This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/09/2021 at 04:15:22 (UTC).

ERICA CHEUNG VS JENSIE RAMOS

Case Summary

On 03/30/2020 ERICA CHEUNG filed a Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle lawsuit against JENSIE RAMOS. 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 - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2872

  • Filing Date:

    03/30/2020

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

CHEUNG ERICA

Defendant

RAMOS JENSIE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorney

CORDOVA MARIA G

 

Court Documents

Answer - Answer

11/4/2020: Answer - Answer

Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted - Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

3/23/2021: Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted - Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted)

4/28/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted)

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

6/1/2021: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration DECLARATION IN SUPPORT

6/1/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration DECLARATION IN SUPPORT

Motion for Summary Judgment - Motion for Summary Judgment

6/1/2021: Motion for Summary Judgment - Motion for Summary Judgment

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

8/19/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

Summons - Summons on Complaint

3/30/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

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

3/30/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

3/30/2020: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Complaint - Complaint

3/30/2020: Complaint - Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

3/30/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/19/2021
  • DocketCourt orders judgment entered for Defendant JENSIE RAMOS against Plaintiff ERICA CHEUNG on the Complaint filed by ERICA CHEUNG on 03/30/2020 for a total of $0.00.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Summary Judgment scheduled for 08/19/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 08/19/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/27/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/19/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/03/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/19/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/02/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Summary Judgment scheduled for 08/19/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2021
  • DocketMotion for Summary Judgment; Filed by: JENSIE RAMOS (Defendant); As to: ERICA CHEUNG (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2021
  • DocketSeparate Statement; Filed by: JENSIE RAMOS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2021
  • DocketDeclaration DECLARATION IN SUPPORT; Filed by: JENSIE RAMOS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/28/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted)

    Read MoreRead Less
4 More Docket Entries
  • 11/04/2020
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: JENSIE RAMOS (Defendant); As to: ERICA CHEUNG (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: ERICA CHEUNG (Plaintiff); As to: JENSIE RAMOS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2020
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: ERICA CHEUNG (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: ERICA CHEUNG (Plaintiff); As to: JENSIE RAMOS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2020
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk; As to: ERICA CHEUNG (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/27/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/03/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: ERICA CHEUNG (Plaintiff); As to: JENSIE RAMOS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 20STLC02872 Hearing Date: August 19, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION\r\nFOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendant\r\nJensie Ramos

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 437c)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Jensie Ramos’ Motion for\r\nSummary Judgment is GRANTED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE: \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X] Proof of Service Timely\r\nFiled (CRC 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X] Correct Address (CCP 1013,\r\n1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X] 75/80 Day Lapse (CCP 12c\r\nand 1005 (b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None filed as of August\r\n17, 2021 [ ] Late [X]\r\nNone

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof August 17, 2021 [ ] Late [X]\r\nNone

\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 30, 2020, self-represented Plaintiff Erica\r\nCheung (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Jensie Ramos\r\n(“Defendant”). Defendant filed an Answer on November 4, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant filed a motion to deem requests for admission\r\nadmitted against Plaintiff on March 23, 2021. On April 28, the Court granted\r\nDefendant’s motion to deem admitted as well as sanctions of $396.00. (4/28/21\r\nMinute Order.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On June 1, 2021, Defendant filed the instant Motion for\r\nSummary Judgment (the “Motion”). No opposition was filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A party seeking summary judgment has the burden of\r\nproducing evidentiary facts sufficient to entitle him/her to judgment as a\r\nmatter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153.) The moving party must make an\r\naffirmative showing that he/she is entitled to judgment irrespective of whether\r\nor not the opposing party files an opposition. (Villa v. McFerren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

When a Defendant or Cross-Defendant seeks summary\r\njudgment, he/she must show either\r\n(1) that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established; or (2) that there is a complete\r\ndefense to that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) When\r\na Plaintiff or Cross-Complainant seeks summary judgment, he/she must produce\r\nadmissible evidence on each element of each cause of action on which judgment\r\nis sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) The moving party’s\r\n“affidavits must cite evidentiary facts, not legal conclusions or ‘ultimate’\r\nfacts” and be strictly construed. (Scalf\r\nv. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519; Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d\r\n629, 639.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The opposing party on a motion for\r\nsummary judgment is under no evidentiary burden to produce rebuttal evidence\r\nuntil the moving party meets his or her initial movant’s burden. (Binder v. Aetna Life Insurance Company (1999)\r\n75 Cal.App.4th 832.) Once the initial movant’s burden is met, then the burden\r\nshifts to the opposing party to show, with admissible evidence, that there is a\r\ntriable issue requiring the weighing procedures of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §\r\n437c, subd. (p).) The opposing party may not simply rely on his/her allegations\r\nto show a triable issue but must present evidentiary facts that are substantial\r\nin nature and rise beyond mere speculation. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151.) As to any\r\nalternative request for summary adjudication of issues, such alternative relief\r\nmust be clearly set forth in the Notice of Motion and the general burden-shifting\r\nrules apply but the issues upon which summary adjudication may be sought are\r\nlimited by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) “A motion for\r\nsummary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause\r\nof action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.”\r\n(Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nDiscussion\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff alleges a single cause of action alleging motor\r\nvehicle negligence. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that on March 31, 2018,\r\nDefendant negligently caused a car accident on Interstate 60 & 7th Street\r\nin Hacienda Heights, County of Los Angeles. (Compl., p. 4.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The elements of a negligence cause of action are duty,\r\nbreach of that duty, proximate cause, and damages. (Peredia v. HR Mobile\r\nServices, Inc. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 680, 687.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Via the requests for admission that were deemed admitted,\r\nDefendant presents evidence that Plaintiff admitted the following: (1) that\r\nPlaintiff’s own negligence resulted in damage to Plaintiff; (2) that Defendant\r\nwas not negligent in connection with the subject accident; (3) that Defendant\r\ndid not proximately cause any damage to Plaintiff; (4) that Plaintiff did not\r\nsustain any bodily injuries as a result of the subject accident; and (5) that\r\nPlaintiff did not sustain any property damage as a result of the subject\r\naccident. (Mot., Cordova Decl., ¶ 4,\r\nExh. 3.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Thus, Defendant has carried their initial burden and\r\nshown Plaintiff cannot establish the essential elements of a negligence cause\r\nof action. The burden now shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate a triable issue of\r\nmaterial fact exists. Because Plaintiff did not file an opposition, she has not\r\ncarried her burden.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Accordingly, the Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

IV. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant\r\nJensie Ramos’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

'

Case Number: 20STLC02872    Hearing Date: April 28, 2021    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS     MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS ADMITTED 

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Jensie Ramos

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS  

(CCP § 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Jensie Ramos’ Motion to Deem Requests Admitted is GRANTED. Defendant’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $396.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of service of this order. 

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 April 26, 2021     [   ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of April 26, 2021     [   ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

 

On March 30, 2020, Plaintiff Erica Cheung (“Plaintiff”), in pro per, filed an action against Defendant Jensie Ramos (“Defendant”) alleging motor vehicle negligence. Defendant filed an Answer on November 4, 2020.

Defendant filed the instant Motion to Deem Requests Admitted (the “Motion”) on March 23, 2021. To date, no opposition has been filed. 

II. Legal Standard & Discussion

 

A. Requests for Admission

 

A party must respond to requests for admissions within 30 days after service of such requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).)  “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response…(a) [that party] waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Id. at subd. (b).)  A motion dealing with the failure to respond, rather than with inadequate responses, does not require the requesting party to meet and confer with the responding party. (Deymer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, fn. 4 [disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973]. There is no time limit within which a motion to have matters deemed admitted must be made. (Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1585.)

Here, Defendant’s counsel served Plaintiff with Requests for Admission, Set One, on December 22, 2020 via regular mail. (Mot., Cordova Decl., ¶¶ 6-7, Exh. A.) Although not statutorily required, Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter regarding the overdue responses on February 4, 2021. (Id. at ¶ 8, Exh. A.) As of the date this Motion was filed, Defendant had not received any responses to the discovery request. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Thus, Defendant is entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted against Plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

 

B. Request for Sanctions  

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Furthermore, it is “mandatory that the Court impose a monetary sanction…on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests a misuse of the discovery process. In addition, the Court is required to impose a monetary sanction on Plaintiff for her failure to respond to the Requests for Admission under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c).

Defendant requests sanctions of $564.00 based on three hours of attorney time billed at $168.00 per hour and one filing fee of $60.00. (Mot., Cordova Decl., ¶ 10.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of this Motion and the lack of opposition and reply. The Court finds $396.00, based on 2.0 hours of attorney time and one filing fee, to be reasonable.

III. Conclusion & Order

 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Jensie Ramos’ Motion to Deem Requests Admitted is GRANTED. Defendant’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $396.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of service of this order. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice. 

Case Number: 20STLC02872    Hearing Date: April 27, 2021    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS ADMITTED 

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Jensie Ramos

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS  

(CCP § 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Jensie Ramos’ Motion to Deem Requests Admitted is GRANTED. Defendant’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $396.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of service of this order. 

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 April 26, 2021    [   ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of April 26, 2021    [   ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

 

On March 30, 2020, Plaintiff Erica Cheung (“Plaintiff”), in pro per, filed an action against Defendant Jensie Ramos (“Defendant”) alleging motor vehicle negligence. Defendant filed an Answer on November 4, 2020.

Defendant filed the instant Motion to Deem Requests Admitted (the “Motion”) on March 23, 2021. To date, no opposition has been filed. 

II. Legal Standard & Discussion

 

A. Requests for Admission

 

A party must respond to requests for admissions within 30 days after service of such requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).)  “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response…(a) [that party] waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Id. at subd. (b).)  A motion dealing with the failure to respond, rather than with inadequate responses, does not require the requesting party to meet and confer with the responding party. (Deymer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, fn. 4 [disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973]. There is no time limit within which a motion to have matters deemed admitted must be made. (Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1585.)

Here, Defendant’s counsel served Plaintiff with Requests for Admission, Set One, on December 22, 2020 via regular mail. (Mot., Cordova Decl., ¶¶ 6-7, Exh. A.) Although not statutorily required, Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter regarding the overdue responses on February 4, 2021. (Id. at ¶ 8, Exh. A.) As of the date this Motion was filed, Defendant had not received any responses to the discovery request. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Thus, Defendant is entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted against Plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

 

B. Request for Sanctions  

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Furthermore, it is “mandatory that the Court impose a monetary sanction…on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests a misuse of the discovery process. In addition, the Court is required to impose a monetary sanction on Plaintiff for her failure to respond to the Requests for Admission under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c).

Defendant requests sanctions of $564.00 based on three hours of attorney time billed at $168.00 per hour and one filing fee of $60.00. (Mot., Cordova Decl., ¶ 10.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of this Motion and the lack of opposition and reply. The Court finds $396.00, based on 2.0 hours of attorney time and one filing fee, to be reasonable.

III. Conclusion & Order

 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Jensie Ramos’ Motion to Deem Requests Admitted is GRANTED. Defendant’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $396.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of service of this order. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice. 
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer CORDOVA, MARIA G.