On 02/05/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by NEANGDY SON against KARLYN POWELL in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
GEORGINA T. RIZK
EDWARD VAN NOY JR.
LOYA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
8/28/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
11/27/2018: Answer - Answer
1/8/2019: Motion for Leave to Intervene - Motion for Leave to Intervene
1/11/2019: Motion for Leave to Intervene - Motion for Leave to Intervene
2/26/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Court Order) of 02/26/2019
3/8/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment
4/9/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Court Order) of 04/09/2019
4/9/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)
5/6/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Ruling
5/6/2019: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail
5/7/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Intervene)
7/2/2019: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial
7/2/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Intervene)
7/3/2019: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling
7/24/2018: Declaration (name extension) - OF FRANK G.PIAZZA,JR.
7/24/2018: Application for Publication - (Amended)
2/5/2018: Summons - on Complaint
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of ServiceRead MoreRead Less
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Van Noy Edward, Jr. (Defendant); Loya Casualty Insurance Company (Non-Party)Read MoreRead Less
DocketUpdated -- Motion for Leave to Intervene: Filed By: Loya Casualty Insurance Company (Non-Party); Result: Granted; Result Date: 07/02/2019Read MoreRead Less
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 01/14/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94Read MoreRead Less
DocketStipulation and Order to Continue Trial; Filed by: Van Noy Edward, Jr. (Defendant); As to: Neangdy Son (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Intervene)Read MoreRead Less
DocketHearing on Motion for Leave to Intervene scheduled for 07/02/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 updated: Result Date to 07/02/2019; Result Type to Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
DocketOn the Court's own motion, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/05/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 01/14/2020 08:30 AMRead MoreRead Less
DocketHearing on Motion for Leave to Intervene scheduled for 07/02/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94Read MoreRead Less
DocketAmended Application for Order to Publish; Filed by: Neangdy Son (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Rejection - Ex Parte Application Without Hearing APPLICATION FOR PUBLICATION; Filed by:Read MoreRead Less
DocketApplication for Order to Publish - Rejected; Submitted by: Neangdy Son (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Georgina T. Rizk in Department 77 Stanley Mosk CourthouseRead MoreRead Less
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/05/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77Read MoreRead Less
DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 02/08/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Neangdy Son (Plaintiff); As to: Karlyn Powell (Defendant); Van Noy Edward, Jr. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Neangdy Son (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: 18STLC02218 Hearing Date: March 09, 2020 Dept: 26
Son v. Powell, et al.
MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA
Plaintiff Neangdy Son’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena is DENIED.
Plaintiff Neangdy Son (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants Karlyn Powell and James E. Van Noy (erroneously sued as Van Noy Edward, Jr.) (“Defendant Noy”) on February 5, 2018. Loya Casualty Insurance Company (“Intervenor”) has intervened in this action on behalf of Defendant Powell.
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena on December 13, 2019 and supplemental motion papers on December 20, 2019. Defendant Noy and Intervenor filed an opposition on December 20, 2019 and Plaintiff replied on January 28, 2020.
Plaintiff moves to quash a deposition subpoena, issued by Defendant Noy on December 4, 2019, to “John D. Adams, D.O.” The Motion was initially brought on the grounds that the subpoena required production of document less than 30 days before the earlier trial date, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020. (Motion, Notice, pp. 1:24-2:4.) Following the granting of Defendant Noy and Intervenor’s ex parte application to continue the trial date and related discovery dates, the basis of the initial Motion is moot.
Plaintiff thereafter filed a supplemental motion based on the statutory physician-patient privilege set forth at Cal. Evidence Code sections 990 and 1014. (Supp. Separate Statement, p. 2:8.) Cal. Evidence Code section 1014, however, pertains to psychotherapist-patient relationships. (Cal. Evid. Code, § 1014.) In any event, no evidence is provided in support of the Motion to demonstrate the nature of Plaintiff’s relationship to John D. Adams, D.O. In fact, the Motion is unsupported by any evidence. The Court, therefore, can make no determination that the privileges claimed by Plaintiff are applicable here.
Second, Plaintiff contends that that “the subpoena calls for production of records which are not limited to the areas of plaintiff’s body that has been put at issue as part of her personal injury claim. Indeed, the subpoena itself is unlimited in its scope.” (Supp. Motion, p. 2:2-4.) However, as no copy of the subpoena is submitted for the Court’s review, it cannot make any finding regarding the scope of the production called for therein and whether the scope is beyond that which is permitted by the law.
Finally, the Motion does not cite to any legal authority for the Court’s power to quash the subpoena. The Supplemental Motion provides no citation for its contention that “a motion to quash is appropriate to contest the validity of deposition subpoena duces tecum.” (Supp. Motion, p. 2:6-7.) The Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown through citation to proper legal authority that the subpoena can be quashed.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Neangdy Son’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena is DENIED.
Defendant to give notice.
Case Number: 18STLC02218 Hearing Date: December 17, 2019 Dept: 94
MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER AND ENTER DEFAULT
(CCP § 2023.030(d))
TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Neangdy Son’s Motion to Strike Answer and Enter Default is GRANTED.
On February 5, 2018, Plaintiff Neangdy (“Plaintiff”) Son filed a personal injury action against Karlyn Powell (“Powell”) and James E. Van Noy, erroneously sued as van Noy Edward, Jr. (“Noy”) (collectively, “Defendants”).
On November 27, 2019, Defendant Noy filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. On October 16, 2019, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions against Defendant Noy. (10/16/19 Minute Order.) On November 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed Motion to Strike Answer and Enter Default (the “Motion”) against Defendant Noy with a reservation date of May 18, 2020. On November 14, 2019, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time Plaintiff’s Motion. (11/14/19 Minute Order.) The Court specifically stated that “if defendant is not able to provide verified responses [to Plaintiff’s interrogatories] by 12/12/19, defendant will not oppose the motion striking defendant’s answer.” (Id.)
As of December 11, 2019, no opposition or reply briefs have been filed.
“To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose…sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.) The court may impose a terminating sanction by an order striking out the pleadings or parts of pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.” (Id., subd. (d)(1).) A misuse of the discovery process includes disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., 2023.010, subd. (g).)
Trial courts should only exercise their authority to terminate a case in extreme situations such as where no lesser alternatives would remedy the situation or when a party ignores a court directive. (Del Junco v. Hufnagel (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 789, 799.)
Here, Defendant ignored the Court’s order to provide verified responses without objections to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories by November 5, 2019. (See 10/16/19 Minute Order.) On November 8, 2019, Plaintiff received two verifications, one entitled “Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One (1) and Response to Request for Demand for and Production of Documents, Set One (1)”and the second one entitled “Response to Request for Admission, Set One (1).” (Mot., Piazza Decl., ¶ 7, Exh. 2.) However, neither of these documents satisfy the Court’s order.
On November 14, 2019 Defendant Noy was given a further opportunity to provide verified responses to avoid losing the ability to oppose this Motion. (11/14/2019 Minute Order.) Defendant has nonetheless failed to comply with the Court’s deadline of December 12, 2019.
Given Defendant’s repeated failure to comply with the Court’s directives, the Court finds that no lesser alternatives are appropriate here.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer is GRANTED.
“A request to enter default for failure to make discovery, failure to comply with court order, or other ground of default must be directed to the direct calendar judge, Specialized Civil Court judge, or supervising judge, whichever is appropriate.” (Super Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule 3.200 (b).)
Plaintiff appropriately requests this court enter default as to Defendant Noy for failure to comply with court order.
Plaintiff’s request to enter default is GRANTED.
Conclusion & Order
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCdept94@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.