This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/26/2021 at 01:24:54 (UTC).

RANDALL ROBART VS MARLON GONZALES

Case Summary

On 04/17/2019 RANDALL ROBART filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against MARLON GONZALES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3699

  • Filing Date:

    04/17/2019

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

ROBART RANDALL

Defendant

GONZALES MARLON

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorney

BROWN SAMANTHA STORY

 

Court Documents

Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Motion for Terminating Sanctions

3/1/2021: Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

4/29/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Notice of Change of Firm Name - Notice of Change of Firm Name

9/3/2020: Notice of Change of Firm Name - Notice of Change of Firm Name

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

9/4/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

7/7/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Order - Defendant Marlon Gonzalezs Mot...)

6/24/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Order - Defendant Marlon Gonzalezs Mot...)

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

4/15/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

3/13/2020: Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

3/13/2020: Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

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

2/26/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery"))

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

2/27/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

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

12/10/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

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

9/17/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Answer - Answer

7/15/2019: Answer - Answer

Summons - Summons on Complaint

4/17/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

4/17/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

4/17/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

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

4/17/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

11 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/29/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Marlon Gonzales (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2021
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Randall Robart on 04/17/2019, entered Order for Dismissal with prejudice as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions scheduled for 04/27/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 04/27/2021; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/24/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 04/27/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/20/2022 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Vacated on 07/15/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2021
  • DocketMotion for Terminating Sanctions; Filed by: Marlon Gonzales (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion for Terminating Sanctions EVIDENTIARY, ISSUE PRECLUSION AND MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $300.00 AS AGAINST PLAINTIFF, IN PRO PER;: Name Extension: EVIDENTIARY, ISSUE PRECLUSION AND MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $300.00 AS AGAINST PLAINTIFF, IN PRO PER;; As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions scheduled for 04/27/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/24/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
22 More Docket Entries
  • 07/15/2019
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by: Marlon Gonzales (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Randall Robart (Plaintiff); As to: Marlon Gonzales (Defendant); Service Date: 06/16/19; Service Cost: 0.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/20/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/14/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Randall Robart (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Randall Robart (Plaintiff); As to: Marlon Gonzales (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC03699    Hearing Date: April 27, 2021    Dept: 26

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR TERMINATING AND MONETARY SANCTIONS
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Marlon Gonzalez
RESP. PARTY: None
MOTION FOR TERMINATING AND MONETARY SANCTIONS
(CCP § 2023.010)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Marlon Gonzalez’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT
HEREBY DISMISSES PLAINTIFF RANDALL ROBART’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.
THE REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IS DENIED.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff Randall Robart (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against
Defendant Marlon Gonzalez (“Defendant”) on April 17, 2019. On June 24, 2020, the Court granted
Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories and request for production
of documents. (Minute Order, 06/24/20.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to serve responses to the discovery
within 20 days’ notice of the order and to pay monetary sanctions within 30 days’ notice of the order.
(Ibid.) Notice of the ruling was served on Plaintiff on July 7, 2020. (Notice of Ruling, filed 07/07/20.)
Defendant filed the instant Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions on March 1, 2021. To date,
no opposition has been filed.
Discussion
Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue,
evidence or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subds. (d), (g); R.S. Creative, Inc. v.
Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) The court should look to the totality of the
circumstances in determining whether terminating sanctions are appropriate. (Lang v. Hochman (2000)
77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery
order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce
compliance with discovery rules. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) “[A]
penalty as severe as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with discovery is
caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.” (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180
Cal.App.3d 701, 707.) “The court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders:
(1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in
the misuse of the discovery process.
(2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is
obeyed.
(3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.
(4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).)
The Court granted Defendant’s discovery motions on June 24, 2020 and notice of the orders was served
on Plaintiff shortly thereafter.To date, Plaintiff has not served responses in compliance with the Court’s
June 24, 2020 order, nor paid the monetary sanctions as ordered. (Motion, Wang Decl., ¶¶4-5.)
The court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted for Plaintiff’s non-compliance. Despite notice
of the Court’s order, Plaintiff did not comply. Also given the notice provided, the Court finds Plaintiff’s
failure to comply with the June 24, 2020 order to be willful. Furthermore, although Plaintiff was
properly served with the instant Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions, no opposition has
been filed.
Although terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, the above evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff’s
compliance with the Court’s orders cannot be achieved through lesser sanctions. Indeed, it appears that
Plaintiff has no intention of complying with the Court’s orders or prosecuting the claims against
Defendant. “The court [is] not required to allow a pattern of abuse to continue ad infinitum.”
(Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 280.)
Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is denied. Monetary sanctions were previously awarded and
remain unpaid. (Motion, Wang Decl., ¶5.) An additional award of monetary sanctions would be futile.
Conclusion
Defendant Marlon Gonzalez’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT
HEREBY DISMISSES PLAINTIFF RANDALL ROBART’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.
THE REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IS DENIED.
Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC03699    Hearing Date: June 24, 2020    Dept: 26

Based on current conditions, including, but not limited to, the spread of Covid-19, the need for social distancing, and the states of emergency having been declared by Governor Gavin Newsom and President Donald Trump, the General Orders issued by the Presiding Judge and Statewide Orders issued by the Chief Justice, no more than six people may be in the courtroom at any given time, in addition to court staff.  Due to overcrowding concerns via COVID-19, the parties shall make every effort to appear telephonically via CourtCall for their scheduled hearing.

Robart v. Gonzalez, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Marlon Gonzalez’s (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Request for Monetary Sanctions; and (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for Production, Request for Monetary Sanctions are GRANTED. PLAINTIFF IS TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER. PLAINTIFF IS FURTHER ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $120.00 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Randall Robart (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Marlon Gonzalez (“Defendant”) on April 17, 2019. On July 15, 2019, Defendant served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents on Plaintiff. (Motion, Wang Decl. ¶¶3-5 and Exhs. A-C.) To date, Defendant has not received any verified responses to the discovery requests from Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶¶8-9.) Defendant filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Request for Monetary Sanctions; and (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for Production, Request for Monetary Sanctions on March 13, 2020. To date, no oppositions have been filed.

Discussion

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the propounded discovery requests, Defendant is entitled to verified responses without objections to the interrogatories and requests for production within twenty (20) days of notice of this Order. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s failure to respond is a misuse of the discovery procedures. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, et seq.) The requested sanctions have been properly noticed but are excessive give the simplicity of these unopposed motions. The Court finds that sanctions are appropriate in the amount of $120.00 based on one hour of attorney time billed at $120.00 per hour. (Motion, Wang Decl., ¶10.) The sanctions are to be paid within thirty (30) days from the date of Defendant serving notice of this Order.

Defendant Marlon Gonzalez’s (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Request for Monetary Sanctions; and (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for Production, Request for Monetary Sanctions are GRANTED. PLAINTIFF IS TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER. PLAINTIFF IS FURTHER ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $120.00 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC03699    Hearing Date: February 26, 2020    Dept: 26

Robart v. Gonzalez, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Marlon Gonzalez’s Motion For Order Compelling Plaintiff To Respond to Form Interrogatories; Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF IS TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE FORM INTERROGATORIES WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER. PLAINTIFF IS FURTHER ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $120.00 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

Defendant Marlon Gonzalez’s Motions For Order Compelling Plaintiffs to Respond to Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents; Request For Sanctions is CONTINUED TO APRIL 21, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Randall Robart (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Marlon Gonzalez (“Defendant”) on April 17, 2019. On July 15, 2019, Defendant served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents on Plaintiff. (Motion, Wang Decl. ¶¶3-5 and Exhs. A-C.) To date, Defendant has not received any verified responses to the discovery requests from Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶¶8-9.) Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Discovery Responses on December 10, 2019. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

Due to Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the propounded discovery requests, the Court is inclined to grant the Motion. However, the Court addresses the fact that Defendant has only filed one discovery motion while seeking orders with respect to three different sets of discovery: (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One; (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One; and (3) Request for Production, Set One.

The statutes under which Defendant moves are Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 and 2031.300. Each states in relevant part: “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply. . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290 (emphasis added)); “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300 (emphasis added).) Based on this language, it is clear the Civil Discovery Act contemplates that the motions filed under these separate statutory provisions will be separate for each party against whom they are sought and for each set of discovery requests. Also, filing discovery motions as joint motions negatively impacts the court’s calendar by placing more motions on the calendar than slots have been provided by the online reservation system. Furthermore, it allows the moving party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. “[I]t is mandatory for the court clerks to demand and receive statutorily required filing fees.” (See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.)

Accordingly, the Court rules only on Defendant’s Motion For Order Compelling Plaintiff To Respond to Form Interrogatories; Request for Sanctions at this time. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories within twenty (20) days from the date of Defendant serving a notice of this Order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.) Monetary sanctions are also awarded under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290. Given the simplicity of the Motion and the lack of opposition and reply, the Court finds that sanctions are appropriate in the amount of $120.00 based on one hour of attorney time billed at $120.00 per hour. (Motion, Wang Decl., ¶10.) The sanctions are to be paid within thirty (30) days from the date of Defendant serving notice of this Order.

As to the Motion For Order Compelling Plaintiffs to Respond to Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents; Request For Sanctions, the hearing is continued to April 21, 2020 at 10:30 am in Department 26 in the Spring Street Courthouse. At least 16 days prior to the continued hearing date Defendant is to pay two additional filing fees and submit proof of the same to the Court. Failure to do so may result in the Motion For Order Compelling Plaintiffs to Respond to Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents; Request For Sanctions being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer BROWN SAMANTHA STORY