This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/31/2019 at 04:30:57 (UTC).

SSAP LLC VS KAMFORD INVESTMENTS INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 09/28/2017 SSAP LLC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against KAMFORD INVESTMENTS INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7743

  • Filing Date:

    09/28/2017

  • 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

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

SSAP LLC

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Defendants

DOES 1 THROUGH 200

UNITED ELITE INVESTMENTS

PICHE JUAN J.

KAMFORD INVESTMENTS INC.

AMIGO'S BUILDING MATERIALS & HARDWARE INC

TRUONG HAHN KIM

GOVEA JOEL

GOVEA ALMA

BANK OF HOPE

BRAVO BONIFACIO

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.

BRAVO MARY

BRAVO LOURDES

BRAVO FIDEL

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

CHOI IL WOONG

CALIFORNIA CENTER BANK

CUELLAR ENRIQUE A.

CARDENAS SARA

Defendants, Respondents, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

PICHE JUAN J.

BANK OF HOPE

22 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

ABIR COHEN TREYZON SALO LLP

TREYZON BORIS

Defendant Attorneys

CERMAK JOHN FRANK

HOLZER STEPHEN TERRY

DENNIS MARISSA MARIE

BLOETSCHER ABBY L.

HAHN ADRIENNE R. ESQ.

WEST EUGENE FRANCIS

HAHN ADRIENNE R

CICCONE KAREN PALLADINO

FRIEDMAN BRUCE M. ESQ.

FRAZIER MARK

Cross Plaintiff Attorney

PEREZ PHILLIP ALLAN

Cross Defendant Attorneys

WAX NANCY ELLEN

SUMMERFIELD ADAM FREDERICK

KAPLAN MICHAEL STEVEN

 

Court Documents

Unknown

12/28/2017: Unknown

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO THE CROSS-COMPLAINT OF AMIGO'S BUILDING MATERIALS & HARDWARE, JOEL GOVEA AND ALMA GOVEA

3/22/2018: ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO THE CROSS-COMPLAINT OF AMIGO'S BUILDING MATERIALS & HARDWARE, JOEL GOVEA AND ALMA GOVEA

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

3/23/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE; EQUITABLE INDEMNITY; EQUITABLE CONTRIBUTION; AND DECLARATORY RELIEF DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

4/4/2018: ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE; EQUITABLE INDEMNITY; EQUITABLE CONTRIBUTION; AND DECLARATORY RELIEF DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF AMIGO'S BUILDING MATERIALS & HARDWARE, INC., JOEL GOVEA AND ALMA GOVEA

4/16/2018: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF AMIGO'S BUILDING MATERIALS & HARDWARE, INC., JOEL GOVEA AND ALMA GOVEA

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

4/25/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN OPPOSITION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF AMIGO?S BUILDING MATERIALS & HARDWARE, INC., JOEL GOVEA AND

5/7/2018: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN OPPOSITION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF AMIGO?S BUILDING MATERIALS & HARDWARE, INC., JOEL GOVEA AND

RULING RE;

5/22/2018: RULING RE;

Unknown

6/13/2018: Unknown

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT (FICTITIOUS/INCORRECT NAME)

6/15/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT (FICTITIOUS/INCORRECT NAME)

NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

7/11/2018: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

Notice of Case Management Conference

12/11/2018: Notice of Case Management Conference

Declaration

1/29/2019: Declaration

Cross-Complaint

1/30/2019: Cross-Complaint

Answer

4/24/2019: Answer

Affidavit

5/1/2019: Affidavit

Summons

5/24/2019: Summons

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

12/13/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

147 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/24/2019
  • Summons (on Cross Complaint); Filed by BANK OF HOPE (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by BANK OF HOPE (Cross-Complainant); CWALT, Inc. (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • Answer (ANSWER BY CROSS-DEFENDANT BANK OF HOPE TO CROSS-COMPLAINT BY JUAN J. PICHE); Filed by CWALT, Inc. (Cross-Defendant); cwalt, inc. (Cross-Defendant); BANK OF HOPE (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Juan J. Piche (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Affidavit (of Due Diligence); Filed by Juan J. Piche (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Juan J. Piche (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Juan J. Piche (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Juan J. Piche (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Juan J. Piche (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Affidavit (of Due Diligence); Filed by Juan J. Piche (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
253 More Docket Entries
  • 12/13/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by SSAP, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by SSAP, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC677743    Hearing Date: November 21, 2019    Dept: 37

HEARING DATE: November 22, 2019

CASE NUMBER: BC677743

CASE NAME: SSAP LLC v. Kamford Investments, Inc., et al.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant and Cross-Complainant, Juan J. Piche

OPPOSING PARTY: Fidel Bravo, non-party.[1]

TRIAL DATE: February 25, 2020

PROOF OF SERVICE: OK

MOTION: Defendant’s Motion to Compel Fidel Bravo to Attend Deposition

OPPOSITION: None filed as of November 20, 2019

REPLY: No opposition filed

TENTATIVE: Piche’s Motion to Compel Fidel Bravo’s attendance at deposition is GRANTED. The court awards $2,500 in discovery sanctions against Bravo for failure to participate in discovery. Defendant’s counsel to give notice

Background

This action arises in connection with Plaintiff, SSAP LLC (“SSAP”)’s ownership of an apartment complex located at 6411 South Broadway, Los Angeles, CA. SSAP filed its complaint on September 28, 2017, alleging five causes of action: (1) breach of contract, (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) negligence, (4) trespass and (5) nuisance. The first cause of action is alleged only against defendant Kamford Investments, Inc. and the second cause of action is alleged against defendant Kamford Investments, Inc., defendant Hahn Kim Truong and defendant Amigo’s Building Materials & Hardware, Inc (“Amigos.”) The third through fifth causes of action are alleged against defendants Amigos, Joel Govea, Alma Govea and Juan Piche (“Piche”).

As to defendant Piche, the Complaint alleges that he owned an adjacent property, located at 6421 and 6421 ½ South Broadway, Los Angeles. Plaintiff alleges that Piche’s property was previously contaminated with TCE chemicals and that Piche, as the landowner, negligently failed to remediate the toxic chemicals such that they seeped into Plaintiff’s property.

On February 7, 2018, Piche filed a cross-complaint for indemnity, contribution and declaratory relief against Amigo’s, Joel Govea, Alma Govea and Kamford Investments

On January 30, 2019, the court granted Piche’s motion to compel Fidel Bravo (“Bravo”) to produce documents in response to subpoena and ordered Bravo to comply with the subpoena by February 19, 2019. Bravo was also required to pay monetary sanctions to Piche’s counsel. Piche also amended his cross-complaint to name Bravo as a new cross-defendant. Piche’s summons on his amended cross-complaint was filed that day.

On May 1, 2019, Piche served Fidel Bravo with the operative First Amended Cross-Complaint by serving a co-occupant of his residence, Rafaela Serrano at 3245 Lynwood Road, Lynwood, CA 90262. Piche also requested entry of default against Bravo on May 1, 2019 as to the original complaint and default was entered as requested.

On October 15, 2019, Piche caused the instant motion to be personally served on Bravo at his home at 3245 Lynwood Road, Lynwood, CA 90262. Piche moves this court for an order compelling Bravo’s attendance at deposition and for contempt. Bravo does not appear to have opposed the motion.

Discussion

I. Legal Standard

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action … without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)[2] The motion must set forth specific facts justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. (Id. § 2025.450, subd. (b)(1).)

II. Meet and Confer Efforts

The motion must be accompanied by a good faith meet and confer declaration under section 2016.040 or, “when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).)

A declaration under section 2016.040 must state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented in the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.) “[A] reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with [opposing] counsel…. Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294 (Clement).) “A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate involves the exercise of discretion.” (Stewart v. Colonial W. Agency (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016, internal ellipses omitted.) Where a party fails to make any real effort at informal resolution, a particularly egregious failure may justify an immediate and outright denial of further discovery. (Obregon v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 433-34 (Obregon), citing Townsend v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1437.)

Piche submits the Declaration of Stephen T. Holzer in support of his motion. Holzer attests that Bravo is a previous owner of Piche’s property and accordingly, was subpoenaed for deposition so that Piche may investigate his cross-complaint and determine whether other parties are potentially liable for Plaintiff’s claims. (Holzer Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.) Holzer attests that his office personally served a deposition subpoena on Bravo on June 17, 2019, requiring his attendance at deposition on July 9, 2019. (Id. at ¶¶ 6-7.) Finally, Holzer attests that he spoke with a man purporting to be Bravo on July 25, 2019 and was told that no subpoena had been served on Bravo. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Further, Holzer attests that Bravo told him he would contact him about a mutually agreeable date but did not, and that he could not reach Bravo on a subsequent attempt on August 22, 2019. (Id. at ¶¶ 9-11.)

Bravo did not file an opposition to Piche’s motion nor any evidence in opposition. Accordingly, Piche’s efforts are sufficient to meet the statutory requirements.

III. Analysis

Piche presents evidence that he properly noticed Bravo’s deposition for July 9, 2019 but that Bravo failed to appear for the deposition. (see Holzer Decl., ¶¶ 6-9, 11.) Bravo does not oppose Piche’s motion. Piche also presented evidence demonstrating that he attempted to meet and confer with Bravo by telephone, but that he was not able to secure Bravo’s appearance at his duly noticed deposition. (Holzer Decl., Exhibit G.) Finally, Piche submitted evidence that her properly served the instant motion on Bravo, but Bravo does not appear to oppose the motion.

In these circumstances, Piche’s motion is GRANTED. Bravo is ORDERED to appear for a properly noticed deposition within 30 days of the date of this order.

III. Contempt

Piche also requests that the court find Bravo in contempt of its previous order of January 30, 2019 to produce documents. Bravo does not oppose this request as no opposition has been filed.

When contempt is committed outside “the immediate view and presence of the court, or of the judge at chambers, an affidavit shall be presented to the court or judge of the facts constituting the contempt, or a statement of the facts by the referees or arbitrators, or other judicial officers.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1211, subd. (a).) “The affidavit is like a complaint in a criminal case; it frames the issues and must charge facts which show a contempt has been committed.” (Reliable Enters. v. Sup. Ct. (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 604, 617, overruled on other grounds as recognized in Mitchell v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1230, 1248.) The substantive issues involved in a contempt proceeding are: (1) the rendition of a valid order, (2) actual knowledge of the order, (3) ability to comply, and (4) willful disobedience. (Conn v. Sup. Ct. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 774, 784.)

Here, it is undisputed that the court entered an order on January 30, 2019 requiring Bravo to produce documents in compliance with Piche’s subpoena by February 19, 2019. Piche contends that Bravo has failed to comply with this order (Motion, 4-6; Holzer Decl., ¶14, Exhibit G.) Bravo does not oppose this contention.

Before holding any contempt hearing, the court will first award monetary sanctions against Bravo and in favor of Piche in the amount of $2,500. Failure to pay the sanctions or to participate in the discovery may result in more serious sanctions in the future.


[1] No opposition on file as of 11/18.

[2] All subsequent statutory references will be to the Code of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise specified.