This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/03/2019 at 05:21:04 (UTC).

RICHARD QUINTILONE II VS JERID R MAYBAUM ET AL

Case Summary

On 07/17/2017 RICHARD QUINTILONE II filed a Contract - Professional Negligence lawsuit against JERID R MAYBAUM. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8748

  • Filing Date:

    07/17/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Professional Negligence

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK

 

Party Details

Petitioners and Plaintiffs

QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES

QUINTILONE RICHARD II

Respondents and Defendants

AMERICAN GUARANTEE & LIABILITY INSURANCE

JACK & MAYBAUM LLP

DANIELS-HEAD INSURANCE AGENCY INC.

MAYBAUM JERID R.

DOES 1 THROUGH 30

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

AMERICAN GUARANTEE & LIABILITY INS. CO.

JACKS & MAYBAUM LLP

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

RYAN KELLY F. ESQ.

THE RYAN LAW FIRM APLC

REYES JILLIAN MELE

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

PUEBLA DEBRA R. ESQ.

PARKER DAVID B. ESQ.

GAGLIONE DOLAN & KAPLAN

PARKER SHUMAKER MILLS LLP

SINNOTT PUEBLA CAMPAGNE & CURET APLC

PARKER DAVID BRUCE

LIE KAIULANI SYOU-WEN

SINNOTT RANDOLPH PAUL

 

Court Documents

DEFENDANT JERID R. MAYBAUM AND JACKS & MAYBAUM LLP'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF S. SHAFFIE IN SUPPORT THEREOF

2/6/2018: DEFENDANT JERID R. MAYBAUM AND JACKS & MAYBAUM LLP'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF S. SHAFFIE IN SUPPORT THEREOF

DEFENDANTS JERID R. MAYBAUM AND JACKS & MAYBAUM LLP'S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF S. SHAFFIE IN SUPPORT THEREOF

2/6/2018: DEFENDANTS JERID R. MAYBAUM AND JACKS & MAYBAUM LLP'S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF S. SHAFFIE IN SUPPORT THEREOF

DEFENDANT JERID R. MAYBAUM AND JACKS & MAYBAUM, LLP'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

2/6/2018: DEFENDANT JERID R. MAYBAUM AND JACKS & MAYBAUM, LLP'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Unknown

4/3/2018: Unknown

Unknown

4/9/2018: Unknown

PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' PRAYER FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES

4/9/2018: PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' PRAYER FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES

Unknown

4/9/2018: Unknown

PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS JERID R. MAYBAUM AND JACKS & MAYHAUM, LLP'S DEMURRER

4/9/2018: PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS JERID R. MAYBAUM AND JACKS & MAYHAUM, LLP'S DEMURRER

JERID R. MAYBAUM AND JACK & MAYBAUM LLP'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

4/11/2018: JERID R. MAYBAUM AND JACK & MAYBAUM LLP'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

JERID R. MAYBAUM AND JACKS & MAYBAUM LLP'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER

4/11/2018: JERID R. MAYBAUM AND JACKS & MAYBAUM LLP'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER

Unknown

4/16/2018: Unknown

AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

4/17/2018: AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Minute Order

4/20/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF DEFENDANTS.JERID R. MAYBAUM AND JACKS & MAYBAUM, LLP'S DEMURRER / MOTION TO STRIKE AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

4/20/2018: NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF DEFENDANTS.JERID R. MAYBAUM AND JACKS & MAYBAUM, LLP'S DEMURRER / MOTION TO STRIKE AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Unknown

4/25/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

5/10/2018: Minute Order

(1) DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; (2) MOTION TO STRIKE RE: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

5/10/2018: (1) DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; (2) MOTION TO STRIKE RE: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; ETC.

5/30/2018: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; ETC.

102 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/18/2019
  • Notice ( of order re entry of dismissal of defendants); Filed by Richard II Quintilone (Plaintiff); Quintilone & Associates (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2019
  • Request for Dismissal (Complaint, Other*As to Defendants Jerid R. Maybaum and Jacks & Maybaum LLP ONLY); Filed by Richard II Quintilone (Plaintiff); Quintilone & Associates (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • Notice (OF ENTRY OF ORDER); Filed by David Bruce Parker (Attorney); Jerid R. Maybaum (Defendant); Jacks & Maybaum LLP (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • Stipulation and Order ([PROPOSED] ORDER RE STIPULATION RE GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 87706); Filed by Jerid R. Maybaum (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (STIPULATION RE GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 87706); Filed by Jerid R. Maybaum (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Sanctions

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Sanctions - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2019
  • Notice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by Richard II Quintilone (Plaintiff); Quintilone & Associates (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
192 More Docket Entries
  • 08/01/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Richard II Quintilone (Plaintiff); Quintilone & Associates (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Richard II Quintilone (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Richard II Quintilone (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. LEGAL MALPRACTICE; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: BC668748 Hearing Date: October 22, 2021 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling
Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47
HEARING DATE:\tOctober 22, 2021\t\tTRIAL DATE: December 20, 2021
\t
CASE: \tRichard Quintilone II, et al. v. Jerid R. Maybaum, et al.
CASE NO.: \t\tBC668748\t
MOTION FOR ORDER PERMITTING DISCOVERY OF DEFENDANTS AMERICAN GUARANTEE & LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY AND DANIELS-HEAD INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.’S FINANCIAL CONDITION
MOVING PARTY:\tPlaintiff Richard Quintilone II, individually and dba Quintilone and Associates
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company and Daniels-Head Insurance Agency Inc. (separate oppositions)
CASE HISTORY:
\t07/17/17: Complaint filed.
\t10/16/17: Defendant Zurich American Insurance Company dismissed.
\t12/19/17: First Amended Complaint filed.
\t01/04/18: Defendant Zurich American Insurance Company dismissed without prejudice.
\t05/30/18: Second Amended Complaint filed.
\t09/06/18: Third Amended Complaint filed.
\t10/15/18: Leave to Amend Third Amended Complaint per stipulation granted; Fourth Amended Complaint deemed filed.
\t04/08/19: Complaint dismissed as to Defendants Jerid R. Maybaum and Jacks & Maybaum LLP.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
\t
\tOriginally, Plaintiff alleged that the attorney Defendants steered litigation brought against him by his clients toward emotional distress damages, which were not covered by the subject malpractice liability insurance policy issued by Defendant insurer and recommended by Defendant insurance agency. The attorney Defendants have now been dismissed from the case, leaving the insurer Defendants.
Plaintiff moves to discover the financial condition of Defendants American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company and Daniels-Head Insurance Agency, Inc.
\t
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff’s motion for order permitting discovery of Defendants’ financial condition is DENIED as to Defendant American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company and Defendant Daniels-Head Insurance Agency, Inc.
DISCUSSION:
Motion For Order Permitting Discovery of Financial Condition
Plaintiff moves for an order permitting discovery of Defendants’ financial condition pursuant to Civil Code § 3295.
\tCivil Code § 3295 provides, in relevant part:
(a) The court may, for good cause, grant any defendant a protective order requiring the plaintiff to produce evidence of a prima facie case of liability for damages pursuant to Section 3294, prior to the introduction of evidence of:
(1) The profits the defendant has gained by virtue of the wrongful course of conduct of the nature and type shown by the evidence.
(2) The financial condition of the defendant.
(b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the introduction of prima facie evidence to establish a case for damages pursuant to Section 3294.
(c) No pretrial discovery by the plaintiff shall be permitted with respect to the evidence referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a) unless the court enters an order permitting such discovery pursuant to this subdivision. . . . Upon motion by the plaintiff supported by appropriate affidavits and after a hearing, if the court deems a hearing to be necessary, the court may at any time enter an order permitting the discovery otherwise prohibited by this subdivision if the court finds, on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented, that the plaintiff has established that there is a substantial probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim pursuant to Section 3294. Such order shall not be considered to be a determination on the merits of the claim or any defense thereto and shall not be given in evidence or referred to at the trial.
(Civ. Code § 3295(a)-(c), bold emphasis added.)
[W]e interpret the language of section 3295(c), requiring the trial court to find based on supporting and opposing affidavits that the plaintiff has established there is a substantial probability he will prevail on his claim for punitive damages, to mean that before a court may enter an order permitting discovery of a defendant's financial condition, it must (1) weigh the evidence submitted in favor of and in opposition to motion for discovery, and (2) make a finding that it is very likely the plaintiff will prevail on his claim for punitive damages. In this context, we interpret the words “substantial probability” to mean “very likely” or “a strong likelihood” just as their plain meaning suggests. We note that the Legislature did not use the term “reasonable probability” or simply “probability,” which would imply a lower threshold of “more likely than not.”
(Jabro v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 754, 758, bold emphasis added.)
\tHere, the issue is whether Defendants American Guaranty Liability Insurance Company (“AGLIC”) and Daniels-Head Insurance Agency (“DHIA”), as AGLIC’s “captive agent,” acted with malice, oppression, or fraud in connection with the issuance of a professional liability insurance policy to Plaintiff that left Plaintiff unprotected against certain uncovered claims, despite Defendants’ alleged representations otherwise.
Here, despite over 1,000 pages of exhibits, Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating a substantial probability that he will prevail on his punitive damages claim against either Defendant pursuant to Civil Code § 3294.
As to AGLIC, to the extent that Plaintiff relies on AGLIC’s failure to appoint Cumis counsel to support his punitive damages claim, as AGLIC notes, a “conflict of interest does not exist as to allegations or facts in the litigation for which the insurer denies coverage.” (Civ. Code § 2860(b).) Moreover, AGLIC has come forward with evidence that it did thoroughly investigate whether Cumis counsel should be appointed. (AGLIC Oppo., at pp. 3-4 and supporting evidence.) This evidence, at a minimum, casts doubt on Plaintiff’s argument in a way that is sufficient to decrease Plaintiff’s chances of prevailing on his punitive damages claim to less than a “substantial probability.”
In addition, Plaintiff attributes ill motive to AGLIC because it “steered” appointed counsel Maybaum’s “representation of Plaintiff to their own benefit.” (Motion, at p. 13.) Defendant has sufficiently explained, however, that it would have no interest in doing so because the covered damages award “would have been the same with or without allegations regarding emotional distress.” (Opp., at p. 6.) Again, based on this reasoning, the Court cannot conclude that it is “very likely” that Plaintiff could show malice or another basis for punitive damages against AGLIC. Nor does the Court find Plaintiff’s other arguments persuasive.
\tAs to Defendant DHIA, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks these records because “DHIA and AGLIC should be treated as a singular entity” (Motion, at p. 12), the motion is without merit because Plaintiff has not shown a substantial probability that it will prevail as to AGLIC, as discussed above.
\tTo the extent that Plaintiff raises independent reasons that DHIA itself acted with malice, fraud, or oppression, Plaintiff does not seek punitive damages in connection with his causes of action against DHIA (4AC ¶¶ 74-88) and has not sought to amend the 4AC to do so. Plaintiff has cited no binding authority that stands for the proposition that a party may obtain discovery of the financial condition of another party under Civil Code § 3295 when no punitive damages are sought against that party. Moreover, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, this Court’s denial of Defendants’ motions for summary judgment or adjudication has no bearing on whether Plaintiff is “very likely” to obtain a punitive damages award against either Defendant. As Plaintiff himself notes, this simply means that the Court found that there were “triable issues of fact on each cause of action.” (Motion, at p. 14.)
\tAccordingly, the motion for an order allowing discovery into Defendants’ financial condition pursuant to Civil Code § 3295 is DENIED.
\tMoving party to give notice, unless waived.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 22, 2021\t\t\t___________________________________
\t\t\t\t\t\t\tTheresa M. Traber
\t\t\t\t\t\t\tJudge of the Superior Court
\tAny party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.
"
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where JACK & MAYBAUM LLP is a litigant

Latest cases where American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company is a litigant

Latest cases where Zurich American Insurance Company is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer REYES JILLIAN MELE