This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/10/2020 at 09:51:09 (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 Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3699

  • Filing Date:

    04/17/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • 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

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/20/2022
  • Hearing04/20/2022 at 10:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2021
  • Hearing08/24/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    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
  • 09/04/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Samantha Story Brown (Attorney): Organization Name changed from HARTSUYKER STRATMAN WILLIAMS-ABREGO to Stratman, Schwartz & Williams-Abrego

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Court Order)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 09/04/2020; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/14/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 08/24/2021 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2020
  • DocketNotice of Change of Firm Name; Filed by: Marlon Gonzales (Defendant); New Firm Name: Stratman, Schwartz & Williams-Abrego

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Marlon Gonzales (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion to Compel DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS: Filed By: Marlon Gonzales (Defendant); Result: Granted; Result Date: 06/24/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
15 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
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Randall Robart (Plaintiff); As to: Marlon Gonzales (Defendant)

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

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

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

    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
  • 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

Tentative Rulings

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.