This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/29/2021 at 01:04:07 (UTC).

ALBERT OROZCO VS KAREN I AGUILAR

Case Summary

On 10/29/2019 ALBERT OROZCO filed a Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle lawsuit against KAREN I AGUILAR. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0017

  • Filing Date:

    10/29/2019

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

OROZCO ALBERT

Defendant

AGUILAR KAREN I

Not Classified By Court

LOYA CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

APRAKU ABRAHAM

Defendant Attorney

OAKES CONNOR

 

Court Documents

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration Re Motion for Leave to Intervene

5/4/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration Re Motion for Leave to Intervene

Motion for Leave to Intervene - Motion for Leave to Intervene

5/4/2021: Motion for Leave to Intervene - Motion for Leave to Intervene

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Intervene)

6/3/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Intervene)

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

7/26/2021: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial;)

7/27/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial;)

Answer - Answer

4/16/2021: Answer - Answer

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial

4/26/2021: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial

Motion for Leave to Intervene - Motion for Leave to Intervene

8/24/2020: Motion for Leave to Intervene - Motion for Leave to Intervene

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Amended Declaration

8/24/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Amended Declaration

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Intervene) of 09/09/2020

9/9/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Intervene) of 09/09/2020

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Intervene)

9/9/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Intervene)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Intervene) of 07/08/2020

7/8/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Intervene) of 07/08/2020

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Intervene)

7/8/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Intervene)

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

4/15/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice of Motion - Notice of Motion

3/17/2020: Notice of Motion - Notice of Motion

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

12/30/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Complaint - Complaint

10/29/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

10/29/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

10 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/27/2021
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Albert Orozco on 10/29/2019, entered Order for Dismissal without prejudice as to the entire action, pursuant to CCP 581(b)(5)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2021
  • DocketOrder - Dismissal; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Non-Jury Trial;)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Non-Jury Trial;) of 07/27/2021; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 07/27/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court on 07/27/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 11/01/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 07/27/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2021
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by: Loya Casualty Insurance Co. (Non-Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Intervene)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Leave to Intervene scheduled for 06/03/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 06/03/2021; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2021
  • DocketMotion for Leave to Intervene; Filed by: Karen I Aguilar (Defendant); As to: Albert Orozco (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
16 More Docket Entries
  • 03/18/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Leave to Intervene scheduled for 04/27/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2020
  • DocketNotice of Motion; Filed by: Karen I Aguilar (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/30/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Albert Orozco (Plaintiff); As to: Karen I Aguilar (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 12/22/2019; Service Cost: 107.25; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/27/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 11/01/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Albert Orozco (Plaintiff); As to: Karen I Aguilar (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Albert Orozco (Plaintiff); As to: Karen I Aguilar (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Albert Orozco (Plaintiff); As to: Karen I Aguilar (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC10017    Hearing Date: June 3, 2021    Dept: 26

Orozco v. Aguilar, et al

MOTION TO INTERVENE

(CCP § 387)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Proposed Intervenor Loya Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to Intervene is GRANTED. THE PROPOSED ANSWER IN INTERVENTION FILED ON APRIL 16, 2021 IS DESIGNATED THE OPERATIVE ANSWER IN INTERVENTION AND DEEMED FILED AS OF JUNE 3, 2021.

ANALYSIS:

On October 29, 2019, Plaintiff Albert Orozco (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendant Karen I. Aguilar (“Defendant”). Plaintiff filed a proof of service of the Summons and Complaint demonstrating that Defendant was sub-served in this action effective January 2, 2020. To date, no responsive pleading has been filed to the Complaint. On March 17, 2020, non-party Loya Casualty Insurance Company (“Loya Casualty”) filed a motion to intervene, which the Court placed off calendar following Loya Casualty’s failure to appear at the hearing. (Minute Order, 09/09/20.)

Loya Casualty filed the instant Motion to Intervene on May 4, 2021. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

The right to intervene is set forth at Code of Civil Procedure section 387. Intervention is allowed upon timely application when “[t]he person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and that person is so situated that the disposition of the action may impair or impede that person's ability to protect that interest, unless that person's interest is adequately represented by one or more of the existing parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (d)(1)(B).) Whether the petitioner has an interest in the matter in litigation is a question of fact that must be determined by the court before leave to file is granted. (Muller v. Robinson (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 511, 515; In re Yokohama Special Bank (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 545.) The burden rests on the one seeking to intervene to show that this is a proper case for intervention. (Id. at 515.)

Loya Casualty demonstrates it was Defendant’s insurer at the time of the accident that gives rise to this action. (Motion, Oakes Decl., ¶3 and Exh. A.) Loya Casualty further presents evidence that it has been unable to communicate with Defendant to secure her participation in this action. (Motion, Oakes Decl., ¶¶4-11.) It is undisputed that Defendant’s insurer would have an interest in this action as it would be required to satisfy any judgment rendered against Defendant. (See Cal. Ins. Code § 11580, subd. (b)(2); Reliance Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 386.) Nor would intervention enlarge the issues in this action, as the insurer would simply assert defenses on Defendant’s behalf. (Reliance Ins. Co., supra at 386 (citing Truck Ins. Exch. v. Superior Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 342, 346).)

Based on the foregoing, Proposed Intervenor Loya Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to Intervene is GRANTED. THE PROPOSED ANSWER IN INTERVENTION FILED ON APRIL 16, 2021 IS DESIGNATED THE OPERATIVE ANSWER IN INTERVENTION AND DEEMED FILED AS OF JUNE 3, 2021.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC10017    Hearing Date: September 09, 2020    Dept: 26

MOTION TO INTERVENE

(CCP § 387)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Proposed Intervenor Loya Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to Intervene is GRANTED. RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO COMPLAINT TO BE FILED AND SERVED WITHIN 20 DAYS.

ANALYSIS:

On October 29, 2019, Plaintiff Albert Orozco (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile

subrogation against Defendant Karen I. Aguilar (“Defendant”). Plaintiff filed a proof of service of the Summons and Complaint demonstrating that Defendant was sub-served in this action effective January 2, 2020. To date, no responsive pleading has been filed to the Complaint. On March 17, 2020, non-party Loya Casualty Insurance Company (“Loya Casualty”) served the instant Motion to Intervene. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

The right to intervene is set forth at Code of Civil Procedure section 387. Intervention is allowed when “[t]he person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and that person is so situated that the disposition of the action may impair or impede that person's ability to protect that interest, unless that person's interest is adequately represented by one or more of the existing parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (d)(1)(B).) Whether the petitioner has an interest in the matter in litigation is a question of fact that must be determined by the court before leave to file is granted. (Muller v. Robinson (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 511, 515; In re Yokohama Special Bank (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 545.) The burden rests on the one seeking to intervene to show that this is a proper case for intervention. (Id. at 515.)

Loya Casualty demonstrates it was Defendant’s insurer at the time of the accident that gives rise to this action. (Motion, Oakes Decl., ¶3 and Exh. 3.) Loya Casualty further presents evidence that it has been unable to communicate with Defendant to secure her participation in this action. (Motion, Oakes Decl., ¶¶4-11.) It is undisputed that Defendant’s insurer would have an interest in this action as it would be required to satisfy any judgment rendered against Defendant. (See Cal. Ins. Code § 11580, subd. (b)(2); Reliance Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 386.) Nor would intervention enlarge the issues in this action, as the insurer would simply assert defenses on Defendants’ behalf. (Reliance Ins. Co., supra at 386 (citing Truck Ins. Exch. v. Superior Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 342, 346).)

Based on the foregoing, Proposed Intervenor Loya Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to Intervene is GRANTED. RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO COMPLAINT TO BE FILED AND SERVED WITHIN 20 DAYS.

Moving party to give notice

Case Number: 19STLC10017    Hearing Date: July 08, 2020    Dept: 26

Orozco v. Aguilar, et al.

MOTION TO INTERVENE

(CCP § 387)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Proposed Intervenor Loya Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to Intervene is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

ANALYSIS:

On October 29, 2019, Plaintiff Albert Orozco (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendant Karen I. Aguilar (“Defendant”). Plaintiff filed a proof of service of the Summons and Complaint demonstrating that Defendant was sub-served in this action effective January 2, 2020. To date, no responsive pleading has been filed to the Complaint. On March 10, 2020, non-party Loya Casualty Insurance Company (“Loya Casualty”) filed the instant Motion to Intervene. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

The right to intervene is set forth at Code of Civil Procedure section 387. Intervention is allowed when “[t]he person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and that person is so situated that the disposition of the action may impair or impede that person's ability to protect that interest, unless that person's interest is adequately represented by one or more of the existing parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (d)(1)(B).) Whether the petitioner has an interest in the matter in litigation is a question of fact that must be determined by the court before leave to file is granted. (Muller v. Robinson (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 511, 515; In re Yokohama Special Bank (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 545.) The burden rests on the one seeking to intervene to show that this is a proper case for intervention. (Id. at 515.)

Loya Casualty contends it was Defendant’s insurer at the time of the accident that gives rise to this action. However, it submits no admissible evidence of this fact. (Motion, Oakes Decl., ¶¶1-3.) The only evidence in support of the Motion is the declaration of Loya Casualty’s attorney, who offers no facts or evidence in support of his contention. (Ibid.) The declaration contains only a bare statement of personal knowledge regarding the facts in the declaration. (Id. at ¶1.) “Where the facts stated do not themselves show it, such bare statement of the affiant has no redeeming value and should be ignored.” (Snider v. Snider (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 741, 754.) No declaration is submitted by a sworn agent of Loya Casualty. The Court, therefore, cannot make a finding that Loya Casualty was Defendant’s insurer.

Loya Casualty does present evidence that it has been unable to communicate with Defendant to secure her participation in this action. (Motion, Oakes Decl., ¶¶3-9.) It is undisputed that Defendant’s insurer would have an interest in this action as it would be required to satisfy any judgment rendered against Defendant. (See Cal. Ins. Code § 11580, subd. (b)(2); Reliance Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 386.) Nor would intervention enlarge the issues in this action, as the insurer would simply assert defenses on Defendants’ behalf. (Reliance Ins. Co., supra at 386 (citing Truck Ins. Exch. v. Superior Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 342, 346).)

Based on the foregoing, Proposed Intervenor Loya Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to Intervene is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Moving party to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer OAKES CONNOR