Excerpt: ... filed nine court days before the hearing, in this case, by June 14, 2018. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 1005(b). Regardless, Plaintiff has established prejudice by the late service of the opposition as Plaintiff could not file a substantive reply. See Plaintiff's Request to Strike 3:10-11. Therefore, any late-filed opposition is stricken. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 436. 2. The court can quash the subpoenas or issue a protective order to protect t...

Excerpt: ...”) and Does 1 to 20 alleging a cause of action for negligence/premises liability. The complaint includes a prayer for punitive damages. The complaint alleges that on April 4, 2017, Plaintiff was injured when he fell due to an unsafe condition consisting of broken metal frames on a sidewalk owned, maintained, controlled, managed and supervised by the defendants. (Complaint ¶¶ 6-8.) On April 26, 2018, City filed a demurrer and a motion to strik...

Excerpt: ...t infliction of emotional distress and (3) negligent hiring, training and supervision. On April 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint by naming Albertson's LLC (“Albertson's”) as Doe 1. The complaint alleges that on February 26, 2016, while on premises owned and controlled by Albertsons Companies LLC, Plaintiff was injured when a thief who had escaped from a security guard knocked Plaintiff to the ground thereby causing her ...

Excerpt: ...ympic Chiropractic (“Olympic”) and Does 1 to 50 alleging causes of action for (1) professional negligence, (2) medical battery and (3) loss of consortium. The complaint alleges the following: 1) On February 27, 2017, plaintiff Ashley Lee went to Olympic for chiropractic treatment for her neck, shoulder and arm. (Complaint ¶¶ 8, 12); 2) Camarillo, who is a chiropractor and works at Olympic treated plaintiff Ashley Lee. (Id. ¶¶ 1 and 8, 12)...

Excerpt: ...red. Defendant has to show “excused inability” to obtain discovery despite “diligent efforts.” Defendant has not met that burden. Cal Rules of Court 3.1332(c)(6); Declaration of Vi Thomas. Consequently, the Court will continue the trial for less than the six month date requested. Trial is continued to November 9, 2018 @ 8:30 a.m. The FSC is continued to October 25, 2018 @ 10:00 a.m. All discovery and motion cut off dates will track the ne...

Excerpt: ...pert disclosure cut-off dates would be based on the continued trial date of 5/22/18. On 4/24/18, the court granted Plaintiff's former counsel's motion to withdraw. The trial was also continued to 8/21/18. The court's order does not mention a continuance of all discovery cut-offs. Therefore, discovery cutoff ended on 4/23/18, (4/22/18 was a Sunday) which is 30 days before the last trial date of 5/22/18. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2024.020(a). Mot...

Excerpt: ...intiff without leave of court provided the examinations are not painful, protracted, or intrusive and is conducted within 75 miles of Plaintiff's residence. Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.220. Defendant can move to compel compliance where Plaintiff fails to submit to an examination. Defense counsel attempted to meet and confer by email dated 5/10/18 after Plaintiff failed to appear at a scheduled examination. Motion, Ex. D. Declaration of Danielle Mitt...

Excerpt: ...rom unreasonable or oppressive demands including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1987.1. The parties do not appear to dispute production of the billing records pertaining to the treatment of Plaintiff by Olympia for injury relating to this action. Motion, Ex. A, Paragraph 1 of Attachment 3 to the subpoena. Olympia discloses it has already produced the UB-04 Claim Form and its itemized bill for the services ...

Excerpt: .... The court's file reflects that the moving party is the only Defendant who answered the complaint. The court also imposes monetary sanctions of $240.00 against Plaintiff for misuse of the discovery process. Cal Code Civil Procedure §2023.030(a). Moving party is ordered to give notice. ...

Excerpt: ...rocedure §36(a). The motion can be supported by an affidavit of counsel based on information and belief “as to the medical diagnosis and prognosis” of any party. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 36.5. The declaration of Plaintiff's counsel is, therefore, admissible to support the motion. The declaration is insufficient, since it contains no information “as to the medical diagnosis and prognosis” of Plaintiff. Declaration of Patrick Gunning. A...

Excerpt: ... and confer by sending a letter requesting a new date for Plaintiff's deposition, as Plaintiff was not available on 3/9/18. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 2025.450(b)(2). Motion, Ex. B. Plaintiff did not respond. Flores Declaration ¶ 10. 2025.450(b)(2). Plaintiff contends she has “discovery priority” given that Plaintiff first served notices of taking the deposition of Defendant's person most knowledgeable beginning on 10/27/17. Declaration of Khaksho...

Excerpt: ...36(a). 2. The motion can be supported by an affidavit of counsel based on information and belief as to the medical diagnosis and prognosis of any party. The declaration of Plaintiff's counsel is, therefore, admissible to support the motion. Code Civ. Proc., § 36.5 3. Plaintiff has shown that her health coupled with her advanced age requires a preferential setting to avoid prejudicing her interests in this slip-and-fall action. Plaintiff suffers ...

Excerpt: ...f alleges he suffered injury after he fell from monkey bars on 10/30/15, while on Defendant's premises. Complaint ¶ 1. Plaintiff alleges the monkey bars were negligently, carelessly, and reckless designed, constructed, inspected, and maintained. Complaint, ¶ 16. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant breached its duty of care by failing to supervise Plaintiff. Complaint ¶ 17. Plaintiff alleges that the area lacked adequate fencing, was inadequa...

Excerpt: ...to reflect the true facts as the new pleading is properly captioned Second Amended Complaint. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 436. 1. Leave to amend is permitted at the court's discretion upon any terms that may be just. Cal . Code Civ. Procedure Sec. 473. The statute is liberally construed to permit amendment of the pleadings. Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760. If the motion is timely made, and the granting of the motion will...

Excerpt: ...ident site after Plaintiff's accident and signed the sweep sheet. Motion Ex. 5, 45:4-7, 60:10-14. Mr. Campos, counsel for Defendant, offered February 1, 6, 8, or 14. Motion, Ex. 7. Accordingly, on 1/26/18 Plaintiff served a Notice of Taking Deposition of Mr. Reighley, set for 2/14/18. Motion, Ex. 8. On 2/9/18 Defendant's counsel sent email canceling the deposition and informing that Mr. Reighley could be produced for deposition after 4:00 p.m...

Excerpt: ...ct to cutoffs, the court's order states: “Only discovery deadline extended by the new trial date is discovery currently pending, including Plaintiff's deposition. Other non-discovery deadlines based on the new trial date.” Defendants Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion, Ex. A. Therefore, these motions are timely since the second session of Plaintiff's deposition was pending at the time of the hearing. 2. The court can issue a protective order wi...

Excerpt: ... an over-the-road trucker who came to TTI on 6/9/16 to retrieve a container from TTI's container yard. The rig was being driven by K. Duncan, who collided with a chassis attached to Plaintiff's tractor. UF 7. 2. To the extent Plaintiff claims that HTEC is liable for failing to maintain the utility tractor rig in good condition, the undisputed facts establish that HTEC did not possess or control the utility tractor rig operated by Mr. Duncan that ...

Excerpt: ...oduce witnesses for depositions and to “produce the operating room logs, including L&D O.R. los by 3/3/2018, alternatively, if no such responsive documents are in Defendant's possession, custody or control, Defendant will serve a code-compliant response to Request <0003001000910096008b00 000401e4> Defendant did not comply with the court's order after Plaintiffs attempted to resolve the matter informally. Declaration of Bruce Fagel, ¶ 5, 6. The...

Excerpt: ...ion. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.420(b)(1). (a) Before, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (b) The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization fro...

Excerpt: ...6-#8. Sustained. 2. The undisputed facts establish the complaint arises out of a fall that occurred on 5/21/16 at an orchard where Plaintiff claims she was on a ladder, and the ladder slid out from under her. UF 1, 5. Plaintiff was volunteering through Defendant Food Forward, Inc. at the property at the time of the incident. UF 4. Defendant made a metal tripod orchard ladder available to her. UF 6, 7. Defendant argues Plaintiff signed a release c...

Excerpt: ...L door operator installed on the elevator at issue in this action. UF 1.2. Plaintiffs' decedent, Frank Jason Barrile, was a skilled elevator construction/conveyance mechanic with profession qualifications. UF 1.6. Decedent was sent by his employer on 11/6/14 to adjust the doors on the elevator at Rexford Manor. UF 1.12. Later that day, decedent's electrocuted body was found on top of the elevator car at Rexford Manor. UF 1.13 There is no dispute ...

Excerpt: ...lure to Warn 3. Strict Products Liability 4. Breach of Express and Implied Warranties Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that on 6/26/16, she was using an Elite Bistro by Maxi-Matic 8 quart digital pressure cooker, model number EPC-808P. Complaint ¶ 8. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant created, designed, marketed and distributed the product and its components that were dangerous and defective and that Defendant failed to warn of the dangerous and de...

Excerpt: ... Court, Rule 3.1345(b). 2. “Spoliation” is 'the destruction or significant alteration of evidence, or the failure to preserve property for another's use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation.' ” Reeves v. MV Transportation, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal. App. 4th 666, 681. Defendants' contention that the requested sanctions is improper absent a failure to obey an order compelling discovery, citing New Albertsons, Inc. v. Sup...

Excerpt: ...� Apleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-36. There is no opposition showing substantial justification for the failure to provide verified responses. The court imposes total sanctions of $407.50 for both motions against Plaintiff and counsel for the failure to provide verified responses to authorized methods of discovery, which constitutes discovery abuse. Cal Code Civ Procedure § 2023.010(a)(4). Moving party is ordered to give ...

Excerpt: ...ved the 3/14/18 responses to be improper, and that Plaintiff should provide further responses and inspection, Defendant was required to schedule an Informal Discovery Conference with the court. Parties must participate in an IDC before a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery will be heard unless the moving party submits evidence, by way of declaration, that the opposing party has failed or refused to participate in an IDC. Standing Orde...

Excerpt: ...to be completed on the 30th day before the 6/1/18 trial date which was 5/2/18. Motions concerning discovery were required to be heard on or before the 15th day before trial which was 5/17/18. The motion is untimely made. Cal Code Civ Proc §2024.020 The motion is also DENIED since the motion does not specify time, place, manner, conditions, scope and nature of the examination. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.310(b) While only potential tests to be a...

Excerpt: ... on by Defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights of others. Civ Code § 3294(a). This is the definition of “malice.” “Oppression” is defined as despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of a person's rights. Cal Civ Code § 3294(c). Since Plaintiff does not allege intentional conduct, the conduct supporting the claim for punitive damages must be “despicable” whic...

Excerpt: ...th 403, 431. In order to impose liability on the owner for injury arising from a dangerous condition, “it must be shown that a dangerous condition existed and that the defendant knew or should have known of it. … No inference of negligence arises based simply upon proof of a fall upon the owner's floor.” Vaughn v. Montgomery Ward & Co. (1950) 95 Cal.App.2d 553, 556. Additionally, the Plaintiff must show that the landowner or occupier ha...

Excerpt: ... transaction or occurrence as the cause against the moving party alleged in the complaint. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 428.10(b). Here, the proposed Cross-Complaint arises from Plaintiff's complaint filed on 6/23/17 in this action. Motion, Ex. B, 2:14-16. Leave to file “any other Cross-Complaint” (not filed against any other parties) may be filed with leave of court in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action before...

Excerpt: ...ident site after Plaintiff's accident and signed the sweep sheet. Motion Ex. 5, 45:4-7, 60:10-14. Mr. Campos, counsel for Defendant, offered February 1, 6, 8, or 14. Motion, Ex. 7. Accordingly, on 1/26/18 Plaintiff served a Notice of Taking Deposition of Mr. Reighley, set for 2/14/18. Motion, Ex. 8. On 2/9/18 Defendant's counsel sent email canceling the deposition and informing that Mr. Reighley could be produced for deposition after 4:00 p.m...

Excerpt: ... at least one Defendant now resides in the jurisdictional area. Motion, Ex. A, ¶ 8.a. In order to have an action transferred based on the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice, Defendant has the burden of establishing both that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted. The affidavits in support of the motion must “contain more than generalities and conclusions.” Hamilton v. Superior Court (1974) 37 Cal...

Excerpt: ...tion can be supported by an affidavit of counsel based on information and belief as to the medical diagnosis and prognosis of any party. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 36.5. Plaintiff is not required to provide a declaration from Plaintiff's medical care provider as Defendants argue. Opposition, 3:18. Contrary to Defendant's opposition, Plaintiff is not required to show “a life threatening medical condition” or a “medical doubt of survival bey...

Excerpt: ...pportunity to determine whether a basis for recovery exists. Camenisch v. Superior Court (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1689, 1699. “Camenisch also argues that the court erred in refusing to strike Burns's prayer for attorney fees. Camenisch asserts that the prayer must be stricken because the complaint did not allege a contract allowing recovery of attorney fees by the prevailing party. Burns replies, correctly, that the court was not required to s...

Excerpt: ... of the subpoena. Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.410. The deponent, California Eye Care Specialists, is ordered to comply with the deposition subpoena served on 9/11/17 within 15 days. A deponent who fails to comply with a subpoena may be punished for contempt under Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2023.010. The court imposes sanctions of $232 against the deponent, California Eye Care Specialists. Code Civ. Proc. § 2020.240; § 1982. Moving party is ordere...

Excerpt: ...oss-complaint, or other initial pleading, the court shall grant the motion and enter an order for reclassification only if both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The case is incorrectly classified. (2) The moving party shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.” A case should only be reclassified as limited if the jurisdictional amount necessarily cannot be reached. (See Walker v. Superior Court<00440051004700440055...

Excerpt: ...cal examination. It is not required when no response has been provided to the request for discovery. Cal Rules of Court 3.1345. The evidence does not demonstrate that Plaintiff made any specific objection or otherwise responded to Defendant's attempts to meet and confer. Instead Plaintiff states he could not respond in the time period given. Opposition, 2:3‐7. Plaintiff does not dispute that her mental condition is at issue. Opposition, 1:19‐...

Excerpt: ...fendant resides. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 395(a). Plaintiff alleges that at least one Defendant resides in Los Angeles County. Motion, Ex. 1, Complaint, ¶ 8.a. Defendant Jeffrey Depies' residence is La Canada, which is in Los Angeles County. Defendant's Response to Interrogatories, Opposition, Ex. B. 3:7. A motion to change venue based on the convenience of witnesses cannot be based on the convenience of a party, or a party's employee, such as co...

Excerpt: ...ainstPomona Valley Family Heath Center, Heather Coffin M.D., Pomona Valley Hospital, Glenn Deguzman PA-C (“Deguzman”), Richard W. Dorosh M.D. (“Dorosh”) and Does 1 to 30. Plaintiffs allege causes of action for wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress. On February 6, 2018, Plaintiffs dismissed Mr. Montoya's second cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress as to defendants Heather Coffin M.D. and Po...

Excerpt: ...rer, the allegations of the complaint are read liberally and plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against him. (See Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) A motion to strike lies either (1) to strike any irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) to strike any pleading or part thereof not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws...

Excerpt: ... Development & Construction Inc. (“Tri County”) (together, “Defendants”) for damages arising out of an automobile accident. While driving down Colorado Blvd. in Los Angeles, Plaintiffs allegedly drove into a construction trench that was controlled by Defendants and had no visible warning signs. (Complaint ¶ GN-1.) On 10/5/17, Plaintiffs served the summons and complaint on Tri County. Tri County filed an answer to the complaint on 11/13/1...

Excerpt: ... Hyman Gross. Motion, Ex. D., 3:24‐27. Plaintiff stated that Dr. Hyman would testify regarding Plaintiff's neurological injuries; the present status of her injuries; the necessity of medical care and reasonableness of medical expenses incurred, among other things. Id. The supplemental designation is due 20 days after the initial exchange or in this case by Monday 2/19/18, which was a court holiday. Therefore, the supplemental designation was du...

Excerpt: ... law. The court's file reflects that on 3/14/18, Defendant served Plaintiff with written notice of the court's ruling deeming admitted the Requests for Admission served on Plaintiff. The 10 th day after service was 3/24/18. Plaintiff timely filed this motion on 3/22/18. Plaintiff has shown new facts and circumstances that were not available to the court at the time of the hearing on 3/13/18. Defendant acknowledges that responses to the Requests f...

Excerpt: ...fendant Apple Inc.'s store. On October 20, 2017, Plaintiff propounded a first set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission on Defendant Apple Inc. (“Defendant”). On December 26, 2017, Defendant responded to the discovery with objections. Defendant now moves for a protective order concerning trade secrets regarding the discovery requests. Analysis CCP § 2031.060 provides (a)When an ...

Excerpt: ...0057005800570048> contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court(1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06.) The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the interrogatories, unl...

Excerpt: ... a reply brief to be filed five court days before the hearing. The court did not grant the parties leave to submit further briefing beyond the scope of Section 1005. The decision to consolidate is a matter for the court's discretion. Muller v. Robinson (1959) 174 Cal. App. 2d 511, 515. Both BC655001 and BC670068 arise from the same accident and were previously deemed related on 2/26/18, with BC655001 as the lead case. As such all dates in BC67006...

Excerpt: ...asonable or oppressive demands including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy. Cal Code Civ Procedure § 1987.1. The motion is not rendered moot by Defendants' proposed limitations to the subpoenas at issue. Plaintiff has also requested cost and fees for having to make the motion. The court can quash the subpoenas or issue a protective order to protect the parties from unreasonable or oppressive demands including unreasonable violation...

Excerpt: .../18 is GRANTED, subject to the limitations described below. Any party may obtain discovery my means of a physical or mental examination of a party to the action. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.020. Defendant was not required to file a separate statement. A separate statement is required where there is a specific objection made to a request for medical examination. It is not required when no response has been provided to the request for discovery. C...

Excerpt: ...ve order regarding the manner and conduct of Plaintiff's continued deposition. Defendants' Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED. Where good cause is shown, courts may enter protective orders limiting depositions. “The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense....

Excerpt: .... Code Civ. Proc. § 473 since the new claim of Ruffina Yureyva is barred by the 2‐year statute of limitations under Cal Code Civil Procedure § 340.1. The First Amended Complaint filed on 4/11/18 is stricken. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 436. Ordinarily, the court can allow a party to amend any pleading by adding a party or in other particulars in the interest of justice. Cal Code Civ Procedure § 473. However, the court has discretion to deny ...

Excerpt: ...evidence or discussion to warrant repudiation. On 8/10/17, Jolena Oglesby, as Guardian ad Litem for the minor Claimant, Keyshaun Oglesby, filed Petition to Approve Compromise of a Pending Action on behalf of the Claimant. In that petition, Ms. Oglesby recommended the $15,000 settlement as being fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the minor. See Petition, ¶ 22. Neither the guardian nor the Claimant was represented by counsel at the time...