This case was last updated from San Francisco County Superior Courts on 09/03/2021 at 21:41:17 (UTC).

RENEE KWAN ET AL VS. STEVEN A. ELLENBERG ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/13/2021 RENEE KWAN filed a Contract - Professional Negligence lawsuit against STEVEN A ELLENBERG. This case was filed in San Francisco County Superior Courts, San Francisco County Civic Center Courthouse located in San Francisco, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SAMUEL K. FENG. The case status is Not Classified By Court.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******4460

  • Filing Date:

    08/13/2021

  • Case Status:

    Not Classified By Court

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Professional Negligence

  • County, State:

    San Francisco, California

Judge Details

Judge

SAMUEL K. FENG

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

350 WSJ LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

KWAN, RENEE

Defendants

DOES 1 TO 50

ELLENBERG & HULL, LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP

ELLENBERG, STEVEN A.

HOLLAND, ANDREW P.

THOITS LAW, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

STEINER, PAUL J.

Attorney at LAW OFFICES OF PAUL J. STEINER

275 Battery Street, Suite 1300

San Francisco, CA 94104

 

Court Documents

COMPLAINT FOR: 1. Professional Negligence; 2. Breach of Contract (cove

PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE, COMPLAINT (TRANSACTION ID # 66849804) FILED BY PLAINTIFF KWAN, RENEE ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 350 WSJ LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AS TO DEFENDANT ELLENBERG, STEVEN A. ELLENBERG & HULL, LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP HOLLAND, ANDREW P. THOITS LAW, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION DOES 1 TO 50 NO SUMMONS ISSUED, JUDICIAL COUNCIL CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET NOT FILED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR JAN-12-2022 PROOF OF SERVICE DUE ON OCT-12-2021 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT DUE ON DEC-20-2021

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET (TRANSACTION ID # 66849804) FILED BY PLAINTIFF KWAN, RENEE ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 350 WSJ LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Notice to Plaintiff

NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF

SUMMONS

SUMMONS ISSUED (TRANSACTION ID # 66849804) TO PLAINTIFF KWAN, RENEE ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 350 WSJ LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/12/2022

  • HearingMatter(s): CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; Location: CIVIC CENTER COURTHOUSE ROOM 610; Judge Name: SAMUEL K. FENG

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/03/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • DocketSUMMONS ISSUED (TRANSACTION ID # 66849804) TO PLAINTIFF KWAN, RENEE ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 350 WSJ LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/03/2021

  • FinancialPayment : CIVIL COMPLAINT/PETITION/OTHER FIRST PAPER; Amount : $435; Payment Type : ELECTRONIC ; Receipt Number : C5021903F024

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/13/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • DocketNOTICE TO PLAINTIFF

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/13/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • DocketCIVIL CASE COVER SHEET (TRANSACTION ID # 66849804) FILED BY PLAINTIFF KWAN, RENEE ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 350 WSJ LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/13/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • DocketPROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE, COMPLAINT (TRANSACTION ID # 66849804) FILED BY PLAINTIFF KWAN, RENEE ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 350 WSJ LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AS TO DEFENDANT ELLENBERG, STEVEN A. ELLENBERG & HULL, LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP HOLLAND, ANDREW P. THOITS LAW, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION DOES 1 TO 50 NO SUMMONS ISSUED, JUDICIAL COUNCIL CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET NOT FILED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR JAN-12-2022 PROOF OF SERVICE DUE ON OCT-12-2021 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT DUE ON DEC-20-2021 (Fee:$435.00)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number:*******4460
Case Title:RENEE KWAN ET AL VS. STEVEN A. ELLENBERG ET AL
Court Date:NOV-17-2022 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT
Rulings:Matter on calendar for Thursday, November 17, 2022, Line 9,DEFENDANT HOPKINS & CARLEY'S, DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT.Defendant's motion to strike is granted with leave to amend.Defendant's demurrer is sustained with leave to amendPlaintiffs concede there are issues with their pleading and seek leave to amend to "clarify and clean up" and to "add a cause of action." (Opp., 9.)For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.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. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. = (302/RBU)


Case Number:*******4460
Case Title:RENEE KWAN ET AL VS. STEVEN A. ELLENBERG ET AL
Court Date:AUG-25-2022 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Motion And Motion Of Defendants For Appointment Of Neutral Arbitrator Pursuant To California Code Of Civil Procedure Section 1281 6
Rulings:Matter on calendar for Thursday, August 25, 2022, Line 6DEFENDANTS ANDREW HOLLAND and THOITS LAW'S Motion For Appointment Of Neutral Arbitrator Pursuant To California Code Of Civil Procedure Section 1281 6.Defendants' "motion for appointment of neutral arbitrator pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6" is granted.On March 28, 2022, this court granted the petition to compel arbitration. On May 12, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. On July 27, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate the order compelling arbitration.The arbitration agreement does not provide a method for appointing an arbitrator and the parties have not agreed to a method. Thus, the next step is for the parties to provide to the court a list of potential arbitrators. (CCP 1281.6.) This shall be accomplished on or before September 1, 2022. The court will then nominate five potential arbitrators from the list and the appointment process will proceed per the statute. (Id.) For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.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. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. = (302/RBU)


Case Number:*******4460
Case Title:RENEE KWAN ET AL VS. STEVEN A. ELLENBERG ET AL
Court Date:AUG-04-2022 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Motion For Leave To File Second Amended Complaint
Rulings:Matter on calendar for Thursday, August 4, 2022, Line 5 2. PLAINTIFFS ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, 350 WSJ LLC, and RENEE KWAN'S Notice Of Motion For Leave To File Second Amended Complaint.Off calendar as duplicate entry. = (302/RBU)


Case Number:*******4460
Case Title:RENEE KWAN ET AL VS. STEVEN A. ELLENBERG ET AL
Court Date:JUL-27-2022 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Motion And Motion To Vacate Order Compelling Arbitration And Related Stay
Rulings:Matter on calendar for Wednesday, July 27, 2022, Line 4PLAINTIFFS RENEE KWAN, ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC and 350 WSJ LLC'S Motion To Vacate Order Compelling Arbitration And Related Stay.Plaintiffs Renee Kwan, Asset Management, LLC, and 350 WSJ LLC's motion to vacate order compelling arbitration and related stay is denied.Plaintiffs' arguments regarding enforceability of the arbitration provision have been twice rejected, and the Court declines to revisit them a third time. Plaintiffs' argument regarding the possibility of inconsistent rulings, raised for the first time in this motion, lacks merit. The only new fact plaintiffs raise is that the Court granted their fee waiver on June 6. The fee waiver is insufficient to justify vacating the order compelling arbitration and stay.For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.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. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. = (302/RBU)


Case Number:*******4460
Case Title:RENEE KWAN ET AL VS. STEVEN A. ELLENBERG ET AL
Court Date:MAY-12-2022 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Motion For Reconsideration
Rulings:Matter on calendar for Thursday, May 12, 2022, Line 7.PLAINTIFFS' RENEE KWAN and ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC'S Motion For Reconsideration.Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of this court's March 28, 2022 order compelling arbitration is denied. A reconsideration motion must be "based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law" and a valid reason for not presenting them earlier. (CCP 1008; Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.) Plaintiff Renee Kwan claims "new evidence" that she opposed her arbitration agreement. However, Kwan already introduced evidence to that same effect before this court's March 28 hearing and order. In any event, Kwan opted to sign the arbitration agreement despite any misgivings. (Id. at 2:1-2.)Kwan claims "new case law" in the form of a "not yet final" appellate opinion regarding claims of financial inability to pay arbitration costs. However, this issue too was already addressed in the March 28 order. (Id. at 3:2-12.) Moreover, as recently as April 20, our presiding judge denied Kwan's request for a court fee waiver because "[y]our income is too high." For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.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. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. = (302/RBU)


Case Number:*******4460
Case Title:RENEE KWAN ET AL VS. STEVEN A. ELLENBERG ET AL
Court Date:APR-29-2022 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Motion For Reconsideration
Rulings:Matter on calendar for Friday, April 29, 2022, Line 8PLAINTIFFS RENEE KWAN and ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC'S Motion For Reconsideration.Continued to May 12, 2022 to be heard by Judge Ulmer. = (302/SRB)


Case Number:*******4460
Case Title:RENEE KWAN ET AL VS. STEVEN A. ELLENBERG ET AL
Court Date:MAR-28-2022 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:Notice Of Petition To Compel Arbitration; **Court Reporter Fees Paid**; **Court Reporter Fees Paid**
Rulings:Matter on calendar for Monday, March 28, 2022, Line 8DEFENDANT ANDREW HOLLAND, THOITS LAW Notice Of Petition To Compel Arbitration; **Court Reporter Fees Paid**; **Court Reporter Fees Paid**Complete tentative ruling sent to parties via e-mail.Defendants' (ANDREW HOLLAND, THOITS LAW) motion to compel arbitration and stay are granted."Because the existence of the agreement is a statutory prerequisite to granting the petition, the petitioner bears the burden of proving its existence by a preponderance of the evidence.'" (Theresa D. v. MBK Senior Living LLC (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 18, 24.) Here, defendants demonstrate that Ms. Kwan executed the arbitration agreement. (Holland Decl., pars. 3-4, 7-8.) Ms. Kwan contends that she was coerced into agreeing to arbitrate, but concedes that she in fact signed the arbitration agreement. (Kwan Decl., pars. 7-9.) Moreover, based on the policy in favor of arbitration and the e-mail between the parties that referenced changes to the attorney-client agreement and did not reference the arbitration clause, the court finds defendants' position more plausible. (See Holland Decl., Ex. B; Bunker Hill Park Ltd. v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Assn. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1325 ["Courts implement the strong public policy favoring arbitration when determining whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and whether a particular disagreement lies within its scope by resolving doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues in favor of arbitration."].)Plaintiffs bear the burden of producing evidence and proving by a preponderance of the evidence any defense to enforcement. (See Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413.)Plaintiffs fail to show that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable. As explained above, the record weighs in favor of concluding that plaintiffs were not coerced into agreeing to arbitration. Defendants' failure to explain the perceived disadvantages of arbitration is also not a basis to deny arbitration. (See Desert Outdoor Advertising v. Superior Court (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 866 [attorney did not owe duty to explain arbitration clause to sophisticated client].) The court notes that the attorney-client engagement letter advised that: "Because you will be giving up important constitutional rights to trial by a judge or jury, as well as rights to appeal, if you agree to the use of ADR, you are advised that you have the right to have an independent lawyer of your choice review the arbitration provisions below, and this entire agreement, prior to signing this Agreement, and you are encouraged to do so." (Holland Decl., Ex. A, pg. 5; see also Mt. Holyoke Homes, L.P. v. Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP (2013) 219 Cal.App.4thh 1299 [attorney owed no duty to point out existence of arbitration agreement or explain its significance where agreement advised the client to consult independent counsel].) = (302/RBU)


Why is this public record being published online?

UniCourt uses cookies to improve your online experience, for more information please see our Privacy Policy. By continuing to use this website, you agree to UniCourt’s General Disclaimer, Terms of Service, Cancellation and Refund Policy, Privacy Policy, and Public Records Policy. If you do not agree with these terms, then do not use our website and/or services.