This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/05/2020 at 13:58:44 (UTC).

SKY HIGH INVESTMENTS COMPANY LLC VS ANTONIO PEREZ

Case Summary

On 03/19/2018 SKY HIGH INVESTMENTS COMPANY LLC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against ANTONIO PEREZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are BARBARA A. MEIERS, ROBERT L. HESS, HOLLY E. KENDIG, PATRICIA D. NIETO and DENNIS J. LANDIN. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2772

  • Filing Date:

    03/19/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

BARBARA A. MEIERS

ROBERT L. HESS

HOLLY E. KENDIG

PATRICIA D. NIETO

DENNIS J. LANDIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Cross Defendant

SKY HIGH INVESTMENTS COMPANY LLC

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff

PEREZ ANTONIO

Cross Defendants and Petitioners

NEMAN MORAD BEN

SKY HIGH INVESTMENTS COMPANY LLC

Not Classified By Court

LAW FIRM OF HAROLD GREENBERG

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

DAVID R. FISHER ESQ.

STUART D. MEYERS

MEYERS STUART D.

FISHER DAVID R.

Attorney at Fisher & Wolfe LLP

9401 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 640

Beverly Hills, CA 90212

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

ALEJANDRO H. HERRERA ESQ.

HEDY GHAVIDAL ESQ.

ESQ. ALEJANDRO H. HERRERA

ESQ. HEDY GHAVIDAL

Cross Plaintiff Attorney

GREENBERG HAROLD

 

Court Documents

Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service

12/26/2019: Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service

Reply - REPLY TO NON-OPPOSITION RE CROSS-DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, ETC.

10/22/2019: Reply - REPLY TO NON-OPPOSITION RE CROSS-DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, ETC.

Reply - REPLY TO NON-OPPOSITION RE CROSS-DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED, ETC.

10/22/2019: Reply - REPLY TO NON-OPPOSITION RE CROSS-DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED, ETC.

Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

3/4/2019: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Case Management Statement

11/26/2018: Case Management Statement

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

8/7/2018: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

Minute Order -

6/22/2018: Minute Order -

DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT ANTONIO PEREZ' NOTICE OF DISASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

5/11/2018: DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT ANTONIO PEREZ' NOTICE OF DISASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

4/27/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER

4/6/2018: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER

COMPLAINT-CONTRACT -

3/19/2018: COMPLAINT-CONTRACT -

NOTICE OF INCOMING TRANSFER

3/19/2018: NOTICE OF INCOMING TRANSFER

DECLARATION OF JEFFREY R. KLEIN ETC.

3/19/2018: DECLARATION OF JEFFREY R. KLEIN ETC.

AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC.

3/19/2018: AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC.

CROSS-DEFENDANTS SKY HIGH INVESTMENTS COMPANY, LLC AND MORAD BEN NEMAN NOTICE OF DEMURRERS ETC.

3/19/2018: CROSS-DEFENDANTS SKY HIGH INVESTMENTS COMPANY, LLC AND MORAD BEN NEMAN NOTICE OF DEMURRERS ETC.

DECLARATION RE DILIGENCE TO EFFECT PERSONAL SERVICE OR REPORT ON NON SERVICE

3/19/2018: DECLARATION RE DILIGENCE TO EFFECT PERSONAL SERVICE OR REPORT ON NON SERVICE

NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT

3/19/2018: NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT

Proof of Service -

3/22/2018: Proof of Service -

69 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/26/2019
  • DocketNotice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service; Filed by Sky High Investments Company, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2019
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Sky High Investments Company, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 24; Status Conference (re Settlement) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Status Conference re Settlement)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2019
  • DocketNotice (Notice of Entry of Order); Filed by Sky High Investments Company, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2019
  • DocketMotion for Terminating Sanctions; Filed by Sky High Investments Company, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 24; Non-Appearance Case Review (Plaintiff's Report re Settlement) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (Plaintiff's Declaration Re: Status of Settlement); Filed by Sky High Investments Company, LLC (Plaintiff); Sky High Investments Company, LLC (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2019
  • DocketNotice (of Entry of Judgment or Order); Filed by Sky High Investments Company, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 24; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
127 More Docket Entries
  • 03/19/2018
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • DocketDECLARATION OF JEFFREY R. KLEIN ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • DocketDECLARATION RE DILIGENCE TO EFFECT PERSONAL SERVICE OR REPORT ON NON SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Sky High Investments Company, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • DocketMiscellaneous-Other; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC692772    Hearing Date: November 06, 2019    Dept: 24

Cross-Defendants Sky High Investments Company, LLC and Morad Ben Neman’s motions to compel and deem matters admitted are GRANTED. Sanctions are imposed against Cross-Complainant Antonio Perez in the reduced total amount of $1,020.00.

This action arises out of allegations by Plaintiff Sky High Investments Company, LLC (“Sky High”) that Defendant Antonio Perez (“Perez”) breached a written commercial lease on June 20, 2017 when Perez forfeited the keys to the commercial rental property and ceased to pay the agreed upon rent of $2,800.00 per month. The rental property was located at 931 E. Pico St., Unit #117, Los Angeles (“Premises”), with inclusive address of 919-947 E. Pico St., Los Angeles (“Building”). The lease was for a term of one year from February 1, 2017 until January 31, 2018. Sky High contends that Perez owes a total of $21,440.00, for seven months’ rent, three months’ late fees, and damages to the Premises.

Sky High commenced this action on August 9, 2017, commenced this action against Perez alleging a single cause of action for breach of contract. On October 6, 2017, Perez filed a general denial and a cross-complaint. The operative first amended cross-complaint (“FACC”) alleges eight causes of action against Sky High and Morad Ben Neman (“Neman”), Sky High’s manager, for (1) breach of contract; (2) anticipatory repudiation; (3) negligent maintenance of premises; (4) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; (5) constructive eviction; (6) violation of UCL (B&P §§17200 et seq.); (7) negligent misrepresentation; and (8) fraud.

On September 27, 2019, Cross-Defendants filed motions to compel initial discovery responses from RP as to 1) form interrogatories, and 2) deem matters admitted. No opposition was filed.

Legal Standard

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (CCP § 2030.290(b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905-906.)

Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(b), a party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). “Failure to timely respond to RFA does not result in automatic admissions. Rather, the propounder of the RFA must ‘move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction’ under § 2023.010 et seq.” (CCP § 2033.280(b).) The court “shall” grant the motion to deem RFA admitted, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (CCP § 2033.280(c).)

Discussion

Here, Cross-Defendants served Perez the first set of discovery for FROGs and RFAs on June 6, 2019, by mail. (Klein Decls., ¶ 4, Exs. A.) Responses were due on July 11, 2019. Perez did not respond. Cross-Complainants followed up with Perez on August 9, 2019 through a meet and confer letter, but received no response. (Id., ¶ 5, Exs. B.) Given Perez’s failure to respond, the motion to compel is GRANTED and the motion to deem matters admitted is GRANTED.

Sanctions

Monetary sanctions are mandatory, unless the imposition of sanctions would be unjust or the party subject to the sanctions acted with substantial justification. (CCP §§ 2030.290(c).) Perez has failed to respond and therefore failed to justify their non-response to the discovery.

Plaintiff request $1,860.00 and $420.00 in sanctions, which account for 2.5 hours of drafting and preparing the motions at issue, 3.5 hours reviewing oppositions to the motions, replying, and for appearance at the hearing at a rate of $360.00 per hour, and two $60 filing fees. However, there was no opposition, and thus no need to reply. Accordingly, MP’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced total amount of $1,020.00, inclusive of costs, against Perez. Sanctions to be paid to Cross-Defendant’s counsel within 30 days.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC692772    Hearing Date: October 31, 2019    Dept: 24

Cross-Defendants Sky High Investments Company, LLC and Morad Ben Neman’s motions to compel and deem matters admitted are GRANTED. Sanctions are imposed against Cross-Complainant Antonio Perez in the reduced total amount of $1,020.00.

This action arises out of allegations by Plaintiff Sky High Investments Company, LLC (“Sky High”) that Defendant Antonio Perez (“Perez”) breached a written commercial lease on June 20, 2017 when Perez forfeited the keys to the commercial rental property and ceased to pay the agreed upon rent of $2,800.00 per month. The rental property was located at 931 E. Pico St., Unit #117, Los Angeles (“Premises”), with inclusive address of 919-947 E. Pico St., Los Angeles (“Building”). The lease was for a term of one year from February 1, 2017 until January 31, 2018. Sky High contends that Perez owes a total of $21,440.00, for seven months’ rent, three months’ late fees, and damages to the Premises.

Sky High commenced this action on August 9, 2017, commenced this action against Perez alleging a single cause of action for breach of contract. On October 6, 2017, Perez filed a general denial and a cross-complaint. The operative first amended cross-complaint (“FACC”) alleges eight causes of action against Sky High and Morad Ben Neman (“Neman”), Sky High’s manager, for (1) breach of contract; (2) anticipatory repudiation; (3) negligent maintenance of premises; (4) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; (5) constructive eviction; (6) violation of UCL (B&P §§17200 et seq.); (7) negligent misrepresentation; and (8) fraud.

On September 27, 2019, Cross-Defendants filed motions to compel initial discovery responses from Perez as to 1) form interrogatories, and 2) deem matters admitted. No opposition was filed.

Legal Standard

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (CCP § 2030.290(b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905-906.)

Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(b), a party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). “Failure to timely respond to RFA does not result in automatic admissions. Rather, the propounder of the RFA must ‘move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction’ under § 2023.010 et seq.” (CCP § 2033.280(b).) The court “shall” grant the motion to deem RFA admitted, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (CCP § 2033.280(c).)

Discussion

Here, Cross-Defendants served Perez the first set of discovery for FROGs and RFAs on June 6, 2019, by mail. (Klein Decls., ¶ 4, Exs. A.) Responses were due on July 11, 2019. Perez did not respond. Cross-Complainants followed up with Perez on August 9, 2019 through a meet and confer letter, but received no response. (Id., ¶ 5, Exs. B.) Given Perez’s failure to respond, the motion to compel is GRANTED and the motion to deem matters admitted is GRANTED.

Sanctions

Monetary sanctions are mandatory, unless the imposition of sanctions would be unjust or the party subject to the sanctions acted with substantial justification. (CCP §§ 2030.290(c).) Perez has failed to respond and therefore failed to justify their non-response to the discovery.

Plaintiff request $1,860.00 and $420.00 in sanctions, which account for 2.5 hours of drafting and preparing the motions at issue, 3.5 hours reviewing oppositions to the motions, replying, and for appearance at the hearing at a rate of $360.00 per hour, and two $60 filing fees. However, there was no opposition, and thus no need to reply. Accordingly, MP’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced total amount of $1,020.00, inclusive of costs, against Perez. Sanctions to be paid to Cross-Defendant’s counsel within 30 days.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.