Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/20/2019 at 06:54:41 (UTC).

JACINTA POOK VS FIVE POINTS PLAZA, LLC

Case Summary

On 08/11/2017 JACINTA POOK filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against FIVE POINTS PLAZA, LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ELAINE LU. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0292

  • Filing Date:

    08/11/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

ELAINE LU

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

POOK JACINTA

Defendants

FIVE POINTS PLAZA LLC

DOLLAR TREE STORE #04711

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

LAWSON BEATRICE R.

WILLIS KAYRETHA HALE

 

Court Documents

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

11/28/2018: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

2/8/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

2/7/2018: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Summons - on Complaint

8/11/2017: Summons - on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet

8/11/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint

8/11/2017: Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

8/11/2017: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/14/2020
  • 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
  • 02/10/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 02/10/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2019
  • DocketMinute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2019
  • DocketPursuant to the request of plaintiff, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 02/08/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 02/10/2020 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2018
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by: Jacinta Pook (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 77

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Jacinta Pook (Plaintiff); As to: Five Points Plaza, LLC (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 10/10/17; Service Cost: 61.00; Service Cost Waived: Yes

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Jacinta Pook (Plaintiff); As to: Five Points Plaza, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Jacinta Pook (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2017
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2017
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Elaine Lu in Department 77 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2017
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 02/08/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2017
  • DocketOSC - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 08/14/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 17STLC00292    Hearing Date: October 26, 2020    Dept: 26

Pook v. Five Points Plaza, LLC, et al

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

(CCP §§ 2025.450, 2030.290, 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Five Points Plaza, LLC’s (1) Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Jacinta Pook and Request for Sanctions; (2) Motion For Order Compelling Plaintiff To Respond to Special Interrogatories; Request for Sanctions; and (3) Motion For Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to Request for Production of Documents; Request For Sanctions are CONTINUED TO JANUARY 25, 2021 AT _____ AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

ANALYSIS:

On August 11, 2017, Plaintiff Jacinta Pook (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for premises liability against Defendant Five Points Plaza, LLC (“Defendant”). Defendant did not file its Answer until February 5, 2020. On April 17, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiff and Request for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion to Compel Deposition”). Defendant concurrently filed the Motions to Compel Plaintiff’s Discovery Responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, which also include requests for sanctions. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

As an initial matter, Defendant has not demonstrated proper notice of the hearing date on Plaintiff. The Motions were set for hearing by order of the Court on September 8, 2020, with instruction to Defendant to give notice. (Minute Order, 9/8/20.) No Notice of Hearing or proof of service of the same has been filed with the Court. Therefore, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff was provided proper notice of the hearing date. Failure to give notice of a motion is not only a violation of the statutory requirements but of due process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005; Jones v. Otero (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 754, 757.)

While the Court cannot grant the Motions without a demonstration of proper notice, a discussion of the substantive merits follows.

Motion to Compel Deposition

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, section (a) states in relevant part:

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 inspecialation, 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 inspecialation, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) The motion must also “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice” and “be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (b)(1), (2).) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an inspecialal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

Defendant noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for March 2, 2020. (Motion, Kim Decl., Exh. A.) On February 27, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that Plaintiff could not appear and defense counsel asked for alternative deposition dates. (Id. at Exh. B.) No alternative dates were provided because Plaintiff’s counsel was unable to reach Plaintiff, who failed to appear for deposition on March 2, 2020. (Id. at Exh. C.) On March 24, 2020, defense counsel again reached out for alternative dates but none were provided. (Id. at Exhs. D-E.) To date, Plaintiff has not appeared for deposition or provided dates on which to appear. (Id. at ¶3.)

Based on the foregoing, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff’s attendance at deposition. Also, a court shall impose monetary sanctions if the motion to compel is granted unless the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or other circumstances would make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).) Defendant should be awarded sanctions of $350.00 based on two hours of attorney time billed at $175.00 per hour. (Id. at ¶4.)

Motions to Compel Discovery Responses

Defendant presents evidence that it served Plaintiff with Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents by mail on February 14, 2020. (Motions, Kim Decl., Exh. A.) Responses were due by March 18, 2020. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, 2031.250.) Despite defense counsel sending a meet and confer letter, to date, Plaintiff has not served responses to the discovery requests. (Id. at ¶6 and Exh. B.)

The failure to timely serve responses, whether containing objections, or facts, or both, results in waiver of all objections. (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 658.) Based on Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the propounded discovery requests, Defendants are entitled to verified responses without objections to the interrogatories and requests for production within twenty (20) days of notice of this Order. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s failure to respond is a misuse of the discovery procedures. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, et seq.) Sanctions have been properly noticed and are appropriate in the amount of $350.00 based on two hours of attorney time billed at $175.00 per hour. (Motion, Kim Decl., ¶7.)

Conclusion

Defendant Five Points Plaza, LLC’s (1) Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Jacinta Pook and Request for Sanctions; (2) Motion For Order Compelling Plaintiff To Respond to Special Interrogatories; Request for Sanctions; and (3) Motion For Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to Request for Production of Documents; Request For Sanctions are CONTINUED TO JANUARY 25, 2021 AT _____ AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE CONTINUED HEARING DATE, PETITIONER IS TO FILE PROOF OF PROPER SERVICE OF THE NOTICE OF MOTION ON RESPONDENT WITH THE COURT. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE MOTIONS BEING PLACED OFF CALENDAR OR DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer WILLIS, KAYRETHA H