Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/29/2021 at 00:26:22 (UTC).

JING DONG VS SAMUEL PEREZ

Case Summary

On 04/22/2019 JING DONG filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against SAMUEL PEREZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3900

  • Filing Date:

    04/22/2019

  • 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

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

DONG JING

Defendant

PEREZ SAMUEL

Not Classified By Court

LOPEZ SANDRA Y.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Not Classified By Court Attorney

VARDANYAN GEVORG S

 

Court Documents

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

4/9/2021: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

4/9/2021: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Minute Order - Minute Order (Jury Trial)

5/27/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Jury Trial)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Jury Trial) of 05/27/2021

5/27/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Jury Trial) of 05/27/2021

Minute Order - Minute Order (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)

5/27/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Defense Counsel Gevorg Vardanyan in Support of Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Prayer for Punitive Damages

2/6/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Defense Counsel Gevorg Vardanyan in Support of Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Prayer for Punitive Damages

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer)

2/19/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer)

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

2/25/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Notice of Change of Firm Name - Notice of Change of Firm Name

8/14/2020: Notice of Change of Firm Name - Notice of Change of Firm Name

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 09/21/2020

9/21/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 09/21/2020

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer)

12/18/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer)

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

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

Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer - Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer

6/4/2019: Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer - Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer

Complaint - Complaint

4/22/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Summons - Summons on Complaint

4/22/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

4/22/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

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

4/22/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

4/22/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

8 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/27/2021
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Jing Dong on 04/22/2019, entered Order for Dismissal without prejudice as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Jury Trial)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Jury Trial) of 05/27/2021; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2021
  • DocketJury Trial scheduled for 05/27/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 05/27/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/25/2022 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 05/27/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2021
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 10/24/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Advanced and Vacated on 05/27/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2021
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 10/24/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Advanced and Vacated on 05/27/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2021
  • DocketPursuant to the request of moving party, Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 05/27/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party on 05/26/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2021
  • DocketPursuant to the request of moving party, Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 05/27/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party on 05/26/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
23 More Docket Entries
  • 06/04/2019
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer scheduled for 12/18/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Jing Dong (Plaintiff); As to: Sandra Y. Lopez (Non-Party); Service Date: 05/19/19; Service Cost: 0.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Jing Dong (Plaintiff); As to: Samuel Perez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Jing Dong (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/19/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/25/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC03900    Hearing Date: May 27, 2021    Dept: 26

Dong v. Perez, et al.

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

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:  

Defendant Sandra Lopez’s (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions; and (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions are PLACED OFF CALENDAR. 

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Jing Dong (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Sandra Lopez (“Defendant”) on April 22, 2019. Trial in this action was originally set for October 19, 2020. The corresponding cutoffs for discovery and discovery motions, therefore, were September 19, 2020 and October 4, 2021, respectively. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).) Following the Court’s continuance of the trial date to May 27, 2021, the discovery and discovery motion cutoffs were extended to April 27, 2021 and May 12, 2021. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions; and (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions (“the Motions”) on April 9, 2021. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

The instant Motions are set to be heard after the statutory cutoff for discovery motions. In fact, they are set to be heard on the date of trial.

The Court cannot grant discovery motions after the cutoff date unless the moving party has moved under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 to have the motions heard closer to the trial date. (Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1586-1587.) The Court’s discretion in allowing the motions to be heard closer to the trial date than allowed by Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020 is bounded by the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, which include submission of a meet and confer declaration and the trial court’s consideration of the statutory factors. (Ibid.) The Motion fails to address the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Sandra Lopez’s (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions; and (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions are PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

Court clerk to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC03900    Hearing Date: February 19, 2020    Dept: 26

Dong v. Lopez, et al.

MOTION TO STRIKE

(CCP §§435-436)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Sandra Y. Lopez’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Jing Dong (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Sandra Y. Lopez (“Defendant”) on April 22, 2019. On June 4, 2019, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Strike Punitive Damages. The Motion initially came for hearing on December 18, 2019, at which time the Court continued the matter to allow Defendant to demonstrate compliance with the meet and confer requirement set forth at Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5. Specifically, the Court ordered Defendant to (1) meet and confer to determine whether an agreement can be reached that resolves

the issue raised in the Motion to strike; and (2) file and serve a declaration regarding the meet and confer efforts at least five court days before the continued hearing.

On February 6, 2020, Defendant filed a declaration indicating that Plaintiff had agreed to file an amended complaint without a prayer for punitive damages. On February 7, 2020, Plaintiff, who originally filed this action in pro per, filed a request to dismiss the punitive damages through an attorney. The request to dismiss was rejected on the grounds that no substitution of attorney has been filed. (Request for Dismissal, filed 2/7/20, ¶6.) The Court having now found Defendant has satisfied the meet and confer effort will rule on the merits of the Motion.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 436 provides, as follows:

The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper:

(a)

(b) court.

A request for punitive damages may be made pursuant to Cal. Civil Code 3294, which provides, as follows: “In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).)

Subdivision (c) of the same statute provides, as follows:

(c) As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) “Malice” means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.

(2) “Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.

(3) “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.

(Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c).)

Discussion

Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to support the prayer for punitive damages in the Complaint. Plaintiff’s Complaint contains causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence. Plaintiff alleges Defendant was the legal (proximate) cause of her damages. (Compl., p. 5.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant “was allowed or caused to operate, maintain and drive a motor vehicle doing such in a negligent (as evidenced by her prior driving offenses) manner so as to collide with the plaintiff’s vehicle and then other portions, left rear, thereof.” (Ibid.) Plaintiff alleges the “collision was caused by Defendant (s) illegal operation of a motor vehicle and in violation of CA Vehicle Motor codes sections 21543 (a) running a red light; 21800 – 21809 failure to yield the right of and all related applicable sections of the CA Vehicle Code…” (Ibid.) However, these allegations, which are taken as true for purposes of a motion to strike, do not establish Defendant “has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).)

Based on the foregoing, DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STRIKE IS GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Defendant to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC03900    Hearing Date: December 18, 2019    Dept: 94

MOTION TO STRIKE

(C.C.P. §§435-436)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Sandra Y. Lopez’s motion to strike is CONTINUED. DEFENDANT DID NOT COMPLY WITH C.C.P. §435.5. THE PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO MEET AND CONFER TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN AGREEMENT CAN BE REACHED THAT RESOLVES THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE MOTION TO STRIKE. DEFENDANT SHALL FILE AND SERVE A DECLARATION REGARDING THE MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS AT LEAST FIVE COURT DAYS BEFORE THE CONTINUED HEARING.

ANALYSIS:

Defendant Sandra Y. Lopez (“Defendant”) moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages in the complaint of Plaintiff Jing Dong (“Plaintiff”), pursuant to C.C.P. §§435 and 436. Defendant argues Plaintiff failed to allege facts to support the prayer for punitive damages. (See Civil Code §3294.)

The moving party must meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is the subject of the motion to strike at least five days before the date the motion to strike must be filed. (C.C.P. §435.5(a)(1)-(2).) “If the parties are unable to meet and confer at least five days before the date the motion to strike must be filed, the moving party shall be granted an automatic 30-day extension of time within which to file a motion to strike, by filing and serving, on or before the date a motion to strike must be filed, a declaration stating under penalty of perjury that a good faith attempt to meet and confer was made and explaining the reasons why the parties could not meet and confer. The 30-day extension shall commence from the date the motion to strike was previously due, and the moving party shall not be subject to default during the period of the extension. Any further extensions shall be obtained by court order upon a showing of good cause.” (C.C.P. §435.5(a)(2).)

The moving party must file a declaration in support of the motion to strike stating either that the “means by which the moving party met and conferred with the party who filed the pleading subject to the motion to strike, and that the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the objections raised by the motion to strike” or “the party who filed the pleading subject to the motion to strike failed to respond to the meet and confer request of the moving party or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith.” (C.C.P. §435.5(a)(3)(A)-(B).)

Defendant did not establish compliance with the meet and confer requirement set forth in C.C.P. §435.5(a). Defendant also did not file a declaration that complies with C.C.P. §435.5(a)(3).

Based on the foregoing, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE IS CONTINUED TO February 19, 2020 at 10:30 a.m.

THE PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO MEET AND CONFER TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN AGREEMENT CAN BE REACHED THAT RESOLVES THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE MOTION TO STRIKE. DEFENDANT SHALL FILE AND SERVE A DECLARATION REGARDING THE MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS AT LEAST FIVE COURT DAYS BEFORE THE CONTINUED HEARING.

Defendant to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer VARDANYAN GEVORG S