This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/31/2019 at 00:52:14 (UTC).

AMY ALICE KENNEY VS FLOWER BUYER

Case Summary

On 05/01/2018 a Contract - Other Contract case was filed by AMY ALICE KENNEY against FLOWER BUYER in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******6807

  • Filing Date:

    05/01/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

GEORGINA T. RIZK

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

KENNEY AMY ALICE

Defendant

BUYER FLOWER

 

Court Documents

Notice (name extension) - Notice OF CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE, DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND TRIAL RELATED DEADLINES

8/21/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice OF CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE, DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND TRIAL RELATED DEADLINES

Notice (name extension) - Notice of continuance of trial date

10/21/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice of continuance of trial date

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

10/21/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery"))

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

10/21/2019: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application FOR AN ORDER)

8/20/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application FOR AN ORDER)

Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application FOR AN ORDER

8/20/2019: Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application FOR AN ORDER

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

12/18/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

1/9/2019: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Proof of Personal Service - (Amended)

1/16/2019: Proof of Personal Service - (Amended)

Answer - Answer

1/18/2019: Answer - Answer

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF MICHAEL JAVAHERI

8/16/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF MICHAEL JAVAHERI

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

12/5/2018: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Service by Mail

6/28/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

Summons - on Complaint

5/1/2018: Summons - on Complaint

Complaint

5/1/2018: Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

5/1/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

5/1/2018: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

9 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/04/2021
  • Hearing05/04/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2020
  • Hearing03/30/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2019
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion: Filed By: Flower Buyer (Defendant); Result: Granted; Result Date: 10/21/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 03/30/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2019
  • DocketNotice of continuance of trial date; Filed by: Flower Buyer (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Flower Buyer (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2019
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery"))

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2019
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 10/21/2019 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 updated: Result Date to 10/21/2019; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2019
  • DocketPursuant to the request of defendant, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 03/26/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 03/30/2020 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2019
  • DocketNotice OF CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE, DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND TRIAL RELATED DEADLINES; Filed by: Flower Buyer (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
18 More Docket Entries
  • 06/28/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: Amy Alice Kenney (Plaintiff); As to: Flower Buyer (Defendant); After Substituted Service of Summons & Complaint ?: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Amy Alice Kenney (Plaintiff); As to: Flower Buyer (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2018
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Amy Alice Kenney (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2018
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk; As to: Amy Alice Kenney (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Amy Alice Kenney (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Georgina T. Rizk in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/29/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 05/04/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC06807    Hearing Date: February 13, 2020    Dept: 26

Kenney v. Flower Buyer, et al.

MOTION FOR TERMINATING AND MONETARY SANCTIONS;

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT / ADJUDICATION

(CCP § 2023.010; CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Flower Buyer’s Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff Alice Kenney is GRANTED AS TO TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND DENIED AS TO MONETARY SANCTIONS. THE COURT HEREBY DISMISSES THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.

Defendant Flower Buyer’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Alice Kenney (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract, misrepresentation and related claims against Defendant Flower Buyer (“Defendant”) on May 1, 2018. On October 21, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form

Interrogatories, Set One; Requests For Production of Documents, Set One; for Order

Establishing Admissions; and for Monetary Sanctions. (Minute Order, dated 10/21/19.) On November 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication. Plaintiff filed the instant motion for terminating sanctions on November 21, 2019. To date, no opposition has been filed.

The Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication was initially set to be heard on January 21, 2020, then continued to be heard concurrently with the instant Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions. No opposition has been filed regarding the Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication.

The hearing on both Motions was initially held on January 22, 2020. At that time, Plaintiff appeared in pro per and the Court continued the hearing at her request to February 4, 2020. No further briefing was ordered, permitted, or filed. On February 4, 2020, the parties appeared intending to orally argue, but there being no judge available, the hearing was continued again to February 13, 2020.

Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions

Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (g), 2030.290, subd. (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 compliance with discovery rules. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) “[A] penalty as severe as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with discovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.” (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.) The court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders:

(1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.

(2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed.

(3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.

(4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).) Defendant moves for dismissal of Plaintiff’s action as a terminating sanction for her failure to comply with the Court’s October 2, 2019 order. Defendant also moves for monetary sanctions of $2,055.00.

The court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted here. Following the Court’s ruling regarding Defendant’s discovery requests, Defendant served notice of the order on October 21, 2019 by mail. (Notice of Ruling, filed 10/21/19; Motion, Javaheri Decl., ¶8 and Exh. D.) Despite notice of the Court’s order, Plaintiff never served responses to the discovery requests. (Id. at ¶¶9-10.) Given the notice provided, the Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to serve responses to be a willful failure to comply with the October 21, 2019 order. Furthermore, although Plaintiff was properly served with the instant Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions, she has not opposed it. Although terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, the above evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff compliance with the Court’s orders cannot be achieved through lesser sanctions. However, the Court declines to order monetary sanctions as they have been previously awarded and ignored by Plaintiff. An additional order for monetary sanctions, therefore, would be futile.

Defendant Flower Buyer’s Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff Alice Kenney is GRANTED AS TO TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND DENIED AS TO MONETARY SANCTIONS. THE COURT HEREBY DISMISSES THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.

Motion for Summary Judgment / Adjudication

In light of the Court’s ruling on the Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff, the Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC06807    Hearing Date: February 04, 2020    Dept: 26

Kenney v. Flower Buyer, et al.

MOTION FOR TERMINATING AND MONETARY SANCTIONS;

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT / ADJUDICATION

(CCP § 2023.010; CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:  

Defendant Flower Buyer’s Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff Alice Kenney is GRANTED AS TO TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND DENIED AS TO MONETARY SANCTIONS. THE COURT HEREBY DISMISSES THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.

Defendant Flower Buyer’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Alice Kenney (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract, misrepresentation and related claims against Defendant Flower Buyer (“Defendant”) on May 1, 2018. On October 21, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form

Interrogatories, Set One; Requests For Production of Documents, Set One; for Order

Establishing Admissions; and for Monetary Sanctions. (Minute Order, dated 10/21/19.) On November 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication. Plaintiff filed the instant motion for terminating sanctions on November 21, 2019. To date, no opposition has been filed.

The Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication was initially set to be heard on January 21, 2020, then continued to be heard concurrently with the instant Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions. That motion is also unopposed.

The hearing on both motions was initially held on January 22, 2020. At that time, Plaintiff appeared in pro per and the Court continued the hearing at her request. No further briefing was ordered, permitted, or filed.

Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions

Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (g), 2030.290, subd. (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 compliance with discovery rules.  (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.)  “[A] penalty as severe as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with discovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.”  (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.)  The court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders:

(1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.

(2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed.

(3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.

(4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).) Defendant moves for dismissal of Plaintiff’s action as a terminating sanction for her failure to comply with the Court’s October 2, 2019 order. Defendant also moves for monetary sanctions of $2,055.00.

The court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted here. Following the Court’s ruling regarding Defendant’s discovery requests, Defendant served notice of the order on October 21, 2019 by mail. (Notice of Ruling, filed 10/21/19; Motion, Javaheri Decl., ¶8 and Exh. D.) Despite notice of the Court’s order, Plaintiff never served responses to the discovery requests. (Id. at ¶¶9-10.) Given the notice provided, the Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to serve responses to be a willful failure to comply with the October 21, 2019 order. Furthermore, although Plaintiff was properly served with the instant Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions, she has not opposed it. Although terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, the above evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff compliance with the Court’s orders cannot be achieved through lesser sanctions. However, the Court declines to order monetary sanctions as they have been previously awarded and ignored by Plaintiff. An additional order for monetary sanctions, therefore, would be futile.

Defendant Flower Buyer’s Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff Alice Kenney is GRANTED AS TO TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND DENIED AS TO MONETARY SANCTIONS. THE COURT HEREBY DISMISSES THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.

Motion for Summary Judgment / Adjudication

In light of the Court’s ruling on the Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff, the Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC06807    Hearing Date: January 22, 2020    Dept: 26

Kenney v. Flower Buyer, et al.

MOTION FOR TERMINATING AND MONETARY SANCTIONS;

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT / ADJUDICATION

(CCP § 2023.010; CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Flower Buyer’s Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff Alice Kenney is GRANTED AS TO TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND DENIED AS TO MONETARY SANCTIONS. THE COURT HEREBY DISMISSES THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.

Defendant Flower Buyer’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Alice Kenney (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract, misrepresentation and related claims against Defendant Flower Buyer (“Defendant”) on May 1, 2018. On October 21, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form

Interrogatories, Set One; Requests For Production of Documents, Set One; for Order

Establishing Admissions; and for Monetary Sanctions. (Minute Order, dated 10/21/19.) On November 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication. Plaintiff filed the instant motion for terminating sanctions on November 21, 2019. To date, no opposition has been filed.

The Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication was initially set to be heard on January 21, 2020, then continued to be heard concurrently with the instant Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions. That motion is also unopposed.

Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions

Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (g), 2030.290, subd. (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 compliance with discovery rules. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) “[A] penalty as severe as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with discovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.” (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.) The court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders:

(1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.

(2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed.

(3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.

(4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).) Defendant moves for dismissal of Plaintiff’s action as a terminating sanction for her failure to comply with the Court’s October 2, 2019 order. Defendant also moves for monetary sanctions of $2,055.00.

The court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted here. Following the Court’s ruling regarding Defendant’s discovery requests, Defendant served notice of the order on October 21, 2019 by mail. (Notice of Ruling, filed 10/21/19; Motion, Javaheri Decl., ¶8 and Exh. D.) Despite notice of the Court’s order, Plaintiff never served responses to the discovery requests. (Id. at ¶¶9-10.) Given the notice provided, the Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to serve responses to be a willful failure to comply with the October 21, 2019 order. Furthermore, although Plaintiff was properly served with the instant Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions, she has not opposed it. Although terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, the above evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff compliance with the Court’s orders cannot be achieved through lesser sanctions. However, the Court declines to order monetary sanctions as they have been previously awarded and ignored by Plaintiff. An additional order for monetary sanctions, therefore, would be futile.

Defendant Flower Buyer’s Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff Alice Kenney is GRANTED AS TO TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND DENIED AS TO MONETARY SANCTIONS. THE COURT HEREBY DISMISSES THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.

Motion for Summary Judgment / Adjudication

In light of the Court’s ruling on the Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff, the Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

Moving party to give notice.