Judge David J. Cowan, Case Number: 18STPB10454, Date: 2024-02-29 Tentative Ruling

By this motion, filed February 29, 2024, Petitioners Maya Rubin and Jason Rubin, successor co-trustees of the above-referenced Trust and co-conservators of Sarolta Nuszer, seek to exclude Respondents Sarolta’s son, Jim Nuszer, and his wife Maria Jacobo, from offering any evidence at trial related to alleged bad acts of Sarolta’s daughters, Cathy Abbasi or Sarah Mogel, Sarolta’s alleged fear of Cathy or Sarah and Sarolta’s decision to transfer real property interests to Jim.[1] Petitioners contend these transfers on September 10, 2018 – that are no longer in dispute - are irrelevant to whether Jim and Maria stole Sarolta’s interest in NB Industries and of her share of the fair market value of 700 Ivy Street in Glendale - which is what this trial concerns. These alleged bad acts also took place long after the events concerning the taking of NB by Jim in or about 2006, the alleged transfer of Trust assets to EMBE in 2012 and entering the lease with Maria for Ivy Street in 2015 -- that are at issue.

In their opposition, filed March 5, 2024, Respondents make the following arguments: First, that the Court needs to consider Sarolta’s wishes and that the relevant evidence sought to be excluded would show that Sarolta trusted Jim but not Cathy or Sarah. They therefore argue that with this evidence the Court will conclude that Respondents did not wrongly take anything from the Trust. Second, citing Kelly v. New West Fed. Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4^th 659, 670-671, that the evidence sought to be excluded is too vague to be subject to an order excluding evidence.

By this motion, also filed February 29, 2024, Petitioners seek to exclude financial documents, including tax returns, from before 2014, and an unproduced set of books. This motion is made upon the grounds that Respondents, and EMBE’s manager and accountant, have all stated previously in response to discovery requests that they did not have any responsive documents.

In their opposition, filed March 5, 2024, Respondents do not dispute that they cannot introduce documents that were not produced previously but argue that this does not prohibit them from putting on testimony in lieu of those documents. As they also acknowledge, however, such testimony may be vulnerable to objection but such rulings are premature at this point.

Respondents do not address Petitioners’ point that the events sought to be excluded occurred far earlier than the events Respondents describe. However, it is unclear to the Court at this juncture whether those subsequent events will demonstrate whether the actions Respondents took earlier were consistent with what Sarolta allegedly later wanted or if those later events were the product of any decreased cognitive ability on her part. It is at least conceivable that those events may substantiate Respondents’ defense that they would not have wrongly taken from the Trust and that it is only Cathy’s allegedly improper claims that are motivating this petition (that Petitioners assumed after the Court appointed them to take over from Cathy as trustee). Respondents are entitled to put on their case. Petitioners will not suffer undue prejudice by the Court hearing that defense in this bench (as opposed to jury) trial. That the trial will take longer as a result is not sufficient grounds to deny the motion.

As Respondents also note it is difficult for the Court to make this determination without consideration of the underlying evidence that it does not now have. Further, the motion seeks to exclude potentially considerable evidence that again it is not clear might turn out to be relevant. For this reason, the lack of specificity to what is sought to be excluded is material. The motion does not satisfy the requirement of LASC Local Rule 3.57(a)(1) for specificity.

There is no dispute that the Court should exclude considering documents that were not produced or advised to be no longer available in response to Petitioners’ various requests of Respondents and associated persons with financial information. What decisions the court may make as to allowing testimony concerning what might be in those records – or as to the matters referenced in the opposition - remains to be seen. That is not the subject of this motion.

For these reasons, the Court denies the first motion and grants the second motion.

[1] For ease of reference, and without intending any disrespect, the Court refers to family members by their first names. Sarah and her brother, Bela, Jr. are now deceased.