On February 14, 2019 a
No Value
was filed
involving a dispute between
Inner Gardens Inc.,
Saks Wayne J,
and
Beverly Spalding Court Homeowners' Association,
Gelfond Frederick "Gordon",
Inner Gardens Inc.,
Jone Earl "Richie",
Landi Pascal,
Pink Jeffrey Z,
Pink Jeff Z,
for civil
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
West District, Santa Monica Courthouse, Department M
19SMCV00289 November 4, 2022
WAYNE J SAKS, et al. vs JEFFREY Z PINK, et al. 8:30 AM
Judge: Honorable Mark A. Young CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: K. Metoyer ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: J. Morgan Deputy Sheriff: None
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff(s): David Ross Fisher (Video) and Tom Yacko (Telephonic); Ilene Kurtzman
(Telephonic)
For Defendant(s): Susan L. Caldwell (Video); Stephanie Kathleen Guerra (Telephonic); Paul
Lecky By: Nairi Paterson
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Ex Parte Application TO CONTINUE HEARING
ON THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF
PLAINTIFFS EXPERTS, STEPHEN WOOD AND DANIEL NORDBERG
The Court has reviewed Defendant’s ex parte application to continue their motion for summary
judgment and compel the depositions of Plaintiffs’ experts, along with Plaintiff Wayne Saks
opposition and Plaintiff Mirta Siderman’s joinder. After considering the papers, including
supporting declarations, and the underlying summary judgment declarations, the Court rules
without oral argument as follows:
The Ex Parte Application TO CONTINUE HEARING ON THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF PLAINTIFFS EXPERTS, STEPHEN WOOD
AND DANIEL NORDBERG filed by Frederick "Gordon" Gelfond, Pascal Landi, Beverly
Spalding Court Homeowners' Association, Earl "Richie" Jone on 11/03/2022 is Denied.
Defendants have failed to identify any significant facts or critical issues regarding the
foundations for Cook’s or Nordberg’s opinions as contained in their declarations that raise a
question as to the validity of their declarations. Moreover, a review of the two underlying
declarations also fails to reveal a basis for questioning the foundation for their opinion.
Defendants might disagree with their conclusions, but that is insufficient to compel a
continuance of the motion or an order compelling their depositions.
Plaintiff to give notice.
Minute Order Page 1 of 1
Document Filed Date
November 04, 2022
Case Filing Date
February 14, 2019
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division West District, Santa Monica Courthouse, Department M 19SMCV00289 November 4, 2022 WAYNE J SAKS, et al. vs JEFFREY Z PINK, et al. 8:30 AM Judge: Honorable Mark A. Young CSR: None Judicial Assistant: K. Metoyer ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: J. Morgan Deputy Sheriff: None APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff(s): David Ross Fisher (Video) and Tom Yacko (Telephonic); Ilene Kurtzman (Telephonic) For Defendant(s): Susan L. Caldwell (Video); Stephanie Kathleen Guerra (Telephonic); Paul Lecky By: Nairi Paterson NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Ex Parte Application TO CONTINUE HEARING ON THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF PLAINTIFFS EXPERTS, STEPHEN WOOD AND DANIEL NORDBERG The Court has reviewed Defendant’s ex parte application to continue their motion for summary judgment and compel the depositions of Plaintiffs’ experts, along with Plaintiff Wayne Saks opposition and Plaintiff Mirta Siderman’s joinder. After considering the papers, including supporting declarations, and the underlying summary judgment declarations, the Court rules without oral argument as follows: The Ex Parte Application TO CONTINUE HEARING ON THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF PLAINTIFFS EXPERTS, STEPHEN WOOD AND DANIEL NORDBERG filed by Frederick "Gordon" Gelfond, Pascal Landi, Beverly Spalding Court Homeowners' Association, Earl "Richie" Jone on 11/03/2022 is Denied. Defendants have failed to identify any significant facts or critical issues regarding the foundations for Cook’s or Nordberg’s opinions as contained in their declarations that raise a question as to the validity of their declarations. Moreover, a review of the two underlying declarations also fails to reveal a basis for questioning the foundation for their opinion. Defendants might disagree with their conclusions, but that is insufficient to compel a continuance of the motion or an order compelling their depositions. Plaintiff to give notice. Minute Order Page 1 of 1