This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/11/2021 at 00:25:42 (UTC).

MIGUEL PALOS, ET AL. VS MCFADZEN JOHN

Case Summary

On 03/24/2020 MIGUEL PALOS filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MCFADZEN JOHN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JAMES E. BLANCARTE and SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2734

  • Filing Date:

    03/24/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judges

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

PALOS MIGUEL

OPTUM REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT LLC.

VILLARIN RYAN

PALOS DE LA FRONTERA LLC.

Defendant

JOHN MCFADZEN AKA JOHN "DOC" MCFADZEN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

POTIER AMANDA J.

 

Court Documents

Affidavit (name extension) - Election to Forgo Affidavit (CCP Section 170.6) as to Judge, James E. Blancarte

9/24/2021: Affidavit (name extension) - Election to Forgo Affidavit (CCP Section 170.6) as to Judge, James E. Blancarte

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Non-Jury Trial) of 09/24/2021

9/24/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Non-Jury Trial) of 09/24/2021

Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial;)

9/24/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial;)

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

7/21/2021: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of AP in support of motion to compel responses to request for production, set one.

7/21/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of AP in support of motion to compel responses to request for production, set one.

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of AP in support of Motion to compel responses to Request for Admission, set one

7/21/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of AP in support of Motion to compel responses to Request for Admission, set one

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Com...)

8/16/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Com...)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Com...) of 08/17/2021

8/17/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Com...) of 08/17/2021

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

8/23/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

8/23/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application Ex Parte application for order terminating sanctions

9/7/2021: Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application Ex Parte application for order terminating sanctions

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application Ex Parte application for orde...)

9/9/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application Ex Parte application for orde...)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Ex Parte Application Ex Parte application for orde...) of 09/09/2021

9/9/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Ex Parte Application Ex Parte application for orde...) of 09/09/2021

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

7/7/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Answer - Answer

7/7/2020: Answer - Answer

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

4/6/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Complaint - Complaint

3/24/2020: Complaint - Complaint

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

3/24/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

29 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/10/2021
  • Hearing11/10/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2021
  • DocketThis case is assigned to Judge James E. Blancarte in Department X at Alhambra Courthouse for trial purposes only.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/24/2021 at 09:45 AM in Alhambra Courthouse at Department X

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2021
  • DocketElection to Forgo Affidavit (CCP Section 170.6) as to Judge, James E. Blancarte; Filed by: Miguel Palos (Plaintiff); Ryan Villarin (Plaintiff); Palos De La Frontera, LLC. (Plaintiff); Optum Real Estate Management, LLC. (Plaintiff); McFadzen John (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2021
  • DocketLimited Jurisdiction Trial Transfer Order to Judge Blancarte, Dept. X, Alhambra Court, OTR today forthwith; Signed and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) scheduled for 11/10/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2021
  • DocketCase reassigned to Spring Street Courthouse in Department 26 - Hon. Upinder S. Kalra; Reason: Other

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Non-Jury Trial;)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/24/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

    Read MoreRead Less
52 More Docket Entries
  • 06/10/2020
  • DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Miguel Palos (Plaintiff); Ryan Villarin (Plaintiff); Palos De La Frontera, LLC. (Plaintiff); Optum Real Estate Management, LLC. (Plaintiff); As to: McFadzen John (Defendant); Service Date: 04/06/2020; Service Cost: 227.50; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/21/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/28/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Miguel Palos (Plaintiff); Ryan Villarin (Plaintiff); Palos De La Frontera, LLC. (Plaintiff); Optum Real Estate Management, LLC. (Plaintiff); As to: McFadzen John (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Miguel Palos (Plaintiff); Ryan Villarin (Plaintiff); Palos De La Frontera, LLC. (Plaintiff); Optum Real Estate Management, LLC. (Plaintiff); As to: McFadzen John (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Miguel Palos (Plaintiff); Ryan Villarin (Plaintiff); Palos De La Frontera, LLC. (Plaintiff); Optum Real Estate Management, LLC. (Plaintiff); As to: McFadzen John (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 20STLC02734 Hearing Date: August 17, 2021 Dept: 26

Palos, et al. v.\r\nMcFadzen, et al. 20STLC02734

MOTION\r\nTO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

\r\n\r\n

AND\r\nREQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 2030.290)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Miguel Palos’ Motion To Compel Responses To Form\r\nInterrogatories, Set One, and Request For Sanctions is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Miguel Palos (“Plaintiff Palos”) propounded Form\r\nInterrogatories on Defendant John McFadzen (“Defendant McFadzen”) on June 14,\r\n2021. (Motions, Potier Decl., Exh. A.) Following Defendant McFadzen’s failure\r\nto provide timely responses, Plaintiff Palos filed the instant Motion to Compel\r\nResponses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request For Sanctions on July\r\n21, 2021. (Id. at ¶6.) No opposition has been filed to date.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Form Interrogatories Plaintiff served on Defendant\r\nMcFadzen on June 14, 2021 do not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section\r\n94, subdivision (a)(1), which precludes interrogatories with subparts in the\r\nLimited Jurisdiction Court. (Id. at Exh. A.) Form interrogatories approved\r\nby the Judicial Council for the Limited Jurisdiction Court are set forth at\r\nJudicial Council Form DISC-004.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Additionally, Plaintiff Palos has already propounded 34\r\nwritten discovery requests on Defendant McFadzen. (See Motion to Compel RFPs,\r\nPotier Decl., Exh. A; Motion to Deem RFAs, Potier Decl., Exh. A.) Only 35 total\r\nwritten discovery requests can be propounded in the Limited Jurisdiction Court.\r\n(Code Civ. Proc., § 94, subd. (a).) The number of form interrogatories exceeds\r\nthe 35-request limit.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court will not compel responses to discovery propounded\r\nin violation of the Code of Civil Procedure.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Conclusion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Miguel Palos’ Motion to Compel Responses to Form\r\nInterrogatories, Set One, and Request For Sanctions is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Court clerk to give notice.

'b'

Case Number: 20STLC02734 Hearing Date: August 16, 2021 Dept: 26

Palos, et al. v.\r\nMcFadzen, et al. 20STLC02734

MOTION\r\nTO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION; DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION\r\nADMITTED

\r\n\r\n

(CCP §§ 2031.300, 2033.280)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Miguel Palos’ (1) Motion To Compel Responses To\r\nDemand For Production Of Documents, Set One, and Request For Sanctions; and (2)\r\nMotion To Deem Requests For Admission, Set One, Admitted and Request For\r\nSanctions are GRANTED. DEFENDANT JOHN MCFADZEN IS TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES\r\nWITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF\r\nTHIS ORDER. DEFENDANT JOHN MCFADZEN IS FURTHER ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF\r\n$320.80 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Miguel Palos (“Plaintiff Palos”) propounded\r\nRequests for Admission, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set\r\nOne, on Defendant John McFadzen (“Defendant McFadzen”) on June 14, 2021.\r\n(Motions, Potier Decl., Exh. A.) Following Defendant McFadzen’s failure to\r\nprovide timely responses, Plaintiff Palos filed the instant (1) Motion To\r\nCompel Responses To Demand For Production Of Documents And Request For\r\nSanctions; and (2) Motion To Deem Requests For Admission Admitted And Request\r\nFor Sanctions on July 21, 2021. (Id. at ¶6.) No oppositions have been\r\nfiled to date.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Based on Defendant McFadzen’s failure to serve initial\r\nresponses, the Motions to compel responses to request for production, and to\r\ndeem admissions admitted, are granted. There is no requirement for a prior meet\r\nand confer effort before a motion to compel initial responses or deem\r\nadmissions admitted can be filed. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.300; 2033.280.)\r\nFurther, the motion can be brought any time after the responding party fails to\r\nprovide the responses. (Code Civ. Proc.,\r\n§§ 2031.300; 2033.280.) Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Palos is entitled to\r\nan order compelling Defendant McFadzen to serve verified responses to the\r\nrequest for production without objections. The Court also deems the requests\r\nfor admission admitted against Defendant McFadzen.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The failure to timely respond constitutes a misuse of the\r\ndiscovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Sanctions are\r\nappropriate under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010, 2023.030 and\r\n2033.280, and were noticed in the motion. However, the amount sought is\r\nexcessive under a lodestar calculation. Therefore, the requests for sanctions\r\nare granted against Defendant McFadzen in the amount of $320.80 based on half-an-hour\r\nof attorney time billed at $395.00 an hour, plus $61.65 in filing fees per\r\nmotion (Motions, Potier Decl., ¶8.)

Conclusion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Miguel Palos’ (1) Motion To Compel Responses To\r\nDemand For Production Of Documents And Request For Sanctions; and (a) Motion To\r\nDeem Requests For Admission Admitted And Request For Sanctions are GRANTED.\r\nDEFENDANT JOHN MCFADZEN IS TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE\r\nREQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. DEFENDANT JOHN\r\nMCFADZEN IS FURTHER ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $320.80 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL\r\nWITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party to give notice.

\r\n\r\n

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer POTIER AMANDA J ESQ