This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/30/2021 at 07:32:15 (UTC).

HANH CORNELIA VS DELANEY MARIE HARRIS

Case Summary

On 06/12/2018 HANH CORNELIA filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against DELANEY MARIE HARRIS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GEORGINA T. RIZK. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******8242

  • Filing Date:

    06/12/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

GEORGINA T. RIZK

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

CORNELIA HANH

Defendant

HARRIS DELANEY MARIE AKA DELANEY HARRIS AKA DELANEY M HARRIS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

ZEE TAPPAN

 

Court Documents

Answer - Answer

7/27/2018: Answer - Answer

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Trial

12/13/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Trial

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

4/28/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Motion and Motion For Terminating Sanctions Against Defendant; Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Declaration of Kimberly Barrientos in Support Thereof; Propo

4/29/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Motion and Motion For Terminating Sanctions Against Defendant; Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Declaration of Kimberly Barrientos in Support Thereof; Propo

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

6/26/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 06/26/2020

6/26/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 06/26/2020

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

3/5/2021: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Statement of the Case - Statement of the Case

3/5/2021: Statement of the Case - Statement of the Case

Judgment - Judgment Judgment

3/8/2021: Judgment - Judgment Judgment

Writ of Execution - Writ of Execution (LOS ANGELES)

4/2/2021: Writ of Execution - Writ of Execution (LOS ANGELES)

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

10/2/2019: 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...)

11/20/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

11/27/2019: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Non-Opposition to Plaintiff's Notice of Motion

8/12/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Non-Opposition to Plaintiff's Notice of Motion

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Non-Opposition to Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion

8/12/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Non-Opposition to Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion

Complaint

6/12/2018: Complaint

38 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/01/2021
  • DocketNotice of Rejection - Post Judgment; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2021
  • DocketMemorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest; Filed by: Hanh Cornelia (Plaintiff); As to: Delaney Marie Harris (Defendant); Costs: 0.00; Interest: 3.62; Credits: 0.00; Service Date: 03/10/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default/Default Judgment/Dismissal scheduled for 03/10/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 03/09/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Judgment Judgment: Filed By: Hanh Cornelia (Plaintiff); Result: Granted; Result Date: 03/08/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Judgment By Default By Court: Status Date changed from 03/05/2021 to 03/08/2021; Name Extension changed from Judgment to By Default By Court; Result Date changed from 03/08/2021 to 03/08/2021; As To Parties changed from Delaney Marie Harris (Defendant) to Delaney Marie Harris (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2021
  • DocketDefault judgment by Court entered for Plaintiff Hanh Cornelia against Defendant Delaney Marie Harris AKA Delaney Harris, AKA Delaney M Harris on the Complaint filed by Hanh Cornelia on 06/12/2018 for damages of $6,300.00 and costs of $300.00 for a total of $6,600.00.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2021
  • DocketStatement of the Case; Filed by: Hanh Cornelia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2021
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by: Hanh Cornelia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2021
  • DocketDeclaration Declaration of Plaintiff's Attorney Re: Calculation of Interest; Filed by: Hanh Cornelia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2021
  • Docket; On the Complaint filed by Hanh Cornelia on 06/12/2018

    Read MoreRead Less
66 More Docket Entries
  • 07/27/2018
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Delaney Marie Harris (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Delaney Marie Harris (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2018
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Hanh Cornelia (Plaintiff); As to: Delaney Marie Harris (Defendant); Service Date: 07/01/2018; Service Cost: 75.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Hanh Cornelia (Plaintiff); As to: Delaney Marie Harris (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Hanh Cornelia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Georgina T. Rizk in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 12/10/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 06/15/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC08242    Hearing Date: August 24, 2020    Dept: 26

Cornelia v. Harris, et al.

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Cornelia Hahn’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT HEREBY STRIKES DEFENDANT DELANEY MARIE HARRIS’ ANSWER.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING ENTRY OF DEFAULT SET FOR OCTOBER 26, 2020 AT 9 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

ANALYSIS:

On June 12, 2018, Plaintiff Hahn Cornelia (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Delaney Marie Harris (“Defendant”). On November 20, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motions to compel Defendant’s responses to written discovery and award sanctions. (Minute Order, 11/20/19.) Defendant was ordered to serve responses to discovery within 20 days’ notice of the order and pay sanctions of $840.00 within 30 days’ notice of the order. (Ibid.) To date, Defendant has not complied with the Court’s order to serve responses, accordingly, Plaintiff moves for terminating sanctions. (Motion, Barrientos Decl., ¶¶8-9.)

To date, no opposition has been filed to the Motion for Terminating Sanctions.

Discussion

Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subds. (d), (g); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) The court should look to the totality of the circumstances in determining whether terminating sanctions are appropriate. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) “[A] penalty as severe as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with discovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.” (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.) “The court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders:

An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.

An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed.

An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.

An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).)

The court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted here. Following the Court’s ruling regarding service of written discovery requests and sanctions, Plaintiff served notice of the order on Defendant by mail. (Motion, Barrientos Decl., ¶4 and Exh. A.) Despite notice of the Court’s order and payment of sanctions, Defendant did not serve responses as ordered. (Id. at ¶¶5-8 and Exh. B-C.) Given the notice provided, the Court finds Defendant’s failure to failure to comply with the Court’s November 20, 2019 order to be willful. Furthermore, although Defendant was properly served with the instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions, no opposition has been filed.

Although terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, the above evidence demonstrates that Defendant’s compliance with the Court’s orders cannot be achieved through lesser sanctions. “The court [is] not required to allow a pattern of abuse to continue ad infinitum.” (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 280.)

Conclusion

Plaintiff Cornelia Hahn’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT HEREBY STRIKES DEFENDANT DELANEY MARIE HARRIS’ ANSWER.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING ENTRY OF DEFAULT SET FOR OCTOBER 26, 2020 AT 9 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC08242    Hearing Date: November 20, 2019    Dept: 94

Cornelia v. Harris et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300; 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Hanh Cornelia’s (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions; (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions; (3) Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions; and (4) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted; Request for Monetary Sanctions, are GRANTED. Verified responses without objections to the interrogatories and requests for production are to be served within 20 days. Sanctions are awarded against Defendant Delaney Marie Harris in the amount of $1,215.00, to be paid to Plaintiff, by and through her counsel, within 30 days.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Hanh Cornelia (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Delaney Marie Harris on June 12, 2018. On April 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery motions set for hearing on May 8, 2019. Plaintiff filed the instant discovery motions (“Motions”) on July 2, 2019. To date, no oppositions have been filed.

It is undisputed that Defendant has not provided any verified responses to the discovery at issue propounded by Plaintiff. (Motions, Barrientos Decl., ¶¶ 2-8, Exh. A.) There is no requirement for a prior meet and confer effort before a motion to compel initial responses can be filed. Further, the motion can be brought any time after the responding party fails to provide the responses. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to an order that Defendant serve verified responses to the interrogatories and document demands, without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) The responses are due within 20 days. Plaintiff is also entitled to an order deeming the requests for admission admitted against Defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

The Court finds Defendant’s failure to respond a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Sanctions have been sufficiently noticed; however, the amount requested is excessive given the simplicity of these nearly identical motions. Defendant Delaney Marie Harris is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,215.00, based on three (3) hours of attorney time billed at $325.00 an hour, plus four filing fees of $60.00 each, within 30 days. (Motions, Barrientos Decl., ¶ 9.)

Moving party to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer ZEE LAW GROUP, P.C. - TAPPAN ZEE