This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/14/2021 at 09:28:39 (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

  • 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 Attorneys

BOIADJIAN ANGELA DENISE

BOIADJIAN ANGELA

SANTIAGO CHRISTEN DENISE

 

Court Documents

Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Motion for Terminating Sanctions

10/13/2021: Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Motion for Terminating Sanctions

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

8/24/2021: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information - Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

8/25/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions)

8/10/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

8/11/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

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

8/3/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

8/4/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Motion for Terminating Sanctions

5/27/2021: Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Motion for Terminating Sanctions

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

5/10/2021: 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

5/10/2021: 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 (Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial)

4/29/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial)

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Ruling - Continuing Trial and Trial Based Dates

4/30/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Ruling - Continuing Trial and Trial Based Dates

Proof of Service - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Proof of Service - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

3/26/2021: Proof of Service - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Proof of Service - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Motion to Continue Trial Date - Motion to Continue Trial Date

4/1/2021: Motion to Continue Trial Date - Motion to Continue Trial Date

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Change of Handling Attorney

4/1/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Change of Handling Attorney

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

2/23/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel)

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

37 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/08/2022
  • Hearing02/08/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2022
  • Hearing01/18/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions scheduled for 01/18/2022 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • DocketMotion for Terminating Sanctions; Filed by: Daniyal Hameed (Defendant); As to: Jocelyn Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: Daniyal Hameed (Defendant); As to: Jocelyn Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2021
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by: Angela Denise Boiadjian (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Angela Denise Boiadjian (Attorney): First Name changed from Christen to Angela; Last Name changed from Santiago to Boiadjian

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2021
  • DocketAddress for Angela Denise Boiadjian (Attorney) updated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2021
  • DocketAddress for Angela Denise Boiadjian (Attorney) updated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Daniyal Hameed (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
74 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

b'

Case Number: 19STLC01868 Hearing Date: August 10, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION\r\nTO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S ACTION FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT’S ORDER AND FOR ORDER\r\nIMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendant\r\nDaniyal Hameed

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 2023.030)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Danyial Hameed’s request for terminating\r\nsanctions is DENIED. However, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S\r\nFEBRUARY 9, 2021 ORDER REQUIRING HER TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION WITHIN THIRTY\r\n(30) DAYS OF THIS ORDER. In addition, Defendant’s request for sanctions is\r\nGRANTED in the amount of $292.27 to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within\r\nthirty (30) days of notice of this order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE: \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nProof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nCorrect Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\n16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None filed as of August\r\n6, 2021 [ ] Late [X]\r\nNone

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof August 6, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On February 22, 2019, Plaintiff Jocelyn Lopez\r\n(“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Daniyal Hameed (“Defendant”)\r\nalleging motor vehicle negligence. Defendant filed an Answer on September 13,\r\n2019.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s former counsel filed a motion to be relieved\r\non July 14, 2020. After several continuances, it was granted on February 23,\r\n2021. On March 26, Plaintiff’s former counsel filed a notice of ruling\r\ndemonstrating Plaintiff and Defendant’s counsel were served with the order on\r\nFebruary 23, 2021. (3/26/21 Proof of Service.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition\r\non September 3, 2020. (2/9/21 Minute Order.) Plaintiff did not oppose the\r\nmotion or appear at the hearing. (Id.) On February 9, 2021, Plaintiff\r\nwas ordered to appear for deposition at a time, date, and place to be noticed\r\nby Defendant, remote at either party’s election, and to pay sanctions of\r\n$704.67. (Id.) Defendant served notice of the Court’s ruling the\r\nfollowing day. (2/10/21 Notice of Ruling.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On May 10, 2021, Defendant filed motions to compel\r\nPlaintiff’s responses to supplemental interrogatories and requests for\r\nproduction of documents. There being opposition or appearance by Plaintiff at\r\nthe August 3, 2021 hearing, the Court granted the motions. (8/3/21 Minute\r\nOrder.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Finally, on May 27, 2021, Defendant filed the instant\r\nMotion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Action for Failure to Obey Court’s Order and for\r\nOrder Imposing Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

No opposition was filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Where a party willfully\r\ndisobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating,\r\nissue, evidence, or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd.\r\n(g), 2025.450, subd. (h); R.S. Creative,\r\nInc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) An evidence sanction prohibits a party that\r\nmisused the discovery process from introducing evidence on certain designated\r\nmatters into evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (c).) Ultimate\r\ndiscovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order\r\nviolation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions\r\nwould not produce compliance with discovery rules. (Van\r\nSickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) “[A] penalty as severe as dismissal or\r\ndefault is not authorized where noncompliance with discovery is caused by an\r\ninability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.” (Brown\r\nv. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.) The court may impose a terminating sanction\r\nby one of the following orders:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(1) An\r\norder striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party\r\nengaging in the misuse of the discovery process.

\r\n\r\n

(2) An\r\norder staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is\r\nobeyed.

\r\n\r\n

(3) An\r\norder dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.

\r\n\r\n

(4) An\r\norder rendering a judgment by default against that party.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nDiscussion\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant seeks a terminating sanction due to Plaintiff’s\r\nfailure to appear for deposition as previously ordered. (Mot., p. 4.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

As discussed above, the Court granted Defendant’s\r\nunopposed motion to compel Plaintiff to appear for deposition on February 9,\r\n2021 (2/9/21 Minute Order) and Defendant served notice of this order on\r\nFebruary 10 (2/10/21 Notice of Ruling).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On February 12, 2021, Defendant’s counsel served a notice\r\nof remote deposition scheduled for March 8, 2021. (Mot., Santiago Decl., ¶ 7,\r\nExh. B.) Plaintiff did not appear at the March 8 deposition and Defendant\r\nobtained a certificate of nonappearance. (Id. at ¶ 8, Exh. C.) On March\r\n10, 2021, Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff, who was now self-represented, a\r\nletter regarding her failure to appear via email and regular mail. (Id. at\r\n¶ 9, Exh. D.) In the letter, Defendant’s counsel asked Plaintiff to contact her\r\noffice to discuss her failure to appear and to reschedule the deposition. (Id.)\r\nOn April 22, 2021, Plaintiff sent Defendant’s counsel’s office an email\r\ninforming them she was homeless, that she “had to be a mom before dealing\r\n[with] anything at the moment,” and that she would contact an attorney when she\r\nwas able to. (Id. at ¶ 10, Exh. E.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Finally, on May 24, Defendant’s counsel called\r\nPlaintiff’s counsel and left a voicemail asking Plaintiff to call back to\r\nreschedule the deposition as soon as possible and to inform her this Motion would\r\nbe filed. (Id. at ¶ 11.) As of the date this Motion was filed, Plaintiff\r\nhad not yet appeared for deposition. (Id. at ¶¶ 12-13.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A terminating sanction here is\r\ntoo harsh a penalty. Defendant’s evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff has not\r\ncomplied with only one discovery-related order. Defendant has not demonstrated\r\nthat Plaintiff has a history of abuse or that her failure to comply was in bad\r\nfaith. Rather, it appears that her failure to comply is due, at least in part,\r\nto her attorney recently substituting out of this case and her being homeless.\r\nThus, Defendant’s request for terminating sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT\r\nPREJUDICE. Instead, the Court orders Plaintiff to comply with the February 9,\r\n2021 Order. The Court cautions Plaintiff that failure to comply with today’s\r\norder may be grounds for granting a future request for terminating sanctions.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant also requests\r\nmonetary sanctions of $367.15, based on 2 hours of attorney time billed at\r\n$143.75 per hour, one filing fee of $61.65, and one remote appearance fee of\r\n$15.00. (Mot., Santiago Decl., ¶ 14.) However, the amount sought is excessive\r\ngiven the simplicity of this Motion and the lack of opposition and reply. The\r\nCourt finds $292.27, based on 1.5 hours of attorney time, one filing fee, and\r\none remote appearance fee, to be reasonable. Plaintiff is ordered to pay\r\nsanctions within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

IV. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Danyial Hameed’s request for\r\nterminating sanctions is DENIED. However, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO COMPLY WITH\r\nTHE COURT’S FEBRUARY 9, 2021 ORDER REQUIRING HER TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION\r\nWITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THIS ORDER. In addition, Defendant’s request for\r\nsanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $292.27 to be paid to Defendant’s counsel\r\nwithin thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

\r\n\r\n

'b'

Case Number: 19STLC01868 Hearing Date: August 3, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: (1)\r\nMOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL DEMAND FOR INSPECTION AND\r\nPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(2)\r\nMOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR\r\nSANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendant\r\nDaniyal Hameed

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES AND SUPPLEMENTAL\r\nREQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

(CCP §§ 2030.070; 2030.290; 2031.050; 2031.300)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Daniyal Hameed’s unopposed\r\n(1) Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Supplemental Demand for Inspection\r\nand Production of Documents and (2) Motion for Order Compelling Responses to\r\nSupplemental Interrogatories are GRANTED. Plaintiff must serve verified\r\nresponses without objections within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.\r\nDefendant’s requests for sanctions are also GRANTED in the amount of $425.80 to\r\nbe paid to Defendant’s counsel within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE: \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nProof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nCorrect Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\n16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None filed as of July 29,\r\n2021 [ ] Late [X]\r\nNone

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof July 29, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On February 22, 2019, Plaintiff Jocelyn Lopez\r\n(“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Daniyal Hameed (“Defendant”)\r\nalleging motor vehicle negligence. Defendant filed an Answer on September 13,\r\n2019.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s former counsel filed a motion to be relieved\r\non July 14, 2020. After several continuances, it was granted on February 23,\r\n2021. On March 26, Plaintiff’s former counsel filed a notice of ruling\r\ndemonstrating Plaintiff was served with the order on February 23, 2021 via\r\nregular mail. (3/26/21 Proof of Service.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On May 10, 2021, Defendant filed the instant (1) Motion\r\nfor Order Compelling Responses to Supplemental Demand for Inspection and\r\nProduction of Documents and for Monetary Sanctions and (2) Motion for Order\r\nCompelling Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions\r\n(collectively, the “Motions”). No opposition was filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard & Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A. Supplemental Request for Production & Interrogatories\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for\r\nproduction of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., §\r\n2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to\r\nwhom interrogatories or requests for production of documents are directed does\r\nnot provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order\r\ncompelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b);\r\nCode Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to\r\nmake any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product\r\nprotection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., §\r\n2031.300, subd. (a).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In addition to initial requests for production and\r\ninterrogatories, a party may propound a supplemental interrogatory and\r\nsupplemental demand for production of any later acquired or discovered\r\ninformation or documents, tangible things, land or other property, or\r\nelectronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of the\r\nresponding party. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.070, subd. (a); 2031.050, subd.\r\n(a).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses\r\nto interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing\r\ndiscovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd.\r\n(a), 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are\r\nrequired before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code\r\nCiv. Proc., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants\r\n(2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Here, Defendant served now self-represented\r\nPlaintiff with a Supplemental Interrogatory and Supplemental Demand for Inspection\r\nand Production on March 17, 2021 via email. (Motions., Santiago Decls., ¶¶ 2,\r\nExhs. A.) On April 21, Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff a letter regarding\r\nthe overdue responses via regular mail and email. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-4, Exhs.\r\nB, C.) On April 22, Plaintiff confirmed she was homeless and that she would be\r\ncontacting an attorney. (Id.) Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff a\r\nfollow-up email on May 3 and, on May 4, Plaintiff confirmed she had been\r\nhomeless “for months” and that all correspondence should continue to be sent\r\nvia email. (Id. at ¶¶ 6-7, Exhs. E, F.) To date, Plaintiff has not\r\nresponded to the supplemental discovery. (Id., at ¶¶ 8.) Thus, Defendant\r\nis entitled to an order compelling verified responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

B. Sanctions

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

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

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure\r\nto respond to Defendant’s discovery a misuse of the discovery process.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant seeks $728.30 in sanctions\r\nbased on four hours of attorney time billed at $143.75 per hour, two filing\r\nfees of $61.65, and two remote appearance fees of $15.00. (Motions, Santiago\r\nDecls., ¶¶ 9.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity\r\nof these nearly identical motions and the lack of opposition and reply. The\r\nCourt finds $425.80, based on two hours of attorney time, two filing fees, and\r\none remote appearance fee, to be reasonable.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant\r\nDaniyal Hameed’s unopposed (1) Motion for Order Compelling Responses to\r\nSupplemental Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents and (2) Motion\r\nfor Order Compelling Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories are GRANTED.\r\nPlaintiff must serve verified responses without objections within thirty (30)\r\ndays of notice of this order. Defendant’s requests for sanctions are also\r\nGRANTED in the amount of $425.80 to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within\r\nthirty (30) days of notice of this order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

'

Case Number: 19STLC01868    Hearing Date: April 29, 2021    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL AND TRIAL BASED DATES

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Daniyal Hameed

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

(CRC, Rule 3.1332)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Daniyal Hameed’s Motion to Continue the Trial and Trial Based Dates is GRANTED. Trial is CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 8, 2022 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.

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 April 27, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of April 27, 2021 [ ] 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. The action was initially set for trial for August 21, 2020.

On July 14, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel Jason S. Halpern with Halpern & Associates filed a motion to be relieved as counsel.

On May 18, 2020, the parties filed a Stipulation to Continue Trial, which was granted that same day. The trial was continued and set for October 5, 2020. On the Court’s own motion, the trial was rescheduled a second time and set for June 8, 2021.

Defendant filed a motion for order compelling Plaintiff’s deposition on September 3, 2020, which was granted on February 9, 2021. (2/9/21 Minute Order.) Plaintiff was ordered to appear for deposition at a time, date, and place to be noticed by Defendant, but could take place remotely at the election of either party pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.310. (Id.)

Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved was granted on February 23, 2021. (2/23/21 Minute Order.)

Defendant filed the instant Motion to Continue Trial and Trial Based Dates (the “Motion”) on April 1, 2021. No opposition was filed.

II. 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 or delay 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).) Additional 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, subds. (c), (d).)

Defendant has demonstrated good cause exists for a trial continuance. The parties have only requested one trial continuance, in May 2020, during the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic when the Court was not holding any trials. In addition, as Defendant points out, a party’s inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts constitutes good cause for a trial continuance. (Mot., p. 5:4-6.) Defendant explains he obtained an order to compel Plaintiff to appear for deposition on February 9, 2021 and noticed a remote deposition for March 8, 2021 pursuant to that order, but Plaintiff advised she would not appear. (Id. p. 5:10-14; Santiago Decl., ¶ 6.) As of the date this Motion was filed, Plaintiff had not yet appeared for deposition. (Id.) As a result, Defendant argues he cannot adequately evaluate Plaintiff’s claims or prepare for trial. (Id. at p. 5:18-20.) Defendant’s counsel further states she sent a letter to Plaintiff via email and regular mail on March 23, 2021 requesting a stipulation to continue the trial before seeking court intervention but Plaintiff did not respond. (Id. at p. 5:16-18, Santiago Decl., ¶ 7.)

Defendant plans to file a motion to dismiss the action for failure to obey the Court’s orders but the soonest date he could reserve for the hearing was August 10, 2021, well after the currently scheduled June 8, 2021 trial. (Id., p. 5:21-23; Santiago Decl., ¶ 9.)

Defendant requests an eight-month continuance to allow sufficient time not only to continue investigating the merits of Plaintiff’s claim but also to allow the Court to hear his motion to dismiss. (Id. at pp. 6:17-7:2.) Notably, Plaintiff may benefit from the continuance. As of February 23, 2021, when Plaintiff’s former counsel’s motion to be relieved was granted, Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant. The continuance can provide Plaintiff with additional time to find and secure counsel to assist her in prosecuting her claim. Importantly, Plaintiff has not opposed Defendant’s request.

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

III. Conclusion & Order

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Daniyal Hameed’s Motion to Continue the Trial and Trial Based Dates is GRANTED. Trial is CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 8, 2022 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: 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 SANTIAGO CHRISTEN DENISE

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BOIADJIAN ANGELA