Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/30/2021 at 00:03:31 (UTC).

HARVEY COLLIER VS ADRIANA VALENZUELA, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 04/25/2018 HARVEY COLLIER filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against ADRIANA VALENZUELA. 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 - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******6467

  • Filing Date:

    04/25/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

GEORGINA T. RIZK

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

COLLIER HARVEY

Defendants

VALENZUELA ADRIANA

BAUTISTA MERITA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

RYAN JOSEPH DAVID

Defendant Attorney

ALBAN ARNOLD J.

 

Court Documents

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

1/24/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

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

3/20/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

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

4/17/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

4/29/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

12/8/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial

10/8/2019: Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial

Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Appearance Case Review Re: failure to file Proof of Servi...)

2/26/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Appearance Case Review Re: failure to file Proof of Servi...)

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

7/23/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery"))

Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

1/24/2019: Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel)

1/24/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel) of 01/24/2019

1/24/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel) of 01/24/2019

Notice of Deposit - Jury - Notice of Deposit - Jury

4/12/2019: Notice of Deposit - Jury - Notice of Deposit - Jury

Answer

6/25/2018: Answer

Proof of Personal Service

5/31/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Summons - on Complaint

4/25/2018: Summons - on Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

4/25/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

20 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/08/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Adriana Valenzuela (Defendant); Merita Bautista (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion for Terminating Sanctions: Filed By: Merita Bautista (Defendant),Adriana Valenzuela (Defendant); Result: Granted; Result Date: 10/14/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2020
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Harvey Collier on 04/25/2018, entered Order for Dismissal with prejudice as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions; Trial Setting Co...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions scheduled for 10/14/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 10/14/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2020
  • DocketTrial Setting Conference scheduled for 10/14/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court on 10/14/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/28/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 10/14/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2020
  • DocketReset - Court Unavailable, Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions scheduled for 07/27/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 10/14/2020 10:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2020
  • DocketReset - Court Unavailable, Trial Setting Conference scheduled for 07/27/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 10/14/2020 10:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
39 More Docket Entries
  • 06/25/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Adriana Valenzuela (Defendant); Merita Bautista (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2018
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Harvey Collier (Plaintiff); As to: Adriana Valenzuela (Defendant); Service Date: 05/24/18; Service Cost: 50.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Harvey Collier (Plaintiff); As to: Merita Bautista (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 05/24/18; Service Cost: 50.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Harvey Collier (Plaintiff); As to: Adriana Valenzuela (Defendant); Merita Bautista (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Harvey Collier (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Georgina T. Rizk in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/23/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/28/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC06467    Hearing Date: October 14, 2020    Dept: 26

Collier v. Valenzuela, et al.

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Adriana Valenzuela and Merita Bautista’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT HEREBY DISMISSES PLAINTIFF HARVEY COLLIER’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Harvey Collier (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants Adriana Valenzuela and Merita Bautista (“Defendants”) on April 25, 2018. Effective February 7, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel withdrew from representation. On July 23, 2019, the Court granted Defendants’ motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to written discovery. (Minute Order, 07/23/19.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to serve responses to the discovery within 20 days’ notice of the order. (Ibid.) Notice of the ruling was served on Plaintiff on September 11, 2019. (Motion, Alban Decl., Exh. A.) To date, Plaintiff has not served responses as ordered. (Id. at ¶6.)

Defendants filed the instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions on November 27, 2019. To date, no opposition has been filed.

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 written discovery requests, Defendants served notice of the order on Plaintiff by mail. (Motion, Alban Decl., Exh. A.) Despite notice of the Court’s order, Plaintiff did not comply. Given the notice provided, the Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s July 23, 2019 order to be willful. Furthermore, although Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff’s compliance with the Court’s orders cannot be achieved through lesser sanctions. Indeed, it appears that Plaintiff has no intention of complying with the Court’s orders or prosecuting the claims against Defendant. “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

Defendants Adriana Valenzuela and Merita Bautista’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT HEREBY DISMISSES PLAINTIFF HARVEY COLLIER’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.

Moving party to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer RYAN JOSEPH DAVID