This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/30/2019 at 00:08:09 (UTC).

PAUL MUSSI VS ALLIED PROTECTION SERVICES INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 07/14/2017 PAUL MUSSI filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against ALLIED PROTECTION SERVICES INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are YVETTE M. PALAZUELOS and RICHARD E. RICO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8635

  • Filing Date:

    07/14/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

YVETTE M. PALAZUELOS

RICHARD E. RICO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MUSSI PAUL

Defendants and Respondents

TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

ALLIED PROTECTION SERVICES INC

DOES 1 TO 20

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

ELIHU KAVEH S. ESQ.

ELIHU KAVEH S

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

MANSUKHANI ROGER M. ESQ.

IVIE MCNEILL & WYATT

DIGGS RODNEY S. ESQ.

MANSUKHANI ROGER M.

DIGGS RODNEY S.

ENGELMAN BRITANY

 

Court Documents

Stipulation - No Order

8/21/2019: Stipulation - No Order

Minute Order

8/28/2019: Minute Order

Declaration

7/10/2019: Declaration

Minute Order

7/19/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

5/16/2019: Minute Order

Stipulation and Order

3/8/2019: Stipulation and Order

Minute Order

3/5/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

1/9/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

10/9/2018: Minute Order

JOINT STIPULATION DISMISSING DEFENDANT TURNER CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

3/1/2018: JOINT STIPULATION DISMISSING DEFENDANT TURNER CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

3/9/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

3/21/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

3/22/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CIVIL DEPOSIT

3/23/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

3/23/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

ORDER FOR JOINT STIPULATION DISMISSING DEFENDANT TURNER CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

4/6/2018: ORDER FOR JOINT STIPULATION DISMISSING DEFENDANT TURNER CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Minute Order

4/6/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT TURNER CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

4/19/2018: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT TURNER CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

19 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/06/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 17 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Post-Mediation Status Conference

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/28/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Post-Mediation Status Conference - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/28/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Post-Mediation Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/21/2019
  • DocketStipulation - No Order ((JOINT) TO CONTINUE POST- MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE DATE); Filed by Paul Mussi (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/19/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Status Conference - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/19/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (sanctions for Defendant's failure to appear,) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/19/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: sanctions for Defendant's failure to ...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/10/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (of Rodney S. Diggs Re: Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions for Defendant's Failure to Appear); Filed by Allied Protection Services Inc (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Status Conference - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
45 More Docket Entries
  • 08/16/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Turner Construction Company (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/01/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/31/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/24/2017
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/24/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/24/2017
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/24/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/14/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Paul Mussi (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/14/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOV'T CODE 1294O ET SEQ.; ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/14/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: ****8635 Hearing Date: December 3, 2021 Dept: 76

Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated in retaliation for taking disability leave, for making complaints to Defendants regarding their violations of the Living Wage Ordinance, and for filing a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and also discriminated against on the basis of Plaintiff’s age and national origin.

Defendant Allied Protection Services, Inc. moves for clarification from the Court regarding the Court’s October 8, 2021 Order on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication or, in the alternative, modification of order.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Allied Protection Services, Inc.’s motion for clarification from the Court regarding the Court’s October 8, 2021 Order on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication or, in the alternative, modification of order is DENIED.

ANALYSIS

Motion For Clarification Or, In The Alternative, Modification

Defendant Allied Protection Services, Inc. moves for clarification from the Court regarding the Court’s October 8, 2021 Order on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication or, in the alternative, modification of order.

Defendant reveals the relief sought by way of this statement: “Defendant asserts the Court’s analysis as to Plaintiff’s voluntary abandonment is applicable to all remaining claims,

particularly all retaliation claims remaining in this case.” (Motion, Page 2:12.5-15.) In other words, Defendant seeks to have this Court reconsider its order and apply its voluntary abandonment analysis to all retaliation claims remaining in the case.

Defendant admits there is no statutory basis for a request for clarification of an order. Defendant cites CCP ; 128(a)(8) as giving a court power to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice. Defendant does not cite any cases whereby ; 128(a)(8) was utilized to grant the type of relief sought in this motion. Defendant also cites Legacy Vulcan Corp. v. Superior Court (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 677, 687 as authority for a court to modify an order pursuant to a request for clarification. However, that case only makes passing reference three times to a request for clarification in the procedural history, without establishing any rule of law requiring that the court make such clarification.

Defendant denies that it is bringing motion for reconsideration of the Court’s October 8, 2021 order. However, CCP ; 1008(a) expressly applies when a party seeks to have a court modify or amend its prior order, which is the relief Defendant seeks.

CCP ; 1008(a) provides:

(a) When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.

(Bold emphasis added.)

While this motion was timely filed on October 25, 2021, which is the first business day after the CCP ; 1008(a) 10-day deadline to file expired on Saturday October 23, 2021. The 10-day deadline pursuant to CCP ;1008(a) was extended 5 days for service by mail.

Here, Defendant has not stated by affidavit what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. As such, the motion is properly denied on this basis.

Moreover, a motion for reconsideration cannot be used to correct judicial error, which is what Defendant claims this Court committed in its October 8, 2021 order. (Crotty v. Trader (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 765, 770-71; Global Protein Products, Inc. v. Le (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 352, 364.)

We agree a motion for reconsideration, unlike a motion for a new trial, cannot correct judicial error. We question the reasoning set forth in Blue Mountain Development Co. to the extent it based its holding on relating a motion for a new trial to a motion for reconsideration. In Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal. App. 4th 1494 [38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 626], our division [*771] delineated the limited role of a motion for reconsideration. In Gilberd, supra, at p. 1500, we explained Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 gives the court no authority when deciding whether to grant a motion to reconsider to "reevaluate" or "reanalyze" facts and authority already presented in the earlier motion. Instead, the court may grant reconsideration only if presented with " \'new or different facts, circumstances, or law.\' "

(Crotty v. Trader (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 765, 770-71 [bold emphasis added].)

Appellants misread section 1008, subdivisions (a) and (b). As stated in Tate, “[a] party filing either a motion under section 1008, subdivision (a) or (b) is seeking a new result in the trial court based upon ‘new or different facts, circumstances, or law.’ (; 1008, subds. (a), (b).)” (Tate, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 160.) A motion for reconsideration under section 1008, subdivision (a) is not focused on error-correction. Like a renewed motion, it asks the trial court to reconsider its earlier ruling either based on additional evidence or new law. As a result, we agree with Tate and Chango and conclude that the order denying appellants\' renewed motion under section 1008, subdivision (b) was not appealable.

(Global Protein Products, Inc. v. Le (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 352, 364 [bold emphasis and underlining added] .)

Moreover, the Court notes that Defendant chose how to frame the issues it presented for summary adjudication. While perhaps Defendant could have prevailed on summary judgment had it framed its issues in a different manner, the Court noted in its ruling: “As to the eighth cause of action, Defendant chose not to present an issue regarding a legitimate non-retaliatory reason for Plaintiff’s termination and lack of pretext. It is not the Court’s job to create issues on behalf of Defendant.” (October 8, 2021 Ruling, Page 18.)

The motion for clarification or modification of the October 8, 2021 order is DENIED.

'


b"

Case Number: ****8635 Hearing Date: August 20, 2021 Dept: 76

Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated in retaliation for taking disability leave, for making complaints to Defendants regarding their violations of the Living Wage Ordinance, and for filing a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and also discriminated against on the basis of Plaintiff’s age and national origin.

Plaintiff’s former attorneys Prospective Intervenor Employee Justice Legal Group PC move for leave to intervene.

TENTATIVE RULING

Prospective Intervenor Employee Justice Legal Group PC’s motion for leave to intervene is GRANTED.

The Proposed Complaint In Intervention is deemed to be filed and served as of the date of this order.

Motion For Leave To Intervene

Plaintiff’s former attorneys Prospective Intervenor Employee Justice Legal Group PC move for leave to intervene to bring a motion to collect attorneys’ fees and costs from Defendant based upon the Court granting Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication as to the first and third causes of action for violation of FEHA.

(b) An intervention takes place when a nonparty, deemed an intervenor, becomes a party to an action or proceeding between other persons by doing any of the following:

. . .

(3) Demanding anything adverse to both a plaintiff and a defendant.

(c) A nonparty shall petition the court for leave to intervene by noticed motion or ex parte application. The petition shall include a copy of the proposed complaint in intervention or answer in intervention and set forth the grounds upon which intervention rests.

(d)

. . .

(2) The court may, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if the person has an interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both.

(Code Civ. Proc., ; 387(b), (c), (d).)

On March 25, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication as to the first and third causes of action for national origin discrimination under FEHA. Proposed Intervenor argues that if this Court denies the Prospective Intervenor’s Motion to Intervene, then the Prospective Intervenor’s hopes and chances of recovering its Attorneys’ Fees will be dashed because due to a breakdown in the relationship between Plaintiff and Prospective Intervenor, there is no guarantee that Plaintiff or his new counsel will pay the Attorneys’ Fees to the Prospective Intervenor, to which it is solely and exclusively entitled.

“When the proper procedures are followed, the trial court has the discretion to permit a nonparty to intervene in litigation pending between others, provided that (1) the nonparty has a direct and immediate interest in the action; (2) the intervention will not enlarge the issues in the litigation; and (3) the reasons for intervention outweigh any opposition by the parties presently in the action.” (Noya v. A.W. Coulter Trucking (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 838, 842 [49 Cal.Rptr.3d 584].)

(Gray v. Begley (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1509, 1521.)

Generally, an attorney does not have the right to intervene in the underlying action for the purpose of settling an attorney’s fees dispute between the attorney and the client, unless “by virtue of the contract of employment between the attorney and client, the former is given a specific present interest in the subject matter of the action, which interest might be jeopardized by the client’s discharge of this original attorney and by employment of another to prosecute the action.” (Marshank v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 602, 605; Schwartz v. Schwartz (1953) 119 Cal.App.2d 102, 104-105.)

However, courts have found that, absent an agreement otherwise, attorney fees awards pursuant to a fee-shifting public interest statute belong to the attorney, and such interest is sufficient to give the attorney standing to intervene and file a motion for fees. (Flannery v. Prentice (2001) 26 Cal.4th 572, 575; Lindelli v. Town of San Anselmo (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1499, 1516.)

The question presented is to whom, as between attorney and client, attorney fees awarded under Government Code section 12965 (hereafter section 12965), part of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) ( Gov. Code, ; 12900 et seq.), belong when no contractual agreement provides for their disposition. We conclude that, absent proof on remand of an enforceable agreement to the contrary, the attorney fees awarded in this case belong to the attorneys who labored to earn them.

(Flannery v. Prentice (2001) 26 Cal.4th 572, 575.)

Flannery's discussion of federal law cannot be read as an endorsement of the federal rule that only a litigant may request an award of fees because that rule is based on a fundamentally different interpretation of the phrase “prevailing party” as used in the federal attorney fee statutes. (Flannery, supra, 26 Cal.4th 572.) That is, Flannery expansively construes the phrase as used in Government Code section 12965 to include a litigant's counsel while Evans, supra, 475 U.S. 717, and Venegas narrowly construe the phrase as used in 42 United States Code section 1988 to include the litigants alone. Flannery does not discuss how its interpretation of Government Code section 12965 might affect the analysis in a future case considering an attorney's request to intervene to seek a public interest fee award under California law. Faced now with that issue, we extend the reasoning of Flannery to a logical conclusion in the analogous context of a Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 fee request and hold that RJP has standing to intervene and file a motion for fees.

(Lindelli v. Town of San Anselmo (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1499, 1516.)

Here, Proposed Intervenor, as Plaintiff’s former attorney, has a direct and immediate interest in the action, i.e, the interest in attorney’s fees awarded pursuant to FEHA. The intervention will not enlarge the issues in the litigation, as Intervenor’s recovery of attorney’s fees will involve matters already litigated for a time period which has already ended, i.e., Intervenor’s representation of Plaintiff. Further, Intervenor will only file the motion for attorney’s fees after rendition of judgment or settlement of the case. The reasons for intervention—recovery of Intervenor’s attorney’s fees—outweigh any opposition that the parties may filed, as an attorney’s fee motion will not cause delay or prejudice as to the rest of the action.

The motion to intervene is GRANTED. The Proposed Complaint In Intervention is deemed to be filed and served as of the date of this order.

"


Case Number: ****8635    Hearing Date: April 29, 2021    Dept: 76

Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated in retaliation for taking disability leave, for making complaints to Defendants regarding their violations of the Living Wage Ordinance, and for filing a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and also in discrimination on the basis of Plaintiff’s age and national origin.

Defendant moves for summary adjudication as to the Complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING

The hearing on Defendant Allied Protection Services, Inc.’s motion for summary adjudication is CONTINUED to May 21, 2021. Plaintiff’s opposing Compendium of Evidence does not appear to have been filed with the Court, as it has not been scanned into the Court’s records.

Plaintiff is to file his Compendium of Evidence by May 7, 2021.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Allied Protection Services Inc is a litigant

Latest cases where TURNER CONSTRUCTION TURNER is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer ELIHU KAVEH SAM