This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/20/2019 at 02:05:37 (UTC).

THOMAS LASK VS VICTOR ZASLOW

Case Summary

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.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8008

  • Filing Date:

    08/28/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

LASK THOMAS

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

ZASLOW VICTOR

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

LIDMAN DANIEL H.

LIDMAN DANIEL HARVEY

LIDMAN DANIEL

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN A. LERMAN & ASSOC.

LERMAN NICHOLAS MILES

 

Court Documents

Complaint

8/28/2017: Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet

8/28/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons

8/28/2017: Summons

Unknown

10/5/2017: Unknown

Unknown

10/5/2017: Unknown

Unknown

10/20/2017: Unknown

Unknown

11/9/2017: Unknown

Case Management Statement

12/11/2017: Case Management Statement

Unknown

12/12/2017: Unknown

Request for Judicial Notice

12/12/2017: Request for Judicial Notice

Unknown

12/12/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

12/26/2017: Minute Order

Unknown

12/26/2017: Unknown

Summons

1/5/2018: Summons

Unknown

1/5/2018: Unknown

Unknown

1/11/2018: Unknown

Unknown

1/11/2018: Unknown

Unknown

1/19/2018: Unknown

49 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/20/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department P; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/20/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department P; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • DocketStipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue Case Management Conference; Filed by VICTOR ZASLOW (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/19/2019
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by THOMAS LASK (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/15/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Motion to Strike ((Legacy)) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/10/2019
  • DocketNotice of Motion; Filed by THOMAS LASK (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/07/2019
  • DocketMotion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer; Filed by THOMAS LASK (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/07/2019
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by THOMAS LASK (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/18/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department P; Hearing on Motion - Other (to Appoint an Expert pursuant to Evidence Code 730) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/18/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Motion for Order - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
118 More Docket Entries
  • 10/20/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by THOMAS LASK (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/05/2017
  • DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by THOMAS LASK (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/05/2017
  • DocketFirst Amended Complaint (BY: ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, THOMAS LASK, INDIVIDUAL ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/05/2017
  • DocketSummons Issued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/05/2017
  • DocketSummons Issued (FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/28/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/28/2017
  • DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/28/2017
  • DocketComplaint Filed

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/28/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by THOMAS LASK (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/28/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****8008    Hearing Date: September 10, 2020    Dept: P

 

Tentative Ruling

Thomas Lask v. Victor Zaslav, Case No. ****8008

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.



Case Number: ****8008 Hearing Date: February 9, 2022 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Thomas Lask v. Victor Zaslav, Case No. ****8008

Hearing Date February 9, 2022

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike or Tax Memorandum of Costs

In this dispute between neighbors, Defendant prevailed after a bench trial and filed a memorandum of costs. Plaintiff moves to strike and/or tax the cost bill.

Under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. 998, any party may serve a written offer of settlement on the other party no less than ten days before trial. If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted, and plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, plaintiff shall not recover postoffer costs and shall pay defendant’s costs from the time of the offer. Additionally, if an offer made by defendant is not accepted and plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, the court may, in its discretion, require the plaintiff to pay a reasonable sum to cover postoffer costs of the services of expert witnesses.

A 998 is invalid where its terms are uncertain and ambiguous. E.g. Timed Out LLC v. 13359 Corp. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 933 and is ineffective if not “realistically reasonable under the circumstances of the particular case[,] and does not “carry with it some reasonable prospect of acceptance.” Licudine v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 918, 924. The offer is to be evaluated based on the circumstances “at the time of the offer,” and not “by virtue of hindsight” – a litigant receiving a 998 at the beginning of a lawsuit or soon thereafter is, as a general matter, less likely to have sufficient information on which to evaluate that offer. Id. at 925. A judgment is prima facie evidence that an offer was reasonable, and the burden is on the offerree to prove otherwise. Elrod v. Oregon Cummins Diesel, Inc. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 692.

Plaintiff argues the 998 offer of zero was ambiguous or not made in good faith. Plaintiff argues the offer was unreasonable, because it was made early in the matter, before plaintiff could have been able to evaluate the offer. Defendant argues both parties engaged in significant informal investigation before the offer was made. Defendant cannot have reasonably expected plaintiff to accept a waiver of costs at the outset of the case. Plaintiff’s defeat at trial revolved around complex statute of limitations issues, whose outcome was not obvious when the lawsuit began. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was denied, meaning plaintiff had evidence for his claims.

The cost waiver offer was not reasonable, so Defendant is not entitled to recover expert fees. The court denies plaintiff’s request that the $435 fee for filing the cross-complaint be stricken. Defendant incurred this fee—even if incurred erroneously, plaintiff presents no authority that a fee wrongly charged by the court’s clerk cannot be recovered by a prevailing party after litigation. DENIED in part and GRANTED in part, pursuant to the above terms.

DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR BY MICROSOFT OFFICE TEAMS.