This case was last updated from San Francisco County Superior Courts on 09/01/2019 at 14:01:22 (UTC).

GILBERT PAPAZIAN II VS. KEVIN MICHAEL SULLIVAN ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/05/2017 GILBERT PAPAZIAN II filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against KEVIN MICHAEL SULLIVAN. This case was filed in San Francisco County Superior Courts, Civic Center Courthouse located in San Francisco, California. The Judges overseeing this case are HAROLD E. KAHN, TERI L. JACKSON, CHARLENE P. KIESSELBACH, GARRETT L. WONG, ETHAN P. SCHULMAN, RICHARD B. ULMER, ERIC R. FLEMING and GAIL DEKREON. The case status is Not Classified By Court.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******8695

  • Filing Date:

    05/05/2017

  • Case Status:

    Not Classified By Court

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • County, State:

    San Francisco, California

Judge Details

Judges

HAROLD E. KAHN

TERI L. JACKSON

CHARLENE P. KIESSELBACH

GARRETT L. WONG

ETHAN P. SCHULMAN

RICHARD B. ULMER

ERIC R. FLEMING

GAIL DEKREON

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

PAPAZIAN II, GILBERT , AN INDIVIDUAL

Defendants

GRIFFIN & SULLIVAN , A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP

GRIFFIN, SUSAN , AN INDIVIDUAL

SULLIVAN, KEVIN

San Francisco, CA 94102

SULLIVAN, KEVIN MICHAEL , AN INDIVIDUAL

DOES 1 TO 10, INCLUSIVE

Other

DIMITRIOU, ESQ., ANDREW

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

LIBERTY, MICHAEL DAVID

Attorney at LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL D. LIBERTY

1290 Howard Avenue, Suite 303

Burlingame, CA 94010

GANANIAN, JEFFREY SCOTT

Po Box 1280

Menlo Park, CA 94025

Defendant Attorneys

DIMITRIOU, ANDREW

Attorney at DIMITRIOU & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

351 California St, Ste 300

San Francisco, CA 94104

ROSSI, ANNA MARIE

Attorney at ROSSI & MACDONALD, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

65 Rossi Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94118

SULLIVAN, KEVIN MICHAEL

Attorney at THE LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN M. SULLIVAN

490 Post Street, Suite 452

San Francisco, CA 94102

WHITE, DANIEL PAUL

Attorney at THE LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL P. WHITE

1839 Ygnacio Valley Road #420

Walnut Creek, CA 94598

 

Court Documents

ORDER TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT/JUDGMENT/LEAVE TO DEFEND

ORDER TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT/JUDGMENT/LEAVE TO DEFEND / ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT GRIFFIN'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT DEFAULT OF JAN-23-2018 SET ASIDE

Request For Entry of Default of Susan Griffin

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT/DEFAULT ENTERED, CLERK'S JUDGMENT REQUESTED, DECLARATION OF NON-MILITARY STATUS (TRANSACTION ID # 18022030) AS TO DEFENDANT GRIFFIN, SUSAN , AN INDIVIDUAL

Notice of Failure to Change Address by Counsel of Defendants Sullivan,

NOTICE OF FAILURE TO CHANGE ADDRESS BY COUNSEL OF DEFENDANTS SULLIVAN, AND GRIFFIN AND SULLIVAN (TRANSACTION ID # 63389014) FILED BY PLAINTIFF PAPAZIAN II, GILBERT , AN INDIVIDUAL

NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF PLAINTISS ATTORNEY MICHAEL D LIBERTY

NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF GANANIAN, JEFFREY SCOTT ON JUL-04-2019 THROUGH AUG-12-2019 (TRANSACTION ID # 63388573) FILED BY PLAINTIFF PAPAZIAN II, GILBERT , AN INDIVIDUAL

Notice of Unavailability of Plaintiff Counsel Jeffrey S. Gananian

NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF LIBERTY, MICHAEL DAVID ON JUL-29-2019 THROUGH AUG-02-2019 ALSO FROM SEPTEMBER 3, 2019 TO SEPTEMBER 13, 2019 (TRANSACTION ID # 63388320) FILED BY PLAINTIFF PAPAZIAN II, GILBERT , AN INDIVIDUAL

Failure to Appear for Order of Examination

ORDER FOR EXAMINATION AS TO ANDREW DIMITRIOIU ON JUN-20-2019 - CONTINUED TO AUG-15-2019 AT 2:00 PM IN DEPT. 514 FOR LETTER. JEFFREY S. GANANIAN, ESQ. AND MICHAEL D. LIBERTY, ESQ. APPEARED FOR PLAINTIFF GILBERT PAPAZIAN, II, WHO WAS NOT PRESENT. NO APPEARANCE BY EXAMINEE ANDREW DIMITRIOU. PROOF OF SERVICE ON FILE. OEX PERSONALLY SERVED ON 5/17/19. BENCH LETTER ISSUED. PROCEEDINGS NOT REPORTED. JUDGE: NEWTON LAM. CLERK: K. DOUGHERTY. (D514).

Substitution of Attorney Papazian

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY, (TRANSACTION ID # 100075218): SULLIVAN, KEVIN MICHAEL SUBSTITUTED FOR AS ATTORNEY FOR

ORDER

ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE

Proof of Service for Andrew Dimitriou Request for OEX

PROOF OF SERVICE FOR ANDREW DIMITRIOU REQUEST FOR OEX (TRANSACTION ID # 63327612) FILED BY PLAINTIFF PAPAZIAN II, GILBERT , AN INDIVIDUAL

OEX of Andrew Dimitriou PROOF OF Service

PROOF OF SERVICE OF OEX OF ANDREW DIMITRIOU (TRANSACTION ID # 63312756) FILED BY PLAINTIFF PAPAZIAN II, GILBERT , AN INDIVIDUAL

Application and Order for Appearance and Examination of Andrew Dimitri

PROOF OF SERVICE OF APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION OF ANDREW DIMITRIOU, ESQ. (TRANSACTION ID # 63312583) FILED BY PLAINTIFF PAPAZIAN II, GILBERT , AN INDIVIDUAL

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL (TRANSACTION ID # 100073282) FILED BY DEFENDANT GRIFFIN & SULLIVAN , A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP SULLIVAN, KEVIN

Declaration of Due Diligence - Application and Order for Appearance an

PROOF OF SERVICE OF DECLARATION OF DUE DILIGENCE - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION (TRANSACTION ID # 63294038) FILED BY PLAINTIFF PAPAZIAN II, GILBERT , AN INDIVIDUAL

DEFENDANT GRIFFIN JOINDER RE DEFENDANT SULLIVAN MOTION TO CONTINUE TRI

MOTION TO CONTINUE COURT TRIAL, PROOF OF SERVICE (JOINDER TO KEVIN SULLIVAN) (TRANSACTION ID # 100072539) FILED BY DEFENDANT GRIFFIN, SUSAN , AN INDIVIDUAL HEARING SET FOR JUN-06-2019 AT 09:30 AM IN DEPT 206

Michael D Liberty Declaration in Opposition to Kevin Sullivan 2d Motio

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL D LIBERTY DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO KEVIN SULLIVAN 2D MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL (TRANSACTION ID # 63190236) FILED BY PLAINTIFF PAPAZIAN II, GILBERT , AN INDIVIDUAL

Papazian Memorandum of Points and Authorities in opposition to Kevin S

PAPAZIAN MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO KEVIN SULLIVAN 2D REQUEST TO CONTINUE TRIAL (TRANSACTION ID # 63286132) FILED BY PLAINTIFF PAPAZIAN II, GILBERT , AN INDIVIDUAL

Declaration of Michael D Liberty in Opposition to Kevin Sullivan Reque

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL D LIBERTY IN OPPOSITION TO KEVIN SULLIVAN REQUEST TO CONTINUE TRIAL NO. 2 (TRANSACTION ID # 63286126) FILED BY PLAINTIFF PAPAZIAN II, GILBERT , AN INDIVIDUAL

Proof of Service of Amended Proofs of Service

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL OF PROOF OF SERVICE - CIVIL AMENDED (RE MARCH 5); PROOF OF SERVICE - CIVIL AMENDED (RE APRIL 5) (TRANSACTION ID # 100072405) FILED BY DEFENDANT GRIFFIN & SULLIVAN , A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP SULLIVAN, KEVIN

176 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/29/2019
  • Payment : MOTION; Amount : $60; Payment Type : ELECTRONIC ; Receipt Number : W1619529M017

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Payment : MOTION; Amount : $60; Payment Type : ELECTRONIC ; Receipt Number : B9519516M001

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Payment : MOTION; Amount : $60; Payment Type : ELECTRONIC ; Receipt Number : B9519513M001

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2019
  • Payment : MOTION; Amount : $60; Payment Type : ELECTRONIC ; Receipt Number : W1619509M006

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2019
  • Payment : ORDER OF EXAMINATION; Amount : $60; Payment Type : CREDIT CARD ; Receipt Number : W1619509O005

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2019
  • Payment : MOTION; Amount : $60; Payment Type : ELECTRONIC ; Receipt Number : W1519507M017

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • Payment : MOTION; Amount : $60; Payment Type : ELECTRONIC ; Receipt Number : B1419506M004

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • Payment : MOTION; Amount : $60; Payment Type : ELECTRONIC ; Receipt Number : B1419422M006

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2018
  • Payment : MOTION; Amount : $60; Payment Type : ELECTRONIC ; Receipt Number : R9218B21M013

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2018
  • Payment : MOTION; Amount : $60; Payment Type : ELECTRONIC ; Receipt Number : B5218B02M007

    Read MoreRead Less
253 More Docket Entries
  • 08/01/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • PROOF OF SERVICE (TRANSACTION ID # 17211041) FILED BY DEFENDANT GRIFFIN & SULLIVAN , A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP SULLIVAN, KEVIN

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (TRANSACTION ID # 17211041) FILED BY DEFENDANT GRIFFIN & SULLIVAN , A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP SULLIVAN, KEVIN

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER (TRANSACTION ID # 17211041) FILED BY DEFENDANT GRIFFIN & SULLIVAN , A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP SULLIVAN, KEVIN

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT (TRANSACTION ID # 17211041) FILED BY DEFENDANT GRIFFIN & SULLIVAN , A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP SULLIVAN, KEVIN HEARING SET FOR AUG-23-2017 AT 09:30 AM IN DEPT 302 (Fee:$900.00)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT (TRANSACTION ID # 17190067), PROOF OF SERVICE ONLY, FILED BY PLAINTIFF PAPAZIAN II, GILBERT , AN INDIVIDUAL SERVED JUL-09-2017, PERSONAL SERVICE AS TO DEFENDANT GRIFFIN & SULLIVAN , A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT (TRANSACTION ID # 17190067), PROOF OF SERVICE ONLY, FILED BY PLAINTIFF PAPAZIAN II, GILBERT , AN INDIVIDUAL SERVED JUL-09-2017, PERSONAL SERVICE AS TO DEFENDANT GRIFFIN, SUSAN , AN INDIVIDUAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT (TRANSACTION ID # 17138011), PROOF OF SERVICE ONLY, FILED BY PLAINTIFF PAPAZIAN II, GILBERT , AN INDIVIDUAL SERVED MAY-12-2017, SUBSTITUTE SERVICE ON NATURAL PERSON, MAILING DATE MAY-13-2017 AS TO DEFENDANT GRIFFIN & SULLIVAN , A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT (TRANSACTION ID # 17136046), PROOF OF SERVICE ONLY, FILED BY PLAINTIFF PAPAZIAN II, GILBERT , AN INDIVIDUAL SERVED MAY-12-2017, PERSONAL SERVICE AS TO DEFENDANT SULLIVAN, KEVIN MICHAEL , AN INDIVIDUAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • FRAUD, COMPLAINT FILED BY PLAINTIFF PAPAZIAN II, GILBERT , AN INDIVIDUAL AS TO DEFENDANT SULLIVAN, KEVIN MICHAEL , AN INDIVIDUAL GRIFFIN, SUSAN , AN INDIVIDUAL GRIFFIN & SULLIVAN , A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP DOES 1 TO 10, INCLUSIVE SUMMONS ISSUED, JUDICIAL COUNCIL CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET FILED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR OCT-04-2017 PROOF OF SERVICE DUE ON JUL-05-2017 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT DUE ON SEP-11-2017 (Fee:$450.00)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number:*******8695
Case Title:GILBERT PAPAZIAN II VS. KEVIN MICHAEL SULLIVAN ET AL
Court Date:MAY-28-2019 09:00 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Motion To Compel Initial Responses To Documents And Interrogatories And For Monetary Sanctions
Rulings:May 28, 2019 Line 1, DEFENDANTS GRIFFIN & SULLIVAN, KEVIN SULLIVAN's Motion To Compel Initial Responses To Documents And Interrogatories And For Monetary Sanctions Off calendar per request of moving party; email dated 5/16/19 (302/JPT).


Case Number:*******8695
Case Title:GILBERT PAPAZIAN II VS. KEVIN MICHAEL SULLIVAN ET AL
Court Date:MAY-09-2019 09:00 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Kevin Sullivan To Serve Original Verified Responses To Special Interrogatories (Set 2) Without Objections For Sanctions
Rulings:Matter on calendar for Thursday, May 9, 2019, Line 2,PLAINTIFF GILBERT PAPAZIAN's Motion To Compel Kevin Sullivan To Serve Original Verified Responses To Special Interrogatories (Set 2) Without Objections For SanctionsPro Tem Judge Adrienne Rogers, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. If a party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: Parties ordered to appear. Parties should be prepared to discuss whether defendant Kevin Sullivan has provided a verified response to plaintiff's Special Interrogatories (Set 2), and whether monetary sanctions against Sullivan are appropriate. (See Code Civ. Proc., u00A7 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408-09.) Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to adrienneleight@hotmail.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the hearing even if the motion is not opposed or the tentative ruling is not contested. =(302/JPT)


Case Number:*******8695
Case Title:GILBERT PAPAZIAN II VS. KEVIN MICHAEL SULLIVAN ET AL
Court Date:FEB-15-2019 09:00 AM
Calendar Matter:Hearing Re: Dispute On Compliance Of Nov. 19, 2018 Ruling Per Jpt Bruce Highman
Rulings:Matter on calendar for Friday, February 15, 2019, Line 8 - Hearing Re: Dispute On Compliance Of Nov. 19, 2018 Ruling Per Jpt Bruce Highman.Pro Tem Judge Bruce Highman, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. If a party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: Hearing required to discuss what is needed in the responses as to Requests for Admission where further responses are ordered, and the date for compliance.Further responses are ordered as to RFAs 1, 3-6, 12-17, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 68, 69, 71, 73, 78, 93, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 116, 120, 123, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, and 136.Further responses are not ordered as to 2, 7, 34, 35, 41, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 66, 67, 72, 79, 81, 82, 83, 85, 94, 95, 105, 115, 118, and 124. Sanctions are tentatively denied. Papazian has made a good faith effort to comply with the Order in that he has responded substantively to all requests. The Court reserves jurisdiction on sanctions in case Papazian does not comply with the current Order.Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to bruce.highman@highmanlaw.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the hearing even if the motion is not opposed or the tentative ruling is not contested. =(JPT/302)


Case Number:*******8695
Case Title:GILBERT PAPAZIAN II VS. KEVIN MICHAEL SULLIVAN ET AL
Court Date:DEC-06-2018 09:00 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Motion To Compel Further Responses To Demand For Inspection And For Monetary Sanctions
Rulings:Matter on calendar for Thursday, December 6, 2018, Line 8, DEFENDANTs GRIFFIN & SULLIVAN, and KEVIN SULLIVAN's Motion To Compel Further Responses To Demand For Inspection And For Monetary SanctionsPro Tem Judge Roger Mead, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. If a party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: Hearing required.Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to rmead@folgerlevin.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the hearing even if the motion is not opposed or the tentative ruling is not contested. =(302/JPT)


Case Number:*******8695
Case Title:GILBERT PAPAZIAN II VS. KEVIN MICHAEL SULLIVAN ET AL
Court Date:DEC-04-2018 09:00 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Motion To Furthre Responses To Judicial Counsil Form Interrogatories And For Monetary Sanctions
Rulings:Matter on calendar for Tuesday, December 4, 2018, Line 4, DEFENDANTs GRIFFIN & SULLIVAN and KEVIN SULLIVAN's Motion To Compel Further Responses To Judicial Council Form Interrogatories And For Monetary Sanctions. Pro Tem Judge Robert Kane, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. If a party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: Parties to appear.Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to rkane1089@aol.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the hearing even if the motion is not opposed or the tentative ruling is not contested. =(302/JPT)


Case Number:*******8695
Case Title:GILBERT PAPAZIAN II VS. KEVIN MICHAEL SULLIVAN ET AL
Court Date:NOV-19-2018 09:00 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Motion To Compel Responses To Requests For Admissions, To Have Admissions Deemed Admitted And For Monetary Sanctions
Rulings:SET FOR HEARING ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2018, LINE 4DEFENDANTS GRIFFIN & SULLIVAN and KEVIN SULLIVAN'S Motion To Compel Responses To Requests For Admissions, To Have Admissions Deemed Admitted And For Monetary SanctionsPro Tem Judge Bruce Highman, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. If a party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: Judge Pro Tem will email parties directly with tentative ruling.Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to bruce.highman@highmanlaw.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the hearing even if the motion is not opposed or the tentative ruling is not contested. = BJH


Case Number:*******8695
Case Title:GILBERT PAPAZIAN II VS. KEVIN MICHAEL SULLIVAN ET AL
Court Date:NOV-02-2018 09:00 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Motion To Compel Responses To Requests For Admissions, To Have Admissions Deemed Admitted And For Monetary Sanctions
Rulings:Matter on calendar for Friday, November 2, 2018, Line 2, DEFENDANTS GRIFFIN & SULLIVAN, KEVIN SULLIVAN'S Motion To Compel Responses To Requests For Admissions, To Have Admissions Deemed Admitted And For Monetary SanctionsPro Tem Judge Nils Rosenquest, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. If a party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: Hearing continued to November 19, 2018 for failure to comply with SF Local Rule 2.7. Court did not receive courtesy copies of moving papers or any reply papers. Please immediately provide courtesy copies of the papers with a cover letter reflecting the new hearing date.Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to rosenquest@earthlink.net with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the hearing even if the motion is not opposed or the tentative ruling is not contested. =(302/JPT)


Case Number:*******8695
Case Title:GILBERT PAPAZIAN II VS. KEVIN MICHAEL SULLIVAN ET AL
Court Date:AUG-20-2018 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:Defendant Griffins Notice Of Motion For Relief From Default
Rulings:Set for hearing on Monday, August 20, 2018, Line 2,DEFENDANT SUSAN GRIFFIN's Motion For Relief From Default.Defendant Susan Griffin's motion for relief from default is granted. The default entered against Ms. Griffin on January 23, 2018 is set aside and Ms. Griffin must file her answer no later than August 31, 2018. Ms. Griffin has shown sufficient grounds to set aside the default based on both the discretionary and mandatory relief provisions of CCP 473(b). Plaintiff Gilbert Papazian is estopped to assert that the portion of Ms. Griffin's motion seeking to set aside the default based on the discretionary relief provisions of CCP 473(b) is untimely due to his counsel's filing of a notice of unavailability for the period July 3, 2018 through July 26, 2018. The court credits the statements of Ms. Griffin's counsel that but for the notice of unavailability and his desire to comply with it this motion would have been filed within 6 months of the entry of default. Where, as here, judgment has not been entered, there is no deadline for the filing of a motion based on the mandatory relief provisions of CCP 473(b), so that part of the motion is timely even absent estoppel. Had Mr. Papazian and his counsel comported themselves in a manner consistent with the conduct expected of all litigants and their counsel, this motion would not have been required to be filed and thus no fees are awarded to Mr. Papazian in opposing the motion. The January 22, 2018 email of Mr. Papazian's counsel providing less than 24 hours' notice of his intent to seek the default of Ms. Griffin while knowing that Ms. Griffin's counsel may either be ill or on vacation falls well below the conduct expected of all counsel in civil litigation. The failure of Mr. Papazian to stipulate to setting aside the default as stated in the January 29, 2018 email of his counsel after learning that Ms. Griffin's counsel did not file an answer due to his illness and the illness of two of his children was yet further uncivil and unwarranted conduct. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. Counsel for Ms. Griffin is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring it to the hearing or email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.=(302/HEK)


Case Number:*******8695
Case Title:GILBERT PAPAZIAN II VS. KEVIN MICHAEL SULLIVAN ET AL
Court Date:JUL-24-2018 09:00 AM
Calendar Matter:Motion For Sanctions
Rulings:Matter on calendar for Tuesday July 24, 2018, Line 5, Motion For SanctionsPro Tem Judge Steven Stein, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. If a party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: No opposition or response was filed in connection with the Court's Order to Show Case directed to attorney Andrew Dimitriou dated July 2, 2018. Sanctions in the sum of $1500.00 are imposed on said attorney referable to his failure to file pleadings supporting the motion for reconsideration. While the motion was withdrawn prior to the hearing, the Plaintiff filed formal opposition to the motion and sanctions are warranted. The monetary sanction shall be paid to plaintiff, Gilbert Papazian, within 20 days of service of a copy of this Order with Notice of Entry.Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to sbs@sbslawsf.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the hearing even if the motion is not opposed or the tentative ruling is not contested. =(302/JPT)


Case Number:*******8695
Case Title:GILBERT PAPAZIAN II VS. KEVIN MICHAEL SULLIVAN ET AL
Court Date:JUN-29-2018 09:00 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Motion An Motion For Reconsideration Of Order Requiring Mr. Sullivan To Respond To Form Interrogatory 17.1
Rulings:DEFENDANTS GRIFFIN & SULLIVAN, KEVIN SULLIVAN'S Motion For Reconsideration Of Order Requiring Mr. Sullivan To Respond To Form Interrogatory 17.1 is OFF Calendar; withdrawn by the moving party in open court on June 19, 2018 in Discovery Dept. Written order by JPT Stein to follow. (HK/302/JPT).


Case Number:*******8695
Case Title:GILBERT PAPAZIAN II VS. KEVIN MICHAEL SULLIVAN ET AL
Court Date:JUN-19-2018 09:00 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Motion And Motion For Order Relieieving Pltf'S From Waiver Of Objections To Deft'S Req.'S For Written Discovery To Deft'S
Rulings:SET FOR HEARING ON MONDAY, JUNE 19, 2018, LINE 2DEFENDANTS GRIFFIN & SULLIVAN and KEVIN SULLIVAN'S Motion For Order Relieieving Plaintiffs From Waiver Of Objections To Defendant's Request For Written DiscoveryPro Tem Judge Steven Stein, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. If a party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling:Hearing required.Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to sbs@sbslawsf.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the hearing even if the motion is not opposed or the tentative ruling is not contested. = SBS


Case Number:*******8695
Case Title:GILBERT PAPAZIAN II VS. KEVIN MICHAEL SULLIVAN ET AL
Court Date:MAY-22-2018 09:00 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Motion And Motion For Order Relieving Plaintiffs From Waiver Of Objections To Defendant'S Requests For Written Discovery To Defendants
Rulings:Set for hearing on Tuesday, May 22, 2018, Line 4,DEFENDANT GRIFFIN & SULLIVAN, KEVIN SULLIVAN's Motion For Order Relieving Plaintiffs From Waiver Of Objections To Defendant'S Requests For Written Discovery To Defendants.Pro Tem Judge Steven Stein, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. If a party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: Defendant's Motion for Order Relieving Defendants from Waiver of Objections is denied based on the moving party's failure to file a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of the motion. See CRC 3.1113(a). The Court construes the absence of a memorandum as an admission the motion is not meritorious and is cause for its denial. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to sbs@sbslawsf.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the hearing even if the motion is not opposed or the tentative ruling is not contested.=(302/JPT)


Case Number:*******8695
Case Title:GILBERT PAPAZIAN II VS. KEVIN MICHAEL SULLIVAN ET AL
Court Date:APR-24-2018 09:00 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Motion To Compel Mr. Sullivan To Provide Document Responses To Requests For The Production Of Documents Without Objections, To Produce Responsive Documents And For Sanctions Against Mr. Sullivan And His Attorney Andrew Dimitriou
Rulings:The matter is on calendar for Tuesday, April 24, 2018, Line 4, Plaintiff Gilbert Papazian's Motion To Compel Mr. Sullivan To Provide Document Responses To Requests For The Production Of Documents Without Objections, To Produce Responsive Documents And For Sanctions Against Mr. Sullivan And His Attorney Andrew Dimitriou.Pro Tem Judge Steven Stein, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. If a party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: Hearing required. Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to provide responses to Plaintiff's Document Request served June 9, 2017 and for sanctions. The parties dispute whether the defendant ever responded to that pleading. Plaintiff denies receiving a responsive pleading. Defendant's opposition to the motion and his counsel's declaration aver the response was served in November 2018. A responsive pleading dated October 3, 2017 with verification dated October 10, 2017 is attached to the opposition pleading. But there is no proof of service. The Defendant's attorney shall produce at the hearing the original responsive pleading with original proof of service attached and the Court will rule on the relief sought. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to sbs@sbslawsf.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the hearing even if the motion is not opposed or the tentative ruling is not contested. =(302/JPT/RBU)


Case Number:*******8695
Case Title:GILBERT PAPAZIAN II VS. KEVIN MICHAEL SULLIVAN ET AL
Court Date:MAR-13-2018 09:00 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Motion To Compel Mr. Sullivan To Provide Document Responses To Requests For The Production Of Documents Without Objections, To Produce Responsive Documents And For Sanctions Against Mr. Sullivan And His Attorney Andrew Dimitriou
Rulings:The matter is on calendar for Tuesday, March 13, 2018, Line 3, Plaintiff Gilbert Papazian's Motion To Compel Mr. Sullivan To Provide Document Responses To Requests For The Production Of Documents Without Objections, To Produce Responsive Documents And For Sanctions Against Mr. Sullivan And His Attorney Andrew Dimitriou.Pro Tem Judge Steven Stein, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. If a party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling:Plaintiff's motion to compel a response to Requests for Production of Documents is unopposed and granted. The response shall be verified and served within fifteen days of service of a copy of this Order with Notice of Entry. All objections that may have been available to the responding party are waived except attorney-client privilege. To the extent documents have been withheld based on attorney-client privilege, a privilege log shall be prepared and served with the verified response. Monetary sanctions are sought but cannot be awarded due to the failure of the moving party to fully comply with C.C.P. 2023.040. Strict compliance with that statute is mandatory. An individual or party against whom the sanctions are sought must be identified in the moving party's Notice of Motion. The Notice of Motion herein failed to identify whether the sanctions are to be imposed against the defendant, his attorney, or both.Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to sbs@sbslawsf.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed order to the hearing even if the motion is not opposed or the tentative ruling is not contested. =(302/JPT/HEK)


Case Number:*******8695
Case Title:GILBERT PAPAZIAN II VS. KEVIN MICHAEL SULLIVAN ET AL
Court Date:NOV-20-2017 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Continued Hearing Re: Defendant Susan Griffins Petition Motion To Compel Arbitration Of Claims Asserted In The Complaint
Rulings:Set for hearing on Monday, November 20, 2017, Line 6, DEFENDANT SUSAN GRIFFIN's Motion To Compel Arbitration Of Claims Asserted In The Complaint.Defendant Susan Griffin's motion to compel arbitration in denied. Ms. Griffin has failed to show that there is any arbitration agreement covering Griffin & Sullivan's representation of plaintiff Gilbert Papazian II in the malpractice lawsuit brought against the Bley firm. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. Counsel for Mr. Papazian is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring it to the hearing or email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. =(302/HEK)


Case Number:*******8695
Case Title:GILBERT PAPAZIAN II VS. KEVIN MICHAEL SULLIVAN ET AL
Court Date:NOV-08-2017 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:MOTION To Compel Arbitration Of Claims Asserted In The Complaint
Rulings:Set for hearing on the Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday, November 8, 2017, line 9. DEFENDANT SUSAN GRIFFIN'S MOTION To Compel Arbitration Of Claims Asserted In The Complaint. Continued to November 20, 2017 per the notice of continued hearing filed October 25, 2017. =(302/HEK)


Case Number:*******8695
Case Title:GILBERT PAPAZIAN II VS. KEVIN MICHAEL SULLIVAN ET AL
Court Date:SEP-05-2017 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT
Rulings:Set for hearing on Tuesday, September 5, 2017, Line 6, DEFENDANTs GRIFFIN & SULLIVAN, KEVIN SULLIVAN's DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT.Defendants Kevin Sullivan and Griffin & Sullivan's demurrer to all five causes of action in the complaint filed by Gilbert Papazian is overruled as to all five causes of action. All five causes of action are adequately alleged. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. Counsel for Mr. Papazian is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring it to the hearing or email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. =(302/HEK)


Case Number:*******8695
Case Title:GILBERT PAPAZIAN II VS. KEVIN MICHAEL SULLIVAN ET AL
Court Date:AUG-23-2017 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT
Rulings:Matter on calendar for Wednesday, August 23, 2017, Line 13, DEFENDANTS GRIFFIN & SULLIVAN, AND KEVIN SULLIVAN'S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT.Continued on the court's own motion to September 5, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 302. =(302/CPK)


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer White, Daniel Paul

Latest cases represented by Lawyer DIMITRIOU, ANDREW

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SULLIVAN, KEVIN M.