This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/12/2021 at 00:50:08 (UTC).

AMGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY VS OSCAR ARMANDO FLORES, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 03/03/2020 AMGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against OSCAR ARMANDO FLORES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2049

  • Filing Date:

    03/03/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

AMGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY

Cross Defendants and Defendants

FLORES OSCAR ARMANDO

TEJADA OSCAR ARMANDO

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

TEJADA OSCAR ARMANDO

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

BENSON SUSAN M

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

BHATIA TINA MAMTA

ZENG BENJAMIN

 

Court Documents

Complaint - Complaint

3/3/2020: Complaint - Complaint

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

9/7/2021: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

8/18/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Answer - Answer

9/18/2020: Answer - Answer

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

9/18/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

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

9/28/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Answer - Answer

9/28/2020: Answer - Answer

Cross-Complaint - Cross-Complaint

9/28/2020: Cross-Complaint - Cross-Complaint

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

10/13/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

5/26/2021: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

5/26/2021: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

5/26/2021: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

7/27/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

Notice of Settlement - Notice of Settlement

8/11/2021: Notice of Settlement - Notice of Settlement

Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement)

8/16/2021: Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement)

Summons - Summons on Complaint

3/3/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

3/3/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

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

3/3/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

9 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/21/2021
  • Hearing10/21/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2021
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Amguard Insurance Company on 03/03/2020, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by Amguard Insurance Company as to Oscar Armando Flores and Oscar Armando Tejada

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2021
  • DocketAddress for SUSAN M BENSON (Attorney) null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Notice of Settlement: As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) scheduled for 10/21/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement); Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/07/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/16/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/31/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/16/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery"))

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 07/28/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 07/28/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
15 More Docket Entries
  • 08/18/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Amguard Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Oscar Armando Flores (Defendant); Service Date: 08/04/2020; Service Cost: 65.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Amguard Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Oscar Armando Tejada (Defendant); Service Date: 08/06/2020; Service Cost: 65.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Amguard Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Oscar Armando Flores (Defendant); Oscar Armando Tejada (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Amguard Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Oscar Armando Flores (Defendant); Oscar Armando Tejada (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Amguard Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Oscar Armando Flores (Defendant); Oscar Armando Tejada (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/07/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/31/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 20STLC02049 Hearing Date: July 28, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION\r\nTO COMPEL OSCAR ARMANDO FLORES’ RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF\r\nDOCUMENTS, SET ONE, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant\r\nOscar Armando Tejada

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;\r\nREQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

(CCP §2031.300)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Oscar Armando Tejada’s\r\nMotion to Compel Oscar Armando Flores’ Responses to Demand for Production of\r\nDocuments, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE: \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nProof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nCorrect Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\n16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None filed as of July 26,\r\n2021 [ ] Late [X]\r\nNone

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof July 26, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground\r\n& Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On March 3, 2020,\r\nPlaintiff Amguard Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against\r\nDefendants Oscar Armando Flores (“Flores”) and Oscar Armando Tejada (“Tejada”).\r\nDefendant Flores filed an Answer on September 18, 2020. Defendant Tejada filed\r\nan Answer and Cross Complaint against Defendant Flores on September 28, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Tejada filed motions to compel Defendant\r\nFlores’ responses to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories (the\r\n“Interrogatories Motions”), as well as the instant Motion to Compel Flores’\r\nResponses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for\r\nSanctions. (the “Production Motion”). No opposition was filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court notes, however, that Defendant Tejada’s\r\npropounded discovery exceeds what is permitted in limited jurisdiction actions.\r\nSpecifically, Code of Civil Procedure section 94 permits a propounding party to\r\nserve any combination of 35 interrogatories, demands to produce, and requests\r\nfor admission in total. (Code Civ. Proc., § 94, subd. (a)(1)-(3).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Here, Defendant Tejada propounded 8 requests for\r\nproduction, 4 special interrogatories, and 26 form interrogatories, totaling 38\r\nrequests. (Interrogatories Motions, Bhatia Decl., ¶¶ 3, Exhs. A; Production Motion,\r\nBhatia Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.) The Court granted the motions to compel responses\r\nto the Form and Special Interrogatories, which totaled 30 requests, on July 27.\r\n(7/27/21 Minute Order.) The Court cannot order Defendant Flores to respond to\r\nan additional 8 requests for production; to do so would require Defendant\r\nFlores to respond to more than 35 discovery requests in violation of Section 94. The Court will not choose which individual\r\nrequests for production must be eliminated for Defendant’s discovery to comply\r\nwith the rule of 35.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant\r\nOscar Armando Tejada’s Motion to Compel Oscar Armando Flores’ Responses to\r\nDemand for Production of Documents, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions is\r\nDENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

'b'

Case Number: 20STLC02049 Hearing Date: July 27, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: (1)\r\nMOTION TO COMPEL OSCAR ARMANDO FLORES’ RESPONSES TO JUDICIAL COUNCIL FORM\r\nINTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(2)\r\nMOTION TO COMPEL OSCAR ARMANDO FLORES’ RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES,\r\nSET ONE, AND FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant\r\nOscar Armando Tejada

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 2030.290)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant\r\nOscar Armando Tejada’s unopposed (1) Motion to Compel Oscar Armando Flores’\r\nResponses to Judicial Council Form Interrogatories, Set One, and (2) Motion to\r\nCompel Oscar Armando Flores’ Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, are\r\nGRANTED. Defendant Flores is ordered to provide verified responses without\r\nobjections within twenty (20) days of notice of this order. Defendant Tejada’s\r\nrequests for sanctions are also GRANTED in the amount of $505.00 to be paid to\r\nDefendant Tejada’s counsel within twenty (20) days of notice of this order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE: \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nProof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nCorrect Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\n16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None filed as of July 23,\r\n2021 [ ] Late [X]\r\nNone

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof July 23, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On March 3, 2020, Plaintiff Amguard Insurance Company\r\n(“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Oscar Armando Flores\r\n(“Flores”) and Oscar Armando Tejada (“Tejada”). Defendant Flores filed an\r\nAnswer on September 18, 2020. Defendant Tejada filed an Answer and Cross\r\nComplaint against Defendant Flores on September 28, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Tejada filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel\r\nOscar Armando Flores’ Responses to Judicial Council Form Interrogatories, Set\r\nOne, and for Sanctions and (2) Motion to Compel Oscar Armando Flores’ Responses\r\nto Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions (collectively,\r\nthe “Motions”). No oppositions were filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard & Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A. Form & Special Interrogatories

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days\r\nafter service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom\r\ninterrogatories are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting\r\nparty may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ.\r\nProc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The party also waives the\r\nright to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product\r\nprotection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) There is no time limit\r\nfor a motion to compel responses to interrogatories other than the cut-off on\r\nhearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020,\r\nsubd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290.) No meet and confer efforts are required before\r\nfiling a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., §\r\n2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting,\r\nInc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390,\r\n411.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Here, Defendant Tejada propounded Form Interrogatories\r\nand Special Interrogatories on Defendant Flores on January 26, 2021 via email.\r\n(Motions, Bhatia Decl., ¶¶ 3, Exhs. A.) Defendant Tejada’s counsel sent\r\nDefendant Flores’ counsel a letter regarding the overdue responses on March 16,\r\n2021. (Id. at ¶¶ 4, Exhs. B.) As of the date these Motions were filed,\r\nDefendant Flores had not served any responses. (Id. at ¶¶ 6.) Thus, Defendant\r\nTejada is entitled to an order compelling Defendant Flores to provide verified\r\nresponses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

B. Sanctions

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a)\r\nprovides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a\r\nparty engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable\r\nexpenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that\r\nconduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or\r\nsubmit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010,\r\nsubd. (d).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court finds Defendant Flores’\r\nfailure to respond to Defendant Tejada’s discovery requests a misuse of the\r\ndiscovery process.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Tejada requests sanctions\r\nof $1,630.00, based on 8 hours of attorney time billed at $185.00 per hour, two\r\n$60.00 filing fees, and two $15 remote appearance fees. (Motions, Bhatia Decl.,\r\n¶¶ 8.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of these\r\nMotions and the lack of opposition and reply. The Court finds $505.00, based on\r\ntwo hours of attorney time, one remote appearance fee, and two filing fees, to\r\nbe reasonable. Sanctions are to be paid to Defendant Tejada’s counsel within twenty\r\n(20) days of notice of this order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Oscar Armando Tejada’s unopposed\r\n(1) Motion to Compel Oscar Armando Flores’ Responses to Judicial Council Form\r\nInterrogatories, Set One, and (2) Motion to Compel Oscar Armando Flores’\r\nResponses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, are GRANTED. Defendant Flores is\r\nordered to provide verified responses without objections within twenty (20)\r\ndays of notice of this order. Defendant Tejada’s requests for sanctions are\r\nalso GRANTED in the amount of $505.00 to be paid to Defendant Tejada’s counsel\r\nwithin twenty (20) days of notice of this order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where AMGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BHATIA TINA MAMTA