Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/28/2019 at 10:47:16 (UTC).

SAUL ARMAS VS. 9510 VAN NUYS BLVD. LLC., ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/17/2017 SAUL ARMAS filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against 9510 VAN NUYS BLVD LLC . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Van Nuys Courthouse East located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ELIZABETH A. LIPPITT and MICHAEL J. CONVEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5434

  • Filing Date:

    03/17/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Van Nuys Courthouse East

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ELIZABETH A. LIPPITT

MICHAEL J. CONVEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

ARMAS SAUL

Defendants

ANZA MANAGEMENT COMPANY

SUMMER VIEW APARTMENTS

DOES 1-20

9510 VAN NUYS BLVD. LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

GLASSMAN ARNOLD JAY

Defendant Attorney

CAMERON PARRY GLENN

 

Court Documents

Complaint

3/17/2017: Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet

3/17/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

3/21/2017: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

4/25/2017: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

Unknown

4/26/2017: Unknown

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

5/17/2017: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Case Management Statement

8/4/2017: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

8/7/2017: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

8/14/2017: Minute Order

Association of Attorney

10/31/2017: Association of Attorney

Substitution of Attorney

1/18/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Unknown

3/28/2018: Unknown

Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

9/7/2018: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

Motion in Limine

1/15/2019: Motion in Limine

Witness List

1/17/2019: Witness List

Objection

1/28/2019: Objection

Notice of Ruling

1/31/2019: Notice of Ruling

Brief

2/1/2019: Brief

27 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/10/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department U, Michael J. Convey, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department U, Michael J. Convey, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • Motion in Limine (To Disqualify and Preclude Testimony of Plaintiff); Filed by 9510 Van Nuys Blvd., LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Final Status Conference) of 06/04/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department U, Michael J. Convey, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department U, Michael J. Convey, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department U, Michael J. Convey, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2019
  • Stipulation - No Order (OF COUNSEL TO CHANGE THE FSC DATE); Filed by Saul Armas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
49 More Docket Entries
  • 04/25/2017
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Saul Armas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2017
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Saul Armas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2017
  • at 00:00 AM in Department W; (Affidavit-170.6; Transferred-Other department) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2017
  • Minute order entered: 2017-04-04 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2017
  • Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Saul Armas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2017
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Saul Armas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Saul Armas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Saul Armas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: LC105434    Hearing Date: June 24, 2020    Dept: U

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHWEST DISTRICT

SAUL ARMAS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

9510 VAN NUYS BLVD., LLC, a California limited liability company; SUMMER VIEW APARTMENTS, ANZA MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a California corporation, and DOES 1 – 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: LC105434

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: 9150 VAN NUYS BLVD., LLC & ANZA MANAGEMENT COMPANY’S MOTION FOR ORDER QUASHING NOTICE OF LEVY AND MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Dept. U

8:30 a.m.

June 24, 2020

Saul Armas (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against 9150 Van Nuys Blvd., LLC, Summer View Apartments, Anza Management Company, and Does 1-20, alleging: (1) breach of the warranty of habitability; (2) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (3) nuisance – Civil Code section 3479; (4) untenantable dwelling – Civil Code section 1924.4; (5) negligence; (6) violation of LAMC section 151.05(A); (7) violation of LAMC section 151.09(G); and (8) unlawful business practice in violation of Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq. – Civil Code section 1942.4.

On September 19, 2019, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff on his claims for: (1) breach of warranty of habitability; (2) breach of quiet enjoyment; and (3) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4 and awarded Plaintiff $75,000 in damages against Defendants 9510 Van Nuys Blvd., LLC and Anza Management Company (hereinafter, Defendants).

The Court issued a writ of execution in the amount of $75,025 against Defendants to further the collection of the judgment against them. On December 9, 2019, Defendants filed a cash deposit in lieu of a bond in the amount of $112,500 to continue the stay on the execution of judgment. Defendants filed two notices of appeal of this judgment, but both were dismissed by the appellate court because Defendants failed to timely serve the record on appeal. Defendants’ appeal was reinstated on May 27, 2020.

On February 13, 2020, Plaintiff served a notice of levy on Defendants’ bank, Bank of America, N.A., in the amount of $299,886.78. Defendants move to quash this notice and for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel for executing this levy despite Defendants’ cash deposit staying execution of judgment.

1. Merits

Defendants move to quash the notice of levy served on Bank of America on the grounds that it was improper for Plaintiff to seek enforcement of judgment against them after they had made a cash deposit to stay enforcement of judgment pending appeal. Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s attorney was aware they had made this cash deposit and that enforcement of judgment was stayed when the notice of levy was served on Bank of America. As such, Defendants argue Plaintiff should have to pay for their attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing this motion.

Plaintiff opposes this motion by questioning its timeliness. On February 21, 2020, the Court stayed enforcement of judgment pending a hearing on a noticed motion to quash and set that hearing for March 20, 2020, ordering that the motion, opposition and reply should be filed and served according to the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, Plaintiff contends this motion should have been filed and served no later than February 27, 2020 and that he had not received the motion as of February 28, 2020.

Plaintiff maintains that, despite Defendants’ contention, the Court did not stay the enforcement of the original $75,000 judgment. Rather, the parties agreed that Plaintiff would not attempt to collect on the writ of execution until after December 9, 2020 to allow Defendants time to post the $112,500 bond equal to 1.5 times the judgment. Defendants agreed to post this bond, but only delivered a $112,500 cashier’s check to the Department U clerk with instructions to “hold onto this.” Plaintiff argues this tender of payment was insufficient because California Civil Procedure section 917.1(b) requires the undertaking to be twice the judgment unless provided by a surety insurer, in which case the undertaking can be 1.5 times the judgment. As the cashier’s check was not for twice the judgment and Defendants are not surety insurers, it is argued that this undertaking was deficient.

Further, Plaintiff notes that the $75,000 judgment was amended on January 7, 2020 to total $299,794.78, so the judgment for which Defendants posted a bond was vacated. While it is argued that defense counsel conceded that a new bond would need to be executed, Defendants have not posted any amount in addition to the original $112,500 submitted by cashier’s check.

Next, Plaintiff disagrees with Defendants’ interpretation of California Civil Procedure section 917.1(d). Plaintiff argues that an undertaking must include an amount for attorneys’ fees and costs, not merely the damages judgment, as Defendants contend.

California Civil Procedure section 917.1 provides, in relevant part:

(a) Unless an undertaking is given, the perfecting of an appeal shall not stay enforcement of the judgment or order in the trial court if the judgment or order is for any of the following:

(1) Money or the payment of money, whether consisting of a special fund or not, and whether payable by the appellant or another party to the action.

(2) Costs awarded pursuant to Section 998 which otherwise would not have been awarded as costs pursuant to Section 1033.5.

(3) Costs awarded pursuant to Section 1141.21 which otherwise would not have been awarded as costs pursuant to Section 1033.5.

(b) The undertaking shall be on condition that if the judgment or order or any part of it is affirmed or the appeal is withdrawn or dismissed, the party ordered to pay shall pay the amount of the judgment or order, or the part of it as to which the judgment or order is affirmed, as entered after the receipt of the remittitur, together with any interest which may have accrued pending the appeal and entry of the remittitur, and costs which may be awarded against the appellant on appeal . . . . The undertaking shall be for double the amount of the judgment or order unless given by an admitted surety insurer in which event it shall be for one and one-half times the amount of the judgment or order. The liability on the undertaking may be enforced if the party ordered to pay does not make the payment within 30 days after the filing of the remittitur from the reviewing court.

. . .

(d) Costs awarded by the trial court under Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1021) of Title 14 shall be included in the amount of the judgment or order for the purpose of applying paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) and subdivision (b).

However, no undertaking shall be required pursuant to this section solely for costs awarded under Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1021) of Title 14.

In this case, Defendants submitted a cashier’s check for $112,500, which is 1.5 times the amount of the original judgment. Regardless of any alleged agreement between the parties, an undertaking from a non-surety insurer must be twice the judgment. Therefore, the undertaking was deficient to cover even the original judgment. Further, the Court notes that is did not issue any official stay of the enforcement of the judgment in this case.

After the initial cashier’s check was lodged with the Court, the judgment was increased to $299,794.78 to include attorneys’ fees and costs. Thus, any proper undertaking pending appeal would equal twice the amended judgment here. Plaintiff correctly interprets the undertaking amount provided in California Civil Procedure section 917.1(d) to include attorneys’ fees and costs. Therefore, to stay enforcement of judgment pending appeal, Defendants would have had to supply an additional undertaking that would increase its monetary security to an amount equal to twice the amended judgment. Defendants have not provided any additional bonding beyond the original $112,500.

As Defendants have not provided an adequate undertaking of twice the amended judgment, enforcement of the judgment against them was never properly stayed by operation of law. Therefore, it was not inappropriate for Plaintiff to enforce to the judgment by serving the writ of execution on Bank of America. An order quashing the notice of levy is, thus, not warranted.

As Plaintiff’s counsel did not inappropriately serve Bank of America with notice of levy on Defendants’ assets, Defendants’ motion for sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel is denied.

2. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motions to quash notice of levy on bank and for monetary sanctions against AJ Glassman are DENIED.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where 9510 VAN NUYS BLVD. LLC. A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases where ANZA MANAGEMENT COMPANY A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION is a litigant