This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/06/2021 at 05:24:35 (UTC).

JOCELYN LOPEZ VS DANIYAL HAMEED

Case Summary

On 02/22/2019 JOCELYN LOPEZ filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against DANIYAL HAMEED. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1868

  • Filing Date:

    02/22/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

LOPEZ JOCELYN

Defendant

HAMEED DANIYAL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

HALPERN JASON SALINAS

Defendant Attorney

BOIADJIAN ANGELA

 

Court Documents

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

2/23/2021: Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Ruling

2/10/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Ruling

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information - Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

1/14/2021: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information - Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

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

1/15/2021: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel - Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

11/9/2020: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel - Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration in Support of Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

11/9/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration in Support of Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 11/12/2020

11/12/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 11/12/2020

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

11/12/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

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

10/14/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel)

Proof of Service - No Service - Proof of Service - No Service

8/28/2019: Proof of Service - No Service - Proof of Service - No Service

Answer - Answer

9/13/2019: Answer - Answer

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

9/26/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Notice of Rejection - Ex Parte Application Without Hearing - Notice of Rejection - Ex Parte Application Without Hearing for Publication re: Daniyal

10/9/2019: Notice of Rejection - Ex Parte Application Without Hearing - Notice of Rejection - Ex Parte Application Without Hearing for Publication re: Daniyal

Notice (name extension) - Notice NOTICE THAT MOTIONS FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND DEMAND FOR INSPECTION HAVE BEEN TAKEN OFF CALENDAR

1/2/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice NOTICE THAT MOTIONS FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND DEMAND FOR INSPECTION HAVE BEEN TAKEN OFF CALENDAR

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel - Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

7/14/2020: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel - Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application - Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

7/14/2020: Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application - Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

Summons - Summons on Complaint

2/22/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

2/22/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

22 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/08/2021
  • Hearing06/08/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2021
  • DocketOrder Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil; Signed and Filed by: Jason Salinas Halpern (Attorney); As to: Jocelyn Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel scheduled for 02/23/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 02/23/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Daniyal Hameed (Defendant); As to: Jocelyn Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery"))

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 02/09/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 02/09/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2021
  • DocketNotice of Motion; Filed by: Jocelyn Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2021
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2021
  • DocketThere being no judge available this date, Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel scheduled for 01/20/2021 at 11:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 02/23/2021 10:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
43 More Docket Entries
  • 09/03/2019
  • DocketDeclaration Declaration in Support of Publication; Filed by: Jocelyn Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2019
  • DocketProof of Service - No Service; Filed by: Jocelyn Lopez (Plaintiff); As to: Daniyal Hameed (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/21/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 02/25/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Jocelyn Lopez (Plaintiff); As to: Daniyal Hameed (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Jocelyn Lopez (Plaintiff); As to: Daniyal Hameed (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Jocelyn Lopez (Plaintiff); As to: Daniyal Hameed (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC01868    Hearing Date: February 23, 2021    Dept: 25


Case Number: 19STLC05457    Hearing Date: February 23, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., February 23, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Alejandro v. Guerra COMPL. FILED: 06-05-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC05457 DISC. C/O: 04-27-21

NOTICE: OK DISC. MOT. C/O: 05-12-21

TRIAL DATE: 05-27-21

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION OF DEFENDANT RUBEN GUERRA FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF ALEJANDRO OMANA TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Ruben Guerra

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Ruben Guerra’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to the Requests for Production of Documents within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Defendant Guerra’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $540.00 to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within thirty days (30) of notice of this order.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of February 17, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of February 17, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On June 5, 2019, self-represented Plaintiff Alejandro Omana dba Engraved Graphics (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract, common counts, and fraud against Defendants Ruben Guerra (“Guerra”) and Energy Solutions by R.G., LLC (“Energy Solutions”). Defendant Guerra filed an Answer on December 23, 2019.

On August 25, 2020, Defendant Guerra filed the instant Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and for Sanctions (the “Motion”). To date, no oppositions have been filed.

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Request for Production

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

Here, Defendant Guerra’s counsel served Plaintiff with Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, on June 1, 2020 via regular mail. (Mot., Lara Decl., ¶ 3, Exhs. A.) As of the date of this Motion, Plaintiff has not served any responses. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Thus, Defendant Guerra is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.)

B. Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)

The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant Guerra’s discovery requests a misuse of the discovery process.

Defendant Guerra’s counsel seeks $1,020.00 in sanctions based on three hours of attorney time billed at $320.00 per hour and one $60.00 filing fee. (Mot., Lara Decl., ¶ 4.) However the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of this motion and the lack of opposition and reply. The Court finds $540.00, based on 1.5 hours of attorney time and one filing fee, to be reasonable.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Ruben Guerra’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to the Requests for Production of Documents within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Defendant Guerra’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $540.00 to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within thirty days (30) of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC01868    Hearing Date: December 03, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE:    Thu., December 3, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Lopez v. Hameed COMPL. FILED: 02-22-19

CASE NUMBER:     19STLC01868 DISC. C/O:    05-09-21

NOTICE:   NO (continued hearing) DISC. MOT. C/O:     05-24-21

TRIAL DATE: 06-08-21

PROCEEDINGS:     MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff’s Counsel Jason S. Halpern

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

(CCP § 284(2); CRC rule 3.1362)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Counsel Jason S. Halpern’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED ON THE CONDITION THAT, before the hearing, Counsel files a proof of service demonstrating he gave Plaintiff proper notice of the November 12th continuance and December 3rd hearing. If granted, the proposed order will be signed at the hearing. “After the order is signed, a copy of the signed order must be served on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).) The Order on this Motion will not be effective “until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on [Plaintiff] has been filed with the court.” (Id.)

SERVICE

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of December 1, 2020    [   ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of December 1, 2020    [   ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On February 22, 2019, Plaintiff Jocelyn Lopez (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Daniyal Hameed (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an Answer on September 13, 2019.

On July 14, 2020, Plaintiff’s Counsel Jason S. Halpern with Halpern & Associates (“Counsel”) filed the instant Motion to be Relieved as Counsel. At the initial October 14, 2020 hearing, the Court noted it was inclined to grant the Motion, but did not do so because Plaintiff was not given adequate notice of the hearing. (10/14/20 Minute Order.) The matter was thus continued to November 17. (Id.) On November 12, the Court, on its own motion, continued the hearing to December 3, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. and ordered Plaintiff’s Counsel to give notice. (11/12/20 Minute Order.)

To date, Plaintiff’s Counsel has not filed a proof of service demonstrating he gave Plaintiff notice of the November 12th continuance.

 

II. Legal Standard

(B) The service address is the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved.

 

III. Discussion

As noted at the previous hearing, Plaintiff’s Counsel seeks to be relieved because he has lost communication with Plaintiff. (MC-052, ¶ 2.) Counsel explains his office has attempted to call Plaintiff’s last known phone number on several occasions but has been unable to reach her. (Id.) Counsel’s office has also sent several correspondences to Plaintiff’s last known address which have not been returned as undeliverable. (Id.) Despite Counsel’s attempts, Plaintiff has not communicated with Counsel. (Id.) Counsel served Plaintiff with the Motion, supporting declaration, and proposed order by mail at Plaintiff’s current address, which was confirmed via a skip trace search using Accruint at most 30 days before this Motion was filed. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Importantly, trial is scheduled for June 8, 2021, giving Plaintiff sufficient time to find other legal representation should she wish to continue prosecuting this action.

 

The Court is satisfied with Counsel’s reasons for seeking to be relieved. Although the Court is again inclined to grant the Motion, Plaintiff’s Counsel did not file a proof of service demonstrating he gave Plaintiff notice of the November 12th continuance. In the interest of judicial economy, however, the Motion is GRANTED ON THE CONDITION THAT, before the hearing, Plaintiff’s Counsel files a proof of service demonstrating he gave adequate notice of this hearing. Otherwise, the hearing will be CONTINUED.

 

IV. Conclusion & Order

 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Counsel Jason S. Halpern’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED ON THE CONDITION THAT, before the hearing, Counsel files a proof of service demonstrating he gave Plaintiff proper notice of the November 12th continuance and December 3rd hearing. If granted, the proposed order will be signed at the hearing. “After the order is signed, a copy of the signed order must be served on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).) The Order on this Motion will not be effective “until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on [Plaintiff] has been filed with the court.” (Id.)

Otherwise, the Motion will be CONTINUED TO January 20, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. If continued, Plaintiff’s Counsel must file supplemental papers demonstrating he gave Plaintiff proper notice of the next scheduled hearing.  Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Plaintiff’s Counsel is ordered to give notice. 

Case Number: 19STLC01868    Hearing Date: October 14, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Wed., October 14, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Lopez v. Hameed COMPL. FILED: 02-22-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC01868 DISC. C/O: 05-09-21

NOTICE: NO (hearing) DISC. MOT. C/O: 05-24-21

TRIAL DATE: 06-08-21

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff’s Counsel Jason S. Halpern

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

(CCP § 284(2); CRC rule 3.1362)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Counsel Jason S. Halpern’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED ON THE CONDITION THAT, before the hearing, Counsel files a proof of service demonstrating he gave Plaintiff proper notice of the October 14th hearing. If granted, the proposed order will be signed at the hearing. After the order is signed, a copy of the signed order must be served on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).) The Order on this Motion will not be effective “until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on [Plaintiff] has been filed with the court.” (Id.)

Otherwise, the Motion will be CONTINUED TO NOV 17, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of October 7, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of October 7, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On February 22, 2019, Plaintiff Jocelyn Lopez (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Daniyal Hameed (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an Answer on September 13, 2019.

On July 14, 2020, Plaintiff’s Counsel Jason S. Halpern with Halpern & Associates (“Counsel”) filed the instant Motion to be Relieved as Counsel. To date, no opposition has been filed.

  1. Legal Standard

The court may order that an attorney be changed or substituted at any time before or after judgment or final determination upon request by either client or attorney and after notice from one to the other. (Code Civ. Proc., § 284(2).) “The determination whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1133.) An application to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Counsel Forms MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a), (c), (e).)

In addition, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 subsection (d) requires that the notice of motion and motion, declaration, and proposed order be served on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case by personal service, electronic service, or mail. If the notice is served by mail, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing that either:

(A) The service address is the current residence or business address of the client; or

(B) The service address is the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (1)(A) & (2).)

  1. Discussion

Plaintiff’s Counsel seeks to be relieved because he has lost communication with Plaintiff. (MC-052, ¶ 2.) Counsel explains his office has attempted to call Plaintiff’s last known phone number on several occasions, but has been unable to reach her. (Id.) Counsel’s office has also sent several correspondences to Plaintiff’s last known address which have not been returned as undeliverable. (Id.) Despite Counsel’s attempts, Plaintiff has refused to communicate with Counsel. (Id.) Counsel served Plaintiff with the Motion, supporting declaration, and proposed order by mail at Plaintiff’s current address, which was confirmed via a skip trace search using Accruint at most 30 days before this Motion was filed. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Importantly, trial is scheduled for June 8, 2021, giving Plaintiff sufficient time to find other legal representation should she wish to continue prosecuting this action.

The Court is satisfied with Counsel’s reasons for seeking to be relieved. Although the Court is inclined to grant the Motion, it is unclear whether Plaintiff was given adequate notice of this hearing. Plaintiff’s Counsel’s moving papers state that the hearing is scheduled for July 20, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. and October 14, 2020 at 10:00 p.m. [sic].

In the interest of judicial economy, however, the Motion is GRANTED ON THE CONDITION THAT, before the hearing, Plaintiff’s Counsel files a proof of service demonstrating he gave adequate notice of the October 14th hearing. Otherwise, the hearing will be CONTINUED.

 

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Counsel Jason S. Halpern’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED ON THE CONDITION THAT, before the hearing, Counsel files a proof of service demonstrating he gave Plaintiff proper notice of the October 14th hearing. If granted, the proposed order will be signed at the hearing. After the order is signed, a copy of the signed order must be served on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).) The Order on this Motion will not be effective “until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on [Plaintiff] has been filed with the court.” (Id.)

Otherwise, the Motion will be CONTINUED TO NOV 17, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer BOIADJIAN ANGELA