This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/21/2021 at 02:31:40 (UTC).

FRANCO FRIAZ LOMELI VS ALVARO TORRES, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 03/18/2020 FRANCO FRIAZ LOMELI filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against ALVARO TORRES. 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 Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2597

  • Filing Date:

    03/18/2020

  • 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

LOMELI FRANCO FRIAZ

21ST CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

Cross Defendants and Defendants

TORRES ALVARO

TORRES MARTIN

ESTRADA ARACELI

RIOS DANIEL

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

ESTRADA ARACELI

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

AGHAVALI MORTEZA

SARRAIL MEGAN A.

Cross Defendant and Defendant Attorneys

BARTICK JENN

ARAKELYAN CRISTINA

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

ARAKELYAN CRISTINA

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/22/2023
  • Hearing03/22/2023 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
  • 08/10/2022
  • Hearing08/10/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2021
  • DocketStipulation - No Order to Consolidate; Filed by: Alvaro Torres (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2021
  • DocketCase 20STLC02597 unconsolidated from lead case 21STLC01171.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2021
  • DocketThe case is placed in special status of: Consolidation Required

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Consolidate)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Consolidate scheduled for 10/18/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 10/18/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2021
  • DocketPursuant to the request of plaintiff, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 01/19/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 08/10/2022 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2021
  • DocketCase numbers 21STLC01171, and 20STLC02597 consolidated; case number 21STLC01171 is the lead case.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2021
  • DocketCase numbers 20STLC02597, and 21STLC01171 consolidated; case number 20STLC02597 is the lead case.

    Read MoreRead Less
37 More Docket Entries
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by: Alvaro Torres (Defendant); Martin Torres (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Alvaro Torres (Defendant); Martin Torres (Defendant); As to: Franco Friaz Lomeli (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/15/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/22/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Franco Friaz Lomeli (Plaintiff); As to: Alvaro Torres (Defendant); Martin Torres (Defendant); Araceli Estrada (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Franco Friaz Lomeli (Plaintiff); As to: Alvaro Torres (Defendant); Martin Torres (Defendant); Araceli Estrada (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Franco Friaz Lomeli (Plaintiff); As to: Alvaro Torres (Defendant); Martin Torres (Defendant); Araceli Estrada (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 20STLC02597 Hearing Date: October 18, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION\r\nTO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendants\r\nAlvaro Torres and Martin Torres

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 1048; CRC 3.350)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants\r\nAlvaro Torres and Martin Torres’ Motion to Consolidate Actions is GRANTED ON\r\nTHE CONDITION THAT, at or before the hearing, moving Defendants demonstrate Plaintiff\r\nin case 21STLC01171, 21st Century Insurance Company, was given\r\nnotice of this continued hearing. If granted, the instant action will remain\r\nthe lead case and all future filings will be under the lead case number.

\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\r\n13, 2021 [ ]\r\nLate [X] None

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof October 13, 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\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On March 18, 2020, Plaintiff Franco F.\r\nLomeli (“Plaintiff”) filed an action alleging negligence and vicarious\r\nliability against Defendants Alvaro Torres (“Alvaro”), Martin Torres\r\n(“Martin”), and Araceli Estrada (“Araceli”) (collectively, “Defendants”).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants Alvaro and Martin filed an\r\nAnswer on October 13, 2020. On March 23, 2021, Defendant Alvaro filed a notice\r\nof related case, seeking to relate this action with 21st Century Insurance\r\nCompany v. Torres, et al, Case No. 21STLC01171 (the “21st\r\nCentury Case”) currently pending with Judge Upinder Kalra in Department 26.\r\n(3/23/21 Notice of Related Case.) The 21st Century Case was filed by\r\n21st Century Insurance Company against Defendant Torres, Defendant\r\nAraceli, and Daniel Rios. Defendant Alvaro filed a notice of related case in\r\nthe 21st Century Case on April 27.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On May 27, Defendants Alvaro and\r\nMartin filed the instant Motion to Consolidate Actions (the “Motion”). No\r\nopposition was filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The initial July 1 hearing was\r\ncontinued because Defendants Alvaro and Martin had not satisfied all procedural\r\nrequirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.350. (7/1/21 Minute Order.) The\r\nCourt also noted that a motion to consolidate may only be brought with respect\r\nto cases that are pending in the same department or cases that have been related\r\nbut that the Court had not yet determined the relatedness of this action and\r\nthe 21st Century Case pursuant to the notices of related case filed\r\non March 23 and April 27. (7/1/21 Minute Order.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

At the continued August 11 and\r\nSeptember 15 hearings, the Court noted no determination as to the relatedness\r\nof the two cases had yet been made. (8/11/21 & 9/15/21 Minute Orders.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving\r\nDefendants gave notice of the September 15 Minute Order and of this continued\r\nhearing on September 24 to Plaintiff Lomeli and Defendant Araceli, but not to\r\nPlaintiff 21st Century Insurance Company in the 21st Century\r\nCase. (9/24/21 Notice of Order.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

California Rules of Court, rule 3.350, subdivision (a)\r\nstates in relevant part:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(1) A notice of motion to consolidate must:

\r\n\r\n

(A) List all named parties in each case, the names of\r\nthose who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record;

\r\n\r\n

(B) Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be\r\nconsolidated, with the lowest-numbered case shown first; and

\r\n\r\n

(C) Be\r\nfiled in each case sought to be consolidated.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(2) The motion to consolidate:

\r\n\r\n

(A) Is deemed a single motion for the purpose of\r\ndetermining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and\r\nother supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest-numbered case;

\r\n\r\n

(B) Must be served on all attorneys of record and all\r\nnon-represented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and

\r\n\r\n

(C) Must\r\nhave a proof of service filed as part of the motion.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350,\r\nsubd. (a)). Also, the consolidation statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 1048,\r\nstates in relevant part:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(a) When actions involving a\r\ncommon question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a\r\njoint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it\r\nmay order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning\r\nproceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(b) The court, in furtherance of\r\nconvenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to\r\nexpedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action,\r\nincluding a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate\r\nissue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of\r\ntrial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the\r\nUnited States.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The granting or denial of the motion to consolidate rests\r\nin the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed except upon\r\na clear showing of abuse of discretion. (See Fellner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nDiscussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants Alvaro and Martin seek to consolidate this\r\naction and the 21st Century Case on the basis that both actions arise out of\r\nthe same incident. (Mot., p. 3.) Indeed, both actions arise out of the same\r\nApril 12, 2018 automobile accident. (Mot., Bartick Decl., ¶¶ 3, 5, Exhs. A, B.)\r\nMoving Defendants point out that both cases involve negligence, vicarious\r\nliability, indemnity, comparative contribution, and declaratory relief causes\r\nof action that relate to the April 2018 accident. (Id. at p. 4.) Thus, both actions involve common questions\r\nof law and fact.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court finds the consolidation of the two cases is\r\nproper and in the interest of judicial economy. The Court is inclined to grant\r\nthis Motion, but Plaintiff 21st Century Insurance Company was not\r\nserved with notice of Court’s September 15 order or of this hearing. The Motion\r\nis GRANTED ON THE CONDITION THAT, on or before this hearing, moving Defendants\r\nfile a proof of service demonstrating Plaintiff 21st Century was\r\ngiven proper notice.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

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

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants Alvaro Torres and Martin\r\nTorres’ Motion to Consolidate Actions is GRANTED ON THE CONDITION THAT, at or\r\nbefore the hearing, moving Defendants demonstrate Plaintiff in case 21STLC01171,\r\n21st Century Insurance Company, was given notice of this continued\r\nhearing. If granted, the instant action will remain the lead case and all\r\nfuture filings will be under the lead case number.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving parties are ordered to give\r\nnotice to all other parties.

'b'

Case Number: 20STLC02597 Hearing Date: September 15, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION\r\nTO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendants\r\nAlvaro Torres and Martin Torres

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 1048; CRC 3.350)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

To allow the Court additional time to\r\ndetermine the relatedness of this case and 21st Century Insurance Company v.\r\nTorres, Case No. 21STLC01171, Defendants Alvaro Torres and Martin Torres’\r\nMotion to Consolidate is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 18, 2021 AT 10:00 a.m. in Department\r\n25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

\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 September\r\n13, 2021 [ ] Late [X]\r\nNone

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof September 13, 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 March 18, 2020, Plaintiff Franco F.\r\nLomeli (“Plaintiff”) filed an action alleging negligence and vicarious\r\nliability against Defendants Alvaro Torres (“Alvaro”), Martin Torres\r\n(“Martin”), and Araceli Estrada (“Araceli”) (collectively, “Defendants”).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants Alvaro and Martin filed an\r\nAnswer on October 13, 2020. On March 23, 2021, Defendant Alvaro filed a notice\r\nof related case, seeking to relate this action with 21st Century Insurance\r\nCompany v. Torres, Case No. 21STLC01171 (the “21st Century\r\nCase”) currently pending with Judge Upinder Kalra in Department 26. (3/23/21\r\nNotice of Related Case.) Defendant Alvaro filed a notice of related case in the\r\n21st Century Case on April 27.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On May 27, Defendants Alvaro and\r\nMartin filed the instant Motion to Consolidate Actions (the “Motion”). No\r\nopposition was filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The initial July 1 hearing was\r\ncontinued because Defendants Alvaro and Martin had not satisfied all procedural\r\nrequirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.350. (7/1/21 Minute Order.) The\r\nCourt also noted that a motion to consolidate may only be brought with respect\r\nto cases that are pending in the same department or cases that have been related\r\nand found the Court had not yet determined the relatedness of this action and\r\nthe 21st Century Case pursuant to the notices of related case filed\r\non March 23 and April 27. (7/1/21 Minute Order.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

At the continued August 11 hearing,\r\nthe Court noted no determination as to the relatedness of the two cases had yet\r\nbeen made. (8/11/21 Minute Order.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

To date, the Court has not yet\r\ndetermined the relatedness of the cases at issue and the cases remain pending\r\nin different departments. Thus, the Court will CONTINUE today’s hearing to take\r\nadditional time to make a determination.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

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

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

To allow the Court additional time to\r\ndetermine the relatedness of this case and 21st Century Insurance Company v.\r\nTorres, Case No. 21STLC01171, Defendants Alvaro Torres and Martin Torres’\r\nMotion to Consolidate is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 18, 2021 AT 10:00 a.m. in\r\nDepartment 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving parties are ordered to give\r\nnotice to all other parties.

'b'

Case Number: 20STLC02597 Hearing Date: August 11, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION\r\nTO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendants\r\nAlvaro Torres and Martin Torres

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 1048; CRC 3.350)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

To allow the Court additional time to\r\ndetermine the relatedness of this case and 21st Century Insurance Company v.\r\nTorres, Case No. 21STLC01171, Defendants Alvaro Torres and Martin Torres’\r\nMotion to Consolidate is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 15, 2021 AT 10:00 a.m. in\r\nDepartment 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

\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 August\r\n9, 2021 [ ] Late [X]\r\nNone

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof August 9, 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 March 18, 2020, Plaintiff Franco F.\r\nLomeli (“Plaintiff”) filed an action alleging negligence and vicarious\r\nliability against Defendants Alvaro Torres (“Alvaro”), Martin Torres\r\n(“Martin”), and Araceli Estrada (“Araceli”) (collectively, “Defendants”).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants Alvaro and Martin filed an\r\nAnswer on October 13, 2020. On March 23, 2021, Defendant Alvaro filed a notice\r\nof related case, seeking to relate this action with 21st Century Insurance\r\nCompany v. Torres, Case No. 21STLC01171 (the “21st Century\r\nCase”) currently pending in Department 26. (3/23/21 Notice of Related Case.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On May 27, Defendants Alvaro and\r\nMartin filed the instant Motion to Consolidate Actions (the “Motion”). No\r\nopposition was filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The initial July 1 hearing was continued\r\nbecause Defendants Alvaro and Martin had not satisfied all procedural\r\nrequirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.350. (7/1/21 Minute Order.) The\r\nCourt also noted that a motion to consolidate may only be brought with respect\r\nto cases that are pending in the same department or cases that have been related\r\nand found the Court had not yet determined the relatedness of this action and\r\nthe 21st Century Case pursuant to the notices of related case filed\r\non March 23 and April 27. (7/1/21 Minute Order.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

To date, the Court has not yet\r\ndetermined the relatedness of the cases at issue and the cases remain pending\r\nin different departments. Thus, the Court will CONTINUE today’s hearing to take\r\nadditional time to make a determination.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

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

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

To allow the Court additional time to\r\ndetermine the relatedness of this case and 21st Century Insurance Company v.\r\nTorres, Case No. 21STLC01171, Defendants Alvaro Torres and Martin Torres’\r\nMotion to Consolidate is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 15, 2021 AT 10:00 a.m. in\r\nDepartment 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving parties are ordered to give\r\nnotice to all other parties.

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where 21st Century Assurance Company is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SARRAIL MEGAN ASHLEY