Excerpt: ...obey a Court order compelling her responses to discovery and payment of sanctions. Plaintiff has not filed any opposition. This motion was originally set to be heard on July 11, 2018. Plaintiff appeared at the hearing and indicated that she required the assistance of a Farsi language interpreter. The Court placed the case on second call and ordered a Farsi language interpreter from the interpreter's office. The Court and the parties waited until ...

Excerpt: ...ifer Avery (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint on April 25, 2018, alleging four causes of action for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conversion. On June 18, 2018, Defendant Kathleen G. Bescoby (“Defendant”) filed a demurrer to the intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) cause of action and a motion to strike portions of the complaint. Plaintiff filed oppositions on July 5, 2018. On July 11...

Excerpt: ...laintiff Inez Coffman (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint on March 3, 2016, alleging a single cause of action for motor vehicle negligence. On November 15, 2017, the Court dismissed the instant action for failure to serve/prosecute. On January 10, 2018, the Court vacated the dismissal. On March 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed a doe amendment adding Defendant Enterprise Rent‐A‐Car Company of Los Angeles, LLC (“Defendant”) as Doe 1. On June 18, 2...

Excerpt: ...im, “Remy,” was owned by Defendants David Rosenbaum (“Defendant”) and Lynsey Leoncavallo. Plaintiff filed his complaint on November 15, 2016. Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint on May 25, 2017 alleging causes of action for (1) strict liability, (2) negligence, and (3) premises liability. The First Amended Complaint seeks general and special damages for all three causes of action, as well as punitive damages for the thir...

Excerpt: ...and battery that occurred outside the restaurant owned or operated by Defendant King Taco, Inc. (“Moving Defendant”). Moving Defendant now moves to file a proposed cross‐complaint against Prominent Security Services (“Prominent”), as Moving Defendant contends that Prominent was tasked with providing security services at the restaurant where the attack occurred. DISCUSSION CCP §428.10 provides that a party against whom a cause of action...

Excerpt: ...Sandra Toshiyuki (“Defendant”). The complaint, filed May 25, 2017, alleges causes of action for general negligence and motor vehicle. Defendant moves to quash Plaintiff's deposition subpoenas served on Donald Matsumoto, O.D. The subpoena seeks “[c]omplete medical, eye, optometric, eye glass, and ophthalmic records and billing records, from January 1, 2010, to the present, including but not limited to any records/documents that may be stored...

Excerpt: ...lanos (collectively, “Claimants”), filed two Petitions to Approve Compromise of Pending Action – one for Claimant Gerardo Castellanos and one for Claimant Mayra Berenice Castellanos. The Court has reviewed the petitions and finds the settlements fair and reasonable. The parties have an agreement for attorney's fees, which is attached to the petition. The claim for attorney's fees has been properly substantiated. The petition is properly ver...

Excerpt: ...tion to Approve Compromise of Pending Action for a Person with a Disability. The petition cannot be approved because the Court has concerns regarding distribution of the settlement proceeds between Petitioner and Claimant. In addition, there are numerous procedural defects, and the petition is missing numerous attachments that are referenced in the petition (including Attachment 5, 11, 12, 14a, 14b, 18a, 18e, and 19b(4), and Exhibit A settlement ...

Excerpt: ...nh (“Defendant”). The complaint, filed February 14, 2018, alleges causes of action for general negligence and motor vehicle. On May 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to quash Defendant's deposition subpoenas served on medical providers. This motion was first set to be heard on July 5, 2018. On July 2, 2018, Defendant filed a late opposition. To allow Plaintiff an opportunity to reply, the Court continued the hearing to the instant d...

Excerpt: ... 4, 2018, the parties signed a stipulation to re‐ open discovery as to expert witness discovery. Trial is currently set for September 25, 2018.[1] Thus, this motion is made before the discovery motion cutoff. Plaintiffs Ruxner Andino, Hersson Andino, Nolan Andino, Luz Andino, and Juan Andino (“Plaintiffs”) designated Paul Bronston, M.D. (“Dr. Bronston”) as a retained expert in this case on January 12, 2018. On January 31, 2018, Dr. Bron...

Excerpt: ... Valles, et al.) and BC649599 (Elizabeth Villa v. Elite Transportation, et al.). “Cases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same department. A motion to consolidate two or more cases may be noticed and heard after the cases, initially filed in different departments, have been related into a single department, or if the cases were already assigned to that department.” (Local Rule 3.3(g).) These cases were deemed related on October 1...

Excerpt: ...t (“Defendant”). The complaint, filed December 26, 2017, alleges causes of action for general negligence and motor vehicle. Plaintiff moves to quash Defendant's deposition subpoenas served on medical providers: (1) Kaiser Permanente Central Release of Information Unit – Kaiser – SCPMG – RED; (2) Kaiser Permanente Central Support Services Revenue Cycle – Kaiser Special – LA; (3) SCPMG/Kaiser‐Edgemont‐Radiology – Universal City;...

Excerpt: ...tice against defendants East Los Angeles Doctors Hospital, Gia D. Le, M.D., and Alejandro Aguilar, M.D. On November 16, 2017, Defendant Gia D. Le, M.D. (“Dr. Le”) filed a notice of stay of proceedings. On December 13, 2017, Dr. Le filed a notice of mandatory stay and declaration of counsel, attaching an order issued by the District of Columbia Superior Court on October 25, 2017. The D.C. Superior Court's order granted the request by the Distr...

Excerpt: ...t to a neurological examination by Dr. Barry Ludwig. Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendant has replied. This motion was first heard on June 4, 2018. At the hearing, Plaintiff stated that she had received the Defendant's reply late and was unable to determine whether the requested tests were duplicative of the prior physical examination performed by Dr. Charles Rosen. The Court continued the hearing to the instant date and ordered Defendant ...

Excerpt: ...ctively, “Plaintiffs”). The Complaint filed on March 21, 2018, alleges a cause of action for negligence against Defendant Bernard A. Reiling, Jr. (“Defendant”). On June 18, 2018, Plaintiffs filed this instant motion to appoint a discovery referee under Code of Civil Procedure § 639. Defendant opposes the motion,[1] and Plaintiffs have replied. LEGAL STANDARD Code of Civil Procedure section 639, subdivision (a) provides that “[w]hen the...

Excerpt: ...unopposed. An unopposed motion for determination of good faith of settlement, such as this, need not contain a full and complete discussion of the Tech‐Bilt factors (Tech‐Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward‐Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488) by declaration or affidavit; rather, a bare bones motion setting forth the grounds of good faith and a declaration containing a brief background of the case is sufficient. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Co...

Excerpt: ...ohn Benlavi D.D.S. (“Defendant”) alleging a cause of action for professional negligence. On May 18, 2018, Defendant filed his Answer to the Complaint. The Answers sets forth six affirmative defenses. Plaintiff filed a demurrer to the Answer on June 4, 2018. Defendant opposes,[1] and Plaintiff has replied. LEGAL STANDARD A plaintiff may demur to a defendant's answer within 10 days of being served with the answer (CCP § 430.40(b)) on three gro...

Excerpt: ...t with the Plaintiffs Eric Hedlund and Cara Hedlund (“Plaintiffs”) or in the alternative to shorten time on hearing the motion for good faith settlement. The ex parte application was initially heard on June 27, 2018. The Court granted the motion to shorten time and set the hearing on the motion for determination of good faith for the instant date so that any parties opposing the motion could file a timely opposition. Defendant Larry Teik‐Ma...

Excerpt: ...leges that Defendants negligently provided care to Plaintiff such that they caused her injuries during Jasmone Young's prenatal care, labor and delivery. Plaintiff moves the Court for an order granting trial preference, pursuant to CCP §36(b). Defendants St Francis Medical Center, Medhat Seif, M.D., and Medhat Seif, M.D., Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) have filed notices of non‐opposition to Plaintiff's motion. In each notice of non‐ ...

Excerpt: ...r guardian ad litem Andrea Noemy Gonzalez, and Andrea Noemy Gonzalez as an individual, allege that Defendants negligently provided care to Plaintiff such that they caused her injuries during Andrea Noemy Gonzalez's labor and delivery. Plaintiff moves the Court for an order granting trial preference, pursuant to CCP §36(b). Defendants CHA Hollywood Medical Center, L.P., Sang Hyo Park, M.D., and Arang Naim, M.D. (collectively, “Defendants”) ha...

Excerpt: ...s Connor Harrison Pordas and OPSEC Specialized Protection, Inc. (“Defendants”) seek to compel the compliance of non‐party California Orthopedic & Microsurgery Institute (“COMI”) with a deposition subpoena. Plaintiff filed a document on July 9, 2018, titled: “Plaintiff Ryan M. Grave's [sic] Notice of Joinder and Joinder of the Opposition to Defendants' Motion for an Order Compelling California Orthopedic & Microsurgery Institute to Com...

Excerpt: ...mise of Pending Action for a Person with a Disability. The petition cannot be approved because the petition is missing numerous attachments that must be provided before the Court may grant the petition. The Court has also discovered several discrepancies in the petition and proposed order (Form MC‐351) that must be rectified before the petition may be approved. Below are the defects that must be corrected in an amended petition and amended orde...

Excerpt: ...aring Defendant Gerald Von Kaenel, erroneously named as Jerry Von Kaenel (“Defendant”) moves for an order quashing the service of summons in this action. Defendant argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction over him because he does not have sufficient minimum contacts with the State of California. // // // LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to CCP § 418.10(a)(1), a defendant may move to quash service of summons on or before the last day to plead in respo...

Excerpt: ...duction of Documents, set one (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories, set one (“FROG 1”); (3) Form Interrogatories, set two (“FROG 2”); and (4) Special Interrogatories, set one (“SROG”). Defendant has also filed a fifth motion to deem admitted the Requests for Admissions, set one (“RFA”). On February 16, 2018, Defendant served the discovery requests for RPD, FROG 1, and SROG on Plaintiff. Plaintiff's discovery responses were due on...

Excerpt: ...nzalez (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he was injured in a motor vehicle collision involving Defendants Stephanie Noemy Sanchez and Martha Sanchez (“Defendants”). The incident occurred on February 11, 2016. The complaint, filed January 13, 2017, alleges causes of action for negligence per se and negligence. On April 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant Stephanie Noemy Sanchez's deposition (“Defendant's deposition”). No op...

Excerpt: ...endant”) based on allegations of professional negligence and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant performed a dental cleaning on Plaintiff Joseph Goldberg (“Joseph”) on March 25, 2016, which allegedly resulted in an infection that caused Joseph to suffer from endocarditis. Defendant moves for summary judgment against Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs oppose the motion, and Defendant has replied. EVIDENCE Defendant's Objections to Plain...

Excerpt: ...ants”). On July 2, 2018, the Court granted a motion permitting Loya Casualty Insurance Company (“Loya”) to intervene on behalf of the Defendants as their insurer. Defendants request the Court to set aside the default entered on April 17, 2018. The instant motion was filed on June 7, 2018 and thus is timely under CCP §473(b). Each of the Defendants provides a declaration to show that he/she reported the service of the complaints in this mat...

Excerpt: ...efendant”) for negligence. Plaintiff alleges that on July 21, 2014, she tripped and fell as a result of a dangerous condition of an alley operated or maintained by Defendant. On March 21, 2018, Defendant filed a demurrer to the complaint on grounds that Plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts to show compliance with the claims presentation requirement under the Government Tort Claims Act. The demurrer was unopposed. The Court sustained Defend...

Excerpt: ...aintiff”) for Plaintiff's failure to obey a Court order. Plaintiff's counsel had filed a motion to be relieved as counsel on March 29, 2018. In the declaration accompanying the motion to be relieved, Plaintiff's counsel indicated the difficulty he was experiencing in trying to contact Plaintiff. On May 1, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff's counsel's motion to be relieved. Counsel filed proof of service of the order on May 2, 2018. Before being...

Excerpt: ...Defendant opposes the motions, and Plaintiff has replied. On February 6, 2018, Plaintiff served the RFAs on Defendant. Defendant's responses were due on March 13, 2018. As of the filing of the motions on May 8, 2018, Plaintiff had not received responses from Defendant. Plaintiff requests that the Court deem the RFAs admitted and impose sanctions for Defendant's failure to timely respond. Motion to Deem Admitted Plaintiff moves under CCP § 2033.2...

Excerpt: ...obey a Court order compelling her responses to discovery and payment of sanctions. Plaintiff has not filed any opposition. LEGAL STANDARD Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence or monetary sanctions. (CCP, §§ 2023.010(g), 2030.290(c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a ...

Excerpt: ...mplaint, filed December 13, 2017, alleges causes of action for negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff added Defendant Vortex Industries, Inc. (“Vortex”) as Doe 1 on December 22, 2017. Vortex filed an Answer to the complaint on February 15, 2018. On June 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to amend the complaint to include allegations of products liability against Vortex. Vortex opposes the motion, and Plaintiff has re...

Excerpt: ...398 (John Rodriguez v. Emilio Colorado, et al.). “Cases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same department. A motion to consolidate two or more cases may be noticed and heard after the cases, initially filed in different departments, have been related into a single department, or if the cases were already assigned to that department.” (Local Rule 3.3(g).) These cases were deemed related on April 23, 2018. CCP §1048(a) provides th...

Excerpt: ...papers. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Manuela Mercado (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint on December 18, 2017, alleging three causes of action for motor vehicle negligence, general negligence and negligence per se. On May 31, 2018, Defendant Enterprise Rent‐A‐Car Company of Los Angeles LLC (“Defendant”) filed a demurrer against each cause of action. Plaintiff filed an opposition on May 26, 2018. Defendant filed a reply on July 2, 2018. Plaintiff'...

Excerpt: ...egations of professional negligence. She alleges that beginning in May 18, 2017, she placed herself under the care of Defendants and that they negligently provided care and treatment to her, causing her injury. Defendant Gabe Rosenthal, D.D.S. (“Dr. Rosenthal”) moves for summary judgment against Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to Dr. Rosenthal's motion for summary judgment. LEGAL STANDARD In a medical malpractice action, the...

Excerpt: ... within 30 days of the motion by telephone and conversation. Counsel did not serve this motion on Defendants in this case. However, this lack of service does not defeat the motion. Defaults have been entered against Defendants in this case, and no defendants have ever appeared. Thus, under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362 <005000520057004c005200 510011> Counsel states that there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship such ...

Excerpt: ...s to deem admitted the Requests for Admission served on Plaintiff and also ordered Plaintiff to pay sanctions of $520.00 ($260 to each Defendant). On January 23, 2018, the Court granted Defendants' motions to compel Plaintiff's response to the Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. The Court ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses to the above discovery requests within 20 days of notice of the order and also ord...

Excerpt: ...nts (“RPD”), set one; (2) Form Interrogatories (“FROG”), set one; and (3) Special Interrogatories (“SROG”), set one. On July 26, 2017, Defendant served the discovery requests on Plaintiff. Defense counsel contacted Plaintiff multiple times to inquire as to the lack of responses. But, as of the filing of the motions on June 7, 2018, Defendant has not received responses from Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to any of Def...

Excerpt: ...ilson (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint on February 21, 2018, alleging a single cause of action for negligence. On May 9, 2018, Defendant Jane Anderson (“Defendant”) filed a demurrer and a motion to strike portions of the complaint. Plaintiff filed oppositions on June 18, 2018. Defendant filed replies on June 22, 2018. Plaintiff's complaint arises from a motor vehicle collision. The Complaint alleges that on January 24, 2018, Defendant Kenn...

Excerpt: ...d by defendant Target Corporation (“Defendant”). Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant on April 26, 2017 and alleges a cause of action for general negligence. Defendant moves for summary judgment. Plaintiff opposes,[1] and Defendant has replied. EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS Defendant's Objections to Plaintiff's Evidence: The Court first notes that Defendant's objections to Plaintiff's evidence were not made in the proper manner as required ...

Excerpt: ...e of non‐party, the Custodian of the Records of Los Angeles Orthopedic Group (“LAOG”), with a deposition subpoena for production of documents. Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to this motion. DISCUSSION Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.1 provides that “[i]f a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an iss...

Excerpt: ...s for Admissions, set two (“RFA”) from Defendants Chad Sullivan and Christina Sullivan (collectively, “Defendants”). The parties attended an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) on May 29, 2018 in an attempt to resolve informally the issues relating to Defendants' responses to the RFA. At the IDC, the Court ordered the parties to continue to meet and confer face‐to‐face or by telephone prior to the hearing on these motions to com...

Excerpt: ...tly set for August 15, 2018, and trial is set for August 29, 2018. Defendants seek to continue these matters to allow for mediation and the conclusion of discovery. Defendant states that all parties wish to pursue mediation, but several items of discovery must be completed first. To allow for sufficient time to complete discovery and mediation before trial, the current trial date must be continued approximately 6 months. Defendant also provides a...

Excerpt: ...joining in the request for the continuance. The FSC is currently set for July 18, 2018, and trial is set for August 1, 2018. Defendant seeks to continue these matters to allow for mediation and the conclusion of discovery. Defendant states that the parties have agreed to attend mediation in August of 2018. The parties wish to attend the mediation before completing discovery and preparing for trial. Defendant provides a stipulation signed by both ...

Excerpt: ...nts Kelly J. Tucker, M.D.; Michael Looney, CVT; David Hansen, RT; and AHMC Anaheim Regional Medical Center for the death of the decedent, Carlos Chensam (“Decedent”). Plaintiffs allege that the care rendered by Defendants caused the wrongful death of Decedent on April 23, 2016. The complaint, filed May 26, 2017, alleges a cause of action for professional negligence resulting in wrongful death. On December 15, 2017, Michael Looney, CVT; David ...

Excerpt: ...odged a copy of the proposed order with the Court and served it on all parties in this matter. The Court has reviewed the petition and finds the settlement fair and reasonable. The parties have an agreement for attorney's fees, which is attached to the petition, the Declaration of Counsel is sufficient to substantiate the work done in connection with this matter, and the petition is properly verified by Petitioner. The Court is therefore inclined...

Excerpt: ...led a complaint on March 9, 2018, alleging a single cause of action for negligence. On May 17, 2018, Defendants Keith Kim and Sun Hee Kim (“Defendants”) filed a demurrer and a motion to strike punitive damages. Plaintiff's complaint arises from a motor vehicle accident. The Complaint alleges that on March 9, 2016, Sun Hee Kim was driving under the influence of alcohol with the permission of Keith Kim, and Defendants negligently hit Plaintiff ...

Excerpt: ...terprises, Inc.'s (“Defendant”) further responses to the Form Interrogatories (“FROG”), set one. Initially, Plaintiff requested that Defendant provide further responses to FROG Nos. 12.4 and 15.1. On April 10, 2018, Plaintiff concurrently filed a motion to compel Defendant's further responses to a Request for Production of Documents. An Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) was held on April 30, 2018. The parties came to a resolution ...

Excerpt: ...laintiff”) had failed to file her claim within the requisite statute of limitations period. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal but defaulted on appeal. On January 18, 2018, Defendant served notice of the ruling on the motion for judgment on the pleadings. On February 5, 2018, Judgment was entered in favor of Defendant. On February 7, 2018, the Court signed a second Judgment in favor of Defendant.[1] On April 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instan...

Excerpt: ...dant Adalgisa Escobar Arciero (“Defendant”). Plaintiff filed the instant motion on June 6, 2018, requesting to re-open discovery. On December 29, 2017, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the Court continued the trial and all discovery cutoff dates. On May 4, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff's ex-parte application for a further continuance of the trial. However, the Court declined to extend the discovery cut-off date and ordered instea...

Excerpt: ...ecuted a stipulation with the other parties in the case joining in the request for the continuance. In addition, Plaintiff has filed a non‐opposition to the motion to continue. The FSC is currently set for July 23, 2018, and trial is set for August 6, 2018. Defendant seeks to continue these matters to allow for the conclusion of discovery. Defendant states that the parties need more time to prepare for trial including medical examinations and a...

Excerpt: ...ial Interrogatories, set two (“SROG2”). Defendant has also filed a third motion to deem admitted the Requests for Admissions (“RFA1”), set one. On February 5, 2018, Defendant served the discovery requests on Plaintiff. Plaintiff's <001b001100030003002700 00520058005100560048>l granted an extension to April 5, 2018 to respond. As of the filing of the motions on May 21, 2018, Defendant has not received responses from Plaintiff. Plaintiff ha...

Excerpt: ...party in certain civil actions, before filing a motion to strike, to engage in a specified meet and confer process with the party who filed the pleading subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached as to the filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the motion to strike. There is no indication from the moving papers submitted that Defendant engaged in a me...

Excerpt: ...r matter is currently in Department 2 of the Spring Street Courthouse. “Cases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same department. A motion to consolidate two or more cases may be noticed and heard after the cases, initially filed in different departments, have been related into a single department, or if the cases were already assigned to that department.” (Local Rule 3.3(g).) Here, Khashan has not yet been related with Hattar, wh...

Excerpt: ... (Roberts v. Mitchell, et al.). A notice of related cases has been filed and served in each action. Defendants state that these cases all arise out of the same motor vehicle collision. Each of the Plaintiffs were occupants of the same vehicle, except for Teresa Drouillard whose claim is derivative of her husband's claim. Plaintiffs allege that the motor vehicle driven by and controlled by Defendants collided with Plaintiffs' vehicle and caused Pl...

Excerpt: ..., and Gevork Tutunjian dba Joe's 98 Cent Discount Store (“Defendants”). The complaint for personal injuries and damages was filed on February 27, 2018. Plaintiff moves for trial preference and trial setting pursuant to CCP §36(a). Defendant opposes the motion, and Plaintiff has filed a reply. Trial is currently set for August 27, 2019. LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to CCP §36(a), a party to a civil action who is over the age of 70 must be given p...

Excerpt: ...dant”) and for sanctions against Defendant and its counsel. Defendant has filed an opposition, and Plaintiff has replied. LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to CCP §2025.450, if after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action, without having served a valid objection, fails to appear for examination, or proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance...

Excerpt: ...tioned and caused Plaintiff to fall on defendant Kiewit Power Constructors Co.'s property. The complaint, filed March 13, 2018, alleges causes of action for premises liability and negligence per se. On April 20, 2018, Kiewit Power Constructors Co. (“Cross‐Complainant”) filed a cross complaint against Roes 1‐25 for their contribution to Plaintiff's injuries. Cross‐Complainant filed the instant motion on May 30, 2018 seeking leave to file...

Excerpt: ...dant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (“Defendant”). The complaint was filed on July 10, 2017, and the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on September 12, 2017. Defendant moves for undertaking in the sum of $30,000.00. Plaintiff opposes the motion. LEGAL STANDARD “When the plaintiff in an action or special proceeding resides out of the state, or is a foreign corporation, the defendant may at any time apply to the court by noticed moti...

Excerpt: ...ROUND The instant demurrers arise from two related cases, County of Los Angeles v. Charles Dunn Company Inc. LASC Case No. BC640104 (the “County Action”) and Petrosyan v. Charles Dunn Real Estate LASC Case No. BC649930 (the “Petrosyan Action”). Defendant Specialized Elevator Corporation (“SEC”) was named as a “doe” defendant in both cases. In the County Action, Plaintiff County of Los Angeles (“County”) filed a subrogation act...

Excerpt: ...�the opposing party”) to provide further responses to Plaintiff's Requests for the Production of Documents, set one. Pursuant to the Court's current Amended General Order Re: Personal Injury Court Procedures, which is available on the Los Angeles Superior Court website, lead or other designated counsel for the parties with full authority, must participate in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) before the Court will hear any motion to c...

Excerpt: ...ROUND The instant demurrers arise from two related cases, County of Los Angeles v. Charles Dunn Company Inc. LASC Case No. BC640104 (the “County Action”) and Petrosyan v. Charles Dunn Real Estate LASC Case No. BC649930 (the “Petrosyan Action”). Defendant Specialized Elevator Corporation (“SEC”) was named as a “doe” defendant in both cases. In the County Action, Plaintiff County of Los Angeles (“County”) filed a subrogation act...

Excerpt: ...fendant Bronislava Zaks (“Defendant”) and for sanctions against Defendant and her counsel. Defendant has filed an opposition, and Plaintiff has replied. LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to CCP §2025.450, if after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action, without having served a valid objection, fails to appear for examination, or proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, the party giving notice may move for an order com...

Excerpt: ...intiff”) to submit to deposition. LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to CCP §2025.450, if after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action, without having served a valid objection, fails to appear for examination, or proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document. (CCP §2025.450(a).) ...

Excerpt: ...14. On December 15, 2017, Gertrude B. Tait and Robert B. Tait (collectively, “Defendants”) were substituted for Does 3 and 4 respectively. <004c0044004f004f005c00 0051004a000f00030049[iled the instant motion to quash service of process and dismiss the action on the grounds that service was not completed within the required three-year period under Code of Civil Procedure § 583.210. Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to Defendants' motion ...

Excerpt: ...nt, Inc. (“Defendant”). Plaintiff's complaint, filed on May 5, 2016, alleges a single cause of action for negligence against Defendant (as well as other sub‐ contractors working on the construction site at the time of the injury). Defendant moves for summary judgment on the grounds that the Privette/Toland line of cases and its progeny prevent employees of independent contractors from imposing liability on the hirer of the independent contr...

Excerpt: ...was riding and a car driven by defendant Joshua Dolback (“Moving Defendant”) and owned by Nikki Dolback. The collision occurred on July 27, 2017. The complaint, filed November 7, 2017, alleges causes of action for general negligence, negligence per se, and negligent entrustment. Moving Defendant moves to quash or modify Plaintiff's deposition subpoena issued on the Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”). The deposition subpoena to the DMV s...

Excerpt: ...018, and trial is set for August 6, 2018. Defendant seeks to continue these matters to allow for a meaningful period of discovery and possibly to file a motion for summary judgment. Defendant states that the parties need more time to prepare for trial. Defendant was not added to this litigation until March 14, 2018 even though this case was originally filed in January 26, 2016. Defendant states that it does not have sufficient time to complete di...

Excerpt: ...aint, filed March 24, 2018, alleges causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and negligence per se. The deposition of Defendant occurred on February 22, 2018. During the deposition, defense counsel objected to several questions on different grounds and instructed Defendant not to answer. Plaintiff now moves to compel Defendant to answer those questions. Plaintiff also requests sanctions against Defendant and her counsel. Defendant opposes th...

Excerpt: ...on. Defendant has not filed a reply or any other supplemental documentation. On January 31, 2017, Plaintiff and Defendants each made a timely response to the demands for exchange of designation of experts. This trial has been continued several times. In the order continuing trial entered on April 24, 2018, the Court ordered that discovery was not continued except as agreed to by the parties, which included expert discovery as related to Plaintiff...

Excerpt: ...apers BACKGROUND Plaintiff Alanah Stone (“Plaintiff”), a minor by and through her guardian ad litem Nicole Whitehead, filed a complaint on January 12, 2018, alleging a single cause of action for general negligence. On May 14, 2018, Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (“Defendant”) filed a demurrer to the complaint. Plaintiff's complaint arises from an injury while playing flag football. Plaintiff alleges that on December 13, 201...

Excerpt: ...io) granted summary judgment in favor of defendants Laura Farwell and Baldwin Crest Realty and against Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a document on October 2, 2017 labeled as a “Petition for Rehearing.” This document did not include a memorandum of points and authorities or any exhibits or other evidence. The filing contained only this statement: “With respect to the court, it is imperative that new evidence, as well as new information be known...

Excerpt: ...ning in the request for the continuance. The FSC is currently set for July 26, 2018, and trial is set for August 9, 2018. Plaintiffs seek to continue these matters to allow for mediation and the conclusion of discovery. Plaintiffs state that the parties need more time to conduct discovery related to the Plaintiffs' medical conditions. Plaintiffs provide a stipulation signed by both counsel to continue trial as Exhibit 1 to counsel's declaration. ...

Excerpt: ...atricia was injured when she slipped and fell on the premises owned or controlled by the Vons Company (“Defendant”). Patrick is alleging injuries for loss of consortium for the injuries sustained by Patricia. Defendant first moves to compel the psychological examination of Plaintiff by psychologist Colin G. Koransky, Ph.D. Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendant has replied. Second, Defendant moves to limit the number of non‐retained ex...

Excerpt: ...6, 2018, and thus is timely under CCP §473(b). Defendants Tradecor PCH ANZA, LLC and HBAR Petroleum, Inc. (“Defendants”) oppose the motion. Plaintiff's Counsel states that she failed to appear on April 2, 2018, the date set for trial, due to her mistaken belief that trial was set for April 3, 2018. (Burton Decl., at ¶ 7.) Counsel states that at the FSC on March 21, 2018, she believed that the trial had been set for April 3, 2018. (Id. at ¶...

Excerpt: ...nd trial is set for October 11, 2018. Defendant seeks to continue these matters to allow for a motion for summary judgment. Defendant states that it has reserved a motion for summary judgment in this case, but the first available hearing date was November 16, 2018. Defendant attempted to schedule the summary judgment hearing for a time before the trial date, but no hearing dates were available. Plaintiff opposes this motion on grounds that “[t]...

Excerpt: ...ions. On April 18, 2018, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel deposition and request for sanctions. Defendant's motion and request for sanctions are denied as this motion was filed and will be heard after the discovery cutoff and discovery motion cutoff dates. Pursuant to CCP § 2024.020 “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this section, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30...

Excerpt: ...compelling plaintiffs Frederic Cermeno, Donald Gomez, and Erick Gomez (“Plaintiffs”) to submit to deposition. Plaintiffs have not filed any opposition to this motion. LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to CCP §2025.450, if after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action, without having served a valid objection, fails to appear for examination, or proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, the party giving notice may move fo...

Excerpt: ...ant”) Person Most Qualified (“PMQ”) and for sanctions against Defendant and its counsel. Defendant opposes the motion, and Plaintiff has replied. LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to CCP §2025.450, if after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action, without having served a valid objection, fails to appear for examination, or proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, the party giving notice may move for an order compelli...

Excerpt: ... March 28, 2017 and March 29, 2017.[1] Defendants Jose Salcido and Manuel Huerta Trucking, Inc. (“Defendants”) oppose the motion, and Plaintiff replied. LEGAL STANDARD CCP §2033.300(a) provides that a party may withdraw or amend an admission only on leave of court granted after notice to all parties. CCP §2033.300(b) provides that the court may permit withdrawal or amendment of an admission only if it determines that the admission was the r...

Excerpt: ...ed and fell on property owned or operated by the defendants. Plaintiff initially filed suit against defendant Vermont Avenue Fee Owner, LLC (“Moving Defendant”). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed Doe Amendments naming new defendants. Moving Defendant now moves to file a proposed cross‐complaint against one of these newly added defendants, Zenith Food Enterprises, Inc. DISCUSSION CCP §428.10 provides that a party against whom a cause of action ...

Excerpt: ... an answer to the complaint on January 26, 2018. Defendant now moves to file a proposed cross‐complaint against Plaintiff and another party not in this action. DISCUSSION CCP §428.10 provides that a party against whom a cause of action has been asserted may file a cross‐complaint setting forth: “(b) Any cause of action he has against a person alleged to be liable thereon, whether or not such person is already a party to the action, if the ...

Excerpt: ...y. However, there are in actuality three motions before the Court—a motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, a motion to compel responses to special interrogatories, and a motion to compel responses to requests for production of documents. A motion must be brought separately for each discovery method at issue. The Plaintiff mistakenly combined both the motion for FROG with the motion for SROG. Accordingly, the moving party is ordered...

Excerpt: ...n for negligence against all defendants. Defendants Lucille Ankilsby Renville and Kathy Kilsby (“Defendants”) move to compel the attendance of Plaintiff Tristan Hatfield (“Plaintiff”) at his physical examination. Plaintiff has objected to Defendants' initial demand for Independent Medical Examination (“IME”). As such, Defendants have brought the instant motion to compel. Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendants have replied. LEGAL...

Excerpt: ...018. Counsel has filed forms MC‐051, MC‐052, and lodged a proposed order on form MC‐053 with the Court pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1362. Counsel states that there has been a break down in the attorney client relationship in that Counsel and the client disagree as to how the case should proceed. However, Counsel has failed to provide the Court with a proof of service as to the client. Under CRC Rule 3.1362, the notice of motion, the declaration, ...

Excerpt: ...2018, and trial is set for June 18, 2018. This motion was properly served on Plaintiff's counsel via overnight UPS courier. No opposition has been filed by Plaintiff. Defendant seeks to continue these matters to allow for the conclusion of discovery. Defendant also requests that the Court allow the discovery cutoff and motion cutoff dates be continued under CCP § 2024.050. Defendant states that she has not yet received responses to supplemental ...

Excerpt: ... action for negligence and premises liability against defendants Stockbridge Capital Group, LLC, Core and Value Advisors, LLC, and SCG 616 Esplanade Street, LLC (“Defendants”). On April 23, 2018, proposed Intervenor Insurance Company of the West (“ICW”) filed a petition for leave to intervene pursuant to Labor Code, §3852. ICW states that Plaintiff was acting within the scope of employment of ICW at the time of the incident. ICW also con...

Excerpt: ...t for June 19, 2018. Defendants West Gate Trading Corp., and Ali Viliani (“Defendants”) oppose the motion, and Plaintiff has replied. Plaintiff seeks to continue the trial and all related dates to sufficiently complete discovery. Plaintiff's counsel states that he lost contact with Plaintiff because she became homeless and unreachable by phone. (Shohet Decl., at ¶ 3.) Counsel finally regained contact with Plaintiff, and the parties agreed to...

Excerpt: ... BC668136 (Smith v. LACMTA.), and BC682357 (Guillebeau v. LACMTA). Martinez and Smith were deemed related on October 24, 2017. However, Guillebeau has not yet been deemed related, and is currently in Department 4 of the Spring Street Courthouse. “Cases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same department. A motion to consolidate two or more cases may be noticed and heard after the cases, initially filed in different departments, have ...

Excerpt: ... Ryan Beilman, by and through his guardian ad litem Stacy Beilman, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) is further CONTINUED to July 26, at 1:30 pm. This motion was originally set to be heard on August 7, 2017. However, the moving party continued the motion four times to the prior hearing date of April 25, 2018. Plaintiffs request that the Court impose issue, evidentiary, or monetary sanctions on defendant Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center (“De...

Excerpt: ...ut her toe while in the resort pool on the property owned or controlled by defendants Terranea Resort, Destination Long Point, Inc. dba Terranea Resort (“Defendants”). Defendants now move to file a proposed cross‐complaint against a party not already in the action. DISCUSSION CCP §428.10 provides that a party against whom a cause of action has been asserted may file a cross‐complaint setting forth: “(b) Any cause of action he has again...

Excerpt: ... 10, 2017 against Defendant Khosrow Mirblouk alleging causes of action for motor vehicle and negligence. On November 20, 2017, Mirblouk (“Cross‐Complainant”) filed a cross‐complaint against Velasquez (“Moving Cross‐Defendant”) and Key Auto Recovery, Inc. Cross‐Complainant alleged against all Cross‐Defendants causes of action for (1) Indemnity, (2) apportionment of fault, (3) declaratory relief, and (4) property damage. Moving Cr...

Excerpt: ...efendants Christina Martinez (“Martinez”), and AM PM Towing & Auto Repair (“AM PM”) on May 10, 2016. Martinez requests that the Court make a determination of good faith as to the proposed settlement between Plaintiff and Martinez. No opposition has been filed to this motion. LEGAL STANDARD Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 enables a settling defendant to free itself not only from any further claims of the plaintiff but also from any s...

Excerpt: ...0, 2017, alleges claims against Beverly Hills Gateway, L.P. (“BHG”) and Tufeld Corporation (collectively “Defendants”). On June 26, 2017, Defendants BHG and Tufeld Corporation filed a cross‐complaint alleging claims for indemnity, etc., against M.P. Monte Construction, Inc. (“MP”) and Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. Pursuant to a request by Plaintiff, Tufeld Corporation was dismissed from this action on August 10, 2017. Pursuant to a reques...

Excerpt: ... to a neurological examination by Dr. Barry Ludwig. Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendant has replied. LEGAL STANDARD Where the physical condition of the plaintiff is in controversy in a personal injury case, the defendant may seek discovery by physical examination of the plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2032.020, 2032.220.)[1] A defendant is permitted to demand one physical examination of the plaintiff in a personal injury action, as long ...

Excerpt: ...ailure to obey the Court's January 19, 2018 Order. Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence or monetary sanctions. (CCP, §§ 2023.010(g), 2030.290(c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less s...

Excerpt: ...018 Order. Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence or monetary sanctions. (CCP, §§ 2023.010(g), 2030.290(c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compli...

Excerpt: ...ntiffs, resulting in injury to all Plaintiffs. The Deputies were both working in the course and scope of their employment by Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (“LASD”) when the collision occurred. Plaintiffs have brought this action against defendant County of Los Angeles (“Defendant” or “the County”). It is Plaintiffs' position that Defendant is liable for Plaintiffs' injuries because the injuries were caused by the “negligent acts�...

Excerpt: ...t its employee was injured when she fell while exiting an elevator on property owned or operated by defendant Charles Dunn Company, Inc. (“Defendant”). Defendant now moves to file a proposed cross‐complaint against a party not already in the action. DISCUSSION CCP §428.10 provides that a party against whom a cause of action has been asserted may file a cross‐complaint setting forth: “(b) Any cause of action he has against a person alle...

Excerpt: ...atalie Page (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint on March 16, 2018, alleging five causes of action for 1) negligence, 2) negligence per se, 3) strict liability, 4) premises liability; and 5) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff's complaint arises from an alleged dog bite that occurred on Defendant's real property on August 3, 2017. Plaintiff alleges that the dog attacked her face, which resulted in scarring. On April 25, 2018, D...