This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/09/2020 at 09:45:47 (UTC).

THE FAIRMONT APARTMENTS LLC ET AL VS DADSON WASHER SERVICE I

Case Summary

On 06/12/2018 THE FAIRMONT APARTMENTS LLC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against DADSON WASHER SERVICE I. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9861

  • Filing Date:

    06/12/2018

  • 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

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

SHERMAN PINES LLC

THE FAIRMONT APARTMENTS LLC

FRUITLAND INVESTORS LLC

Defendants and Respondents

DADSON WASHER SERVICE INC.

DOES 1-100

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL B. SPITZER

SPITZER DANIEL B.

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

DARROW JEANNETTE C.C.

 

Court Documents

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

11/12/2019: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Notice - NOTICE AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

11/21/2019: Notice - NOTICE AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Objection - OBJECTION DEFENDANT DADSON WASHER SERVICE, INC.S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

12/10/2019: Objection - OBJECTION DEFENDANT DADSON WASHER SERVICE, INC.S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Opposition - OPPOSITION MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

12/10/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Opposition - OPPOSITION MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

12/10/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Reply - REPLY REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DANIEL B. SPITZER

12/13/2019: Reply - REPLY REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DANIEL B. SPITZER

Reply - REPLY REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

12/13/2019: Reply - REPLY REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Order - RULING (1) MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; (2) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

12/20/2019: Order - RULING (1) MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; (2) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Order - RULING: (1) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; (2) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; (3) MOTION TO COMPEL RE

3/19/2019: Order - RULING: (1) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; (2) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; (3) MOTION TO COMPEL RE

Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application TO CONSOLIDATE FOUR PENDING DISCOVERY MOTIONS FOR HEARING

2/27/2019: Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application TO CONSOLIDATE FOUR PENDING DISCOVERY MOTIONS FOR HEARING

Notice - Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order

3/6/2019: Notice - Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order

Case Management Statement

11/20/2018: Case Management Statement

Case Management Order

11/20/2018: Case Management Order

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

11/26/2018: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

1/16/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

6/28/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

21 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/18/2020
  • Hearing02/18/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 48 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2020
  • Hearing02/18/2020 at 09:30 AM in Department 48 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/06/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial ((five to seven day estimate)) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Plaintiffs The Fairmont Apartments, LLC; Fruitland...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2019
  • DocketRuling (1) Motion for Terminating Sanctions; (2) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2019
  • DocketReply (REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DANIEL B. SPITZER); Filed by The Fairmont Apartments, LLC (Plaintiff); Fruitland Investors, LLC (Plaintiff); Sherman Pines, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2019
  • DocketReply (REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS); Filed by The Fairmont Apartments, LLC (Plaintiff); Fruitland Investors, LLC (Plaintiff); Sherman Pines, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
35 More Docket Entries
  • 08/03/2018
  • DocketDEFENDANT DADSON WASHER SERVICE, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CONFFENCE CASE MANAGEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by The Fairmont Apartments, LLC (Plaintiff); Fruitland Investors, LLC (Plaintiff); Sherman Pines, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by The Fairmont Apartments, LLC (Plaintiff); Fruitland Investors, LLC (Plaintiff); Sherman Pines, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by The Fairmont Apartments, LLC (Plaintiff); Fruitland Investors, LLC (Plaintiff); Sherman Pines, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT ETC...

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC709861    Hearing Date: December 20, 2019    Dept: 48

(1) MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS;

(2) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

MOVING PARTY: (1) & (2) Plaintiff The Fairmont Apartments, LLC, Fruitland Investors, LLC and Sherman Pines, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) & (2) Defendant Dadson Washer Service, Inc.

PROOF OF SERVICE:

ANALYSIS

Motion for Terminating, Issue and/or Evidence Sanctions

As pointed out by Defendant, this motion was served on insufficient notice. It was served by mail and email (with no agreement to accept service electronically on file) on November 27, 2019—only 15 court days notice, taking into consideration the Thanksgiving holidays. At least 16 court days plus 5 calendar days for service by mail.

Given the holidays, a continuance of the hearing on the motion cannot be accommodated before trial. Nor does it make sense to keep the parties guessing as to whether the motion will be granted, so as to moot the trial or the presentation of evidence. Accordingly, the motion for terminating, issue and/or evidentiary sanctions is DENIED.

The Court notes that Plaintiffs had the opportunity to bring this motion earlier in the proceedings or, at the very least, to give sufficient notice

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Re: Answer

Meet and Confer

The Declaration of Daniel B. Spitzer reflects that Plaintiffs’ counsel did not respond to meet and confer requirements. This satisfies CCP § 439(a)(3)(B).

Requests for Judicial Notice

Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following documents: (1) Complaint filed in this action; (2) Answer filed in this action; (3) Plaintiff’s First Set of Form Interrogatories; (4) Plaintiff’s First Set of Special Interrogatories; (5) Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests For Admission; (6) Defendant’s Responses To Requests For Admission; (7) Defendant’s Response to Motion To Establish Admission of Facts; (8) February 27, 2019 Order on Ex Parte Application; (9) March 3, 2019 Ruling; (10) – (12) ZIMAS Printouts for real properties; (13) Los Angeles Municipal Code Zoning Ordinance § 1 208 “R1” One-Family Zone; (14) Los Angeles Municipal Code Zoning Ordinance § 120.09 “R2” Two- Family Zone; (15) Los Angeles Municipal Code Zoning Ordinance § 12.10 “R3” Multiple Dwelling Zone; (16) 15) Los Angeles Municipal Code Zoning Ordinance § 12.14 “C2” Commercial Zone.

Requests Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 are GRANTED per Evid. Code § 452(d)(court records). Requests Nos. 3 – 5 are DENIED. These are not court records, as discovery requests are not filed with the court. Requests Nos. 10 – 12 are DENIED. This is extrinsic evidence not subject to judicial notice. Requests Nos. 13 – 15 are GRANTED per Evid. Code § 452(b)(regulations enacted by public entity).

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the answer.

(c) 

(1) The motion provided for in this section may only be made on one of the following grounds:

(A) If the moving party is a plaintiff, that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint.

. . .

(2) The motion provided for in this section may be made as to either of the following:

. .

(B) The entire answer or one or more of the affirmative defenses set forth in the answer.

(3) If the court on its own motion grants the motion for judgment on the pleadings, it shall be on one of the following bases:

(A) If the motion is granted in favor of the plaintiff, it shall be based on the grounds that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint.

. . .

(d) The grounds for motion provided for in this section shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. Where the motion is based on a matter of which the court may take judicial notice pursuant to Section 452 or 453 of the Evidence Code, the matter shall be specified in the notice of motion, or in the supporting points and authorities, except as the court may otherwise permit.

CCP § 438(c) – (d).

Here, the demurrer relies upon Defendant’s discovery responses, which are matters outside the face of the pleading and as to which the Court has denied judicial notice.

Further, the motion for judgment on the pleadings does not specify specific affirmative defenses which fail to “state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint,” (CCP § 438(c)(1)) which renders this a motion as to the entire answer. In this regard, the answer states twenty-four affirmative defenses. Yet, the motion does not address why all of these are insufficiently pled, such that there is no affirmative defense to any of the four causes of action asserted in the Complaint. In this regard, the motion does not address the elements of each of the causes of action pled (breach of contract, declaratory relief, unfair competition and ejectment), such that it can be said that “the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute . . . causes of action against the defendant.” CCP § 438(c)(1)(A).

Accordingly, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED as to the entire answer.