Preview
1 MEYLAN DAVITT JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP
VINCENT J. DAVITT, ESQ. (State Bar No. 130649)
2 ANITA JAIN, ESQ. (State Bar No. 192961) ELECTRONICALLY
3
444 South Flower Street, Suite 1850 FILED
Los Angeles, California 90071 Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
4 Telephone: (213) 225-6000 / Fax: (213) 225-6660
Email: vdavitt@mdjalaw.com 05/15/2023
Clerk of the Court
5 Email: ajain@mdjalaw.com BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE
Deputy Clerk
6 HARRIS L. COHEN, A PROF. CORP.
HARRIS L. COHEN, ESQ. (State Bar No. 119600)
7
5305 Andasol Avenue
8 Encino, California 91316
Telephone: (818) 905-5599 / Fax: (818) 905-5660
9 Email: hcohen00@aol.com
10 Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-Complainants
Milestone Financial, LLC; Bear Bruin Ventures, Inc.;
11
William R. Stuart; Carolyn Stuart; and Zoe Hamilton
12
13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
15 Eduardo Paniagua and Elena Asturias, CASE NO. CGC-18-571279
individuals,
16 DEFENDANTS MILESTONE
Plaintiffs,
vs. FINANCIAL, LLC; BEAR BRUIN
17
VENTURES, INC.; WILLIAM R.
18 Milestone Financial, LLC, a California STUART; CAROLYN STUART; AND
corporation, Bear Bruin Ventures, Inc. a ZOE HAMILTON’S BRIEF RE ENTRY
19 California Corporation, William R. Stuart, an OF SEPARATE JUDGMENT AFTER
individual, Carolyn Stuart, an individual, Zoe DISMISSAL OF ACTION BY ELENA
20 Hamilton, an individual, and DOES 1-100, ASTURIAS
inclusive,
21
Defendants. Date: May 3, 2023
22 Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept: 501
23 Milestone Financial, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company, Bear Bruin Ventures, Inc.,
24 William Stuart, Carolyn Stuart and Zoe Hamilton,
Cross-Complainants, Action filed: November 13, 2018
25
v.
26 Eduardo Paniagua and Roes 1-100,
27 Cross-Defendants.
28
MEYLAN DAVITT 1
JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF RE ENTRY OF SEPARATE JUDGMENT
AFTER DISMISSAL OF ACTION BY ASTURIAS
1 Elena Asturias (“Asturias”) was previously a plaintiff in this action. Asturias dismissed her
2 entire First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), and that dismissal was entered on March 22, 2023.
3 Defendants Milestone Financial, LLC; Bear Bruin Ventures, Inc.; William R. Stuart; Carolyn Stuart and
4 Zoe Hamilton (collectively “Defendants”) then filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (“Motion”) against
5 Asturias, and also filed a Memorandum of Costs.
6 The Motion was heard by Department 501 of this Court on May 3, 2023, at 9:30 a.m. The Court
7 granted the Motion in part, awarding Defendants’ attorneys’ fees of One Hundred Seven Thousand and
8 Sixty Dollars and fifty cents ($107,060.50) against Asturias.
9 The Court can and should enter a separate judgment for Defendants against Asturias without
10 waiting for the completion of the action between the remaining Plaintiff, Eduardo Paniagua, and the
11 remaining defendants (Carolyn Stuart has been dismissed from the action). The one final judgment rule
12 does not apply here to defer the entry of judgment as to Asturias.
13 As explained by the Court in Cuevas v. Truline Corp. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 56:
14 The one final judgment rule for appellate proceedings does not, as Truline and Martinez
argue, prohibit separate or partial judgments against some, but not all, defendants. Such
15 incomplete or partial dispositions are familiar in our jurisprudence. For example, Code of
Civil Procedure section 579 allows entry of judgment against one defendant while
16 continuing the action against another defendant. (See Vandenberg v. Superior Court
17 (1999) 21 Cal.4th 815, 824, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 366, 982 P.2d 229; T & R Painting
Construction, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 738, 742–
18 743, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 199.). The law also permits separate judgments against defaulting
and non-defaulting defendants. In addition, it allows separate judgments by
19 summary judgment. And Proposition 51 permits separate judgments for noneconomic
damages. (Civ. Code, § 1431.2.) What the one final judgment rule prohibits is appealing
20
from partial dispositions while other unresolved matters remain pending against other
21 parties.”
22 Cuevas, 118 Cal.App.4th at 60-61. Therefore, the Court should enter the Defendants’ [Proposed]
23 judgment as against Asturias only, which is filed concurrently herewith.
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
MEYLAN DAVITT 2
JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF RE ENTRY OF SEPARATE JUDGMENT
AFTER DISMISSAL OF ACTION BY ASTURIAS
1 DATED: May 15, 2023 MEYLAN DAVITT JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP
2
3
By:
4 Vincent J. Davitt
Anita Jain
5 Attorneys Defendants and Cross-Complainants
Milestone Financial, LLC; Bear Bruin Ventures, Inc.;
6
William R. Stuart; Carolyn Stuart; and Zoe Hamilton
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEYLAN DAVITT 3
JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF RE ENTRY OF SEPARATE JUDGMENT
AFTER DISMISSAL OF ACTION BY ASTURIAS
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I, DAVINA M. BERNAL, declare:
3 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and
not a party to this action. My business address, telephone number and email address are 444 South
4 Flower Street, Suite 1850, Los Angeles, California 90071, (213) 225-6000, dbernal@mdjalaw.com.
5 On May 15, 2023, I served the document(s) described as DEFENDANTS MILESTONE
6 FINANCIAL, LLC; BEAR BRUIN VENTURES, INC.; WILLIAM R. STUART; CAROLYN
STUART; AND ZOE HAMILTON’S BRIEF RE ENTRY OF SEPARATE JUDGMENT AFTER
7 DISMISSAL OF ACTION BY ELENA ASTURIAS on the interested parties in this action:
8 Sarah Shapero, Esq. Harris Cohen, Esq.
Stephanie Silverman Warden, Esq. HARRIS L. COHEN, A PROF. CORP.
9 SHAPERO LAW FIRM 5305 Andasol Avenue
10 100 Pine Street, Suite 530 Encino, CA 91316
San Francisco, CA 94111 Email: hcohen00@aol.com
11 Email: sarah@shaperolawfirm.com Co-Counsel for Defendants/Cross-Complainants
Email: stephanie@shaperolawfirm.com Milestone Financial, LLC; Bear Bruin Ventures,
12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Inc.; William R. Stuart; Carolyn Stuart; and Zoe
Eduardo Paniagua and Elena Asturias Hamilton
13
14 Elkanah J. Burns, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ELKANAH J. BURNS
15 847 N. Hollywood Way, Suite 201
Burbank, CA 91505
16 Email: elkanah@convergenz.com
Co-Counsel for Defendants/Cross-Complainants
17 Milestone Financial, LLC; Bear Bruin Ventures,
18 Inc.; William R. Stuart; Carolyn Stuart; and Zoe
Hamilton
19
20 BY E-MAIL/ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Based on the California Rules of Court, a court
order, and/or an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused
21 the document(s) to be transmitted to an electronic filing service provider or to the persons at the email
22 addresses listed on the within service list. I did not receive within a reasonable time after the
transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
23
[State] I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
24 above is true and correct.
25 Executed on May 15, 2023, at Los Angeles, California.
26
27
DAVINA M. BERNAL
28
MEYLAN DAVITT 4
JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF RE ENTRY OF SEPARATE JUDGMENT
AFTER DISMISSAL OF ACTION BY ASTURIAS
Preview
1 MEYLAN DAVITT JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP VINCENT J. DAVITT, ESQ. (State Bar No. 130649) 2 ANITA JAIN, ESQ. (State Bar No. 192961) ELECTRONICALLY 3 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1850 FILED Los Angeles, California 90071 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 4 Telephone: (213) 225-6000 / Fax: (213) 225-6660 Email: vdavitt@mdjalaw.com 05/15/2023 Clerk of the Court 5 Email: ajain@mdjalaw.com BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE Deputy Clerk 6 HARRIS L. COHEN, A PROF. CORP. HARRIS L. COHEN, ESQ. (State Bar No. 119600) 7 5305 Andasol Avenue 8 Encino, California 91316 Telephone: (818) 905-5599 / Fax: (818) 905-5660 9 Email: hcohen00@aol.com 10 Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-Complainants Milestone Financial, LLC; Bear Bruin Ventures, Inc.; 11 William R. Stuart; Carolyn Stuart; and Zoe Hamilton 12 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 15 Eduardo Paniagua and Elena Asturias, CASE NO. CGC-18-571279 individuals, 16 DEFENDANTS MILESTONE Plaintiffs, vs. FINANCIAL, LLC; BEAR BRUIN 17 VENTURES, INC.; WILLIAM R. 18 Milestone Financial, LLC, a California STUART; CAROLYN STUART; AND corporation, Bear Bruin Ventures, Inc. a ZOE HAMILTON’S BRIEF RE ENTRY 19 California Corporation, William R. Stuart, an OF SEPARATE JUDGMENT AFTER individual, Carolyn Stuart, an individual, Zoe DISMISSAL OF ACTION BY ELENA 20 Hamilton, an individual, and DOES 1-100, ASTURIAS inclusive, 21 Defendants. Date: May 3, 2023 22 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept: 501 23 Milestone Financial, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Bear Bruin Ventures, Inc., 24 William Stuart, Carolyn Stuart and Zoe Hamilton, Cross-Complainants, Action filed: November 13, 2018 25 v. 26 Eduardo Paniagua and Roes 1-100, 27 Cross-Defendants. 28 MEYLAN DAVITT 1 JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF RE ENTRY OF SEPARATE JUDGMENT AFTER DISMISSAL OF ACTION BY ASTURIAS 1 Elena Asturias (“Asturias”) was previously a plaintiff in this action. Asturias dismissed her 2 entire First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), and that dismissal was entered on March 22, 2023. 3 Defendants Milestone Financial, LLC; Bear Bruin Ventures, Inc.; William R. Stuart; Carolyn Stuart and 4 Zoe Hamilton (collectively “Defendants”) then filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (“Motion”) against 5 Asturias, and also filed a Memorandum of Costs. 6 The Motion was heard by Department 501 of this Court on May 3, 2023, at 9:30 a.m. The Court 7 granted the Motion in part, awarding Defendants’ attorneys’ fees of One Hundred Seven Thousand and 8 Sixty Dollars and fifty cents ($107,060.50) against Asturias. 9 The Court can and should enter a separate judgment for Defendants against Asturias without 10 waiting for the completion of the action between the remaining Plaintiff, Eduardo Paniagua, and the 11 remaining defendants (Carolyn Stuart has been dismissed from the action). The one final judgment rule 12 does not apply here to defer the entry of judgment as to Asturias. 13 As explained by the Court in Cuevas v. Truline Corp. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 56: 14 The one final judgment rule for appellate proceedings does not, as Truline and Martinez argue, prohibit separate or partial judgments against some, but not all, defendants. Such 15 incomplete or partial dispositions are familiar in our jurisprudence. For example, Code of Civil Procedure section 579 allows entry of judgment against one defendant while 16 continuing the action against another defendant. (See Vandenberg v. Superior Court 17 (1999) 21 Cal.4th 815, 824, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 366, 982 P.2d 229; T & R Painting Construction, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 738, 742– 18 743, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 199.). The law also permits separate judgments against defaulting and non-defaulting defendants. In addition, it allows separate judgments by 19 summary judgment. And Proposition 51 permits separate judgments for noneconomic damages. (Civ. Code, § 1431.2.) What the one final judgment rule prohibits is appealing 20 from partial dispositions while other unresolved matters remain pending against other 21 parties.” 22 Cuevas, 118 Cal.App.4th at 60-61. Therefore, the Court should enter the Defendants’ [Proposed] 23 judgment as against Asturias only, which is filed concurrently herewith. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// MEYLAN DAVITT 2 JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF RE ENTRY OF SEPARATE JUDGMENT AFTER DISMISSAL OF ACTION BY ASTURIAS 1 DATED: May 15, 2023 MEYLAN DAVITT JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP 2 3 By: 4 Vincent J. Davitt Anita Jain 5 Attorneys Defendants and Cross-Complainants Milestone Financial, LLC; Bear Bruin Ventures, Inc.; 6 William R. Stuart; Carolyn Stuart; and Zoe Hamilton 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEYLAN DAVITT 3 JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF RE ENTRY OF SEPARATE JUDGMENT AFTER DISMISSAL OF ACTION BY ASTURIAS 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I, DAVINA M. BERNAL, declare: 3 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. My business address, telephone number and email address are 444 South 4 Flower Street, Suite 1850, Los Angeles, California 90071, (213) 225-6000, dbernal@mdjalaw.com. 5 On May 15, 2023, I served the document(s) described as DEFENDANTS MILESTONE 6 FINANCIAL, LLC; BEAR BRUIN VENTURES, INC.; WILLIAM R. STUART; CAROLYN STUART; AND ZOE HAMILTON’S BRIEF RE ENTRY OF SEPARATE JUDGMENT AFTER 7 DISMISSAL OF ACTION BY ELENA ASTURIAS on the interested parties in this action: 8 Sarah Shapero, Esq. Harris Cohen, Esq. Stephanie Silverman Warden, Esq. HARRIS L. COHEN, A PROF. CORP. 9 SHAPERO LAW FIRM 5305 Andasol Avenue 10 100 Pine Street, Suite 530 Encino, CA 91316 San Francisco, CA 94111 Email: hcohen00@aol.com 11 Email: sarah@shaperolawfirm.com Co-Counsel for Defendants/Cross-Complainants Email: stephanie@shaperolawfirm.com Milestone Financial, LLC; Bear Bruin Ventures, 12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Inc.; William R. Stuart; Carolyn Stuart; and Zoe Eduardo Paniagua and Elena Asturias Hamilton 13 14 Elkanah J. Burns, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ELKANAH J. BURNS 15 847 N. Hollywood Way, Suite 201 Burbank, CA 91505 16 Email: elkanah@convergenz.com Co-Counsel for Defendants/Cross-Complainants 17 Milestone Financial, LLC; Bear Bruin Ventures, 18 Inc.; William R. Stuart; Carolyn Stuart; and Zoe Hamilton 19 20 BY E-MAIL/ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Based on the California Rules of Court, a court order, and/or an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused 21 the document(s) to be transmitted to an electronic filing service provider or to the persons at the email 22 addresses listed on the within service list. I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 23 [State] I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 24 above is true and correct. 25 Executed on May 15, 2023, at Los Angeles, California. 26 27 DAVINA M. BERNAL 28 MEYLAN DAVITT 4 JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF RE ENTRY OF SEPARATE JUDGMENT AFTER DISMISSAL OF ACTION BY ASTURIAS