This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/09/2019 at 04:27:23 (UTC).

THEODORE NICOLS, ET AL VS DARA WEINTRAUB, ET AL

Case Summary

On 07/20/2017 THEODORE NICOLS filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against DARA WEINTRAUB. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Torrance Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are RAMONA G. SEE and SAMANTHA JESSNER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2198

  • Filing Date:

    07/20/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Torrance Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

RAMONA G. SEE

SAMANTHA JESSNER

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

NICOLS THEODORE INDIVIDUAL

NICOLS THEODORE RICHARD AS TRUSTEE...

NICOLS THEODORE

NICOLS THEODORE RICHARD AS TRUSTEE

THEODORE RICHARD NICOLS AS TRUSTEE

Defendants

DOES 1 THROUGH 50 INCLUSIVE

ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY...

WEINTRAUB DARA INDIVIDUALLY

WEINTRAUB DARA L. TTE OF THE...

WEINTRAUB DARA L. TTE OF THE REVOCABLE

WEINTRAUB DARA

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY INTEREST

DARA L. WEINTRAUB TRUSTEE OF THE REVOCABLE

INTEREST ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

DAVID PISARRA

PISARRA & GRIST

HERMES PETER TIMOTHY

Defendant Attorneys

FEINBERG MINDEL BRANDT & KLEIN LLP

FEINBERG IRWIN BARON

 

Court Documents

Notice of Case Management Conference

7/20/2017: Notice of Case Management Conference

Civil Case Cover Sheet

7/20/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint

7/20/2017: Complaint

Unknown

7/27/2017: Unknown

Answer

8/31/2017: Answer

Notice

12/14/2017: Notice

Case Management Statement

2/7/2018: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

2/7/2018: Case Management Statement

Unknown

2/7/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

4/23/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

7/17/2018: Unknown

Other -

8/30/2018: Other -

Unknown

8/31/2018: Unknown

Other -

8/31/2018: Other -

Declaration

3/15/2019: Declaration

Minute Order

4/26/2019: Minute Order

Notice

5/23/2019: Notice

Minute Order

5/28/2019: Minute Order

16 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/03/2019
  • Notice ( of Court Order Re Notice of Related Cases); Filed by Dara Weintraub (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • at 2:13 PM in Department 1, Samantha Jessner, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order Re Notice of Related Cases: Nicols v. Weintraub (...) of 05/28/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Court Order Re Notice of Related Cases: Nicols v. Weintraub (...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • Notice (of Continuance of Case Management Conference Re Partition Action); Filed by Theodore Nicols (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Court Order The issue of the Notice of Related Case filed on...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2019
  • at 08:31 AM in Department M; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
28 More Docket Entries
  • 12/11/2017
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Matter continued) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2017
  • Minute Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2017
  • Minute order entered: 2017-12-11 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2017
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; (OSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Off Calendar) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2017
  • Answer; Filed by Dara Weintraub (Defendant); Dara L. Weintraub, Trustee of the Revocable (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2017
  • OSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Theodore Nicols (Plaintiff); Theodore Richard Nicols, as Trustee (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Theodore Nicols (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Theodore Nicols (Plaintiff); Theodore Richard Nicols, as Trustee (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: YC072198    Hearing Date: July 29, 2020    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Wednesday, July 29, 2020

Department B Calendar No. 8

PROCEEDINGS

Theodore Nicols, et al. v. Dara Weintraub, et al.

YC072198

  1. Dara Weintraub’s Motion to Consolidate

    TENTATIVE RULING

    Dara Weintraub’s Motion to Consolidate is denied.

    The trial court has discretion to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact. Code Civ. Proc., §1048. The purpose of consolidation is “to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions.” Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485.

    The court generally considers the following: (1) timeliness of the motion, i.e., whether granting consolidation would delay the trial of any of the cases involved; (2) complexity, i.e., whether joining the actions involved would make the trial too confusing or complex for a jury; and (3) prejudice, i.e, whether consolidation would adversely affect the rights of any party. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1956) 47 Cal.2d 428, 430–31; Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-79.

    Dara Weintraub, Defendant, in Case No. YC072198, and Plaintiff in related Case No. 19STCV06628, moves for an order consolidating the two cases for all purposes including trial. Defendant contends that Case Nos. YC072198 and 19STCV00628 should be consolidated because both matters consist of fundamental common issues of law and fact, the resolution of which would effectively resolve both actions.

    The Court finds that convenience and economy will not be fostered by consolidation of the two cases. Consolidation will not avoid duplication of resources and the evidence that will be required to prove or disprove the claims in both cases are not common to both actions.

    The instant action for Partition involves the request for partition of property, commonly known as 1241 Shelley St., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 (“Shelley Street property”), jointly owned by the parties. The resolution of this partition action essentially involves a rather straightforward process: the sale of the Shelley Street property either by Court order or agreement of the parties.

    As to the related action, 19STCV06628 (“Marvin action”), the underlying factual disputes and related discovery will relate to issues that are much different to the partition action, including issues related to palimony and custody. Apparently, discovery in this action remains delayed. The claims made by Weintraub in the Marvin action are being vigorously disputed by Theodore Nicols (“Nicols”) as the Defendant in that action.

    The Shelley Street property is only mentioned in passing in the Marvin action with a mere reference that Nicols had filed a partition action. There are no specific claims made by Weintraub in the Marvin action related to the Shelley Street property. The Quiet Title cause of action only makes a claim to title to the property located at 41679 Mockingbird Drive, Big Bear Lake, CA 92315.

    Therefore, the Court finds that the purpose of consolidation - to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions – is not present in the actions. In addition, further delay to the partition action may cause prejudice to Nicols.

    Thus, the motion for consolidation is denied.

    Plaintiff Nicols is ordered to give notice of this ruling.