This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/19/2021 at 01:39:27 (UTC).

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS ARTURO PADILLA

Case Summary

On 10/02/2019 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against ARTURO PADILLA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******9085

  • Filing Date:

    10/02/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant

PADILLA ARTURO

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

SCHOECK MICHAEL D.

Defendant Attorney

KIM LEAH J.

 

Court Documents

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

10/2/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

10/2/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Complaint - Complaint

10/2/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Summons - Summons on Complaint

10/2/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration DECLARATION OF VENUE

10/2/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration DECLARATION OF VENUE

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

10/2/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

10/29/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Answer - Answer TO COMPLAINT

12/4/2019: Answer - Answer TO COMPLAINT

Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial

12/4/2019: Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial

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

2/26/2021: Notice of Change of Firm Name - Notice of Change of Firm Name

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER

2/26/2021: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

7/12/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel - Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

7/7/2021: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel - Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel)

9/28/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel)

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

9/30/2021: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

9/30/2021: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

9/30/2021: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

5 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/21/2022
  • Hearing03/21/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2021
  • Hearing11/01/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: ARTURO PADILLA (Defendant); As to: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: ARTURO PADILLA (Defendant); As to: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: ARTURO PADILLA (Defendant); As to: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel scheduled for 11/01/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel scheduled for 09/28/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 11/01/2021 10:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: ARTURO PADILLA (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 10/05/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 07/12/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
10 More Docket Entries
  • 10/29/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: ARTURO PADILLA (Defendant); Service Date: 10/21/2019; Service Cost: 89.50; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/01/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 10/05/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: ARTURO PADILLA (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2019
  • DocketDeclaration DECLARATION OF VENUE; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: ARTURO PADILLA (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: ARTURO PADILLA (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: ARTURO PADILLA (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 19STLC09085 Hearing Date: September 28, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS\r\nCOUNSEL

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendant’s Counsel Erwin\r\nNepomuceno

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 284(2); CRC rule 3.162)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant’s Counsel Erwin Nepomuceno’s\r\nMotion to be Relieved is CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 1, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in\r\nDepartment 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before\r\nthe next scheduled hearing, Counsel must file proofs of service as requested herein.\r\nFailure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[ ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule\r\n3.1300) NO

\r\n\r\n

[ ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) NO

\r\n\r\n

[ ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))\r\n NO

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None\r\nfiled as of September 24, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None\r\nfiled as of September 24, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On October 2, 2019, Plaintiff State\r\nFarm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against\r\nDefendant Arturo Padilla (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an Answer on December\r\n4, 2019.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant’s counsel filed a notice\r\non February 26, 2021 advising that they had changed their firm name from The\r\nLaw Offices of Francine B. Kelly & Associates to Law Offices of Thomas D.\r\nPokladowski & Associates. (2/26/21 Notice of Change.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant’s Counsel Erwin\r\nNepomuceno from the Law Offices of Thomas D. Pokladowski & Associates (“Counsel”)\r\nfiled the instant Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (the “Motion”) on July 7,\r\n2021. No opposition was filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal Standard

\r\n\r\n

The court may\r\norder that an attorney be changed or substituted at any time before or after\r\njudgment or final determination upon request by either client or attorney and\r\nafter notice from one to the other. (Code Civ. Proc. § 284, subd. (2).) “The\r\ndetermination whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel lies\r\nwithin the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128,\r\n1133.) An application to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial\r\nCounsel Forms MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and\r\nMC-053 (Proposed Order). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subds. (a), (c),\r\n(e).)

\r\n\r\n

In\r\naddition, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 subsection (d) requires that\r\nthe notice of motion and motion, declaration, and proposed order be served on\r\nthe client and all other parties who have appeared in the case by personal\r\nservice, electronic service, or mail. If the notice is served by mail, it must\r\nbe accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing that either:

\r\n\r\n

(A)\r\nThe service address is the current residence or business address of the client;\r\nor

\r\n\r\n

(B) The\r\nservice address is the last known residence or business address of the client\r\nand the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making\r\nreasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motion to\r\nbe relieved.

\r\n\r\n

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (1)(A) &\r\n(2).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nDiscussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant’s Counsel seeks to be\r\nrelieved due to a complete breakdown in communication. (MC-052, ¶ 2.) Specifically,\r\nCounsel states that between October 2019 and March 2020, his office’s efforts\r\nto contact Defendant were largely unsuccessful. (Id.) He further states that\r\nDefendant refused to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (Id.) On\r\nMarch 10, 2020, Defendant sent Counsel a text message asking him to stop\r\ntexting him and advising that he would get back to Counsel once he obtained\r\nlegal advice elsewhere. (Id.) Defendant has not communicated with\r\nCounsel or his office since. (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Counsel states that Defendant was\r\npersonally served with a copy of this Motion and that a proof of service would\r\nbe filed at least five days before the hearing. (Id. at ¶ 3.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Although the Court is satisfied\r\nwith Counsel’s reasons for seeking to be relieved, Counsel did not file a proof\r\nof service demonstrating Counsel served, or attempted to serve, Defendant and\r\nPlaintiff with this Motion. Thus, Counsel has not satisfied the requirements of\r\nCalifornia Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subdivision (d). Counsel is ordered to\r\ndo so.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

IV. \r\nConclusion & Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the\r\nforegoing reasons, Defendant’s Counsel Erwin\r\nNepomuceno’s Motion to be Relieved is CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 1, 2021 at 10:00\r\na.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days\r\nbefore the next scheduled hearing, Counsel must file proofs of service as\r\nrequested herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off\r\ncalendar or denied.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant’s\r\nCounsel is ordered to give notice.

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SCHOECK MICHAEL D