This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/19/2021 at 01:30:31 (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

  • 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

Minute Order - Minute Order (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)

10/6/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition to Confirm Minor's Compromise - Minor Cla...)

10/6/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition to Confirm Minor's Compromise - Minor Cla...)

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

10/4/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

9/27/2021: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

9/16/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

Summons - Summons on Complaint

9/17/2021: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Jose Arturo Martinez aka Jose Arturo Preciado...)

9/2/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Jose Arturo Martinez aka Jose Arturo Preciado...)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Jose Arturo Martinez aka Jose Arturo Preciado...) of 09/02/2021

9/2/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Jose Arturo Martinez aka Jose Arturo Preciado...) of 09/02/2021

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: PETITION FOR EXPEDITED APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE...)

9/2/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: PETITION FOR EXPEDITED APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE...)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: PETITION FOR EXPEDITED APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE...) of 09/02/2021

9/2/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: PETITION FOR EXPEDITED APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE...) of 09/02/2021

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

7/9/2021: 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

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

7/9/2021: 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

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

7/9/2021: 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

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

7/9/2021: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

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

7/9/2021: 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 by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

7/9/2021: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

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

28 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
  • 10/06/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Petition to Confirm Minor's Compromise - Minor Cla...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2021
  • DocketHearing on Petition to Confirm Minor's Compromise - Minor Claimant Diana Janeth Flores scheduled for 10/06/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 10/06/2021; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2021
  • DocketHearing on Expedited Petition to Confirm Compromise of minor Claimant Yarely Flores scheduled for 10/06/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 10/06/2021; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/04/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: FELIPE FLORES (Plaintiff); DIANA JANETH FLORES, a minor (Plaintiff); YARELY FLORES, a minor (Plaintiff); Florencia Garcia (Plaintiff); As to: DAVID MONROY (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: FELIPE FLORES (Plaintiff); DIANA JANETH FLORES, a minor (Plaintiff); YARELY FLORES, a minor (Plaintiff); Florencia Garcia (Plaintiff); As to: DAVID MONROY (Defendant); Service Date: 09/27/2021; Service Cost: 75.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2021
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: FELIPE FLORES (Plaintiff); Florencia Garcia (Plaintiff); As to: DAVID MONROY (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2021
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/16/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 09/16/2021

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

b'

Case Number: 19STLC10901 Hearing Date: October 6, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION\r\nFOR EXPEDITED APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE OF CLAIM OR ACTION OR DISPOSITION OF\r\nPROCEEDS OF JUDGMENT FOR MINOR (X2)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner\r\nFlorencia Garcia on behalf of minor Claimants Diana Janeth Flores and Yarely\r\nFlores

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

PETITION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE OF A MINOR

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 372, CRC, rule 7.950.5)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Petitions for Expedited Approval\r\nof Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds for Diana Janeth\r\nFlores and Yarely Flores are PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE: \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nProof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nCorrect Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\n16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None filed as of October 4,\r\n2021 [ ] Late [X]\r\nNone

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof October 4, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground\r\n& Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On\r\nNovember 25, 2019, Plaintiff Felipe Flores and minor Plaintiffs Diana Janeth\r\nFlores (“Diana”) and Yarely Flores (“Yarely”) (collectively, “Claimants”) filed\r\nan action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence against Defendant\r\nDavid Monroy (“Defendant”). Petitioner Florencia Garcia (“Petitioner”) was\r\nappointed as Claimants’ guardian ad litem on May 29, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On\r\nNovember 18, 2020, Petitioner filed an expedited petition to approve the\r\ncompromise for each of the two Claimants. On December 29, 2020, the Court found\r\nseveral deficiencies in the petitions. (12/29/20 Minute Order.) The Court\r\nordered Petitioner to file and serve supplemental papers correcting the\r\ndeficiencies and set the matters for hearing for February 18, 2021. (12/29/20\r\nMinute Order.) Petitioner was also warned that failure to file and serve\r\nsupplemental papers could result in the petitions being placed off calendar or\r\ndenied. (Id.) Due to Petitioner’s failure to file any supplemental\r\npapers, the petitions were placed off calendar. (2/18/21 Minute Order.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Petitioner\r\nfiled the two instant Petitions for Expedited Approval of Compromise of Claim\r\nor Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor, one for each\r\nClaimant (the “Petitions”) on July 9, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On\r\nSeptember 2, 2021, the Court issued an order finding several deficiencies in\r\nthe Petitions, including that neither of the doctor’s reports submitted\r\ndemonstrated the Claimants had fully recovered from the effects of their\r\ninjuries as required. (9/2/21 Court Order.) The Court also noted that Defendant\r\nhad not been served with this action or with these Petitions and that the\r\nmoving papers included an incorrect address for the location of the hearings. (Id.)\r\nPetitioner was ordered to give notice of the Court’s October 6 hearing and\r\nwarned that failure to file supplemental papers could result in the Petitions\r\nbeing placed off calendar or denied (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiffs\r\nfiled a proof of service demonstrating Defendant was served with a copy of the\r\nSummons and Complaint on September 27. (9/27/21 Proof of Service.) However, no\r\nsupplemental papers addressing the other issues identified by the Court were\r\nfiled. Nor did Petitioner give proper notice of this continued hearing.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Accordingly,\r\nthe Petitions are PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, the\r\nPetitions for Expedited Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition\r\nof Proceeds for Diana Janeth Flores and Yarely Flores are PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Petitioner is ordered to give notice.

'

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.