This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/22/2021 at 00:08:20 (UTC).

DIANE GERALD VS MARSHALL DYMOND, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 02/21/2020 DIANE GERALD filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against MARSHALL DYMOND. 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:

    *******1743

  • Filing Date:

    02/21/2020

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

GERALD DIANE

Defendants

NEP GROUP INC.

DYMOND MARSHALL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

IVIE RICKEY

Defendant Attorneys

CRUZ ANNE S

CRUZ ANNE

 

Court Documents

Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Motion for Terminating Sanctions

11/19/2020: Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Notice (name extension) - Notice REQUEST TO CHANGE HEARING DATES

11/19/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice REQUEST TO CHANGE HEARING DATES

Notice (name extension) - Notice OF CHANGE OF HEARING DATES

12/11/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice OF CHANGE OF HEARING DATES

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

3/8/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

3/9/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

9/29/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Notice (name extension) - Notice RE COURTS ORDER

7/21/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice RE COURTS ORDER

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Motion to Compel)

7/9/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Motion to Compel)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Motion to Compel) of 07/09/2020

7/9/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Motion to Compel) of 07/09/2020

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

7/2/2020: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF

7/2/2020: Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF

Answer - Answer

4/29/2020: Answer - Answer

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

4/29/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

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

4/21/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Summons - Summons on Complaint

2/21/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

2/21/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

2/21/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

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

2/21/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

9 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/09/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Marshall Dymond (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions scheduled for 03/08/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 03/08/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 05/04/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 03/08/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/20/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 03/08/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 02/24/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 03/08/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2020
  • DocketNotice OF CHANGE OF HEARING DATES; Filed by: Marshall Dymond (Defendant); As to: Diane Gerald (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • DocketPursuant to the request of defendant, Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 03/08/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Party was rescheduled to 05/04/2021 10:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • DocketPursuant to the request of defendant, Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions scheduled for 05/04/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Party was rescheduled to 03/08/2021 10:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions scheduled for 03/08/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
16 More Docket Entries
  • 04/21/2020
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by: Marshall Dymond (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2020
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Marshall Dymond (Defendant); As to: Diane Gerald (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/20/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 02/24/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Diane Gerald (Plaintiff); As to: Marshall Dymond (Defendant); Nep Group, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Diane Gerald (Plaintiff); As to: Marshall Dymond (Defendant); Nep Group, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Diane Gerald (Plaintiff); As to: Marshall Dymond (Defendant); Nep Group, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC01743    Hearing Date: March 8, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Mon., March 8, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Gerald v. Dymond, et al. COMPL. FILED: 02-21-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC01743 DISC. C/O: 07-21-21

NOTICE: OK DISC. MOT. C/O: 08-05-21

TRIAL DATE: 08-20-21

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Marshall Dymond and NEP Group, Inc.

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2023.030)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Marshall Dymond and NEP Group, Inc.’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. This action against Defendants Marshall Dymond and NEP Group, Inc. is DISMISSED.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of March 3, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of March 3, 2012 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On February 21, 2020, Plaintiff Diane Gerald (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants Marshall Dymond (“Dymond”) and NEP Group, Inc. (“NEP”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendant Dymond filed an Answer on April 21, 2020, and Defendant NEP filed its Answer on April 29.

Defendants filed a motion to compel compliance with the requests for production of documents on July 2, 2020. The Court granted this Motion on September 29 and ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses within thirty days of service of the order. (9/29/20 Minute Order.)

Defendants filed the instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions (the “Motion”) on November 19, 2020 (the “Motion”), which was originally set to be heard on May 4, 2021. On December 11, 2020, Defendants gave notice the hearing had been moved up to March 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. (12/11/20 Notice of Change of Hearing.)

No opposition was filed.

  1. Legal Standard

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), 2025.450, subd. (h); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) An evidence sanction prohibits a party that misused the discovery process from introducing evidence on certain designated matters into evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (c).) 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).)

  1. Discussion

Defendants seek a terminating sanction due to Plaintiff’s misuse of the discovery process. (Mot., p. 4:4-22.) Defendants propounded the first set of Requests for Production of Documents on April 21, 2020. (Id., Cruz Decl., ¶ 2.) Following Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the discovery, Defendants filed a motion to compel responses to the Requests for Production on July 20, 2020. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-7.) Plaintiff did not oppose the motion to compel responses and did not appear at the September 29 hearing. (9/29/20 Minute Order.) The Court granted Defendants’ unopposed motion at the September 29 hearing. (Id.) Defendants served notice of the Court’s order that same day via email. (Mot., Cruz Decl., ¶ 10, Exh. B.) Plaintiff did not provide discovery responses as required. (Id., p. 4:16-22, Cruz Decl., ¶ 11.)

Notably, Plaintiff was properly served with this Motion but has not opposed it. Indeed, it appears that Plaintiff is no longer interested in prosecuting her claim against Defendants.

Based on the above, the Court finds terminating sanctions are warranted. Although terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, the evidence above demonstrates that Plaintiff’s compliance with the Court’s orders cannot be achieved through lesser means. Thus, this action is DISMISSED.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Marshall Dymond and NEP Group, Inc.’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. This action against Defendants Marshall Dymond and NEP Group, Inc. is DISMISSED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STLC01743    Hearing Date: September 29, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., September 29, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Gerald v. Dymond, et al. COMPL. FILED: 02-21-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC01743 DISC. C/O: 07-21-21

NOTICE: OK DISC. MOT. C/O: 08-05-21

TRIAL DATE: 08-20-21

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Marshall Dymond and NEP Group, Inc.

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

(CCP § 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Marshall Dymond and NEP Group, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Response to the Request for Production is CONTINUED TO NOV 12, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendants must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies noted herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of September 25, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of September 25, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On February 21, 2020, Plaintiff Diane Gerald (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants Marshall Dymond (“Dymond”) and NEP Group, Inc. (“NEP”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendant Dymond filed an Answer on April 21, 2020 and Defendant NEP filed its Answer on April 29, 2020.

On July 2, 2020, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Compel Compliance with Response to the Request for Production (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

A party must respond to requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

Defendants submit evidence that Plaintiff was served with a Demand for Identification and Production of Documents, Set One, on April 21, 2020 by email. (Mot., Cruz Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Defendants’ counsel granted Plaintiff’s counsel an extension to provide responses until June 9, 2020. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Following Plaintiff’s failure to respond by the extension deadline, on June 17, 2020, Defendants’ counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel a letter requesting responses without objections within seven days. (Id. at ¶ 5, Exh. B.) On June 18, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel responded to Defendants’ counsel’s letter stating that he had lost contact with Plaintiff and would be filing a motion to be relieved as counsel. (Id. at ¶ 6, Exh. C.)

Defendants argue that no responses have been provided and thus are entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to respond. (Mot., pp. 3:21-4:5; Cruz Decl., ¶ 4.) However, Defendants also submitted a separate statement with their Motion, noting that at least some responses have been provided and arguing that good cause exists to provide a further response. (Mot., Separate Statement.)

Due to this inconsistency, Defendants are ordered to file and serve supplemental papers to clarify whether discovery responses have been served. If responses have already been provided, then the proper motion to file would be a motion to compel further responses.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Marshall Dymond and NEP Group, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Response to the Request for Production is CONTINUED TO NOV 12, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendants must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies noted herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer IVIE RICKEY ESQ.