On 12/22/2017 STEPHEN A KOLODNY filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against KIMBERLY MOFFATT JONES. 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.
Pending - Other Pending
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
KOLODNY STEPHEN A.
KOLODNY & ANTEAU
KOLODNY LAW GROUP
DOES 1 TO 50
MATTHAI EDITH R. ESQ.
MATTHAI EDITH RAE
GIBSON STEVEN A.
KURTZ GARY ALAN ESQ.
MEEKER JENNIFER L
6/10/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: ARBITRATION; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PO...)
8/23/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore
8/27/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)
8/27/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 08/27/2019
2/7/2018: ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
3/9/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -
3/16/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
3/26/2018: ORDER GRANTING APPPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF ATTORNEY JODI DONETTA LOWRY
4/27/2018: Minute Order -
5/11/2018: PLAINTIFF KOLODNY LAW GROUP?S IK&A'SI NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF HEIDI MADZAR
5/22/2018: OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE CROSS-COMPLAINT AND ADD PARTIES
5/22/2018: OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
5/29/2018: REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
6/1/2018: OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO AMEND CROSS-COMPLAINT AND ADD PARTIES.
9/12/2018: Minute Order -
4/12/2019: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE ALL-PURPOSE STATUS CONFERENCE FROM APRIL 17, 2019 TO JUNE 10, 2019; ORDER
1/8/2018: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING
1/8/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Hearing05/11/2020 at 09:00 AM in Department 58 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing05/05/2020 at 09:00 AM in Department 58 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Hearing03/17/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 58 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 58; Status Conference (ReArbitration Status) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 58; Status Conference (ReArbitration) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Status Conference Re: Arbitration;)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketStatus Report (PLAINTIFFS AND CROSS DEFENDANTS STEPHEN A. KOLODNY AND KOLODNY LAW GROUP, APC'S ARBITRATION STATUS REPORT); Filed by Kolodny Law Group (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 58; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 08/27/2019); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by Defendant and Cross-ComplainantRead MoreRead Less
DocketCROSS-COMPLAINT TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDRead MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by Defendant and Cross-ComplainantRead MoreRead Less
DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARINGRead MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Stephen A. Kolodny (Plaintiff); Kolodny & Anteau (Plaintiff); Kolodny Law Group (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETCRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC687950 Hearing Date: October 29, 2020 Dept: 58
Judge John P. Doyle
Hearing Date: October 29, 2020
Case Name: Kolodny, et al. v. Jones, et al.
Case No.: BC687950 (related to case no. 18STCV05929)
Matter: Motion for Reconsideration
Moving Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Kimberly Moffatt Jones
Responding Party: Cross-Defendants Stephen A. Kolodny, Kolodny & Anteau, Kolodny Law
Group, and Stephen A. Kolodny, a Professional Corporation
Tentative Ruling: The Motion is denied.
Defendant/Cross-Complainant Kimberly Moffatt Jones seeks for the Court to reconsider its August 2019 order staying the proceedings against the individual Defendants pending arbitration. Defendant provides that Cross-Defendants waived the right to arbitrate by seeking for the arbitration proceedings to be stayed entirely so as to appoint a personal representative for the estate of Stephen A. Kolodny after his passing.
Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a) provides, “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.”
Here, the Motion is untimely because it was not filed within ten days of the Court’s August 2019 stay order.
The Motion also substantively lacks merit. “Because arbitration is a highly favored means of settling such disputes, the courts have been admonished to ‘closely scrutinize any allegation of waiver of such favored right’ [Citations], and to ‘indulge every intendment to give effect to such proceedings’ [Citations.]” (Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. (1979) 23 Cal. 3d 180, 189.) Factor to be considered in evaluating waiver include: “(1) whether the party's actions are inconsistent with the right to arbitrate; (2) whether ‘the litigation machinery has been substantially invoked’ and the parties ‘were well into preparation of a lawsuit’ before the party notified the opposing party of an intent to arbitrate; (3) whether a party either requested arbitration enforcement close to the trial date or delayed for a long period before seeking a stay; (4) whether a defendant seeking arbitration filed a counterclaim without asking for a stay of the proceedings; (5) ‘whether important intervening steps [e.g., taking advantage of judicial discovery procedures not available in arbitration] had taken place’; and (6) whether the delay ‘affected, misled, or prejudiced’ the opposing party.” (Sobremonte v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 980, 992.)
Here, it is not apparent Cross-Defendants’ actions are tantamount to waiver. The stay at issue will expire in November 2020 such that progress for the arbitration proceedings is imminent. In sum, the Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases