC for leave to file a cross complaint against cross-defendant Daniel W. Wishard dba California Creations.

On February 26, 2021, the court heard a motion for determination of good faith settlement filed on behalf of Daniel W. Wishard dba California Creations, which was granted, and that party has been discharged from liability on claims for equitable contribution and indemnity.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Pasadena Hastings Center brings this motion seeking terminating sanctions on the ground that defendants have failed to appear for six court-ordered hearings, including two Order to Show Cause for Failure to Appear hearings set by the court.

Under Government Code ; 68607:

“In accordance with this article and consistent with statute, judges shall have the responsibility to eliminate delay in the progress and ultimate resolution of litigation, to assume and maintain control over the pace of litigation, to actively manage the processing of litigation from commencement to disposition, and to compel attorneys and litigants to prepare and resolve all litigation without delay, from the filing of the first document invoking court jurisdiction to final disposition of the action.

The judges of the program shall, consistent with the policies of this article:

(a) Actively monitor, supervise and control the movement of all cases assigned to the program from the time of filing of the first document invoking court jurisdiction through final disposition.

(b) Seek to meet the standards for timely disposition adopted pursuant to Section 68603.

(c) Establish procedures for early identification of cases within the program which may be protracted and for giving those cases special administrative and judicial attention as appropriate, including special assignment.

(d) Establish procedures for early identification and timely and appropriate handling of cases within the program which may be amenable to settlement or other alternative disposition techniques.

(e) Adopt a trial setting policy which, to the maximum extent possible, schedules a trial date within the time standards adopted pursuant to Section 68603 and which schedules a sufficient number of cases to ensure efficient use of judicial time while minimizing resetting caused by overscheduling.

(f) Commence trials on the date scheduled.

(g) Adopt and utilize a firm, consistent policy against continuances, to the maximum extent possible and reasonable, in all stages of the litigation.”

Plaintiffs also cite Government Code 68608(b) which provides, in connection with trial court delay reduction:

“(b) Judges shall have all the powers to impose sanctions authorized by law, including the power to dismiss actions or strike pleadings, if it appears that less severe sanctions would not be effective after taking into account the effect of previous sanctions or previous lack of compliance in the case. Judges are encouraged to impose sanctions to achieve the purposes of this article.”

Plaintiff also relies on CCP ; 575.2. Under CCP ; 575.1(a), “The presiding judge of each superior court may prepare, with the assistance of appropriate committees of the court, proposed local rules designed to expedite and facilitate the business of the court.”

CCP ; 575.2 provides:

“(a) Local rules promulgated pursuant to Section 575.1 may provide that if any counsel, a party represented by counsel, or a party if in pro se, fails to comply with any of the requirements thereof, the court on motion of a party or on its own motion may strike out all or any part of any pleading of that party, or, dismiss the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or enter a judgment by default against that party, or impose other penalties of a lesser nature as otherwise provided by law, and may order that party or his or her counsel to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses in making the motion, including reasonable attorney fees. No penalty may be imposed under this section without prior notice to, and an opportunity to be heard by, the party against whom the penalty is sought to be imposed.

(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that if a failure to comply with these rules is the responsibility of counsel and not of the party, any penalty shall be imposed on counsel and shall not adversely affect the party\'s cause of action or defense thereto.”

Plaintiff also relies on CRC Rule 227, which no longer exists. Presumably, plaintiff intends to rely on CRC Rule 2.30 which provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) Application This sanctions rule applies to the rules in the California Rules of Court relating to general civil cases, unlawful detainer cases, probate proceedings, civil proceedings in the appellate division of the superior court, and small claims cases. (b) Sanctions In addition to any other sanctions permitted by law, the court may order a person, after written notice and an opportunity to be heard, to pay reasonable monetary sanctions to the court or an aggrieved person, or both, for failure without good cause to comply with the applicable rules. For the purposes of this rule, "person" means a party, a party\'s attorney, a witness, and an insurer or any other individual or entity whose consent is necessary for the disposition of the case. If a failure to comply with an applicable rule is the responsibility of counsel and not of the party, any penalty must be imposed on counsel and must not adversely affect the party\'s cause of action or defense thereto. (c) Notice and procedure Sanctions must not be imposed under this rule except on noticed motion by the party seeking sanctions or on the court\'s own motion after the court has provided notice and an opportunity to be heard. A party\'s motion for sanctions must (1) state the applicable rule that has been violated, (2) describe the specific conduct that is alleged to have violated the rule, and (3) identify the attorney, law firm, party, witness, or other person against whom sanctions are sought. The court on its own motion may issue an order to show cause that must (1) state the applicable rule that has been violated, (2) describe the specific conduct that appears to have violated the rule, and (3) direct the attorney, law firm, party, witness, or other person to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against them for violation of the rule.

(d) Award of expenses In addition to the sanctions awardable under (b), the court may order the person who has violated an applicable rule to pay to the party aggrieved by the violation that party\'s reasonable expenses, including reasonable attorney\'s fees and costs, incurred in connection with the motion for sanctions or the order to show cause.”

Under LASC Local Rule, Rule 3.10:

“The court may impose appropriate sanctions for the failure or refusal to comply with the rules in this chapter, including the time standards and/or deadlines, and any court order made pursuant to the rules. Counsel are directed to Code of Civil Procedure sections 128, 128.7, 177.5, 575.2, 583.150, 583.430, 2016.010-2036.050, Government Code section 68608, and California Rules of Court, rule 2.30. The sanctions may be imposed on a party and, if appropriate, on counsel for that party.”

Plaintiffs argue that the court is authorized to strike the pleading under LASC Local Rules 3.25 and 3.37. LASC Local Rule 3.25 provides rules for the conduct of various hearings, including a Case Management Conference, which requires a meet and confer and the filing of a Case Management Conference Statement, which was evidently not done here. See LASC Local Rule 3.25 (b). (The statute does not require counsel to appear and be fully prepared to discuss certain issues, as argued. Those requirements apply to other hearings, not involved here.)

LASC Local Rule 3.37 provides:

“The following rules concerning the conduct of trial (Local Rules 3.37 through 3.193) apply to all direct calendar and master calendar assigned civil cases. In the discretion of the trial judge, the civil trial rules may be applied differently in a particular case or not at all. The rules are not intended to infringe on the discretion of the trial judge in the conduct of trial proceedings.

Counsel must be thoroughly familiar with these civil trial rules. The court may impose appropriate sanctions for a failure by a party or counsel to comply with these rules, including dismissal, striking of pleadings, vacation of trial date, and monetary sanctions in the amount of costs and actual expenses, including reasonable attorneys\' fees incurred by other parties. Monetary sanctions payable to the court also may be imposed against a party, the party\'s attorney, or a witness.”

Plaintiff provides a timeline of the failures of defendants’ counsel to appear for hearings in this matter. Defendants’ counsel, despite being notified of the following hearings, failed to appear at: (1) Trial Setting Conference on February 20, 2019, (2) Status Conference scheduled for August 27, 2020, (3) Status Conference scheduled for January 11, 2021, (4) Trial Setting Conference and OSC re Mandatory Settlement Conference Date and Status Conference on April 5, 2021, (5) Trial Setting Conference and OSC re Mandatory Settlement Conference Date and OSC regarding discovery and experts and regarding sanctions for failure to appear on April 15, 2021, and (6) Continued matters from April 15, 2021 to April 29, 2021. [Stone Decl., paras. 2, 3, 5-7, Exs. A, B, D-G].

The file shows, and plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration concedes, that counsel for defendant filed declarations in response to two of the OSCs, most recently on June 9, 2021, in advance of a hearing he attended on June 10, 2021.

That declaration concedes that attorney Hodges did not appear at the six hearings at issue, and apologizes for having missed the hearings, explaining the attorney does not recall the circumstances surrounding non-appearance at the February 19, 2019 status conference, but most likely missed a calendar reminder, and explaining that he has ADHD, takes the highest daily dose allowed to improve his focus and attention to detail such as calendar matters, and that the other non-appearances were caused by his failure to forward appropriate notices to staff so that matters would be calendared, had no notice of the April 5, 2021 date, and that notices for the April 5, 2021 and April 29, 2021 hearing dates were not handled appropriately within his office. [Hodges Decl., paras. 2-4, 7, 8]. The declaration further states that the “failure is my responsibility, ultimately, because I am the attorney, and because I failed to pay proper attention to the notices I did receive, and make sure all matters and items were properly scheduled.” [Hodges Decl., para. 9]. Attorney Hodges indicates he has made changes to improve future management of cases, including modifying personal technology and consulting his physician, is embarrassed by the matter, meant no disrespect or intent to delay or prejudice plaintiff, and states, “I will accept any sanction the Court deems appropriate to the circumstances, but ask that the sanction not prejudice the rights of my clients in this action,” who have been “properly engaged in moving this case forward…” [Hodges Decl., paras. 10-13].

Defendants have not filed timely opposition to this motion, and evidently attorney Hodges continues to be willing to accept appropriate monetary sanctions imposed by this court.

With respect to striking the answer, there are at least two restrictions with respect to the trial court’s power to dismiss or otherwise terminate an action against a party for noncompliance with local rules: (1) dismissal is inappropriate if the noncompliance was the responsibility of counsel alone, rather than the party (CCP ; 575.2(b); Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 481); and (2) dismissal is appropriate only if less severe sanctions would be ineffective. (Gov’t. Code ; 68608(b).)

Here, the noncompliance appears to have been the responsibility of counsel alone, rather than the party, and it does not appear that less severe sanctions, such as monetary sanctions, have yet been imposed or have been ineffective. The court accordingly does not at this juncture strike the answer.

With respect to plaintiff’s request that it be reimbursed for costs and fees incurred to attend the hearings which were not attended by defendants’ counsel, and were effectively wasted time, the court will award such monetary sanctions, particularly based on the Hodges Declaration of June 9, 2021, accepting responsibility and conceding to personally accept sanctions as determined by the court.

The Hodges Declaration concedes that notice was served as to five of the hearings, but indicates no notice was served of the April 5, 2021 hearing. The file shows that at the hearing on the motion to determine good faith settlement on February 26, 2021, the Status Conference was continued to 3/23/21, with counsel for moving party to give notice. Counsel for Daniel W. Wishard gave notice of the ruling on the motion, but the notice does not mention the continued status conference. [See Notice of Ruling, filed and served 3/1/21]. However, the file shows that on March 23, 2021, the matter was called for hearing, attorney Hodges appeared telephonically, and the OSCs and trial setting conferences were continued to 04/05/2021, the minute order expressly stating, “Notice is waived.” Accordingly, defendants had notice of all six hearings.

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the sum of $14,741. Plaintiff seeks fees at the billing rates of $350 per hour for attorney Stone, $365 for attorney Zick and $550 for attorney Amspoker. These hourly rates are appear appropriate.

Plaintiff indicates the attorneys spent 14.2 hours, so incurred $5,708.50 in fees and $184.00 in costs for CourtCall and LAConnect in connection with the six hearings at which attorney Hodges failed to appear. Plaintiff’s counsel also spent 3 hours, for $1,095.00 in fees, and $15 in costs preparing for and attending the June 10, 2021 OSC regarding striking defendants’ answer. For the preparation of this motion, plaintiff is claiming 15.8 hours preparing this motion, for fees of $5,608.50, plus 6 hours preparing a reply and arguing the motion, for an additional $2,130 in fees. [Stone Decl., paras 10, 11]. Redacted billings are attached. [Ex. I].

There does not appear to be any reason to award fees for attending the June 10, 2021 hearing, at which counsel for defendants did appear, and these fees and costs will not be awarded ($1,095 fees plus $15 in costs). The hours spent preparing this motion also appear a bit high, and since there is no opposition, the time to prepare a reply should be minimal. In addition, since remote appearances are now available, the time attending the hearing should also be brief. A reasonably reduced portion of the sanctions are awarded as follows: the attorneys’ fees sought for the June 10 hearing will not be awarded: the attorney hours for this motion are reduced to 12 hours from 15.8 hours, which will include no time to prepare a reply (there was no opposition) and only 1 hour to attend the hearing remotely for total fees for the motion of $4,380.00 plus costs with the court using the hourly billing rate of $365.00 per hour.

RULING:

[No opposition].

Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions; or Alternatively, Monetary Sanctions:

Motion for Terminating Sanctions is DENIED.

Motion for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED.

The Court finds that counsel for defendant failed to appear at court ordered hearings, including several Order to Show Cause hearings, Case Management Conference, and Trial Setting Conference, and failed to comply with LASC Local Rules, including Local Rule 3.25.

This has resulted in violations of court orders, and violation of local rules and interfered with the court’s ability to control the action for the statutory purposes under authorities cited plaintiff. See Government Code sections 68607 and 68608, CCP section 572.2, and LASC Local Rule 3.10, 3.37.

At the concession in the Hodges Declaration filed with this Court on June 9, 2021, monetary sanctions are awarded against counsel for defendants, Warren O. Hodges, Jr., Esq. and in favor of plaintiff Pasadena Hastings Center, in the sum of the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred by plaintiff to attend the six hearings which were duly noticed but not attended by attorney Hodges, and to pursue this motion in the sum of $8,993.50 (12.0 hours) [$14,741 total sought] plus filing fee costs of $61.50. The fees and costs do not include those claimed to attend the June 10, 2021 hearing, at which attorney Hodges did in fact appear, in the sum of $1,095 fees plus $15 in costs. Such sanctions are payable to plaintiff’s law firm in 30 days.

GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO ADHERE TO HEALTH GUIDANCE

THAT DICTATES SAFETY MEASURES, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING

AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams offers audio and video appearance at a cost of $15.00. Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear. Anyone who appears in person for the hearing, regardless of vaccination status, must wear a face mask over both the nose and mouth. If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.

'


Case Number: ****7192    Hearing Date: February 26, 2021    Dept: D


Case Number: EC067612    Hearing Date: February 26, 2021    Dept: D

TENTATIVE RULING
Calendar:        19
Date: 2/26/2021
Case No: EC067612 Trial Date: None Set 
Case Name: Kothari v. Vaghashia, et al.
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
TO DOCUMENT DEMANDS
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Moving Party: Defendant Govind Vaghasia (Further Documents)  
Plaintiff Rakesh Kothari (Protective Order) 
  Responding Party: Plaintiff Rakesh Kothari (Further Documents) 
Defendant Govind Vaghasia (Protective Order)       
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Further Responses and Production to Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Set Two 
Protective Order pertaining to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two 
DECLARATION SUPPORTING MOTION:
Reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally: ok
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
Plaintiff Rakesh Kothari alleges that in July of 2014 he entered a written agreement with defendants Govind Vaghashia dba Quality Inn and Suites, Sonal Vaghashia dba Travelodge Burbank, Prashant Vaghashia dba Quality Inn Burbank Airport, Mita Vaghashia and Vaghasia Family Partnership Limited, the owners of hotels/motels in Southern California, wherein it was agreed that plaintiff would be responsible for the management of defendants’ Quality Inn hotel/motel in Burbank, and their Quality Inn and Suites hotel/motel located in Camarillo.  Plaintiff alleges that under the agreement he was entitled to an hourly wage and a 10% commission of gross revenue for each hotel/motel, to be paid three years after entering the contract.   It is also alleged that plaintiff would be allowed to move with his family to defendants’ real property located close to the Quality Inn Burbank, with plaintiff to take possession of the rented property for the seven year duration of the contract without payment of rent and utilities.  The parties agreed that plaintiff could live at the rented property until he ceased to work under the contract or was terminated for any justifiable reason, and that if terminated, plaintiff would be entitled to twelve months’ notice to vacate the rented property.  
Plaintiff alleges that plaintiff performed under the contract, significantly increasing the gross revenues of the hotels/motels, and in January of 2015 entered into a separate agreement for plaintiff to take over and manage defendants’ Travelodge Burbank, which also included an agreement for paying a commission.  
Plaintiff alleges that defendants would pay plaintiff late or not pay the monthly agreed upon stipends, and did not pay plaintiff overtime, or the required minimum wage.
It is also alleged that defendant Govind ordered plaintiff to obtain workers’ compensation insurance coverage in his own name, and when plaintiff declined began to harass plaintiff by threatening to terminate him and calling him names in the presence of other employees.   Plaintiff alleges that he was made to sign papers in blank at the beginning of his employment, as Govind had a practice of taking signatures of new employees and later using those signatures on agreements drafted by Govind.   Plaintiff alleges that defendant instructed plaintiff to commit acts that violated the law such as preparing false statements to be submitted in workers compensation claims, or forging documents in civil cases.   Plaintiff alleges that when he refused to commit the illegal acts, defendants decided to terminate his employment, and have otherwise breached the contract by failing to pay the commissions due.   
Plaintiff alleges that after he filed the initial complaint in this action he was inundated with numerous requests by defendants that plaintiff dismiss his lawsuit, and on March 8, 2018, plaintiff received a letter terminating his employment without justifiable reasons, but because plaintiff was about to testify regarding defendant Govind’s fraud in forging documents and signatures of employees who sued defendants for violation of various wage laws.  On the same day plaintiff’s employment was terminated, defendant Govind posted a thirty-day notice for plaintiff and his family to vacate and quit the rented property.   
Plaintiff also alleges that in a further effort to harass plaintiff, defendant Govind filed a request for restraining order seeking to restrain plaintiff from his place of residence, but the court denied the request for a temporary restraining order until the day of the hearing, and before the hearing Govind dismissed the case, because it was baseless.  
Defendants Prashant Vaghashia and Mita Vaghashia have filed a cross-complaint for equitable indemnity and declaratory relief against cross-defendants Govind Vaghashia and the Vaghashia Family Partnership Limited, alleging that cross-complainants were in no way connected with the termination of plaintiff’s employment or of any of the acts or conduct complained of in the complaint, but that any injuries or damages alleged will be founded on the fault of cross-defendants.  
Defendants Vaghashia Family Limited Partnership, Govind Vaghashia and Sonal Vaghasia  filed a special motion to strike the fifth and tenth causes of action of the first amended complaint (anti-SLAPP), which was heard on June 22, 2018.  The motion was granted as to the fifth cause of action for Injunction Relief, and denied as to the tenth cause of action for Harassment. The motion was also denied with respect to a request to strike specific allegations in the pleading in connection with the harassment claim.  The court’s order has been affirmed on appeal and remittitur was issued dated July 15, 2020.  
ANALYSIS:
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production
Under CCP ; 2017.010, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action..., if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  The Section specifically provides that “[d]iscovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action,” and that discovery “may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.”
CCP ; 2031.310 provides that a party demanding a document inspection may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if the demanding party deems that:
“(1)   A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.
  (2)   A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.
  (3)   An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”  
Under CCP ; 2031.310 (b)(1), “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.”  
The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery.   Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997, 2nd Dist.) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.   Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure.   See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996, 2nd Dist.) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.
The motion brought by defendant as to the Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two appears to be moot, as the opposition attaches further verified responses which were served on January 18, 2021, by mail.  [See Usude Decl., paras. 7, 8; Ex. 1, 2].  The further verified responses are made without objections, which plaintiff evidently concedes have been waived.   
The moving papers do not acknowledge the service of these further responses, although the motion was served and filed on January 29, 2021.  The separate statement in support of the motion does not recite the text of the supplemental responses, as required under CRC Rule 3.1345(c) (providing that a separate statement “must include” for each discovery request to which a further response is requested, “(1) The text of the request, interrogatory, question or inspection demand” in addition to “(2) The text of each response, answer or objection, and any further responses or answers, ...”  (emphasis added)). 
The meet and confer declaration does not indicate that there was any meet and confer concerning these further responses, but the declaration states that counsel for plaintiff had requested an extension to respond to the earlier meet and confer to January 19, 2021, and that counsel “did not provide any documents or amended responses by January 19, 2021 and has to date not produced a single document.”   [Pham Decl., paras. 12, 16]. 
Evidently, the January 18, 2021 responses were not received prior to the preparation of the motion.   However, the responses render the motion moot, and require the parties to further meet and confer with respect to the further responses, and if any further motion is filed, defendant will be required to prepare an updated complete separate statement. 
For purposes of further meet and confer, the Court has briefly reviewed the further responses, and would expect that any further responses be made without objections, which have been waived, and without any general objection of preliminary statement.  The Court would also expect that any further responses would fully comply with CCP ;;  2031.210, 2031.220 and 2031.230, including for each request either 1) a statement that plaintiff will comply with the particular demand, including a statement that the production, inspection, and related activity demanded will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of plaintiff and to which no objection is being make will be included in the production, or 2) a statement of inability to comply, which statement shall specify whether any inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party, and which sets forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.  
The Court does not find acceptable a response to discovery which refers to documents produced in another action, or in response to other discovery in this action, or a response that investigation and discovery is ongoing or which reserves the right to amend or supplement a response. 
This leaves the issue of sanctions, which are sought by the moving party.  CCP ; 2031.310 (h) provides that the court “shall impose a monetary sanction...against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” 
The motion is in a posture where evidently further responses were served prior to the motion being filed, so that the motion should not have been necessary, and sanctions would not ordinarily be awarded.  However, it appears that the further responses were not in fact received by the time the motion was filed, over ten days after the further responses were served, and the court will hear argument concerning the circumstances surrounding the delay in the arrival of the responses, and with respect to which party could have acted so that the expense of preparation of the motion could have been avoided.  
If the Court is inclined to award sanctions to the moving party, the sanctions sought are $5,890, which is quite high for a motion of this nature, and will be adjusted accordingly, as follows:  4 hours attorney time at $382.50 per hour for a total of $1,530.00 in sanctions.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order
Plaintiff seeks a protective order with respect to defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two.  There are six requests for production, which seek all boxes containing documents provided to plaintiff by defendant Govind Vaghashia (“Govind”), documents obtained from defendant Govind, boxes of documents obtained from Govind referenced in plaintiff’s deposition, boxes of documents obtained from Govind related to a City of Burbank tax audit, and employee files and financial reports obtained from Govind.  [Ex. 1].  
Plaintiff indicates that plaintiff has also received a request for production from cross-complainants seeking the same documents, but does not appear in the notice or motion to seek a protective order as to that request.  This appears to be mentioned to support an argument that plaintiff has been told by counsel for the cross-complainant, the business partners of defendant and cross-defendant Govind, not to release original documents to defendant.   
Plaintiff indicates that that plaintiff is willing to provide copies of the responsive documents to defendant’s counsel, but that defendant’s counsel insists on receiving the original documents, and that cross-complainant’s counsel has agreed to accept copies of the subject documents, only on the condition that the original documents are not released to defendants.   Evidently, cross-complainants are concerned that if defendant is to be provided the original documents, defendant will destroy those original documents.   This also seems to be a concern of plaintiff, who concedes that the documents at issue are responsive to the discovery requests, but argues they are also required by plaintiff to prove his allegation of fraud against defendant. 
Plaintiff seeks an order that the defendant and cross-complainants accept copies of responsive documents in the possession of plaintiff instead of the originals, preventing production of the original documents to defendant as requested, and an order that the original documents be held by plaintiff’s counsel or an appointed discovery referee pending trial or under seal. 
Relief is sought under CCP section 2031.060, under which subdivision (a) provides that, “the party to whom the demand has been directed... may promptly move for a protective order,” and that: 
“(b) The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions:…
(2) That the time specified in Section 2030.260 to respond to the set of demands, or to a particular item or category in the set, be extended….
(4) That the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling be made only on specified terms and conditions….
(6) That the items produced be sealed and thereafter opened only on order of the court.”
With respect to protective orders generally, the burden of showing good cause is ordinarily on the party seeking the protective order. Beverly Hills Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Superior Court (1961, 2nd Dist.) 195 Cal.App. 2d 861, 866-867.   The granting of a protective order is within the discretion of the trial court.  Id.  The granting or denial of a protective order is reviewed for abuse of discretion.   See Meritplan Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 237, 242.  When the record shows facts on which the trial court exercised its discretion, this exercise will not be disturbed on appeal.  Foster v. Gillette Co. (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 569, 578.
The motion apparently seeks an order to protect the original documents from being destroyed by defendant during the process of inspection and copying.   It is not clear why this cannot be accomplished by simply following the Discovery Act and permitting the propounding party an opportunity to conduct an inspection and copying of the documents, which production, inspection and copying can be supervised by a representative of plaintiff to ensure that nothing is done to destroy or deface those documents being inspected and copied. 
Under CCP section 2031.030(c):
“Each demand in a set shall be separately set forth…and shall do all of the following…
(2) Specify a reasonable time for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling that is at least 30 days after service of the demand…”
(3)  Specify a reasonable place for making the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and performing any related activity.”
Under CCP section 2031.280(a), “Any documents produced in response to an inspection demand shall either be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business, or be organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in the demand.”   
There is no requirement that original documents be turned over to the sole custody of the propounding party, so that the feared destruction of originals could occur.  The dispute seems to be with respect to whether the original documents will be released to defendant rather than produced for inspection and copying, and it does appear that counsel for defendant has taken the position that the originals must be “turned over,” and plaintiff can make a copy for his own records to preserve the documents for evidence.   [See Usude Decl., Ex. 3].   
It would appear that the proper resolution of this dispute will be to issue a protective order pursuant to which defendant may not demand that the original documents be “turned over” to defendant, but that the documents will be produced in their entirety for inspection and copying pursuant to Code, with a representative 
of responding party maintaining continuing custody of the original documents and permitted to supervise the inspection and copying. The costs of the copying will be borne by the propounding party.  
To the extent the moving party appears to seek the appointment of a discovery referee, the showing required for such an appointment has not been attempted to be made by the motion.  
The opposition argues that the motion should be denied as not promptly brought, or on the ground the moving party has failed to appropriately meet and confer.  The motion was brought on the date that the parties had agreed supplemental responses would be served, and, as discussed above, were in fact apparently served, November 18, 2020.   The motion includes a declaration establishing that defendant was taking the position that only turning over the original documents would be satisfactory.   [Usude Decl., Ex. 3].  The motion will accordingly not be denied on procedural grounds.  The opposition continues to insist that “original” documents be “served.”  While it is clear that defendant is entitled to inspect and copy original documents, defendant is not entitled to have those documents served without custodial protections of those original documents with respect to their production for inspection and copying.   The motion accordingly is granted, and the inspection will be conducted pursuant to this Court’s protective order concerning the custody of the original documents. 
The opposition seeks monetary sanctions for the expense of opposing the motion. Since the motion is granted, no sanctions are awarded. 
RULING:
Defendant Govind Vaghashia’s Motion to Compel Further Responses by Plaintiff Rakesh Kothari to Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Two is MOOT in light of the service of further responses on January 18, 2021. 
Monetary sanctions requested by the moving party:  Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $1,530.00 (3.75 hours @ $612 /hour) (5.25 hours requested) plus 4 hours at $382.50/hour (7 hours requested) [Amount Requested $5,890], Amount Supported $3,000],  (4.25 hours @ $450/hour) plus $61.65 filing fee and $15 CourtConnect fee [Amount Requested $2,776.65], which sum is to be awarded in favor of defendant Govind Vaghshia, and against plaintiff Rakesh Kothari, payable within thirty days.  CCP section 2031.310(h).  
Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two is GRANTED in part. 
Good cause appearing, the Court orders that plaintiff Rakesh Kothari produce documents responsive to Defendant Govind R. Vaghashia’s Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Rakesh Kothari, Set Two, without objection, and pursuant to the Further Responses served on January 18, 2021, at a mutually agreed to time and place within the next ten days.  The original documents must be produced, but plaintiff is to retain custody of those original documents, with plaintiff permitted to provide supervision of the inspection and copying, at plaintiff’s expense.  Any copying performed by defendant will be at defendant’s sole expense.  
Request for order concerning request for discovery by cross-complainants is DENIED as not clearly sought in the notice of motion. 
Request for appointment of discovery referee is DENIED without prejudice to bringing an appropriate motion, if accompanied by the appropriate showing, if warranted. 
Monetary sanctions requested in the opposition are DENIED. 
GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO PROMOTE APPROPRIATE SOCIAL DISTANCING, UNTIL FURTHER ORDERED, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES 
Please make arrangements in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org, and scheduling a remote appearance.  Please note that LACourtConnect offers an audio-only appearance option at a current cost of $15.00 and a video appearance option at a cost of $23.00.   Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear, unless they have obtained advance permission of the Court.  Anyone who appears in person for the hearing will be required to comply with strict social distancing measures, including, but not limited to, assigned seating, capacity limitations in the courtroom, designated waiting areas, and strictly enforced spacing in line to communicate with court staff.  If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative. 


Case Number: ****7192    Hearing Date: February 19, 2021    Dept: D

TENTATIVE RULING
Calendar: 31
Date: 2/19/2021
Case No: ****7192 Trial Date:  April 19, 2021
Case Name: Pasadena Hastings Center v. Campbell, et al. 
MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT
[CCP ;877.6]
Moving Party:  Defendant/Cross-Defendant and Cross-Complainant Daniel W. Wishard 
dba California Creations     
Responding Party:  No Opposition  
Relief Requested:
Determination that the settlement described below has been entered into in good faith
PROPOSED ORDER LODGED? 
Yes   
FACTS:
Plaintiff Pasadena Hasting Center alleges that  it owns property in Pasadena improved with a commercial retail center and accompanying parking lots and landscaping, which is adjacent to property owned by defendant Sapphos Environmental, Inc. of which defendant Marie Campbell is the Chief Executive Officer.  
Plaintiff alleges that in November 2016 defendants contacted the City of Pasadena requesting that the City inspect Podocarpus trees located on plaintiff’s property immediately adjacent to the Sapphos property.  The City conducted an inspection and found no violations.  Defendants did not inform plaintiff of its inquiry or in any way about their alleged concerns.  Plaintiff alleges that despite the City’s findings that the trees were perfectly legal, in April of 2017, defendant Marie Campbell, on behalf of herself and her Sapphos entities, intentionally and willfully and without plaintiff’s consent caused laborers under her direction and hire to enter upon plaintiff’s property and to grievously injure plaintiff’s Podocarpus trees by chopping off major branches and the top 15 feet of the trees.   
On December 21, 2018, the court granted a motion brought by defendants Campbell, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. and Sapphos Nest LLC for leave to file a cross complaint against moving party Daniel W. Wishard dba California Creations     
APPLICATION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT:
1. Settling parties: Plaintiff Pasadena Hastings Center and defendant/cross-defendant/cross-complainant Daniel W. Wishard dba California Creations     
2. Basis, Terms, and Amount of the Settlement: 
1. Defendant to pay $1,000
2. Dismissal of plaintiff’s claims with prejudice 
3. Contingent on finding that good faith settlement
SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE (Tech-Built, 38 Cal.3d 488)
1. P's total recovery:       Not mentioned 
 
2. Settlor's proportionate liability:   Argument that case against moving party is problematic, as California Creations was hired by Sapphos Environmental to perform landscaping work, was led to believe that Sapphos owned the Podocarpus hedge, and that California Creations was fully authorized to trim it, and that the damages here are de minimus because it has been more than three years since the hedge was initially trimmed and recent photographic and other physical evidence show that the subject hedge is now regrown to nearly the same size and dimensions it held upon trimming.  
3. Amount paid in settlement: $1,000
4. Allocation of settlement proceeds among P's:   Not applicable    
5. D's financial condition:     Not mentioned 
6. Existence of collusion: Settlement reached after lengthy arms-length negotiations. [Amaro Decl.. para. 18].
OPPOSITION
No Opposition. 
ANALYSIS
Under CCP section 877.6, a court may approve a settlement by determining it was made in good faith, and such a determination shall bar any other joint tortfeasor from further claims against the settling torfeasor.  CCP section 877.6(d) provides that “The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.”
Under Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499, the factors set forth above should be considered in determining the good faith of a settlement.   
The trial court enjoys broad discretion in determining whether a settlement was entered in good faith and in allocating potential liability and exposure among joint tortfeasors.   Norco Delivery Services v. Owens Corning Fiberglas (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 955, 962.   A reviewing court will “assess whether the trial court’s food faith determination is buttressed by any substantial evidence.”   Id.  
In this case, the moving papers do not clearly set forth the total expected recovery, and there is no showing as to financial condition of the parties. 
However, there is no opposition to the motion. 
In City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, the court of appeal upheld the trial court’s determination that an uncontested motion for good faith settlement was entered in good faith when the moving papers had not provided information concerning all of the Tech-Bilt factors, but only stated the amount of the settlement and the policy limits.   The court first noted that CCP section 877.6 had not been amended to add procedural requirements since the decision in Tech-Bilt, and approved the following procedure:
 
“This court notes that of the hundreds of motions for good faith determination presented for trial court approval each year, the overwhelming majority are unopposed and granted summarily by the trial court.  At the time of filing in many cases, the moving party does not know if a contest will develop.  If each motion required a full recital by declaration or affidavit setting forth a complete factual response to all of the Tech-Bilt factors, literally thousands of attorney hours would be consumed and inch-thick motions would have to be read and considered by trial courts in an exercise which would waste valuable judicial and legal time and clients' resources.  It must also be remembered that
Tech-Bilt was decided on a contested basis.  We are unaware of any reported decision which has reversed an uncontested good faith determination and we, therefore, conclude that only when the good faith nature of a settlement is disputed, it is incumbent upon the trial court to consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt factors.  That is to say, when no one objects, the barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case is sufficient.”
City of Grand Terrace, at 1261 (emphasis added). 
Here, the motion meets this standard, as the background of the case is provided, and the grounds of good faith are set forth, including that the settlement was reached after lengthy arms-length negotiations, presumably attended by both sets of counsel.  [Amaro Decl., para. 18].  There is also a discussion of the various reasons moving party disputes liability, and the likelihood that the level of recoverable damages would be modest.   
Again, there is no opposition to the motion.  Once evidence of the good faith of a settlement has been presented, the burden remains on any challenging party to establish a lack of good faith.    See City of Grand Terrace, at 1261; CCP section 877.6(d).  There is no opposition, so this burden has not been met.  The motion will accordingly be granted. 
The motion seeks to have the court dismiss the cross-complaint.  The court is authorized only to enter an order pertaining to claims falling within the statute, and will enter the order according to statute. 
RULING:   
[No Opposition].
Defendant/Cross-Defendant and Cross-Complainant Daniel W. Wishard dba California Creations’ Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 877.6(a)(2) is GRANTED. The Court determines that the settlement entered by plaintiff Pasadena Hastings Center and Daniel W. Wishard dba California Creations was entered into in good faith;
Defendant/Cross-Defendant and Cross-Complainant Daniel W. Wishard dba California Creations is discharged from all liability on claims for equitable contribution and/or full or partial indemnity by other parties, joint tortfeasors, or co-obligors, in this or any other action arising from the same general set of facts. 
GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO PROMOTE APPROPRIATE SOCIAL DISTANCING, UNTIL FURTHER ORDERED, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES 
Please make arrangements in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org, and scheduling a remote appearance.  Please note that LACourtConnect offers an audio-only appearance option at a current cost of $15.00 and a video appearance option at a cost of $23.00.   Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear, unless they have obtained advance permission of the Court.  Anyone who appears in person for the hearing will be required to comply with strict social distancing measures, including, but not limited to, assigned seating, capacity limitations in the courtroom, designated waiting areas, and strictly enforced spacing in line to communicate with court staff.  If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative. 


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where PASADENA HASTINGS CENTER is a litigant

Latest cases where SAPPHOS ENVIRONMENTAL INC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer STONE JEREMY DAVID