Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/05/2021 at 01:15:05 (UTC).

FELIPE FLORES, ET AL. VS DAVID MONROY

Case Summary

On 11/25/2019 FELIPE FLORES filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against DAVID MONROY. 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:

    *******0901

  • Filing Date:

    11/25/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • 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

Plaintiffs

FLORES FELIPE

FLORES YARELY A MINOR

FLORES DIANA JANETH A MINOR

GARCIA FLORENCIA

Defendant

MONROY DAVID

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

LOPEZ ANTHONY R. JR.

 

Court Documents

Application And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem - Application And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem

5/29/2020: Application And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem - Application And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem

Application And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem - Application And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem

5/29/2020: Application And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem - Application And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem

Expedited Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim or Pending Action or Disposition of Proc - Expedited Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim or Pending Action or Disposition of Pro

11/18/2020: Expedited Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim or Pending Action or Disposition of Proc - Expedited Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim or Pending Action or Disposition of Pro

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Setting Hearing on Petitioner Florencia Garcia's ...) of 12/29/2020

12/29/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Setting Hearing on Petitioner Florencia Garcia's ...) of 12/29/2020

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Setting Hearing on Petitioner Florencia Garcia's ...) of 12/29/2020

12/29/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Setting Hearing on Petitioner Florencia Garcia's ...) of 12/29/2020

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Setting Hearing on Petitioner Florencia Garcia's ...)

12/29/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Setting Hearing on Petitioner Florencia Garcia's ...)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Expedited Petition to Confirm Compromise for Minor...) of 02/18/2021

2/18/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Expedited Petition to Confirm Compromise for Minor...) of 02/18/2021

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

3/3/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim - Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim

3/3/2021: Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim - Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim

Receipt and Acknowledgment of Order for the Deposit of Money Into Blocked Account - Receipt and Acknowledgment of Order for the Deposit of Money Into Blocked Account

3/3/2021: Receipt and Acknowledgment of Order for the Deposit of Money Into Blocked Account - Receipt and Acknowledgment of Order for the Deposit of Money Into Blocked Account

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

3/3/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim - Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim

3/3/2021: Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim - Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim

Order to Deposit (name extension) - Order to Deposit First Amended Order to Deposit Funds in Blocked Account

3/3/2021: Order to Deposit (name extension) - Order to Deposit First Amended Order to Deposit Funds in Blocked Account

Notice of Settlement - Notice of Settlement

4/28/2021: Notice of Settlement - Notice of Settlement

Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

5/24/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

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

11/25/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Complaint - Complaint

11/25/2019: Complaint - Complaint

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

11/25/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

12 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/28/2022
  • Hearing11/28/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2021
  • Hearing09/16/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/16/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2021
  • DocketPursuant to the request of plaintiff, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/24/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion was rescheduled to 09/16/2021 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2021
  • DocketReceipt and Acknowledgment of Order for the Deposit of Money Into Blocked Account; Filed by: FELIPE FLORES (Plaintiff); Florencia Garcia (Plaintiff); As to: DAVID MONROY (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2021
  • DocketPetition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim; Filed by: FELIPE FLORES (Plaintiff); Florencia Garcia (Plaintiff); As to: DAVID MONROY (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2021
  • DocketOrder to Deposit First Amended Order to Deposit Funds in Blocked Account; Filed by: FELIPE FLORES (Plaintiff); Florencia Garcia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: FELIPE FLORES (Plaintiff); Florencia Garcia (Plaintiff); As to: DAVID MONROY (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: FELIPE FLORES (Plaintiff); Florencia Garcia (Plaintiff); As to: DAVID MONROY (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
17 More Docket Entries
  • 05/29/2020
  • DocketApplication And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem; Signed and Filed by: FELIPE FLORES (Plaintiff); DIANA JANETH FLORES, a minor (Plaintiff); YARELY FLORES, a minor (Plaintiff); As to: DAVID MONROY (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Application And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem: Filed By: DIANA JANETH FLORES, a minor (Plaintiff),YARELY FLORES, a minor (Plaintiff),FELIPE FLORES (Plaintiff); Result: Granted; Result Date: 05/29/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2020
  • DocketApplication And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem; Signed and Filed by: FELIPE FLORES (Plaintiff); DIANA JANETH FLORES, a minor (Plaintiff); YARELY FLORES, a minor (Plaintiff); As to: DAVID MONROY (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/24/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 11/28/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: FELIPE FLORES (Plaintiff); DIANA JANETH FLORES, a minor (Plaintiff); YARELY FLORES, a minor (Plaintiff); As to: DAVID MONROY (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: FELIPE FLORES (Plaintiff); DIANA JANETH FLORES, a minor (Plaintiff); YARELY FLORES, a minor (Plaintiff); As to: DAVID MONROY (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC10901    Hearing Date: February 18, 2021    Dept: 25


Case Number: 19STLC11625    Hearing Date: February 18, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE:   Thu., February 18, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Valdez v. Diaz, et al. COMPL. FILED: 12-20-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC11625 DISC. C/O: 05-19-21

NOTICE:   OK DISC. MOT. C/O:    06-03-21

TRIAL DATE: 06-18-21

PROCEEDINGS    (1) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:   Defendants Candice Diaz and Adelina Carmona

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Anthony Valdez

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Candice Diaz and Adelina Carmona’s (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production and (2) Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Defendants’ discovery requests within thirty (30) days of service of this order. Defendants’ request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $360.00 to be paid to Defendants’ counsel within thirty (30) days of notice 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: Filed on February 11, 2021 [X] Late [   ] None

REPLY: None filed as of February 11, 2021     [   ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On December 20, 2019, Plaintiff Anthony Valdez (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants Candice Diaz (“Diaz”) and Adelina Carmona (“Carmona”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants filed a joint Answer on April 21, 2020.

On August 24, 2020, Defendants filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions and (2) Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions (collectively, the “Motions”). Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration in opposition on February 11, 2021. No reply brief was filed.

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Request for Production & Interrogatories

 

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories or 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., § 2030.290, subd. (b); 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., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2030.290; 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., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) 

Here, Defendants’ counsel served Plaintiff’s counsel with a Demand for Production, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One, on April 21, 2020 via e-mail. (Motions, Reader Decl., ¶¶ 3, Exh. A.) Defendants’ counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel an email regarding the lack of responses on July 14, 2020. (Id. at ¶¶ 4.) As of the date of this Motion, Plaintiff did not serve any responses. (Id. at ¶¶ 5.) In opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel states that he lost contact with Plaintiff until February 10, 2021 and that discovery responses will be provided by the end of this month. (Oppo, Yeager Decl., ¶ 2.) However, because Plaintiff was served with the discovery nearly ten months ago and because no responses have yet been provided, Defendants are entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

B. 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 submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)

The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests a misuse of the discovery process.

Defendants seek a total of $600.00 based on four hours of attorney time billed at $120.00 per hour and two filing fees of $60.00. (Motions, Reader Decl., ¶ 6.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of these nearly identical motions, the limited opposition, and the lack of reply. The Court finds $360.00, based on two hours of attorney time and two filing fees, to be reasonable.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Candice Diaz and Adelina Carmona’s (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production and (2) Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Defendants’ discovery requests within thirty (30) days of service of this order. Defendants’ request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $360.00 to be paid to Defendants’ counsel within thirty (30) days of notice 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 LOPEZ ANTHONY R. JR. ESQ.