Ruling
MARIA PADILLA, ET AL. VS JOSEPH HEFFESSE, ET AL.
Jul 29, 2024 |
23STCV15942
Case Number:
23STCV15942
Hearing Date:
July 29, 2024
Dept:
53
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles Central District
Department 53
maria padilla
, et al.;
Plaintiffs
,
vs.
joseph heffesse,
as trustee of the Coldwater Canyon Trust
, et al.;
Defendants
.
Case No.:
23STCV15942
Hearing Date:
July 29, 2024
Time:
10:00 a.m.
[tentative] Order
RE:
petition for approval of compromise of claim for minor claimant anthony jayden diaz
MOVING PARTY:
Petitioner Jeanette Oliveros
RESPONDING PARTY:
Unopposed
Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim for Minor Claimant Anthony Jayden Diaz
The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this petition.
No opposition papers were filed.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff and petitioner Jeanette Oliveros (Petitioner) seeks court approval of the settlement made on behalf of minor claimant Anthony Jayden Diaz (Minor Claimant) in this action.
The compromise of a minors disputed claim for damages is valid only after it has been approved, upon the filing of a petition, by the court.¿ (Prob. Code, § 3500.)¿ The petition must be verified by the petitioner, must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise, and must be prepared on Judicial Council form MC-350.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)¿
Defendants Joseph Heffesse, as trustee of the Coldwater Canyon Trust, Sandra B. Sternberg Heffesse, and LA Properties Heffesse LLC have agreed to pay a total of $175,000 to settle this action, of which $5,000 will be separately allocated to Minor Claimant.
(MC-350, ¶¶ 10-11.)
Of the $5,000 allocated to Minor Claimant, $1,250 will be paid to counsel for attorneys fees and $134.35 will be paid to counsel for legal costs.
(MC-350, ¶¶ 13, 16.)
The remaining $3,615.65 will be paid or delivered to the parent of Minor Claimant, i.e., Petitioner, without bond, on the terms and under the conditions specified in Probate Code sections 3401-3402.
(MC-350, ¶ 18, subd. (b)(5); MC-350, Attachment 18b(5), Oliveros Decl., ¶¶ 1-2, 6; Prob. Code, §§ 3401, 3402.)
The court has reviewed the petition and finds the settlement to be fair and reasonable, and in the best interest of Minor Claimant.
The court further finds that the declaration of Rachel Fishenfeld is sufficient to support the request for attorneys fees in the amount of $1,250 (representing 25 percent of the $5,000 settlement).
(Fishenfeld Decl., ¶¶ 2-3, 6-11; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 7.955.)
The court therefore grants Petitioners petition.
ORDER
The court grants petitioner Jeanette Oliveross petition for approval of compromise of claim on behalf of minor claimant Anthony Jayden Diaz.
The court orders that the $3,615.65 settlement on behalf of minor claimant Anthony Jayden Diaz may be paid to plaintiff and petitioner Jeanette Oliveros pursuant to Probate Code sections 3401 and 3402.
The court orders petitioner Jeanette Oliveros to give notice of this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
July 29, 2024
_____________________________
Robert B. Broadbelt III
Judge of the Superior Court
Ruling
TIMOTHY HENNESSY VS ROBERT ASSIL, ET AL.
Jul 26, 2024 |
22STCV04815
Case Number:
22STCV04815
Hearing Date:
July 26, 2024
Dept:
71
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
DEPARTMENT 71
TENTATIVE RULING
TIMOTHY HENNESSY,
vs.
ROBERT ASSIL, et al.
Case No.:
22STCV04815
Hearing Date:
July 26, 2024
Plaintiff Timothy Hennessys motion to compel further responses from Defendant Robert Assil to his Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is denied as moot.
Plaintiffs request for sanctions is granted against Assil and his counsel of record, Barrington Legal, Inc., jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $3,361.65, payable within 20 days of this ruling.
Plaintiff Timothy Hennessys motion to compel further responses from Defendant Robert Assil to his Request for Admissions (Set One) is denied as moot.
Plaintiffs request for sanctions is granted against Assil and his counsel of record, Barrington Legal, Inc., jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $61.65, payable within 20 days of this ruling.
Plaintiff Timothy Hennessys motion to compel further responses from Defendant Robert Assil to his Form Interrogatories (Set One) is denied as moot.
Plaintiffs request for sanctions is granted against Assil and his counsel of record, Barrington Legal, Inc., jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $61.65, payable within 20 days of this ruling.
Plaintiff Timothy Hennessys motion to compel further responses from Defendant Robert Assil to his Special Interrogatories (Set One) is denied as moot.
Plaintiffs request for sanctions is granted against Assil and his counsel of record, Barrington Legal, Inc., jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $61.65, payable within 20 days of this ruling.
Plaintiff Timothy Hennessys motion to compel further responses from Defendant Oakwood Holdings LLC to his Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is denied as moot.
Plaintiffs request for sanctions is granted against Oakwood and its counsel of record, Barrington Legal, Inc., jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $3,361.65, payable within 20 days of this ruling.
Plaintiff Timothy Hennessys motion to compel further responses from Defendant Oakwood Holdings LLC to his Form Interrogatories (Set One) is denied as moot.
Plaintiffs request for sanctions is granted against Oakwood and its counsel of record, Barrington Legal, Inc., jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $61.65, payable within 20 days of this ruling.
Plaintiff Timothy Hennessy (Hennessy) (Plaintiff) moves to compel further responses from Defendant Robert Assil (Assil) (Defendant) to his Request for Production of Documents (Set One) (RFP) and requests sanctions against Assil and his attorneys of record in the amount of $4,186.65.
(Notice Motion Assil RFP, pg. 2; C.C.P. §2031.300(d).)
Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Assil to its Request for Admissions (Set One) (RFA) and requests sanctions against Assil and his attorneys of record in the amount of $4,186.65.
(Notice Motion Assil RFA, pg. 2; C.C.P. §2030.300(d).)
Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Assil to its Form Interrogatories (Set One) (FROG) and requests sanctions against Assil and his attorneys of record in the amount of $4,186.65.
(Notice Motion Assil FROG, pg. 2; C.C.P. §2030.300(d).)
Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Assil to its Special Interrogatories (Set One) (SROG) and requests sanctions against Assil and his attorneys of record in the amount of $4,186.65.
(Notice Motion Assil SROG, pg. 2; C.C.P. §2030.300(d).)
Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Defendant Oakwood Holdings LLC (Oakwood) (Defendant) to its Request for Production (Set One) (RFP) and requests sanctions against Oakwood and its attorneys of record in the total amount of $4,186.65.
(Notice Motion Oakwood RFP, pg. 2; C.C.P. §2031.300(d).)
Plaintiff moves to compel further responses from Oakwood to its Form Interrogatories (Set One) (FROG) and requests sanctions against Oakwood and its attorneys of record in the total amount of $4,186.65.
(Notice Motion Oakwood FROG, pg. 2; C.C.P. §2031.300(d).)
1.
Motion to Compel Further RFP- Assil
Having reviewed Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses from Assil to Plaintiffs RFP, the Court rules as follows.
On August 5, 2023, Plaintiff served RFP (Set One) on Assil.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶3, Exh. A.)
Assil served unverified, boilerplate objections on Plaintiff on October 6, 2023.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶5, Exh. B.)
On August 5, 2023, Plaintiffs counsel sent Assils counsel a meet and confer letter, to which Assils counsel did not respond.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶6, Exh. C.)
On October 31, 2023, Plaintiffs counsel had a phone conversation with Assils counsel in which Assils counsel agreed to provide substantive responses by no later than November 30, 2023.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶7, Exh. D.)
Plaintiffs counsel, having received no responses, spoke with Assils counsel again on November 30, 2023, wherein Assils counsel agreed to provided responses by no later than December 15, 2024.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶8, Exh. E.)
Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses.
The parties participated in an IDC on April 23, 2024, wherein counsel represented that all discovery issues have been resolved.
(4/23/24 IDC Minute Order.)
Plaintiffs reply indicates Defendants ultimately provided further responses prior to the hearing on the instant motions.
(Reply, pg. 2.)
Therefore, Plaintiffs motion is denied as moot.
Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions $16,500.00 in total against Assil and Oakwood and their counsel of record.
The Court awards sanctions against Assil and his counsel pursuant to C.C.P. §2030.310(d) in the amount of $3,361.65, calculated as follows:
([4.5 hours to prepare instant motion + 1 hour to review the opposition and draft a reply + 0.5 hour to attend hearing on motion] x $550.00) + $61.65 filing fee = $3,361.65
The sanctions are payable, jointly and severally, by Assil and his attorneys from Barrington Legal, Inc., within 20 days of this order.
Moving Party is to give notice of this ruling.
2.
Motion to Compel Further RFA- Assil
Having reviewed Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses from Assil to Plaintiffs RFA, the Court rules as follows.
On August 5, 2023, Plaintiff served RFA (Set One) on Assil.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶3, Exh. A.)
Assil served unverified, boilerplate objections on Plaintiff on October 6, 2023.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶5, Exh. B.)
On August 5, 2023, Plaintiffs counsel sent Assils counsel a meet and confer letter, to which Assils counsel did not respond.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶6, Exh. C.)
On October 31, 2023, Plaintiffs counsel had a phone conversation with Assils counsel in which Assils counsel agreed to provide substantive responses by no later than November 30, 2023.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶7, Exh. D.)
Plaintiffs counsel, having received no responses, spoke with Assils counsel again on November 30, 2023, wherein Assils counsel agreed to provided responses by no later than December 15, 2024.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶8, Exh. E.)
Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses.
The parties participated in an IDC on April 23, 2024, wherein counsel represented that all discovery issues have been resolved.
(4/23/24 IDC Minute Order.)
Plaintiffs reply indicates Defendants ultimately provided further responses prior to the hearing on the instant motions.
(Reply, pg. 2.)
Therefore, Plaintiffs motion is denied as moot.
Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions $16,500.00 in total against Assil and Oakwood and their counsel of record.
The Court awards sanctions against Assil and his counsel pursuant to C.C.P. §2030.310(d) in the amount of $61.65, calculated as follows:
$61.65 filing fee
The sanctions are payable, jointly and severally, by Assil and his attorneys from Barrington Legal, Inc., within 20 days of this order.
Moving Party is to give notice of this ruling.
3.
Motion to Compel Further FROG- Assil
Having reviewed Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses from Assil to Plaintiffs FROG, the Court rules as follows.
On August 5, 2023, Plaintiff served FROG (Set One) on Assil.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶3, Exh. A.)
Assil served unverified, boilerplate objections on Plaintiff on October 6, 2023.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶5, Exh. B.)
On August 5, 2023, Plaintiffs counsel sent Assils counsel a meet and confer letter, to which Assils counsel did not respond.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶6, Exh. C.)
On October 31, 2023, Plaintiffs counsel had a phone conversation with Assils counsel in which Assils counsel agreed to provide substantive responses by no later than November 30, 2023.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶7, Exh. D.)
Plaintiffs counsel, having received no responses, spoke with Assils counsel again on November 30, 2023, wherein Assils counsel agreed to provided responses by no later than December 15, 2024.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶8, Exh. E.)
Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses.
The parties participated in an IDC on April 23, 2024, wherein counsel represented that all discovery issues have been resolved.
(4/23/24 IDC Minute Order.)
Plaintiffs reply indicates Defendants ultimately provided further responses prior to the hearing on the instant motions.
(Reply, pg. 2.)
Therefore, Plaintiffs motion is denied as moot.
Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions $16,500.00 in total against Assil and Oakwood and their counsel of record.
The Court awards sanctions against Assil and his counsel pursuant to C.C.P. §2030.310(d) in the amount of $61.65, calculated as follows:
$61.65 filing fee
The sanctions are payable, jointly and severally, by Assil and his attorneys from Barrington Legal, Inc., within 20 days of this order.
Moving Party is to give notice of this ruling.
4.
Motion to Compel Further SROG- Assil
Having reviewed Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses from Assil to Plaintiffs SROG, the Court rules as follows.
On August 5, 2023, Plaintiff served SROG (Set One) on Assil.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶3, Exh. A.)
Assil served unverified, boilerplate objections on Plaintiff on October 6, 2023.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶5, Exh. B.)
On August 5, 2023, Plaintiffs counsel sent Assils counsel a meet and confer letter, to which Assils counsel did not respond.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶6, Exh. C.)
On October 31, 2023, Plaintiffs counsel had a phone conversation with Assils counsel in which Assils counsel agreed to provide substantive responses by no later than November 30, 2023.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶7, Exh. D.)
Plaintiffs counsel, having received no responses, spoke with Assils counsel again on November 30, 2023, wherein Assils counsel agreed to provided responses by no later than December 15, 2024.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶8, Exh. E.)
Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses.
The parties participated in an IDC on April 23, 2024, wherein counsel represented that all discovery issues have been resolved.
(4/23/24 IDC Minute Order.)
Plaintiffs reply indicates Defendants ultimately provided further responses prior to the hearing on the instant motions.
(Reply, pg. 2.)
Therefore, Plaintiffs motion is denied as moot.
Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions $16,500.00 in total against Assil and Oakwood and their counsel of record.
The Court awards sanctions against Assil and his counsel pursuant to C.C.P. §2030.310(d) in the amount of $61.65, calculated as follows:
$61.65 filing fee
The sanctions are payable, jointly and severally, by Assil and his attorneys from Barrington Legal, Inc., within 20 days of this order.
Moving Party is to give notice of this ruling.
5.
Motion to Compel Further RFP- Oakwood
Having reviewed Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses from Oakwood to Plaintiffs RFP, the Court rules as follows.
On August 5, 2023, Plaintiff served RFP (Set One) on Oakwood.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶3, Exh. A.)
Oakwood served unverified, boilerplate objections on Plaintiff on October 6, 2023.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶5, Exh. B.)
On August 5, 2023, Plaintiffs counsel sent Oakwoods counsel a meet and confer letter, to which Oakwoods counsel did not respond.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶6, Exh. C.)
On October 31, 2023, Plaintiffs counsel had a phone conversation with Oakwoods counsel in which Oakwoods counsel agreed to provide substantive responses by no later than November 30, 2023.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶7, Exh. D.)
Plaintiffs counsel, having received no responses, spoke with Oakwoods counsel again on November 30, 2023, wherein Oakwoods counsel agreed to provided responses by no later than December 15, 2024.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶8, Exh. E.)
Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses.
The parties participated in an IDC on April 23, 2024, wherein counsel represented that all discovery issues have been resolved.
(4/23/24 IDC Minute Order.)
Plaintiffs reply indicates Defendants ultimately provided further responses prior to the hearing on the instant motions.
(Reply, pg. 2.)
Therefore, Plaintiffs motion is denied as moot.
Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions $16,500.00 in total against Assil and Oakwood and their counsel of record.
The Court awards sanctions against Oakwood and its counsel pursuant to C.C.P. §2030.310(d) in the amount of $3,361.65, calculated as follows:
([4.5 hours to prepare instant motion + 1 hour to review the opposition and draft a reply + 0.5 hour to attend hearing on motion] x $550.00) + $61.65 filing fee = $3,361.65
The sanctions are payable, jointly and severally, by Oakwood and its attorneys from Barrington Legal, Inc., within 20 days of this order.
Moving Party is to give notice of this ruling.
6.
Motion to Compel Further FROG- Oakwood
Having reviewed Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses from Oakwood to Plaintiffs FROG, the Court rules as follows.
On August 5, 2023, Plaintiff served FROG (Set One) on Oakwood.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶3, Exh. A.)
Oakwood served unverified, boilerplate objections on Plaintiff on October 6, 2023.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶5, Exh. B.)
On August 5, 2023, Plaintiffs counsel sent Oakwoods counsel a meet and confer letter, to which Oakwoods counsel did not respond.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶6, Exh. C.)
On October 31, 2023, Plaintiffs counsel had a phone conversation with Oakwoods counsel in which Oakwoods counsel agreed to provide substantive responses by no later than November 30, 2023.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶7, Exh. D.)
Plaintiffs counsel, having received no responses, spoke with Oakwoods counsel again on November 30, 2023, wherein Oakwoods counsel agreed to provided responses by no later than December 15, 2024.
(Decl. of Rosensweig ¶8, Exh. E.)
Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses.
The parties participated in an IDC on April 23, 2024, wherein counsel represented that all discovery issues have been resolved.
(4/23/24 IDC Minute Order.)
Plaintiffs reply indicates Defendants ultimately provided further responses prior to the hearing on the instant motions.
(Reply, pg. 2.)
Therefore, Plaintiffs motion is denied as moot.
Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions $16,500.00 in total against Assil and Oakwood and their counsel of record.
The Court awards sanctions against Oakwood and its counsel pursuant to C.C.P. §2030.310(d) in the amount of $61.65, calculated as follows:
$61.65 filing fee
The sanctions are payable, jointly and severally, by Oakwood and its attorneys from Barrington Legal, Inc., within 20 days of this order.
Moving Party is to give notice of this ruling.
Dated:
July _____, 2024
Hon. Daniel M. Crowley
Judge of the Superior Court
