This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/15/2021 at 22:02:35 (UTC).

TEDDY CANNON, AN INDIVIDUAL VS. BELLUM ENTERTAINMENT LLC

Case Summary

On 09/01/2017 TEDDY CANNON, AN INDIVIDUAL filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against BELLUM ENTERTAINMENT LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RALPH C. HOFER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7250

  • Filing Date:

    09/01/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

RALPH C. HOFER

 

Party Details

Defendants and Plaintiffs

POWNALL CHRISTOPHER AN INDIVIDUAL

GARBER KAREN AN INDIVIDUAL

CANNON TEDDY AN INDIVIDUAL

POWNALL CHRISTOPHER

CANNON TEDDY

MCDONNELL MARY CAROLE AN INDIVIDUAL

BELLUM ENTERTAINMENT LLC

GARBER KAREN

MCDONNELL MARY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

KOWALSKY MICHAEL BURTON

MICHAEL J. WEISS ESQ

WEBSTER JOSHUA MICHAEL

WEISS MICHAEL JARRETT

Defendant Attorneys

ERVIN COHEN & JESSUP

ZUIDERWEG GORDON JAMES

SMITH JAY WILLIAM

 

Court Documents

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (BELLUM ENTERTAINMENT MOTION TO COMPEL)

12/31/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (BELLUM ENTERTAINMENT MOTION TO COMPEL)

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (MCDONNELL MOTION TO COMPEL)

12/31/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (MCDONNELL MOTION TO COMPEL)

Declaration - DECLARATION OF JOSHUA M. WEBSTER REGARDING SERVICE

1/8/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF JOSHUA M. WEBSTER REGARDING SERVICE

Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO GORDON J. ZUIDERWEGS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AND NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT BELLUM ENTERTAINMENT LLC

1/8/2021: Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO GORDON J. ZUIDERWEGS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AND NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT BELLUM ENTERTAINMENT LLC

Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO GORDON J. ZUIDERWEGS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AND NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MARY CAROLE MCDONNELLS

1/8/2021: Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO GORDON J. ZUIDERWEGS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AND NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT MARY CAROLE MCDONNELLS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT BELLUM ENTERTAINMENT, L...)

1/15/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT BELLUM ENTERTAINMENT, L...)

Motion re: - MOTION RE: PLAINTIFFS TEDDY CANNON AND CHRISTOPHER POWNALLS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS OF STRIKING DEFEND

4/6/2021: Motion re: - MOTION RE: PLAINTIFFS TEDDY CANNON AND CHRISTOPHER POWNALLS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS OF STRIKING DEFEND

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF JOSHUA WEBSTER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS TEDDY CANNON AND CHRISTOPHER POWNALLS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ON

4/6/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF JOSHUA WEBSTER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS TEDDY CANNON AND CHRISTOPHER POWNALLS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ON

Notice of Ruling

4/7/2021: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE MEDIATION AND DISCOVERY)

4/7/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE MEDIATION AND DISCOVERY)

Motion re: - MOTION RE: PLAINTIFFS TEDDY CANNON AND CHRISTOPHER POWNALLS AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS OF STRIKIN

4/16/2021: Motion re: - MOTION RE: PLAINTIFFS TEDDY CANNON AND CHRISTOPHER POWNALLS AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS OF STRIKIN

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF JOSHUA WEBSTER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS TEDDY CANNON AND CHRISTOPHER POWNALLS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ON

4/16/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF JOSHUA WEBSTER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS TEDDY CANNON AND CHRISTOPHER POWNALLS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ON

Motion re: - MOTION RE: PLAINTIFFS TEDDY CANNON AND CHRISTOPHER POWNALLS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS OF STRIKING DEFEND

4/16/2021: Motion re: - MOTION RE: PLAINTIFFS TEDDY CANNON AND CHRISTOPHER POWNALLS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS OF STRIKING DEFEND

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

4/16/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Declaration - DECLARATION AMENDED DECLARATION OF JOSHUA WEBSTER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS TEDDY CANNON AND CHRISTOPHER POWNALLS MOTION TO COMPEL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE AND REQUEST

4/16/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION AMENDED DECLARATION OF JOSHUA WEBSTER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS TEDDY CANNON AND CHRISTOPHER POWNALLS MOTION TO COMPEL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE AND REQUEST

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE RE: HEARING

5/4/2021: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE RE: HEARING

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF NON OPPOSITION

6/16/2021: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF NON OPPOSITION

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF NON OPPOSITION

6/16/2021: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF NON OPPOSITION

110 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/04/2022
  • Hearing04/04/2022 at 09:00 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Jury Trial

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/24/2022
  • Hearing03/24/2022 at 09:00 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Final Status Conference

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/08/2022
  • Hearing02/08/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Post-Settlement Status Conference

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/24/2022
  • Hearing01/24/2022 at 09:00 AM in Department STL-C at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; MSC Timeslot

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/20/2021
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department D; Jury Trial - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/16/2021
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department D; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/09/2021
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department D; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/24/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Order to Show Cause Re: (Mandatory Settlement Conference Return Date) - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/24/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Order to Show Cause Re: Mandatory Settlement Conference Retur...) of 08/24/2021); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/24/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Mandatory Settlement Conference Retur...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
157 More Docket Entries
  • 10/04/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by BELLUM ENTERTAINMENT, LLC (Defendant); MARY MCDONNELL (Defendant); KAREN, GARBER (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/08/2017
  • DocketRequest For Copies

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/01/2017
  • DocketNotice (of OSC)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/01/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/01/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/01/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/01/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/01/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by null

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/01/2017
  • DocketSummons Filed

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/01/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****7250    Hearing Date: January 15, 2021    Dept: D

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 22

Date: 1/15/2021

Case No: EC 067250 Trial Date: February 8, 2021

Case Name: Cannon, et al. v. Bellum Entertainment, LLC, et al.

MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (2)

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Teddy Cannon and Christopher Pownall

Responding Party: Defendant Mary Carole McDonnell

Defendant Bellum Entertainment, LLC

[NO OPPOSITION]

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One from each defendant

CHRONOLOGY

Date Discovery served: January 9, 2020

Date Responses served: NO RESPONSES SERVED

Date Motion served: September 25, 2020 Timely

ANALYSIS:

Under CCP ; 2031.300, “if a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it,” that party “waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product...” Under subdivision (b), “the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.”

In this case, document production demands have been directed to defendants and defendants have failed to provide timely responses. Plaintiffs have appropriately moved for an order to compel. Accordingly, defendants have waived all objections, and are ordered to respond.

Sanctions

Plaintiffs seek monetary sanctions.

With respect to document demands, under CCP section 2031.300(c), “the court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling…”

CCP ; 2023.010 provides that misuses of the discovery process include, “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Where there has been such conduct, under CCP section 2023.030(a), “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct....If a monetary sanction is authorized” by the statute, “ the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that the other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP ;2023.030(a).

Under CRC Rule 3.1348(a): “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

The burden is on the party subject to sanctions to show substantial justification or injustice. Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436.

In this case, defendants have failed to respond to an authorized method of discovery and plaintiffs have provided evidence that they have incurred expenses as a result of the conduct. Since the motion is unopposed, there is no evidence that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. Defendants request $1,635 for each of two motions. The motions are very similar to each other and involved some duplication. In addition, the motions seek 1 hour at $350 per hour to prepare reply papers, but there has been no opposition filed, so no reply should be brief. I addition, 1 hour is sought in connection with each motion to attend the hearing, when the matters will be heard together, and likely attended remotely so that the court will award only ½ hour to one motion. The sanctions are adjusted accordingly so that sanctions for one motion will be $1,050.00 with sanctions for the second motion being $875.00.

Former counsel for the responding parties, Law Offices of Gordon Zuiderweg, has filed oppositions to the sanctions requested in the motion against former counsel, indicating that counsel now represents defendant Karen Garber only, and does not represent defendants Mary McDonnell or Bellum Entertainment LLC, but was terminated as their counsel in January 2020, when those defendants retained Jay Smith, and the relevant files were forwarded to Smith. Counsel indicates that he signed and returned substitutions of attorney on January 22, 2020, but for some reason the substitutions were not filed until December 7, 2020. [Zuiderweg Decls., paras. 2, 3]. Although the discovery was originally served on January 9, 2020, while this counsel was representing the responding defendants, it does not appear that he was required to do anything prior to the time he was relieved as counsel, as the responses were not due until afterward, and no monetary sanctions are awarded against former counsel.

RULING:

Motion by Plaintiffs Teddy Cannon and Christopher Pownall to Compel Defendant Bellum Entertainment, LLC’s Responses and Production to Set One Discovery is GRANTED.

Defendant Bellum Entertainment, LLC is ordered to serve responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One (1),without objection, and to permit inspection and copying, within 10 days.

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $1,050.00 (3.0 hours @ $350/hour) [5.5 hours requested] plus $60 filing fee [Amount Requested $1,635], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiffs Teddy Cannon and Christopher Pownall, and against defendant Bellum Entertainment LLC and its current counsel of record, The Law Offices of Jay Smith, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2031.300(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a). Sanctions sought against former counsel Law Offices of Gordon J. Zuiderweg are DENIED.

Motion by Plaintiffs Teddy Cannon and Christopher Pownall to Compel Defendant Mary Carole McDonnell’s Responses and Production to Set One Discovery is GRANTED.

Defendant Mary Carole McDonnell is ordered to serve responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Mary Carole McDonnell, Set No (1) without objection, and to permit inspection and copying, within 10 days.

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $875.00 (2.5 hours @ $350/hour) [5.5 hours requested] plus $60 filing fee [Amount Requested $1,635], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiffs Teddy Cannon and Christopher Pownall, and against defendant Mary Carole McDonnell and her current counsel of record, The Law Offices of Jay Smith, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2031.300(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a). Sanctions sought against former counsel Law Offices of Gordon J. Zuiderweg are DENIED.

GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO PROMOTE APPROPRIATE SOCIAL DISTANCING, UNTIL FURTHER ORDERED, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES

Please make arrangements in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org, and scheduling a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers an audio-only appearance option at a current cost of $15.00 and a video appearance option at a cost of $23.00. Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear, unless they have obtained advance permission of the Court. Anyone who appears in person for the hearing will be required to comply with strict social distancing measures, including, but not limited to, assigned seating, capacity limitations in the courtroom, designated waiting areas, and strictly enforced spacing in line to communicate with court staff. If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.



Case Number: ****7250    Hearing Date: November 01, 2019    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 12

Date: 11/1/19

Case No.: EC 067250

Case Name: Cannon, et al. v. Bellum Entertainment, LLC, et al.

MOTION TO LIFT STAY

Moving Party: Plaintiff Teddy Cannon and Christopher Pownall Responding Party: Defendants Bellum Entertainment, LLC, Mary Carol McDonnell and

Karen Garber (No Opposition)

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Lift stay and for order striking defendants’ answer and for payment of all expenses incurred for failure to arbitrate.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND: Plaintiffs Teddy Cannon and Christopher Pownall allege that they were hired as a video editor and producer in connection with television series’ being produced by defendant Bellum Entertainment, LLC. Defendant Mary Carole McConnell is alleged to be the chief executive officer of Bellum, and defendant Karen Garber is alleged to have been the chief financial officer. Plaintiffs allege that during plaintiffs’ employment, defendants failed to provide plaintiffs with meal and rest breaks, pay overtime compensation and minimum wage, remit payment of wages twice per month and promptly pay plaintiffs final wages and waiting time penalties.

On July 25, 2018, the parties submitted a Proposed Order to Stay Proceedings and Submit Claims to Binding Arbitration, which was signed by the court the same date and was filed as an order of the court.

The order states this matter is “stayed pending resolution of such claims in arbitration before the American Arbitration Association. It is further ordered that the Court shall retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims pending the full and final resolution of such claims in arbitration.”

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiffs indicate that pursuant to the stipulation between the parties, the parties agreed to submit the claims to arbitration within twenty days from the date the stipulation was executed, and defendants, as plaintiffs’ former employers, stipulated to pay all costs of arbitration. [Ex. A].

On March 1, 2019, the court heard a previous motion by plaintiffs to lift the stay, plaintiffs arguing that defendants had not responded to communications from the AAA concerning the arbitration. The motion was denied without prejudice, as the court was concerned that it was not at that point clear that defendants were in fact refusing to pay the costs of arbitration as agreed or had engaged in conduct rising to the level of having repudiated the agreement to arbitrate.

The moving papers now submit evidence that since that time, the AAA has confirmed that defendants had not made payment, the AAA arbitrator then determined to suspend the matter until arbitrator compensation was received, and ultimately closed the matter due to non-payment. [See Kowalsky Decl. ¶¶ 13-18, Exs. J-O].

This conduct now appears sufficient to constitute repudiation of the arbitration agreement and agreement to stay this matter sufficient for this court to lift the stay. The Second District has recognized that an order staying a civil action pending arbitration may be set aside by the trial court where there is evidence of conduct by the parties, in that case repeated failure to comply with orders of the arbitrator and to reach an agreement concerning the payment of arbitration fees, which can be construed as a repudiation of the terms of the arbitration agreement itself. Cinel v. Barna (2012, 2nd Dist.) 206 Cal.App.4th 1383.

Defendants have filed an opposition to the motion, in which they address only the request for sanctions in the moving papers and concede that the arbitration did not go forward because defendants did not pay the arbitration fees and costs. The opposition accordingly appears to concede that defendants are in agreement that the stay should be lifted, and the matter be returned to the court. The motion accordingly is granted, the stay lifted, and this matter assigned a future date.

The opposition argues that defendants should not be subject to sanctions, as they did not intentionally fail to arbitrate the matter and did not intend to delay or frustrate the arbitration of plaintiff’s claims, but argue that defendant Bellum Entertainment has ceased operations and is moribund, with its digital library and other assets lost via a UCC sale by a creditor, so it has no assets or funds. The individual defendants argue that the are also not able to pay arbitration fees or costs and did not believe they would be obligated to pay fees and costs, as the underlying agreements are between plaintiffs and defendant Bellum only, and the individual defendants did not authorize former counsel to agree that they would individually pay arbitration costs and fees.

The motion seeks sanctions under CCP section 128.5, which provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) A trial court may order a party, the party's attorney, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by another party as a result of actions or tactics, made in bad faith, that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay. This section also applies to judicial arbitration proceedings under Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 1141.10) of Title 3 of Part 3. (b) For purposes of this section:   (1) "Actions or tactics" include, but are not limited to, the making or opposing of motions or the filing and service of a complaint, cross-complaint, answer, or other responsive pleading. The mere filing of a complaint without service thereof on an opposing party does not constitute "actions or tactics" for purposes of this section.   (2) "Frivolous" means totally and completely without merit or for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party.”

Sanctions were previously denied by the court on the ground the conduct at issue did not constitute actions or tactics in this matter, but in an arbitration, which was not a “judicial arbitration proceeding” mentioned in the statute. The motion does not explain how this request for sanctions is any different from the previous request, in effect, concerning conduct in the arbitration, not in this matter. The motion appears to limit

the request to the cost of making this motion, but it would appear that if the tactic here is the failure to withdraw the stipulation regarding the stay, a safe harbor to permit defendants to avoid the motion should have been afforded. No sanctions are awarded.

RULING:

Motion to Lift Stay is GRANTED.

Request for monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP ; 128.5 is DENIED.

A CMC is set for December 5, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. with new CMC statements due 3 court days before the CMC.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where BELLUM ENTERTAINMENT LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer KOWALSKY MICHAEL BURTON

Latest cases represented by Lawyer WEBSTER JOSHUA M.