This case was last updated from San Francisco County Superior Courts on 04/11/2016 at 20:07:24 (UTC).

J&R SAN FRANCISCO, INC. et al VS. CHO QUON FUNG et al

Case Summary

On 06/26/2012 J R SAN FRANCISCO, INC filed an Other - Declaratory Judgment lawsuit against CHO QUON FUNG. This case was filed in San Francisco County Superior Courts, Civic Center Courthouse located in San Francisco, California. The case status is Not Classified By Court.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1881

  • Filing Date:

    06/26/2012

  • Case Status:

    Not Classified By Court

  • Case Type:

    Other - Declaratory Judgment

  • County, State:

    San Francisco, California

 

Party Details

Respondents, Cross Defendants and Plaintiffs

J&R SAN FRANCISCO, INC.

TIMBRELL, CLAYTON

FUNG FAMILY TRUST

FUNG, CHO QUON

ROES 1-10, INCLUSIVE

ROES 1 THROUGH 20

FUNG, CHU QUON (MISS-IDENTIFIED AS CHO QUON FUNG)

FUNG, CHU QUON AS TRUSTEE OF THE FUNG FAMILY TRUST (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS THE FUNG FAMILY TRUST)

Defendant, Appellant and Cross Plaintiff

FONDAHL, MEREDITH

Defendants, Cross Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

DOES 1 TO 10, INCLUSIVE

FUNG FAMILY TRUST

FUNG, CHO QUON

DOES 2-10, INCLUSIVE

FONDAHL, MEREDITH

FONDAHL, MEREDITH VICTORIA

FUNG, CHU QUON (MISS-IDENTIFIED AS CHO QUON FUNG)

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Cross Defendant and Plaintiff Attorneys

ANDERSON, ELLIS ROSS

Attorney at ANDERSON & POOLE, P.C.

601 California St Ste 1300

San Francisco, CA 94108-2818

SMITH, ZACHARY

Attorney at STRATMAN, PATTERSON & HUNTER

P.O. Box 258829

Oklahoma City, OK 73125-8829

PAGANELLI, CARL

Attorney at FIDELITY NAITIONAL LAW GROUP

1550 Parksidedrive, Ste 300

Walnut Creek, CA 94596

ANDERSON ELLIS R

BIERNAT, JAMES DAVID

WOO, JEFFERY PETER

Attorney at COOPER, WHITE & COOPER LLP

201 California St 17Th Fl

San Francisco, CA 94111

Defendant, Appellant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

MARCO, QUAZZO

Attorney at BARTKO, ZANKEL, BUNZEL & MILLER

One Embarcadero Center, Ste 80

San Francisco, CA 94111

Cross Defendant, Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

WOO, JEFFERY PETER

Attorney at COOPER, WHITE & COOPER LLP

201 California St 17Th Fl

San Francisco, CA 94111

MARCO, QUAZZO

Attorney at BARTKO, ZANKEL, BUNZEL & MILLER

One Embarcadero Center, Ste 80

San Francisco, CA 94111

 

Court Documents

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (JOINTLY) FILED BY PLAINTIFF J&R SAN FRANCISCO, INC. TIMBRELL, CLAYTON JURY DEMANDED, ESTIMATED TIME FOR TRIAL: 6.0 DAYS

Request for Dismissal

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE ONLY AS TO PLAINTIFF CLAYTON TIMBRELL'S THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SLANDER OF TITLE (TRANSACTION ID # 58625712)

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT {JOINTLY} FILED BY PLAINTIFF J&R SAN FRANCISCO, INC. TIMBRELL, CLAYTON JURY DEMANDED, ESTIMATED TIME FOR TRIAL: 6.0 DAYS

Notice to Plaintiff

NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF

EXHIBIT LIST FOR PLAINTIFF

EXHIBIT LIST FOR PLAINTIFF FILED

ORDER

ORDER SETTING TRIAL ON BIFURCATED CLAIMS

ANSWER

AMENDED ANSWER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFENDANT FUNG FAMILY TRUST FUNG, CHU QUON (MISS-IDENTIFIED AS CHO QUON FUNG)

GENERIC CIVIL FILING (NO FEE)

POS OF: SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF DEF MEREDITH FONDAHL ISO MTN TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OF OF PLTF'S CLAIMS; SUPPLEMENTAL DEC OF MARCO QUAZZO IN SUPPORT; POS FILED BY DEFENDANT FONDAHL, MEREDITH

Order Setting Case Management Conference

REMOVED FROM MASTER JURY CALENDAR ON JUL-01-2013. CASE IS ASSIGNED TO CASE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. 610 ON AUG-28-2013 AT 10:30 AM FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE FOR FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT OR CROSS-COMPLAINT AND TO TO OBTAIN AN ANSWER(S) FROM, OR ENTER DEFAULT(S) AGAINST, DEFENDANT(S) OR CROSS-DEFENDANT(S). ORDER FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND CROSS-COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON 6/13/13. (206) . NOTICE SENT BY COURT.

129 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/01/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SENT BY COURT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2016
  • DocketADDED TO CALENDAR FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE , FOR THE SUBMISSION OF CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENTS AND TRIAL SETTING HEARING SET FOR MAY-11-2016 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPT 610

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketANSWER TO CROSS COMPLAINT (TRANSACTION ID # 100015062) FILED BY CROSS DEFENDANT FUNG, CHU QUON (MISS-IDENTIFIED AS CHO QUON FUNG) FUNG, CHU QUON AS TRUSTEE OF THE FUNG FAMILY TRUST (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS THE FUNG FAMILY TRUST) (Fee:450.00)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE ONLY AS TO PLAINTIFF CLAYTON TIMBRELL'S THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SLANDER OF TITLE (TRANSACTION ID # 58625712)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketMEMORANDUM OF COSTS AND DISBURSEMENTS, $1,425.50 TOTAL COSTS, MATURE DATE FEB-22-2016,, (TRANSACTION ID # 58511508) FILED BY PLAINTIFF J&R SAN FRANCISCO, INC. TIMBRELL, CLAYTON

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCROSS COMPLAINT (TRANSACTION ID # 58400465) FILED BY CROSS COMPLAINANT FONDAHL, MEREDITH AS TO CROSS DEFENDANT FUNG, CHO QUON FUNG FAMILY TRUST ROES 1-10, INCLUSIVE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketANSWER TO 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT (TRANSACTION ID # 58399941) FILED BY DEFENDANT FONDAHL, MEREDITH

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2015
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketREMITTITUR AFFIRMED A141841 DIV 3

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2015
  • DocketTRIAL MOTION CALENDAR ON JUN-25-2015 IN DEPT. 501, PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR COST OF PROOF SANCTIONS NOTICE OF MOTION IS OFF CALENDAR PER STIPULATION AND ORDER SIGNED ON 6/15/15. (D501)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2015
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketORDER AND STIPULATION FOLLOWING TRIAL OF BIFURCATED CLAIMS; WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FOR COSTS OF PROOF SANCTIONS HEARING [NO S.A.S.E. - COPY OF ORDER IN DEPT. 501 OUTBOX]

    Read MoreRead Less
221 More Docket Entries
  • 07/23/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(REVISED) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOITON FOR PREFERENCE AND TRIAL SETTING FILED BY PLAINTIFF J&R SAN FRANCISCO, INC. TIMBRELL, CLAYTON HEARING SET FOR AUG-15-2012 AT 09:30 AM IN DEPT 206 (Fee:NO FEE)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDECLARATION OF STANLEY RIDDELL IN SUPPORT OF OPPOS. TO MTN FOR PREFERENCE & TRIAL SETTING FILED BY DEFENDANT FUNG FAMILY TRUST FUNG, CHU QUON (MISS-IDENTIFIED AS CHO QUON FUNG)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketOPPOS/MEMO OF P & A IN SUPPORT OF OPPOS. TO MTN FOR PREFERENCE AND TRIAL SETTING FILED BY DEFENDANT FUNG FAMILY TRUST FUNG, CHU QUON (MISS-IDENTIFIED AS CHO QUON FUNG) (Fee:900.00)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL OF MOTION FOR PREFERENCE AND TRIAL SETTING FILED BY PLAINTIFF J&R SAN FRANCISCO, INC. TIMBRELL, CLAYTON

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketSUMMONS ON COMPLAINT, PROOF OF SERVICE ONLY, FILED BY PLAINTIFF J&R SAN FRANCISCO, INC. TIMBRELL, CLAYTON SERVED JUL-06-2012, PERSONAL SERVICE ON DEFENDANT FUNG FAMILY TRUST

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketSUMMONS ON COMPLAINT, PROOF OF SERVICE ONLY, FILED BY PLAINTIFF J&R SAN FRANCISCO, INC. TIMBRELL, CLAYTON SERVED JUL-06-2012, PERSONAL SERVICE ON DEFENDANT FUNG, CHO QUON

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FILED BY PLAINTIFF J&R SAN FRANCISCO, INC. TIMBRELL, CLAYTON

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNTC OF MTN AND MTN FOR PREFERENCE AND TRIAL SETTING; MEMO P & A FILED BY PLAINTIFF J&R SAN FRANCISCO, INC. TIMBRELL, CLAYTON HEARING SET FOR AUG-07-2012 AT 09:30 AM IN DEPT 206 (Fee:60.00)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNOTICE TO PLAINTIFF

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDECLARATORY RELIEF, COMPLAINT FILED BY PLAINTIFF J&R SAN FRANCISCO, INC. TIMBRELL, CLAYTON AS TO DEFENDANT FUNG, CHO QUON FUNG FAMILY TRUST DOES 1 TO 10, INCLUSIVE SUMMONS ISSUED, JUDICIAL COUNCIL CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET FILED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR NOV-28-2012 PROOF OF SERVICE DUE ON AUG-27-2012 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT DUE ON NOV-13-2012 (Fee:410.00)

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

COOPER, WHITE & COOPER LLP JEFFERY P. WOO (SBN 132697)

2|l jwoo@cwclaw.com _. STANLEY W. RIDDELL (SBN 203338) F ' 3|| sriddell@cwclaw.com Sugerior Court of Calffomia ) 201 California Street, 17" Floor nty of San Franci San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-1900 FEB 06 2014 S || Facsimile: ~ (415) 433-5530 g x ol Attorneys for Chu Quon Fung and The Fung 7 || Family Trust

10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

lli COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO-UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

VERIFIED ANSWER AND

14 Plaintiffs and Cross- AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO SECOND s Defendants, - AMENDED COMPLAINT 16 VS. Trial Date: None Set ', Chu Quon Fung and the Fung Family Trust; VA\ST 17 || and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, @F @E.@ 18 Defendants and Cross- 1 Complainants.

Defendants Chu Quon Fung and the Fung Family Trust (hereinafter “Answering

& COOPER LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 201 CALIFORNIA STREET

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 84111-5002

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 84111-5002 sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

3. Answering paragraph 3 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

4, Answering Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 4 of the Complaint.

5. Answering Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 5 of the Complaint.

6. Answering paragraph 6 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack

sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that

ek =]

| ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

k. ok

7. Answering Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 7 of the Complaint.

punsk N

8. Answering paragraph 8 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack

sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that

ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

i whn

9. Answering paragraph 9 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack

sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that

| ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

— Q0

10. Answering paragraph 10 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants

incorporate their answers and denials to paragraphs 1 through 10 of the Complaint as if fully set

| forth herein. As to the balance of the allegations contained therein, these Answering Defendants

lack sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on

that ground deny each and every remaining allegation contained therein.

& COOPER LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 201 CALIFORNIA STREET

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 84111-5002

sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that

sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

14. Answering paragraph 14 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

15. Answering paragraph 15 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that | ground deny each and every allegation contained therein. | 16. Answering paragraph 16 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that

ground deny each and every allegation contained therein. 17. Answering paragraph 17 of the Cbmplaint, these Answering Defendants lack sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

18. Answering paragraph 18 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that ;'ground deny each and every allegation, and each and every legal conclusion, contained therein.

19. Answering paragraph 19 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

20. Answering paragraph 20 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

21. Answering paragraph 21 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that | ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

22. Answering paragraph 22 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack ;sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that

ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

& COOPER LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 201 CALIFORNIA STREET

8AN FRANCISCO, CA 841116002

sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that

— O

39. Answering paragraph 39 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack

|| sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that

| ground deny each and every allegation contained therein, save and except that these Answering

B N - W

Defendants admit that an actual controversy does exist between Plaintiffs and these Answering

| Defendants as to their respective property rights concerning the casement(s) at issue in this matter,

| and that these Answering Defendants have requested that Plaintiffs encroaching utilities be

& COOPER LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 201 CALIFORNIA STREET

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 84111-6002

removed as part of their prayer for relief in their cross-complaint filed on August 6, 2012, in the

within action.

within action. 40. Answering paragraph 40 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that ground deny each and every allegation contained therein. l) 41. Answering paragraph 41 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack %sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that | ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

40. Answering paragraph 40 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that ground deny each and every allegation contained therein. l) 41. Answering paragraph 41 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack %sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that | ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

42. Answering paragraph 42 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants deny each ‘and every allegation contained therein.

43. Answering paragraph 43 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack | vvsufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that ‘ground deny each and every allegation contained therein. | 44. Answering paragraph 44 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants | incorporate their answers and denials to paragraphs 1 through 43 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

45. Answering paragraph 45 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack | sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that | ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

l 46. Answering paragraph 46 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

47. Answering paragraph 47 of the Complaint, these Answering deny each and every allegation, and each and every legal conclusion, contained therein, and further deny that Plaintiffs have been injured in any sum, or at all, though any fault of these Answering Defendants.

48. Answering paragraph 48 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants incorporate their answers and denials to paragraphs 1 through 47 of the Complaint as if fully set | forth herein. | 49, Answering paragraph 49 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack

sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that

sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that e ®N

e ®N

N N N N [\®) N N N k.~J N W . W N ) c \& 0 slA N wh = W N - R

COOPER, WHITE

& COOPERLLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 201 CALIFORNIA STREET

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-5002

ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

50. Answering paragraph 50 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

51. Answering paragraph 51 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack

sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that

| ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

52. Answering paragraph 52 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that ground deny each and every allegation contained therein. |

53. Answering paragraph 53 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the aliegations therein, and based on that ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

54, Answering paragraph 54 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

55. Answering paragraph 55 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants

| incorporate their answers and denials to paragraphs 1 through 54 of the Complaint as if fully set

| forth herein.

56. Answering paragraph 56 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack

{| sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that

ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

57. Answering paragraph 57 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

58. Answering paragraph 58 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that

ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

743752.1 8 » Y ‘ < - v,."”"-mv . > . - -

743752.1 8 » Y ‘ < - v,."”"-mv . > . - - 59. Answering paragraph 59 of the Comf)laint, these Answering Defendants lack sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

59. Answering paragraph 59 of the Comf)laint, these Answering Defendants lack sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

60. Answering paragraph 60 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack | sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

61. Answering paragraph 61 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants | incorporate their answers and denials to paragraphs 1 through 60 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

62. Answering paragraph 62 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack

sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that ‘ground deny each and every allegation contained therein. 63. Answering paragraph 63 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack | sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that | ground deny each and every allegation contained therein. 64. Answering paragraph 64 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

65. Answering paragraph 65 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that ground deny each and every allegation contained therein. "i 66. Answering paragraph 66 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack :sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

67. Answering paragraph 67 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants lack sufficient information and belief to either admit or deny the allegations therein, and based on that ground deny each and every allegation contained therein.

68. Answering paragraph 68 of the Complaint, these Answering Defendants

szl 9 o

Tentative Rulings

Case Number:*******1881
Case Title:J&R SAN FRANCISCO, INC. et al VS. CHO QUON FUNG et al
Court Date:JUN-03-2016 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:Defendant Meredith Fondahl'S Motion To Compel Further Responses To Discovery Requests And Production Of Documents By J And R San Francisco, Inc.
Rulings:Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Friday, June 3, 2016, line 7.Defendant Meredith Fondahl'S Motion To Compel Further Responses To Discovery Requests And Production Of Documents By J And R San Francisco, Inc.Status of Order. = (501/REQ)


Case Number:*******1881
Case Title:J&R SAN FRANCISCO, INC. et al VS. CHO QUON FUNG et al
Court Date:JUN-02-2016 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:Defendant Meredith Fondahl'S Motion To Compel Further Responses To Discovery Requests And Production Of Documents By J And R San Francisco, Inc.
Rulings:Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Thursday June 2, 2016, line 1.Defendant Meredith Fondahl'S Motion To Compel Further Responses To Discovery Requests And Production Of Documents By J And R San Francisco, Inc.GRANTED in Part and DENIED in Part as follows:1. Plaintiff is ordered to serve on Defendant within fifteen (15) days from the date of this order further responses to Request for Production No. 20 for the period June/July 2011; Request for Production No. 23, subject to redaction of all clearly attorney client information, but with sufficient information to show the type of work performed and the specific aspect of the dispute to which it related. Plaintiff's complaints have raised issues which implicate the information contained in its billing records and the fee schedule provided is inadequate to allow defendant to meet those claims.2. All other requests are denied either as moot or Plaintiff's responses are adequate.3. Sanctions in the amount of $4,500.00 will be assessed against Plaintiff and its attorneys with payment to be made within ten (10) days from the date of this order.= (501/REQ)


Case Number:*******1881
Case Title:J&R SAN FRANCISCO, INC. et al VS. CHO QUON FUNG et al
Court Date:MAY-23-2016 09:00 AM
Calendar Matter:Defendant Meredith Fondahl'S Motion To Compel Further Responses To Discovery Requests And Production Of Documents By J And R San Francisco, Inc.
Rulings:Matter on calendar for Monday, May 23, 2016, Line 2, Defendant Meredith Fondahl's Motion To Compel Further Responses To Discovery Requests And Production Of Documents By J And R San Francisco, Inc.Pro Tem Judge Paul Renne, 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 MEREDITH FONDAHL'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF J&R SAN FRANCISCO, INC. TO MAKE FURTHER RESPONSES TO CERTAIN DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.1. PLAINTIFF IS ORDERED TO SERVE ON DEFENDANT WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20 FOR THE PERIOD JUNE/JULY 2011; REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23, SUBJECT TO REDACTION OF ALL CLEARLY ATTORNEY CLIENT INFORMATION, BUT WITH SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO SHOW THE TYPE OF WORK PERFORMED AND THE SPECIFIC ASPECT OF THE DISPUTE TO WHICH IT RELATED. PLAINTIFF COMPLAINTS HAVE RAISED ISSUES WHICH IMPLICATE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN ITS COUNSEL'S BILLING RECORDS AND THE FEE SCHEDULE PROVIDED IS INADEQUATE TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MEET THOSE CLAIMS.2. ALL OTHER REQUESTS ARE DENIED EITHER AS MOOT OR PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES ARE ADEQUATE.3. SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,500.00 WILL BE ASSESSED AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND ITS ATTORNEYS WITH PAYMENT TO BE MADE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER.COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT SHOULD PREPARE AN APPROPRIATE ORDER, SUBMIT TO COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF FOR AGREEMENT AS TO FORM AND DELIVER TO THE COURT FOR SIGNING AT THE HEARING ON MAY 23, 2016.Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to rennepar85@gmail.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. =(302/JPT/HK)


Case Number:*******1881
Case Title:J&R SAN FRANCISCO, INC. et al VS. CHO QUON FUNG et al
Court Date:MAY-11-2016 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Motion And Motion Of Meredith Fondahl To Compel Further Responses To Discovery Requests And Production Of Documents By J And R San Francisco, Inc.
Rulings:Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Wednesday, May 11, 2016, Line 1. DEFENDANT MEREDITH FONDAHL'S Motion To Compel Further Responses To Discovery Requests And Production Of Documents By J And R San Francisco, Inc.Transferred to Department 301 to be heard on May 23, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. =(501/REQ)


Case Number:*******1881
Case Title:J&R SAN FRANCISCO, INC. et al VS. CHO QUON FUNG et al
Court Date:DEC-06-2013 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:Defendant Meredith Fondahl'S Motion To Compel Arbitration Of Plaintiff J& R San Francisco Inc'S Claim Against Defendant Meredith Fondahl
Rulings:Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Friday, December 06, 2013, line 3. Defendant Meredith Fondahl'S Motion To Compel Arbitration Of Plaintiff J& R San Francisco Inc'S Claim Against Defendant Meredith FondahlDENIED. J&R is not a party to the arbitration agreement. = (501/REQ)


Case Number:*******1881
Case Title:J&R SAN FRANCISCO, INC. et al VS. CHO QUON FUNG et al
Court Date:NOV-06-2013 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:Defendant Meredith Fondahl'S Motion To Compel Arbitration Of Plaintiff J& R San Francisco Inc'S Claim Against Defendant Meredith Fondahl
Rulings:Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Wednesday, November 06, 2013, line 10. Defendant Meredith Fondahl'S Motion To Compel Arbitration Of Plaintiff J& R San Francisco Inc'S Claim Against Defendant Meredith Fondahl.Continued to to December 06, 2013 at 9:30am in department 501 on Court's own motion. = (501/REQ)


Case Number:*******1881
Case Title:J&R SAN FRANCISCO, INC. et al VS. CHO QUON FUNG et al
Court Date:JUN-19-2013 09:00 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Motion To Strike Objections
Rulings:Hearing set for Wednesday, June 19, 2013, Line 4: Cross Defendant CLAYTON TIMBRELL'S Motion to Strike ObjectionsOff calendar per stipulation of parties. =(302/JPT)


Case Number:*******1881
Case Title:J&R SAN FRANCISCO, INC. et al VS. CHO QUON FUNG et al
Court Date:MAY-17-2013 09:00 AM
Calendar Matter:Mtn To Compel Further Response To Disco And For Monetary Sanctions; Index
Rulings:Set for hearing on Friday, May 17, 2013, Line 3. Cross Defendant CLAYTON TIMBRELL'S Motion to Compel Further Response to Discovery and for Monetary Sanctions; IndexPro Tem Judge Jeffrey Wohl, 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 has not issued a tentative ruling on this motion. Each party is required to bring a proposed order to the hearing. =(302/JPT)


Case Number:*******1881
Case Title:J&R SAN FRANCISCO, INC. et al VS. CHO QUON FUNG et al
Court Date:DEC-26-2012 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:Ntc Of App For Prelim Injunction
Rulings:Matter on calendar for Wednesday, December 26, 2012, Line 1, PLAINTIFF J&R SAN FRANCISCO, INC. and CLAYTON TIMBRELL's Application for Preliminary Injunction.Hearing required. =(302/MJM)


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer QUAZZO, MARCO