This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/16/2019 at 21:40:52 (UTC).

IRMA GONZALEZ VS JOHN RIORDON PLUMBING

Case Summary

On 03/26/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by IRMA GONZALEZ against JOHN RIORDON PLUMBING in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******4760

  • Filing Date:

    03/26/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

GONZALEZ IRMA

Defendant

JOHN RIORDON PLUMBING

 

Court Documents

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

5/28/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

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

6/5/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Answer - Answer

6/5/2019: Answer - Answer

Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial

6/5/2019: Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

8/2/2019: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Order (name extension) - Order -

8/2/2019: Order (name extension) - Order -

Civil Case Cover Sheet

3/26/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - on Complaint

3/26/2018: Summons - on Complaint

Complaint

3/26/2018: Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

3/26/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/29/2021
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2019
  • DocketUpdated -- Order -: Status Date changed from 08/02/2019 to 08/02/2019; Name Extension changed from [PROPOSED] ORDER to -; As To Parties changed from Irma Gonzalez (Plaintiff) to Irma Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2019
  • DocketStipulation and Order JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; Filed by: John Riordon Plumbing (Defendant); As to: Irma Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2019
  • DocketOrder [PROPOSED] ORDER; Filed by: John Riordon Plumbing (Defendant); As to: Irma Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2019
  • DocketPursuant to written stipulation, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/23/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Continued - Stipulation was rescheduled to 03/23/2020 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: John Riordon Plumbing (Defendant); As to: Irma Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by: John Riordon Plumbing (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by: John Riordon Plumbing (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Irma Gonzalez (Plaintiff); As to: John Riordon Plumbing (Defendant); Service Date: 05/21/2019; Service Cost: 69.50; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 94 - Hon. James E. Blancarte; Reason: Inventory Transfer

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Irma Gonzalez (Plaintiff); As to: John Riordon Plumbing (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Irma Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Jon R. Takasugi in Department 77 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/23/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/29/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC04760    Hearing Date: February 24, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

(CRC, Rule 3.1332)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant John Riordon Plumbing, Inc.’s Motion for Order Continuing Trial and All Related Dates is GRANTED. Trial is continued to SEPTEMBER 21, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. Motion and discovery cut-off dates are to follow the new trial date.

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On March 26, 2018, Plaintiff Irma Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant John Riordon Plumbing, Inc. (“Defendant”), but did not serve Defendant with the Summons and Complaint until May 21, 2019. (5/28/19 Proof of Service.) Defendant filed an Answer on June 5, 2019.

Trial was originally scheduled for September 23, 2019. However, on August 2, 2019, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Continue Trial and the Court continued trial to March 23, 2020. (8/2/19 Order.)

On August 30, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions. On November 18, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion for Order Compelling the Deposition of Plaintiff and Request for Monetary Sanctions. The Court granted both unopposed motions. (12/16/19 Minute Order; 1/30/20 Minute Order.)

On January 24, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Order Continuing Trial and All Related Dates (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition or reply briefs have been filed.

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c).) The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. (Id.) The Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted: (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance of trial due to any party; (3) the length of the continuance requested; (4) the availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial. (See generally, Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (d)(1)-(11).) Additionally, factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; the proximity of the trial date; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c), (d).)

Defendant has demonstrated good cause for a trial continuance. Defendant has only been participating in this action since June 2019, and Plaintiff has made little effort to advance the case since filing the Complaint. In addition, Defendant has required the Court’s intervention to obtain basic discovery from Plaintiff. (Mot., Braasch Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) Notably, in spite of a Court order, Defendant has been unable to obtain responses to Form Interrogatories. (Id. at ¶ 3.) The currently scheduled trial date of March 23, 2020 does not leave Defendant sufficient time to complete discovery and prepare a defense for trial. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Although trial was continued once before, it was done so because Plaintiff delayed serving Defendant with the Summons and Complaint until three months before the then-scheduled trial date. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Furthermore, Plaintiff has not opposed the requested continuance.

Thus, Defendant’s request for a trial continuance is GRANTED.

  1. Conclusion & Order

 

Based on the foregoing, Defendant John Riordon Plumbing, Inc.’s Motion for Order Continuing Trial and All Related Dates is GRANTED. Trial is continued to SEPTEMBER 21, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. Motion and discovery cut-off dates are to follow the new trial date.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC04760    Hearing Date: January 30, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2025.450)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant John Riordan Plumbing, Inc.’s Motion for Order Compelling the Deposition of Plaintiff is GRANTED. DEFENDANT TO FILE A PROPOSED ORDER SETTING FORTH THE SPECIFIC DATE, TIME, AND LOCATION OF THE DEPOSITION.

Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $1,197.50. SANCTIONS ARE TO BE PAID TO DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

I. Background

On March 26, 2018, Plaintiff Irma Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant John Riordan Plumbing, Inc., erroneously sued as John Riordon Plumbing (“Defendant”). On June 5, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer.

On August 30, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion or Order Compelling Responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions. On December 18, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s unopposed motion and awarded $570.00 in sanctions against Plaintiff. (12/18/19 Minute Order.)

On November 18, 2019, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Order Compelling the Deposition of Plaintiff Irma Gonzalez and for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition or reply brief has been filed.

II. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, section (a) provides:

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

The motion must “be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition…by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (2).) A court shall impose monetary sanctions if the motion to compel is granted unless the one subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or other circumstances would make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

III. Discussion

Defendant argues an order to compel is warranted because Plaintiff failed to appear at her previously noticed deposition. (Mot., p. 5.) Defendant presents evidence that a deposition was initially scheduled for June 24, 2019, then rescheduled for September 11, 2019. (Id., p. 4.) Pursuant to Plaintiff’s request, it was rescheduled a second time for October 22, 2019, a date chosen by Plaintiff. (Id.) On October 21, 2019, Defendant’s counsel’s office tried to confirm the October 22 deposition, but was unable to do so. (Mot., Ramos Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. C.) In addition the Motion is supported by a declaration stating that on November 6, 2019, Defendant’s counsel’s office contacted Plaintiff’s counsel’s office regarding the nonappearance. (Id., ¶ 10, Exh. E.) Further, Plaintiff’s counsel has failed to respond to Defense counsel’s correspondence to reschedule Plaintiff’s deposition. (Mot., p. 6, 7-8.)

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to appear for the properly noticed deposition and continuing lack of cooperation in rescheduling, the Motion for Order Compelling the Deposition of Plaintiff is GRANTED.

Sanctions are warranted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 2023.030 subdivision (d) and section 2025.450 subdivision (g)(1) and have been properly noticed. Defense counsel requests a total of $2,253.15 in sanctions. (Mot., Rose Decl., ¶ 12.) This includes 4.9 hours traveling to and attending the October 22, 2019 deposition billed at $160.00 per hour, 7 hours drafting this Motion billed at $100.00 per hour, and an anticipated 8 hours to attend the hearing on this Motion and preparing an opposition and reply billed at $160.00 per hour. (Id., ¶¶ 7, 9, 11.) It also includes costs of $273.15, which consists of a $151.50 court reporter fee for the deposition and Certificate of Non-Appearance of Plaintiff, $60.00 filing fee for this Motion, and a reservation fee of $61.65. (Id., ¶ 10.) However, the amount sough is excessive given the simplicity of this Motion, and the lack of opposition and reply. In addition, Defendant is seeking an award of the $60.00 motion filing fee twice.

Accordingly, Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,197.50, which includes 4.9 hours of attorney time for traveling to and attending the deposition billed at $160.00, 2 hours of attorney time for drafting and appearing for this Motion billed at $100.00 per hour, and costs of $213.15.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant John Riordan Plumbing, Inc.’s Motion for Order Compelling the Deposition of Plaintiff is GRANTED. DEFENDANT TO FILE A PROPOSED ORDER SETTING FORTH THE SPECIFIC DATE, TIME, AND LOCATION OF THE DEPOSITION.

Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $1,197.50. SANCTIONS ARE TO BE PAID TO DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC04760    Hearing Date: December 18, 2019    Dept: 94

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES;

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (C.C.P. § 2030.290)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant John Riordan Plumbing, Inc.’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff Irma Gonzalez to provide verified responses, without objections, to Form Interrogatories (Set One) is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF IS ORDERED TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES, WITHOUT OBJECTIONS, TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) WITHIN 30 DAYS.

Defendant’s unopposed request for sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel, Sergei N. Gladkov, Esq., of the Law Offices of Sergei N. Gladkov, is GRANTED IN THE REDUCED AMOUNT OF $570.00. THE SANCTIONS SHALL BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS.

ANALYSIS:

Defendant John Riordan Plumbing, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves for an order compelling Plaintiff Irma Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) to provide verified responses, without objections, to Form Interrogatories (Set One). Defendant also requests an award of sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel, Sergei N. Gladkov, Esq., of the Law Offices of Sergei N. Gladkov, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,505.00.

Defendant’s motion was originally noticed for hearing on October 28, 2019. The Court continued the hearing to December 18, 2019.

C.C.P. §2030.290 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:

(a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010)…

(b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.

(c) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust…

Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objections, to Form Interrogatories (Set One). (See C.C.P. §2030.290(a)-(b).) Defendant served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set One) via mail on June 5, 2019. (Declaration of Braasch ¶2; Exhibit A.) Plaintiff failed to serve responses to the discovery despite meet and confer efforts. (Declaration of Braasch ¶¶3-7; Exhibits B-C.)

Defendant is also entitled to an award of sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel in the reduced amount of $570.00 (representing 3 hours of attorney time at $170.00 per hour, plus the $60.00 motion fee). (Declaration of Braasch ¶9.) (See C.C.P. §2030.290(c).)

Based on the foregoing, DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO COMPEL IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFF IS ORDERED TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES, WITHOUT OBJECTIONS, TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) WITHIN 30 DAYS. DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND HER COUNSEL IS GRANTED IN THE REDUCED AMOUNT OF $570.00. THE SANCTIONS SHALL BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS.

Defendant to give notice.