Excerpt: ...utomobile accident with an uninsured motorist. Plaintiff also filed the instant action against Defendants, Baggage Airline Guest Services, Inc. (“BAGS”), Jessica Victory, and EAN Holdings, LLC for damages arising out of a second automobile accident, which accident occurred on 4/30/15. 2. Motion to Consolidate At this time, BAGS moves to consolidate the civil action with the UIM action. BAGS argues there is a risk of inconsistent rulings if th...

Excerpt: ...nt, LLC for damages arising out of a trip and fall at Defendants' store. The complaint includes causes of action for negligence and premises liability, and is premised on the following allegations (photograph omitted): 12. On November 7, 2014, at approximately 7:40 p.m., Plaintiff Buktaw and her husband were lawfully on the Subject Premises after purchasing groceries from Defendant Trader Joe's. Immediately before the incident, Plaintiff Bukt...

Excerpt: ... plaintiff James Patrick Cusick (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against defendants Robert Ruacho, Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, Toyota Lease Trust LSR, Pablo Cervantes Ruacho, Isela Ibet Ruacho and Does 1 to 50. On November 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) after the Court sustained a demurrer to the complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff alleges causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence. The...

Excerpt: ...ccident. Defendant, Green Rhino Logistics, LLC is a suspended corporation and therefore cannot defend itself in this case. Its insurance company, Williamsburg National Insurance Co., seeks leave to file an complaint‐in‐intervention in order to protect its interests in the litigation. A liability insurer normally is not a party to a third party action against its insured, but may have the right to intervene in certain circumstances. Pursuant t...

Excerpt: ...sed discovery motions; among the motions was a motion to deem RFAs admitted. At this time, Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings on the complaint, contending Plaintiff's admitted RFAs are fatal to the complaint. Defendants rely on Bockrath v. Aldrich Chem. Co., Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4 th 71, 83 and Williams v. So. Calif. Gas Co. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4 th 591, 600 to support their position that the subject RFAs, as well as the Court ruling deem...

Excerpt: ...outstanding discovery, and also imposing sanctions; the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses within ten days. To date, Plaintiffs have not complied with the order; at this time, Defendants seek an order imposing terminating sanctions. Pursuant to Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 776, the Court should typically impose lesser sanctions prior to awarding terminating sanctions. However, there are circumstances where impositi...

Excerpt: ...mitted. Defendant argues the motion should be denied because Defendant served responses in substantial compliance with the Code before the motion was filed. In the alternative, Defendant argues he should be relieved from his failure to serve responses, as Defense Counsel cannot locate Defendant. Finally, Defendant argues the ends of justice would not be served by deeming the RFAs admitted. CCP §2033.280 obligates the Court to deem the RFAs admit...

Excerpt: ...nd battery on Plaintiff by a patron of Defendants' nightclub. Plaintiff filed the complaint on 6/27/13. Plaintiff ultimately named 5 Diamond Protection, Inc. as Doe 4 in the action on 2/03/16. On 2/05/16, Plaintiff filed a proof of service of the summons and complaint on Defendant, 5 Diamond. The POS indicates Defendant was served via substitute service on David Alanoa, a person accepting service on Defendant's agent, Aaron Sayed's behalf. The PO...

Excerpt: ...ws: Background Facts Plaintiff, Richard Kimble filed this action against Defendant, Lifepath, INc. for damages arising out of a slip and fall that occurred on Defendant's premises. Plaintiff filed his complaint on 9/12/17. On 10/13/17, he filed proof of service of the summons and complaint on Defendant. The POS indicates that Defendant was served via substituted service on its authorized agent for service of process, Beverly Phillips, by posting ...

Excerpt: ...a parking lot. The altercation at issue occurred on 9/23/14. On 3/23/17, Plaintiff filed proof of service of the summons, complaint, statement of damages, and related documents on Defendant. The POS indicates Plaintiff was served by substitute service on the “gatekeeper” at his apartment building. The substitute service took place on 2/20/17, and the declaration of mailing indicates the papers were mailed to Plaintiff on 3/11/17. On 5/11/17, ...

Excerpt: ...ny. An arbitration award is not directly enforceable until it is confirmed by a court and judgment is entered. (CCP § 1287.6; Jones v. Kvistad (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 836, 840.) A party who is satisfied with an arbitration award should move to confirm the award. A party may seek a court judgment confirming an arbitration award by filing and serving a petition at least 10 days, but no more than four years after the award is served. (CCP §§ 1288, 1...

Excerpt: ...y Judgment At this time, Defendant moves for summary judgment on the complaint, contending (a) the condition was not dangerous as a matter of law, and (b) it lacked notice of any dangerous condition. a. Initial Note The Court has read and reviewed Plaintiff's separate statement in opposition to the motion, and is concerned that much of the evidence upon which Plaintiff relies is not actually attached to his opposition. For example, Plaintiff purp...

Excerpt: ...e Counsel could not locate Defendant; ultimately, Defense Counsel located Defendant, but Plaintiff attempted to place terms on any agreement to take a deposition without a court order, and Defendant deemed those terms unacceptable. For that reason, the deposition has not gone forward at this time. Notably, Defendant timely filed and served his opposition on 1/11/18. Any reply to the opposition was due on or before 1/22/18. As of 1/25/18, the Cour...

Excerpt: ...rved responses. Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions. On 1/16/18, Plaintiff filed timely opposition to the motions. In the opposition, Plaintiff concedes responses were not timely served. Plaintiff indicates responses will be served “on or before 1/22/18.” No responses are included with the opposition papers. Plaintiff's attorney declares the failure to...

Excerpt: ...s (set two) on Plaintiff on 6/05/17. Defendants made numerous attempts to meet and confer with Plaintiff's attorney. Ultimately, on 9/21/17, they filed a motion to deem the RFAs admitted. The moving papers were served on Plaintiff via service on his attorney of record at the time, D. Hess Panah. On 10/10/17, Plaintiff filed a notice of association of counsel. The notice indicated that the McElfish law firm was associating in with Panah as Plainti...

Excerpt: ...s to compel responses to the foregoing discovery and imposed sanctions. The Court ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses, without objections, within ten days. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the order; at this time, Defendant seeks an order imposing terminating sanctions. Pursuant to Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 776, the Court should typically impose lesser sanctions prior to awarding terminating sanctions. However,...

Excerpt: ...gelita Gonzales Hernandez (the principal of the school) for damages arising out of the alleged sexual assault and rape of Minor Plaintiff, Doe by one of her teachers, Cross‐ Defendant, Richard Paul Daniels. The complaint includes causes of action for:  Negligent Supervision, Hiring, and/or Retention – by Plaintiff, Doe against Defendants, District and Hernandez;  Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress – by Plaintiff, Melba Martine...

Excerpt: ...rs on 1/17/18; the Court cannot locate a proof of service of the moving papers. Defendant was ordered to file opposition on or before 1/19/18, and Plaintiff was ordered to file a reply on or before 1/23/18. On 1/22/18, Defendant filed an untimely opposition to the motion, which includes proof of service via FedEx the same day. It would be impossible for Plaintiff to file a timely reply in light of the late opposition. The order, however, was not ...

Excerpt: ...laint against defendants Jose Carrillo, Adrian Badillo Vega, Angela Carrillo, Maria Dolores Vega and Does 1 through 10 alleging causes of action for negligence and negligence per se. On December 22, 2017, the defendants demurred to complaint on the ground that it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. On January 12, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. The Court notes that instead of opposing the demurrer on the merits, Plaintiff's ...

Excerpt: ...ages arising out of a fall from a broken chair in Defendant's ice cream shop. Plaintiff's complaint includes causes of action for negligence and strict products liability. Both causes of action are pled against Frogurt and Does 1‐50. At this time, Frogurt moves for judgment on the pleadings on the second cause of action for strict products liability. Frogurt correctly notes that the complaint, at ¶7, alleges Does 21‐50 designed, manufactured...

Excerpt: ...aintiff alleges Defendant's dental care and treatment resulted in a mandibular fracture and substantial pain and suffering. Plaintiffs filed the action on 9/30/11. The parties agreed to several continuances of the trial date. On 10/10/14, the trial court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs appealed. The court of appeals reversed, and on 8/02/16, the case was remanded back to the trial court. On 6/14/17, the trial court hel...

Excerpt: ...ff filed the complaint on 3/14/16. To date, Plaintiff has not filed proof of service of the summons and complaint on any named defendant. On 8/28/17, the Court called the matter for an FSC, and on 9/14/17, the Court called the matter for trial; no party appeared on either date, and on 9/14/17, the Court dismissed the case. At this time, Plaintiffs move to set aside the dismissal. Plaintiffs' attorney declares the failure to appear at the FSC and ...

Excerpt: ...ff to serve responses, without objections, within ten days, and to pay sanctions. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the order; at this time, Defendant seeks an order imposing terminating sanctions. Pursuant to Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 776, the Court should typically impose lesser sanctions prior to awarding terminating sanctions. However, there are circumstances where imposition of terminating sanctions is appropriate wi...

Excerpt: ...e breakdown in the relationship are provided in Counsel's declaration in support of the motion. Counsel declares he served the moving papers on Client at an address that has been confirmed by telephone The motion is denied because it is set to be heard unreasonably close to the trial date. The trial date in the case is 2/13/18, and the FSC is scheduled for 2/01/18, approximately two weeks after the hearing on this motion. Unlike their clients, at...

Excerpt: ...did serve unverified responses; unverified responses, however, are tantamount to no responses at all. Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636. Defendant therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions. The motions to compel are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs, withou...

Excerpt: ...cords. Defendant therefore moves to compel American to produce the records. The motion is denied for two reasons. First, the motion was rescheduled via ex parte application on 1/12/18. At that time, the Court advanced the hearing from 2/20/18 to 1/26/18. On 1/18/18, Defendant filed a Notice of Ruling, which includes a copy of the motion as Exhibit A. Defendant has not, however, actually filed the motion itself with the Court. The copy included as...

Excerpt: ...by Plaintiff's attorney's assistant on 12/12/17. Defendant has attempted to meet and confer to select a new deposition date, but Plaintiff has not responded. At this time, Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to attend his deposition and to produce documents at deposition. The motion to compel is granted. CCP §2025.450(a). Plaintiff's Counsel and Defense Counsel are ordered to work together to schedule a time, date, and location for Pla...

Excerpt: ... matter of law; in the alternative, it contends it is entitled to summary adjudication of issues. a. Issues Presented Defendant argues it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law for each of the following reasons; in the alternative, it contends it is entitled to adjudication of each of the following issues: 1. Issue No. 1: Plaintiffs First Cause of action for Premises Liability (under a Dangerous Condition of Public Property theory) has no mer...

Excerpt: ...t, Francisco Arambula Caro. They seek an order withdrawing Counsel's representation of Caro and permitting them to file an amended answer on behalf of the entity defendants and not on behalf of Caro. The motion is denied. First, there is no notice of motion, which is required by CRC 3.1110(a). Second, the points and authorities do not include any statement of law or citation of authorities to support the relief requested. CRC 3.1113(b). Third, to...

Excerpt: ...ie Higgins for damages arising out of an automobile accident. Allison Bell was pushing her niece, Liam Kowal, in a stroller at the time of the accident. Defendant collided with them at an excessive rate of speed, killing Kowal and injuring Bell. Bell has recovered from her physical injuries, but continues to experience emotional distress in connection with the incident. Plaintiff, by and through her GAL and attorney, has agreed to settle this act...

Excerpt: ...ve been filed. Three of the motions all seek to have Defendant, Margarita Ravelo's RFAs, set one propounded on Plaintiff, Sofi Villatoro‐Alezano‐ Velasquez deemed admitted. It is not clear why three identical motions were filed. If this is incorrect, Defendants' attorney must appear at the hearing and explain the distinction in the three motions. Defendant, Margarita Ravelo propounded form interrogatories, RFAs and RPDs on Plaintiff, Sofi Vil...

Excerpt: ...rike is MOOT. I. Background Facts On August 8, 2017, plaintiff Joyce Rodriquez (“Plaintiff”), filed a complaint against defendants Guard‐Systems Inc. (“Guard‐Systems”), Food 4 Less GM Inc., Food 4 Less Holdings Inc., Food 4 Less of California Inc., Food 4 Less of Southern California Inc. and Does 1 to 30. On October 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”). Plaintiff alleges causes of action for (1) negligence, ...

Excerpt: ...ed a cross‐ complaint against Caceres concerning the same accident. Confusing the matter, already pending was BC618939, Caceres v. Asoyan. The cases have been deemed related, but have not been consolidated. 2. Motion to Set Aside Dismissal BC642845 was called for trial on 11/02/17; because there was no appearance, the Court dismissed the case. At this time, Asoyan moves to set aside the dismissal. Asoyen contends the failure to appear at the tr...

Excerpt: ...ranted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objection within 10 days. The Declaration of Lasley discusses both form interrogatories and RPDs. However the notice of motion only seeks an order as to the interrogatories and no motion to compel responses to RFDs was filed. The request for sanctions is denied as the notice of motion fails to indicate against whom sanctions are sought as required by CCP section 2023.040. Parties wh...

Excerpt: ... additional meet and confer effort, Plaintiff has not served responses. Defendant therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to respond, without objections, to the outstanding interrogatories and RPDs, deeming the RFAs admitted, and imposing sanctions. Defendant's motions to compel are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories and RPDs, without objections, within ten days. CCP §...

Excerpt: ... as Plaintiff's address on her pleadings; Plaintiff did not respond. On 10/25/17, the Court issued an order compelling Plaintiff to appear for deposition and to pay sanctions. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the order; at this time, Defendant seeks an order imposing terminating sanctions. Pursuant to Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 776, the Court should typically impose lesser sanctions prior to awarding terminating sanctions...

Excerpt: ...d responses to the interrogatories on 9/27/17. At this time, Defendant moves to compel “responses” to the interrogatories. Defendant moves pursuant to CCP §2030.290(a) and (b). These sections apply when a party on whom discovery was propounded “fails to respond.” In this case, Plaintiff responded. The fact that the responses at issue were objections does not mean Plaintiff “failed to respond.” Defendant was obligated to file a motion...

Excerpt: .../12/17, Plaintiff propounded a deposition subpoena for production of business records on Defendant's retained expert, Steven Sykes, M.D. The subpoena seeks production of the following categories of documents: 1. All written medical reports in your possession, custody or control prepared by you while acting for anyone as a medical examiner pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.0 10 et seq. and dated after November 1, 2010. 2. All transc...

Excerpt: ...an Gabriel Valley Medical Center, LP, AHMC Healthcare, Inc., and So Tang, M.D. for damages arising out of alleged medical malpractice. Plaintiffs filed the action on 3/08/16. The case was originally set for trial on 9/08/17. On 6/02/17, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to continue the trial date to 2/21/18, when it is currently scheduled. Notably, one of the two grounds for the prior continuance was the fact that Plaintiffs had recently added...

Excerpt: ...obile involved in the accident, and PV Holding is sued as the owner of the automobile and for negligently entrusting the vehicle to Leelakanti. Plaintiff filed this action on 10/26/16. On 6/20/17, he filed an application to serve the summons and complaint on Leelakanti via publication. On 6/28/17, the Court granted the order for publication. On 8/14/17, she filed proof of service of the summons and complaint on Leelakanti via publication. Motion ...

Excerpt: ...ossible. The motion is denied without prejudice for two reasons. First, Counsel failed to file a declaration on judicial council form MC‐052, which is mandatory per CRC 3.1362(c). Second, Counsel filed proof of service of the notice of motion and proposed order Plaintiffs, but failed to file proof of service of the moving papers on Defendant, who appeared in the action on 10/11/16. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an ema...

Excerpt: ...as a result of the accident. 2. Deposition Subpoena At issue today is Defendant's motion to compel production of records pursuant to subpoena. On 9/06/17, Defendant propounded a deposition subpoena for production of business records on Decedent's high school, Frida High; the production date was designated as 10/06/17. Specifically, the subpoena sought production of: THE RECORDS REQUESTED ARE regardless of date FOR THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF RECORDS: ...

Excerpt: ...standing discovery, and also imposing sanctions; the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses within ten days. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the order; at this time, Defendant seeks an order imposing terminating sanctions. Pursuant to Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 776, the Court should typically impose lesser sanctions prior to awarding terminating sanctions. However, there are circumstances where imposition of...

Excerpt: ...oving Arguments At this time, the City seeks leave to file a cross‐complaint against Johnson for indemnification and related claims. The City contends Johnson occupied the subject property, at the time of the accident, through a rental agreement with the City; it contends the rental agreement has an express indemnification clause, and also that Johnson should be obligated to indemnify the City on equitable principles. Defendant argues its forme...

Excerpt: ...malpractice. At this time, Defendant, Dr. Edwin Kok has agreed to settle his claims with Plaintiffs for $15,000. Kok seeks an order from the Court finding that the settlement is in good faith. Kok timely and properly served the moving papers on all parties to the action. Any opposition to the motion was due on or before 12/20/17. As of 1/02/18, no party has filed opposition to the motion. The burden on a motion for determination of good faith set...

Excerpt: ...thin ten days from the date of service of the refiled SAC. I. Background Facts On June 15, 2017, plaintiff Arin Tabrizi (“Plaintiff”), filed a complaint against defendant City of Glendale (the “City”) and Does 1 to 50 alleging a cause of action for (1) premises liability and (2) negligence. On November 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”). The FAC alleges that Plaintiff tripped over uneven street asphalt in very...

Excerpt: ... 7/01/16, Pascual Eduardo Gomez substituted Century Park Law Group as his attorney of record. At this time, Century Park Law Group moves to be relieved as counsel for Pascual Eduardo Gomez only; the motion does not concern the Group's representation of Maria Gomez. The Group contends there has been a breakdown in communication that prohibits further representation. No additional details concerning the breakdown in the relationship are provided in...

Excerpt: ...m interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs. Defendant served responses; the parties met and conferred, and Defendant served supplemental responses. The parties met and conferred additionally, and ultimately participated in an informal discovery conference on 11/14/17. On 12/06/17, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and DFIs. The Court has not received oppositi...

Excerpt: ...ek an order compelling Wang and You to respond, without objections, to the outstanding form interrogatories, deeming the RFAs admitted, and requiring Wang and You to pay sanctions. The motions to compel are granted. Wang and You are ordered to serve verified responses to form interrogatories, without objections, within ten days. CCP §§2030.290(a),(b). The motion to deem RFAs admitted is also granted. CCP §2033.280(b). Sanctions are mandatory. ...

Excerpt: ...e outstanding discovery, and also imposing sanctions; the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses within ten days. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the order; at this time, Defendants seek an order imposing terminating sanctions. Pursuant to Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 776, the Court should typically impose lesser sanctions prior to awarding terminating sanctions. However, there are circumstances where impositi...