This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/22/2021 at 00:36:47 (UTC).

RAFAEL ARROYO, JR. VS KAZMO, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 04/21/2020 RAFAEL ARROYO, JR filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against KAZMO, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3483

  • Filing Date:

    04/21/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

ARROYO RAFAEL JR.

Defendants

KAZMO LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

STAFFING AND MANAGEMENT GROUP INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

GRACE PHYL

Defendant Attorney

SAHELIAN ARA

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint;)

10/19/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint;)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint;) of 10/19/2021

10/19/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint;) of 10/19/2021

Motion for Leave (name extension) - Motion for Leave To File An Amended Complaint

9/21/2021: Motion for Leave (name extension) - Motion for Leave To File An Amended Complaint

Opposition (name extension) - Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint

10/5/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint

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

10/5/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order to Continue

10/12/2021: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order to Continue

Notice of Stay of Proceedings and Early Evaluation Conference (Construction-Related Accessibility C - Notice of Stay of Proceedings and Early Evaluation Conference (Construction-Related Accessibility

3/30/2021: Notice of Stay of Proceedings and Early Evaluation Conference (Construction-Related Accessibility C - Notice of Stay of Proceedings and Early Evaluation Conference (Construction-Related Accessibility

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

3/30/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Reply (name extension) - Reply to Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings

2/16/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply to Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings

Exhibit List - Exhibit List

2/17/2021: Exhibit List - Exhibit List

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings)

2/23/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Ara Sahelian, Esq.

8/4/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Ara Sahelian, Esq.

Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

8/4/2020: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

Answer - Answer

8/4/2020: Answer - Answer

Notice of Motion - Notice of Motion

8/4/2020: Notice of Motion - Notice of Motion

Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: to Stay Proceedings Pending Outcome of Previously Filed Federal Action

8/4/2020: Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: to Stay Proceedings Pending Outcome of Previously Filed Federal Action

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

8/18/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

8/18/2020: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

17 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/02/2021
  • Hearing11/02/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion for Leave To File An Amended Complaint: Filed By: Rafael Arroyo, Jr. (Plaintiff); Result: Denied; Result Date: 10/19/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint;)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint;) of 10/19/2021; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint scheduled for 10/19/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 10/19/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2021
  • DocketStipulation and Order to Continue; Signed and Filed by: Rafael Arroyo, Jr. (Plaintiff); As to: Kazmo, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company (Defendant); Staffing and Management Group, Inc., a California Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Stipulation and Order to Continue: As To Parties changed from Staffing and Management Group, Inc., a California Corporation (Defendant), Kazmo, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company (Defendant) to Staffing and Management Group, Inc., a California Corporation (Defendant), Kazmo, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2021
  • DocketPursuant to written stipulation, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/19/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Continued - Stipulation was rescheduled to 11/02/2021 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/25/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Vacated on 10/08/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Opposition to Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint: Name Extension changed from the Complaint to to Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint; Document changed from Motion for Leave to Amend (name extension) to Opposition (name extension); As To Parties: Rafael Arroyo, Jr. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
27 More Docket Entries
  • 05/08/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/19/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/25/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Rafael Arroyo, Jr. (Plaintiff); Service Cost: 30.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Rafael Arroyo, Jr. (Plaintiff); As to: Staffing and Management Group, Inc., a California Corporation (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 04/24/2020; Service Cost: 30.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Rafael Arroyo, Jr. (Plaintiff); As to: Kazmo, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company (Defendant); Staffing and Management Group, Inc., a California Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Rafael Arroyo, Jr. (Plaintiff); As to: Kazmo, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company (Defendant); Staffing and Management Group, Inc., a California Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Rafael Arroyo, Jr. (Plaintiff); As to: Kazmo, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company (Defendant); Staffing and Management Group, Inc., a California Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 20STLC03483 Hearing Date: October 19, 2021 Dept: 26

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

\r\n\r\n

MOVING\r\nPARTY: Plaintiff Rafael Arroyo, Jr.

\r\n\r\n

RESP.\r\nPARTY: Defendants Kazmo LLC\r\nand Staffing and Management Group, Inc

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

LEAVE\r\nTO AMEND PLEADING

\r\n\r\n

(CCP §§ 473(a), 576; CRC Rule 3.1324)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Rafael Arroyo, Jr.’s\r\nMotion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X] Proof of Service Timely\r\nFiled (CRC 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X] Correct Address (CCP 1013,\r\n1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X] 16/21\r\nDay Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action for discrimination on the basis of\r\ndisability.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

RELIEF REQUESTED: Allow Plaintiff to file a First Amended\r\nComplaint to correct an error in the description of the accessibility\r\nviolations. The Complaint incorrectly alleged that the non-compliant\r\npaths of travel were inside Defendant’s gas station. Plaintiff’s federal action\r\nagainst Defendants and the parties’ negotiations, however, all concerned paths\r\nof travel from the boundary of the site to the inside of the gas station. This\r\nclerical error does not invoke any new legal theories or require additional\r\ndiscovery.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: The Complaint is verified by Plaintiff and\r\nthe filing attorney, yet they both apparently failed to realize it alleged\r\nviolations of the outdoor paths of travel. Neither Plaintiff nor the filing\r\nattorney, Mr. Handy, filed declarations attesting to this purported error. The\r\ndifference in alleging violations of the outdoor portion of a gas station\r\nversus the inside of a convenience store is significant. Different ADA\r\nstandards apply to these areas and each require different trial preparation.\r\nThe last-minute change is highly prejudicial.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None\r\nfiled as of October 14, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Rafael Arroyo, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant\r\naction for discrimination on the grounds of disability in violation of the\r\nUnruh Civil Rights Act against Defendants Kazmo LLC and Staffing and Management\r\nGroup, Inc. (“Defendants”) on April 21, 2020. On February 23, 2021, the Court\r\ndenied Defendant Kazmo’s Motion to Stay Action Pending Resolution of Federal\r\nCourt Action. (Minute Order 02/23/21.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On September 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion\r\nfor Leave to Amend Complaint (“the Motion”). Defendants filed an opposition on October\r\n5, 2021. On October 13, 2021, the parties stipulated and the Court approved a\r\ncontinuance of the trial date from October 19, 2021 to November 2, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Leave to amend is permitted under Code of\r\nCivil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) and section 576. Also, a motion\r\nfor leave to amend a pleading must also comply with the procedural requirements\r\nof California Rules of\r\nCourt, Rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth\r\nexplicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating\r\nwhat new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment\r\nwas not made earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed\r\nand numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines the\r\nallegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying\r\nthe effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and\r\nreasons for delay. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s Motion makes no effort to comply with Rule\r\n3.1324 as it is not supported by any declaration. The Motion merely attaches a\r\ncopy of the proposed First Amended Complaint. (Motion, Exh. A.) While the\r\nMotion contends that Plaintiff’s counsel, Tehniat Zaman, Esq., discovered a\r\nclerical error in the Complaint regarding the description of the location of\r\nthe alleged accessibility violations, this is not attested to in any affidavit.\r\nNo supporting declaration demonstrates that Plaintiff and Plaintiff counsel\r\nintended all along to allege accessibility violations relating to the outside\r\npaths of travel of the gas station, as opposed to the paths of travel inside\r\nthe convenience store. (See Motion, pp. 2:26-3:3.) Nor does the Motion\r\ndemonstrate why this change in description does not give rise to new legal\r\ntheories or the need for additional discovery. Third, Plaintiff provides no\r\nevidence to show that Defendants knew this action was premised on the same\r\nfacts as the earlier federal action, or that Defendants’ defense of this action\r\naddressed the outside paths of travel. Finally, Plaintiff’s counsel apparently\r\ndiscovered the error in April 2021 but did not file the instant Motion until\r\nSeptember 21, 2021. While there was a stay of the action until June 30, 2021,\r\nPlaintiff offers no explanation for the additional three-month delay in\r\nbringing the Motion, given the imminence of the trial date.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants oppose the Motion on\r\nthe grounds that Plaintiff has unjustifiably delayed in seeking the amendment\r\nand they would be severely prejudiced by the new factual basis of Plaintiff’s\r\nclaims. (Opp., p. 4:4-26.) The policy favoring amendment and resolving all\r\nmatters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which\r\ndenial of leave to amend can be justified. . . .” (Magpali v. Farmers Group\r\n(1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.) However, “[a] different result is indicated\r\n‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is\r\nshown. [Citation].” (Ibid.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Conclusion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to\r\ncomply with the mandatory Rules of Court, inexcusable delay in bringing the\r\nMotion and the probable prejudice to Defendants, Plaintiff Rafael Arroyo, Jr.’s\r\nMotion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants to give notice.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

'

Case Number: 20STLC03483    Hearing Date: February 23, 2021    Dept: 26


Case Number: 21STCP00113    Hearing Date: February 23, 2021    Dept: 26

State Farm v. Gonzalez, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

(CCP § 2031.300; Ins. Code § 11580.2)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion Compelling Respondent Carla Gonzalez to Answer Inspection Demands, Set One is GRANTED. RESPONDENT IS TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTIONS WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

Petitioner State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Petitioner”) propounded Inspection Demands, Set One, on Respondent Carla Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) on June 3, 2020 in connection with an uninsured motorist arbitration proceeding. (Motions, Matsukas Decl., Exh. B.) Following Respondent’s failure to provide timely responses, Petitioner extended the deadline to serve verified responses to November 6, 2020. (Id. at Exhs. C-D.) Following no response from Respondent after the last deadline, Petitioner filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to Inspection Demands, Set One on January 25, 2021. Respondent filed an opposition on January 29, 2021 and Petitioner replied on February 10, 2021.

Discussion

Discovery may be conducted both before and after the commencement of an uninsured / underinsured motorist arbitration proceeding. (Cal. Ins. Code, § 11580.2, subd. (f); Miranda v. 21st Century Insurance Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 923.) The discovery statutes of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to uninsured / underinsured motorist arbitration proceedings. (Cal. Ins. Code, § 11580.2, subd. (f).)

There is no requirement for a prior meet and confer effort before a motion to compel initial responses can be filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) Respondent’s argument that Petitioner did not try to resolve this discovery dispute informally, therefore, is both factually and legally incorrect. (See Opp., pp. 2:17-3:2.) The motion can be brought any time after the responding party fails to provide the responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) Based on Respondent’s failure to respond to the propounded discovery, Petitioner is entitled to an order compelling Respondent to serve verified responses to the inspection demands without objections.

Nor has Respondent shown that the Motion is moot due to belated service of responses. (See Opp., 2:2-6.) First, Respondent offers no proof that said responses were served because the opposition is not supported by a declaration or other competent evidence. Second, Petitioner in reply contends that the responses were unverified. (Reply, p. 2:5-7.) Unverified responses are tantamount to response at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

Finally, Respondent’s argument that Petitioner’s request for sanctions is harassing is irrelevant because the Motions make no request for sanctions. (Motion, p. 1:26-27.)

Conclusion

Petitioner State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion Compelling Respondent Carla Gonzalez to Answer Inspection Demands, Set One is GRANTED. RESPONDENT IS TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTIONS WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer GRACE PHYL