On January 26, 2016 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Moda Kevin ,
and
Brivanlou Pacoima Llc ,
Hakak Mahin ,
Harold Igdaloff Trustee Of The Igdaloff ,
for Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure) (General Jurisdiction)
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
Shari Rosénthal, Esq. (State Bar No. 123083) FILED
Sharon S. Jeffrey, Esq. (State Bar No. 228149) Beaninty of
Court
of Caltfomia
Los Angeles
MANNING & KASS,
ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP - DEC 08 2017
801 South Figueroa Street, 15" Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017 Shei R. Carter, Executive Officer'Clerk
Tel: (213) 624-6900 Bye
Jenny Chea
Deputy
Fax: (213) 624-6999
Attorneys for Defendants BRIVANLOU PACOIMA, LC, MAHIN HAKAK
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
10
11
KEVIN MODA, Case No. BC608383
(Hon. Maureen Duffy Lewis, Dept. 38]
12
Plaintiff,
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION
13 FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
Vv
wi$3
ai
ge
14
BRIVANLOU PACOIMA, LC, MAHIN Date: December 15, 2017
HAKAK, and DOES 1 -10, Inclusive, Time: 9:30 AM
15 Dept: 38
Defendants Res No. 170912250068
16
17
18 1 THE OPPOSITION IS UNTIMELY AND MUST BE DISREGARDED
19 This motion was originally noticed for hearing 6n December 11, 2017. Plaintiff's
20 opposition, thus, would have been due on November 28, 2017, with Defendants' reply due on
21 December 4, 2017. On November 17, 2017, the Court reset the motion for hearing on December
15,2017. The Court's notice of continuance unambiguously states: "All motions/proceedings
pe
pd 23 previously set on the above date are trailed to a new date. The deadline to file moving papers,
bm
bo 24 reply and opposition ‘does not change. Moving papers must be filed based on the original hearing
25 date." (Emphasis added). Thus, Plaintiff was still required to file his opposition by November
rem
28, 2017. Plaintiff, however, did not file the opposition until December 4, 2017, and Defendants'
26
27 counsel did not receive the opposition papers until December 6, 2017. Therefore, the Court
28 should disregard the untimely and improperly served opposition.
4844-9542-2552.1 1
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
Judge
Maureen Duffy-Lewis
Track Judge’s New Case
Document Filed Date
December 08, 2017
Case Filing Date
January 26, 2016
Category
Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure) (General Jurisdiction)
Status
Court-Ordered Dismissal - Other (Other) 08/14/2017
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Shari Rosénthal, Esq. (State Bar No. 123083) FILED Sharon S. Jeffrey, Esq. (State Bar No. 228149) Beaninty of Court of Caltfomia Los Angeles MANNING & KASS, ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP - DEC 08 2017 801 South Figueroa Street, 15" Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Shei R. Carter, Executive Officer'Clerk Tel: (213) 624-6900 Bye Jenny Chea Deputy Fax: (213) 624-6999 Attorneys for Defendants BRIVANLOU PACOIMA, LC, MAHIN HAKAK SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT 10 11 KEVIN MODA, Case No. BC608383 (Hon. Maureen Duffy Lewis, Dept. 38] 12 Plaintiff, REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION 13 FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES Vv wi$3 ai ge 14 BRIVANLOU PACOIMA, LC, MAHIN Date: December 15, 2017 HAKAK, and DOES 1 -10, Inclusive, Time: 9:30 AM 15 Dept: 38 Defendants Res No. 170912250068 16 17 18 1 THE OPPOSITION IS UNTIMELY AND MUST BE DISREGARDED 19 This motion was originally noticed for hearing 6n December 11, 2017. Plaintiff's 20 opposition, thus, would have been due on November 28, 2017, with Defendants' reply due on 21 December 4, 2017. On November 17, 2017, the Court reset the motion for hearing on December 15,2017. The Court's notice of continuance unambiguously states: "All motions/proceedings pe pd 23 previously set on the above date are trailed to a new date. The deadline to file moving papers, bm bo 24 reply and opposition ‘does not change. Moving papers must be filed based on the original hearing 25 date." (Emphasis added). Thus, Plaintiff was still required to file his opposition by November rem 28, 2017. Plaintiff, however, did not file the opposition until December 4, 2017, and Defendants' 26 27 counsel did not receive the opposition papers until December 6, 2017. Therefore, the Court 28 should disregard the untimely and improperly served opposition. 4844-9542-2552.1 1 REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES