On 08/28/2017 THOMAS LASK filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against VICTOR ZASLOW. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF
LIDMAN DANIEL H.
LIDMAN DANIEL HARVEY
LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN A. LERMAN & ASSOC.
LERMAN NICHOLAS MILES
1/26/2018: Minute Order
2/26/2018: Case Management Statement
3/8/2018: Request for Judicial Notice
4/27/2018: Notice of Ruling
5/18/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
12/11/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment/Vacate Hearings
12/11/2018: Minute Order
2/19/2019: Case Management Statement
at 08:30 AM in Department P; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department P; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue Case Management Conference; Filed by VICTOR ZASLOW (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Case Management Statement; Filed by THOMAS LASK (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Motion to Strike ((Legacy)) - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Motion; Filed by THOMAS LASK (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer; Filed by THOMAS LASK (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Request for Judicial Notice; Filed by THOMAS LASK (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department P; Hearing on Motion - Other (to Appoint an Expert pursuant to Evidence Code 730) - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Motion for Order - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by THOMAS LASK (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
First Amended Complaint; Filed by THOMAS LASK (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
First Amended Complaint (BY: ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, THOMAS LASK, INDIVIDUAL ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Summons IssuedRead MoreRead Less
Summons Issued (FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Civil Case Cover SheetRead MoreRead Less
Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Complaint FiledRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by THOMAS LASK (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: SC128008 Hearing Date: September 10, 2020 Dept: P
Thomas Lask v. Victor Zaslav, Case No. SC128008
Hearing Date September 10, 2020
Motion for Reconsideration of Ruling on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff alleges structures on defendant’s property (spa, pergola and pavers) allegedly encroach on his property. On July 1, 2020 after oral argument and amending its original tentative ruling, the court ruled on defendant’s summary judgment/summary adjudication motion (MSJ), granting summary judgment as to plaintiff’s nuisance and trespass causes of action arising out of the spa, finding no evidence the spa was a “continuing nuisance” that can be relocated, so the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The court denied summary adjudication as to the pergola, finding a triable issue as to whether it constituted a continuing or permanent nuisance. Defendant Zaslav moves for reconsideration of the pergola ruling.
A court has the power to reconsider a prior ruling if new or different facts, circumstances or law justifies reconsideration. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §1008(a). A court’s failure to consider a filing in support of a motion has been held to constitute a “new” fact sufficient to support a motion for reconsideration. Johnson v. Corrigan (2005) 127 Cal.App. 4th 553.
Defendant argues the court failed to consider the arguments in his 7/10/20 reply. The court did consider all arguments in the reply, accepting some and rejecting others. The court held, after considering both parties’ briefs and oral argument, that defendant’s evidence regarding the pergola’s lack of support infrastructure created a triable issue as to its status as a permanent or continuing nuisance.
Defendant argues his health conditions and eye surgery prevented him from providing evidence in support of the MSJ. He now presents evidence regarding the pergola’s structure, including a foundation buried in the ground and electrical wiring, making it a permanent nuisance. Zaslav Decl. at ¶8. The facts alleged now could have been – but were not – brought to the court’s attention previously. In the interests of justice, the court reviews and considers them. Since Zaslav and plaintiff provide contradictory evidence regarding the structure’s foundation and wiring, the court finds a triable issue of fact as to the pergola and will not adjust its prior ruling.
Finally, defendant requests reconsideration of the court’s overruling of his objections to the expert declarations of David Stern and Bruce Borneman. Defendant claims the recent cases of Lowery v. Kindred Healthcare Operating Inc. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 119 and Wicks v. Antelope Valley HealthCare District (2020) 263 Cal.Rptr.3d 397 constitute new law regarding admissibility of expert evidence. These cases do not change the law but merely restate existing law regarding admissibility of expert testimony. The court’s prior ruling remains.
The motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. The court reconsiders its prior ruling in light of Zaslav’s new evidence regarding the pergola’s wiring and foundation but declines to change its ruling.
DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO AVOID IN-PERSON APPEARANCES AND TO APPEAR REMOTELY. LA COURT CONNECT IS NOW AVAILABLE.