This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/10/2020 at 00:13:22 (UTC).

GERALDINE LUISZER VS NATEE CHAIKUM METRA

Case Summary

On 03/11/2019 GERALDINE LUISZER filed a Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle lawsuit against NATEE CHAIKUM METRA. 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 Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2487

  • Filing Date:

    03/11/2019

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Uninsured 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

Plaintiff

LUISZER GERALDINE

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

METRA NATEE CHAIKUM

Cross Defendant

GUTIERREZ SABRINA SARAH

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

NGUYEN HOAN

Po Box 12613

Westminster, CA 92685

Defendant Attorney

HOUZE-BENSON ELYSA

 

Court Documents

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

7/31/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

General Denial - General Denial

7/31/2019: General Denial - General Denial

Cross-Complaint - Cross-Complaint

8/2/2019: Cross-Complaint - Cross-Complaint

Summons - Summons on Complaint

8/2/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Discovery

11/19/2019: Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Discovery

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Counsel

11/19/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Counsel

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Counsel

11/19/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Counsel

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Counsel

11/19/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Counsel

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

11/19/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

12/11/2019: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

1/28/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

2/6/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

7/30/2020: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

7/31/2020: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Summons - Summons on Complaint

3/11/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

3/11/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

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

3/11/2019: 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)

3/12/2019: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

12 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/31/2020
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by GERALDINE LUISZER on 03/11/2019, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by GERALDINE LUISZER as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/08/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 07/31/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/14/2022 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 07/31/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2020
  • DocketOn the Cross-Complaint filed by NATEE CHAIKUM METRA on 08/02/2019, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by NATEE CHAIKUM METRA as to Sabrina Sarah Gutierrez

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2020
  • DocketAddress for Elysa Houze-Benson (Attorney) null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Request for Dismissal Filed Not Entered: Name Extension: Filed Not Entered; As To Parties changed from Natee Chaikumnerd Erroneously Sued As NATEE CHAIKUM METRA (Defendant) to Natee Chaikumnerd Erroneously Sued As NATEE CHAIKUM METRA (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2020
  • DocketERROR with ROA message definition 129 with DismissalParty:1961499 resulted in empty message

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2020
  • DocketERROR with ROA message definition 129 with DismissalParty:1961500 resulted in empty message

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2020
  • DocketERROR with ROA message definition 129 with DismissalParty:1961505 resulted in empty message

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2020
  • DocketERROR with ROA message definition 129 with DismissalParty:1961506 resulted in empty message

    Read MoreRead Less
28 More Docket Entries
  • 07/31/2019
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by: NATEE CHAIKUM METRA (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2019
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/08/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/14/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: GERALDINE LUISZER (Plaintiff); As to: NATEE CHAIKUM METRA (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: GERALDINE LUISZER (Plaintiff); As to: NATEE CHAIKUM METRA (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: GERALDINE LUISZER (Plaintiff); As to: NATEE CHAIKUM METRA (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2019
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: GERALDINE LUISZER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC02487    Hearing Date: March 02, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Natee Chaikumnerd (erroneously sued as Natee Chaikum Metra)’s Motions to Compel Discovery Responses are GRANTED. Verified responses without objections to the Form Interrogatories, Specially Prepared Interrogatories, and Demand for Identification and Production of Documents are to be served within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

Defendant’s Requests for Sanctions are also GRANTED in the amount of $579.00, to be paid to Defendant within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On March 11, 2019, Plaintiff Geraldine Luiszer (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence against Natee Chaikumnerd (erroneously sued as Natee Chaikum Metra) (“Defendant”).

On November 19, 2019, Defendant filed the following three discovery motions: (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Specially Prepared Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions, and (3) Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Identification and Inspection of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions (collectively, the “Motions”). On December 11, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on the Motions to January 28, 2020.

At the January 28 hearing, Defendant’s counsel represented to the Court that the parties were currently engaged in settlement negotiations. (1/28/20 Minute Order.) Pursuant to Defendant’s counsel’s request, the hearing on the instant Motions was continued to March 2, 2020. (Id.) To date, no notice of settlement or request for dismissal has been filed.

In addition, no opposition to the Motions have been filed.

  1. Legal Standard and Discussion

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, Defendant’s Motions are timely as they were filed before the August 24, 2020 cutoff for discovery motions. On July 31, 2019, Defendant served Form Interrogatories, Specially Prepared Interrogatories, and Demand for Identification and Inspection of Documents on Plaintiff by mail. (Motions, Rickett Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s discovery requests. (Id., ¶ 5.) Thus, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to serve responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.)

In addition, 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 that Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Specially Prepared Interrogatories, and Demand for Identification and Production of Documents a misuse of the discovery process.

Defendant’s counsel requests a total of $1,776.00 in sanctions, which includes $1,596.00 for 12 hours of attorney time billed at $133.00 per hour and a $60.00 filing fee for each of the three motions. (Motions, Rickett Decl., ¶ 4.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of these nearly identical Motions and the lack of opposition and reply. Defendant’s Requests for Sanctions are GRANTED in the amount of $579.00 based on three hours of attorney time and three filing fees of $60.00.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Natee Chaikumnerd (erroneously sued as Natee Chaikum Metra)’s Motions to Compel Discovery Responses are GRANTED. Verified responses without objections to the Form Interrogatories, Specially Prepared Interrogatories, and Demand for Identification and Production of Documents are to be served within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

Defendant’s Requests for Sanctions are also GRANTED in the amount of $579.00, to be paid to Defendant within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC02487    Hearing Date: January 28, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Natee Chaikumnerd (erroneously sued as Natee Chaikum Metra)’s Motions to Compel Discovery Responses are GRANTED. Verified responses without objections to the Form Interrogatories, Specially Prepared Interrogatories, and Demand for Identification and Production of Documents are to be served within 30 days.

Defendant’s Requests for Sanctions are also GRANTED in the amount of $579.00, to be paid to Defendant within 30 days.

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On March 11, 2019, Plaintiff Geraldine Luiszer (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence against Natee Chaikumnerd (erroneously sued as Natee Chaikum Metra) (“Defendant”).

On November 19, 2019, Defendant filed the following three discovery motions: (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Specially Prepared Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions, and (3) Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Identification and Inspection of Documents and Request for Sanctions (collectively, the “Motions”). On December 11, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on the Motions to January 28, 2020.

To date, no opposition or reply briefs have been filed.

  1. Legal Standard and Discussion

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, Defendant’s Motions are timely as they were filed before the August 24, 2020 cutoff for discovery motions. On July 31, 2019, Defendant served Form Interrogatories, Specially Prepared Interrogatories, and Demand for Identification and Inspection of Documents on Plaintiff by mail. (Motions, Rickett Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s discovery requests. (Id., ¶ 5.) Thus, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to serve responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.)

In addition, 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).)

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Specially Prepared Interrogatories, and Demand for Identification and Production of Documents a misuse of the discovery process.

Defendant’s counsel requests a total of $1,776.00 in sanctions, which includes $1,596.00 for 12 hours of attorney time billed at $133.00 per hour and a $60.00 filing fee for each of the three motions. (Motions, Rickett Decl., ¶ 4.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of these nearly identical Motions and the lack of opposition and reply. Defendant’s Requests for Sanctions are GRANTED in the amount of $579.00 based on three hours of attorney time and three filing fees of $60.00.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Natee Chaikumnerd (erroneously sued as Natee Chaikum Metra)’s Motions to Compel Discovery Responses are GRANTED. Verified responses without objections to the Form Interrogatories, Specially Prepared Interrogatories, and Demand for Identification and Production of Documents are to be served within 30 days.

Defendant’s Requests for Sanctions are also GRANTED in the amount of $579.00, to be paid to Defendant within 30 days.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.