Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/09/2019 at 06:28:58 (UTC).

PATRIC JONES VS RANDALL DOUTHIT ET AL

Case Summary

On 07/24/2017 PATRIC JONES filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against RANDALL DOUTHIT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GREGORY KEOSIAN and DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9577

  • Filing Date:

    07/24/2017

  • 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

GREGORY KEOSIAN

DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

JONES PATRIC

Defendants and Respondents

HER HONOR INC.

QUEEN BEE PRODUCTIONS INC.

SHEINDLIN JUDITH

DOUTHIT PRODUCTIONS LTD.

RD LLC

BIG TICKET PICTURES INC.

DOES 1 - 100

DOUTHIT RANDALL

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

WHITE WILLIAM A.

HILL FARRER & BURRILL LLP

Defendant Attorneys

SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

VENABLE LLP

KETTLE DAVID A. ESQ.

KETTEL DAVID ANDREW ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Unknown

7/13/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

7/27/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

8/6/2018: Unknown

NOTICE RE: RESCHEDULED HEARING ON DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

8/9/2018: NOTICE RE: RESCHEDULED HEARING ON DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF PATRIC JONES'S AMENDED OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER OF DEFENDANTS ETC.

9/14/2018: PLAINTIFF PATRIC JONES'S AMENDED OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER OF DEFENDANTS ETC.

EX PARTE APPLICATION OF PLAINTIFF PATRIC JONES FOR ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' DEMURRERS, ETC

9/19/2018: EX PARTE APPLICATION OF PLAINTIFF PATRIC JONES FOR ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' DEMURRERS, ETC

Unknown

10/25/2018: Unknown

Notice of Ruling

10/25/2018: Notice of Ruling

Unknown

1/22/2019: Unknown

Minute Order

12/11/2017: Minute Order

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION PENDING RESOLUTION OF DISSOLUTION MATTER

12/4/2017: REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION PENDING RESOLUTION OF DISSOLUTION MATTER

Unknown

12/7/2017: Unknown

CALIFORNIA CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE SECTION 128.7 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF PATRIC JONES AND HER COUNSEL

12/8/2017: CALIFORNIA CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE SECTION 128.7 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF PATRIC JONES AND HER COUNSEL

Unknown

11/22/2017: Unknown

Unknown

11/22/2017: Unknown

NOTICE OF RULING

10/31/2017: NOTICE OF RULING

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

10/13/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

7/28/2017: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

70 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/01/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Randall Douthit (Defendant); Douthit Productions Ltd. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 61; Status Conference (Re Appeal) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference Re: Appeal)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2019
  • Proof of Service - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; Filed by Patric Jones (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 61; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • Minute Order ((Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • Notice of Ruling (Ruling Re Attorney G. Cresswell Templeton III's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Patric Jones); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil; Filed by Patric Jones (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2018
  • Response to Motion to Be Relieved As Counsel; Filed by Her Honor, Inc. (Defendant); Queen Bee Productions, Inc. (Defendant); Big Ticket Pictures, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2018
  • Response to Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; Filed by Randall Douthit (Defendant); Douthit Productions Ltd. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
164 More Docket Entries
  • 10/04/2017
  • Minute order entered: 2017-10-04 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/05/2017
  • PLAINTIFF PATRIC JONES S OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/05/2017
  • Opposition Document; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Patric Jones (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR: (1) BREACH OF QUASI-CONTRACT ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC669577    Hearing Date: September 24, 2020    Dept: 61

Defendants Judith Sheindlin, Her Honor, Inc., Queen Bee Productions, Inc., Big Ticket Pictures, Inc., Randall Douthit, and Douthit Productions, Ltd’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED as to all causes of action without leave to amend.

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

A party may move for a judgment on the pleadings as to an entire complaint or as to a particular cause of action in a complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. § 438 subd. (c)(2)(A).) If a defendant moves for a judgment on the pleadings and argues that a complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant, then the court should grant a defendant’s motion only if the court finds as a matter of law that the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute the cause of action. (See id., § 438 subd. (c)(1)(B)(ii); see also Mechanical Contractors Assn. v. Greater Bay Area Assn. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 672, 677.)

“The standard for granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Bezirdjian v. O’Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321.) When considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court not only should assume that all facts alleged in the SAC are true but also should give those alleged facts a liberal construction. (See Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons (2000) 24 Cal.4th 468, 515–516, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 470, 12 P.3d 720.) In particular, the court should liberally construe the alleged facts “‘with a view to attaining substantial justice among the parties.’ [Citation.]” (See Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1226, 1232, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 900 P.2d 601.)

Defendants argue that the final adjudication of the status of the treatment as a non-community asset bars Jones’s claims here by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion. (Motion at pp. 10–13.) “Issue preclusion prohibits the relitigation of issues argued and decided in a previous case, even if the second suit raises different causes of action. Under issue preclusion, the prior judgment conclusively resolves an issue actually litigated and determined in the first action.” (DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824.) Here, because all of Jones’s claims rely on her allegation that she possesses a community property interest in the treatment, and because that issue was fully and finally litigated in the dissolution matter, Defendants argue that they are entitled to judgment on Jones’s claims. (Motion at pp. 10–13.)

The court agrees that a necessary element for each of Jones’s claims is the existence of her community property interest in the treatments at issue. (Complaint ¶¶ 27, 35, 45, 52, 56, 62, 66, 70, 75.) The court also agrees that it has been actually litigated and resolved in the dissolution proceedings in Case No. BD469787. (Motion RJN Exh. A.) Accordingly, Jones’s claims are barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion.

The motion is GRANTED without leave to amend.

Defendants to provide notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where BIG TICKET PICTURES INC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer WHITE WILLIAM AUSTIN