This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/15/2021 at 00:06:18 (UTC).

DAFED CORTES VS OSCAR PANTIGA, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 07/17/2019 DAFED CORTES filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against OSCAR PANTIGA. 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 Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******6656

  • Filing Date:

    07/17/2019

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

CORTES DAFED

Defendants

PANTIGA OSCAR

VARGASLEIVA WENDY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

GLADKOV SERGEI

Defendant Attorneys

ALBAN ARNOLD J

ESMAILIAN ARPINE J

 

Court Documents

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

2/25/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery"))

Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Motion for Terminating Sanctions

6/9/2020: Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

6/9/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 06/09/2020

6/9/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 06/09/2020

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

7/1/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Notice (name extension) - Notice OF HEARING DATE

9/3/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice OF HEARING DATE

Order (name extension) - Order [PROPOSED] ORDER

9/21/2020: Order (name extension) - Order [PROPOSED] ORDER

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions)

9/21/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

9/22/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

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

1/22/2020: 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 (Court Order: Notice of Related Case)

10/23/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order: Notice of Related Case)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order: Notice of Related Case) of 10/23/2019

10/23/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order: Notice of Related Case) of 10/23/2019

Answer - Answer

10/9/2019: Answer - Answer

Notice of Related Case - Notice of Related Case

10/10/2019: Notice of Related Case - Notice of Related Case

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

7/17/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - Summons on Complaint

7/17/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

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

7/17/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

7/17/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

8 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/22/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Oscar Demetrio Trujillo Pantiga Erroneously Sued As Oscar Pantiga (Defendant); Wendy Vargasleiva (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 01/13/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 32 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 09/22/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 07/20/2022 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 32 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 09/22/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion for Terminating Sanctions: Filed By: Wendy Vargasleiva (Defendant),Oscar Demetrio Trujillo Pantiga Erroneously Sued As Oscar Pantiga (Defendant); Result: Granted; Result Date: 09/21/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2020
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Dafed Cortes on 07/17/2019, entered Order for Dismissal with prejudice as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Order [PROPOSED] ORDER: Result Date: 09/21/2020; As To Parties changed from Dafed Cortes (Plaintiff) to Dafed Cortes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions scheduled for 09/21/2020 at 01:30 PM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 32 updated: Result Date to 09/21/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2020
  • DocketNotice OF HEARING DATE; Filed by: Oscar Demetrio Trujillo Pantiga Erroneously Sued As Oscar Pantiga (Defendant); Wendy Vargasleiva (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2020
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by: Oscar Demetrio Trujillo Pantiga Erroneously Sued As Oscar Pantiga (Defendant); Wendy Vargasleiva (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
20 More Docket Entries
  • 10/10/2019
  • DocketNotice of Related Case; Filed by: Oscar Demetrio Trujillo Pantiga Erroneously Sued As Oscar Pantiga (Defendant); Wendy Vargasleiva (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/09/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Oscar Demetrio Trujillo Pantiga Erroneously Sued As Oscar Pantiga (Defendant); Wendy Vargasleiva (Defendant); As to: Dafed Cortes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 01/13/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 07/20/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Dafed Cortes (Plaintiff); As to: Oscar Pantiga (Defendant); Wendy Vargasleiva (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Dafed Cortes (Plaintiff); As to: Oscar Pantiga (Defendant); Wendy Vargasleiva (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Dafed Cortes (Plaintiff); As to: Oscar Pantiga (Defendant); Wendy Vargasleiva (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC06656    Hearing Date: September 21, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

dafed cortes,

Plaintiff,

v.

oscar pantiga, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19STLC06656

Hearing Date: September 21, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion for terminating sanctions

Defendants Oscar Demetrio Trujillo Pantiga and Wendy Varsasleiva (“Defendants”) move to dismiss the complaint of Plaintiff Dafed Cortes (“Plaintiff”) as a terminating sanction. The Court has discretion to impose terminating sanction when a party willfully disobeys a discovery order. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (g), 2030.290, subd. (c).) The court may impose a terminating sanction by striking a party’s pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d)(1).)

In its order of February 25, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses to form interrogatories that Defendants served on Plaintiff within 30 days of notice of the order. Defendants served Plaintiff with notice of the ruling by mail on February 26, 2020. Plaintiff thus had until April 1, 2020 to serve responses in compliance with this Court’s order. As of the filing date of this motion, Plaintiff has not served responses to the discovery. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that Plaintiff has complied with these discovery obligations. The Court finds that Plaintiff has acted willfully and that no lesser sanction would facilitate Plaintiff’s compliance with these discovery obligations. Therefore, the motion for terminating sanctions is granted. The Court finds that monetary sanctions would be futile.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions is granted. This case is dismissed with prejudice. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: September 21, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: 19STLC06656    Hearing Date: February 25, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

dafed cortes,

Plaintiff,

v.

oscar pantiga, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19STLC06656, related to

19STCV21265

Hearing Date: February 25, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to compel discovery responses

Defendants Oscar Demetrio Trujillo Pantiga and Wendy Vargasleiva (“Defendants”) move to compel responses from Plaintiff Dafed Cortes (“Plaintiff”) to Form Interrogatories, set one (“FROG”). Defendants served the FROG on Plaintiff by mail on October 7, 2019. Plaintiff’s responses were thus due no later than November 12, 2019. As of the filing date of the motion, Defendants have not received responses from Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, and there is nothing in the record suggesting that Plaintiff has complied with these discovery obligations. Accordingly, the motion to compel responses to the FROG is granted per Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290. Plaintiff is ordered to serve responses to Defendants’ FROG, without objections, within 30 days of service of this order.

Defendants seek sanctions in connection with the motion. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the discovery is an abuse of the discovery process. The Court awards sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $510, which Defendants request as their expenses in bringing this motion. The Court finds this amount to be fair and reasonable under the circumstances.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendants’ motion to compel responses to the FROG is granted per Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, within 30 days of notice of this order. Plaintiff is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $510 to Defendants, by and through counsel, within 30 days of notice of this order. Defendants are ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.

DATED: February 25, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court