This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/11/2020 at 04:50:12 (UTC).

TIM NGUYEN, ET AL. VS SILVIJA WOLF

Case Summary

On 11/27/2018 TIM NGUYEN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against SILVIJA WOLF. 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:

    *******4269

  • Filing Date:

    11/27/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • 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

Plaintiffs

NGUYEN TIM

LE TIFFANY

Defendant

WOLF SILVIJA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Defendant Attorneys

MAZZA STEVEN LANCE

LINDNER JUDITH STOUT

 

Court Documents

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Change of Time of hearing

9/12/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Change of Time of hearing

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Change of Time re Hearing

9/12/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Change of Time re Hearing

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Motion Compelling Plaintiff Tiffany Le to Provide Further Verified Responses to Form Rogs

10/15/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Motion Compelling Plaintiff Tiffany Le to Provide Further Verified Responses to Form Rogs

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Plaintiff Tin Nguyen to Provide Further Verified Responses to RFP

10/15/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Plaintiff Tin Nguyen to Provide Further Verified Responses to RFP

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

10/29/2019: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil - Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

11/8/2019: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil - Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

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

11/12/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application and Application for An Order ...)

12/20/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application and Application for An Order ...)

Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

3/11/2020: Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

4/2/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Notice (name extension) - Notice OF TIME CHANGE OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' ACTION FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT'S ORDER

5/1/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice OF TIME CHANGE OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' ACTION FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT'S ORDER

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

6/7/2019: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

6/7/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

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

5/15/2019: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel - Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

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

5/15/2019: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel - Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Answer - Answer

1/8/2019: Answer - Answer

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

11/27/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - Summons on Complaint

11/27/2018: Summons - Summons on Complaint

45 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/10/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Silvija Wolf (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Dismiss scheduled for 09/09/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 09/09/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • DocketTrial Setting Conference scheduled for 09/09/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court on 09/09/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion to Dismiss: Filed By: Silvija Wolf (Defendant); Result: Granted; Result Date: 09/09/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Tim Nguyen, et al. on 11/27/2018, entered Order for Dismissal with prejudice as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Dismiss; Trial Setting Conference)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2020
  • DocketNotice THAT THE HEARING DATE AND LOCATION OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' ACTION FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT'S ORDER HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED; Filed by: Silvija Wolf (Defendant); As to: Tim Nguyen (Plaintiff); Tiffany Le (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2020
  • DocketReset - Court Unavailable, Hearing on Motion to Dismiss scheduled for 07/20/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 09/09/2020 10:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
82 More Docket Entries
  • 01/08/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Silvija Wolf (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: Tim Nguyen (Plaintiff); As to: Silvija Wolf (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Tim Nguyen (Plaintiff); Tiffany Le (Plaintiff); As to: Silvija Wolf (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Tim Nguyen (Plaintiff); Tiffany Le (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2018
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/26/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 11/30/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC14269    Hearing Date: September 09, 2020    Dept: 26

MOTION TO DISMISS [TERMINATING SANCTIONS]

(CCP § 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Silvija Wolf’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. THE COURT HEREBY DISMISSES PLAINTIFFS TIN NUGYEN AND TIFFANY LE’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE. DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiffs Tin Nugyen and Tiffany Le (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Silvija Wolf (“Defendant”) on November 27, 2018. On October 29, 2019, the Court

granted Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiffs’ further responses to written discovery. (Minute Order, 10/29/19.) The Court found Plaintiffs’ responses consisted of meritless objections and ordered Plaintiffs to serve further responses to the discovery within 20 days’ notice of the order. (Ibid.) Notice of the ruling was served on Plaintiffs on the same date. (Motion, Lindner Decl., Exh. A.) Plaintiffs, however, only served unverified responses, which again contained numerous objections. (Id. at Exhs. B-E.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs did not pay monetary sanctions to Defendant as ordered. (Id. at ¶10.)

Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss on April 9, 2020. 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:

An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.

An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed.

An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.

An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).)

The court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted here. Following the Court’s ruling regarding written discovery requests, Defendant served notice of the order on Plaintiffs by mail. (Motion, Lindner Decl., Exh. A.) Despite notice of the Court’s order, Plaintiffs did not comply and instead served unverified responses. Unverified responses are tantamount to no response at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Nor did Plaintiffs cooperate when defense counsel continued to meet and confer. (Id. at ¶¶8-10.) Given the notice provided, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Court’s October 29, 2019 order to be willful. Furthermore, although Plaintiffs were properly served with the instant Motion to Dismiss, they have not opposed it.

Although terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, the above evidence demonstrates that Plaintiffs’ compliance with the Court’s orders cannot be achieved through lesser sanctions. Indeed, it appears that Plaintiffs have 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.)

The request for further monetary sanctions, however, is denied. The Court finds such an order would be futile.

Conclusion

Defendant Silvija Wolf’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. THE COURT HEREBY DISMISSES PLAINTIFFS TIN NUGYEN AND TIFFANY LE’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE. DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC14269    Hearing Date: March 11, 2020    Dept: 26

Nguyen v. Wolf, et al.

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

(CCP § 284(2); CRC Rule 3.1362)

TENTATIVE RULING

Attorney Jason Tillman, Esq.’s Motions to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiffs Tin Nguyen and Tiffany Le are GRANTED. PROPOSED ORDERS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. THIS RULING TO BE EFFECTIVE UPON FILING OF PROOF OF SERVICE OF SIGNED ORDERS UPON ALL PARTIES.

Moving party to give notice to client and all parties.

Case Number: 18STLC14269    Hearing Date: October 29, 2019    Dept: 94

MOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2031.300, 2031.310)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Silvija Wolf’s Motions to Compel Plaintiffs’ Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents are GRANTED.

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

This action arose from a car accident involving Plaintiffs Tin Nguyen (“Nguyen”) and Tiffany Le (“Le”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Silvija Wolf (“Defendant”). On January 8, 2019, Defendant served Form Interrogatories (“FROG”) and Requests for Production of Documents (“RFP”) on Plaintiffs. (Motions, Lindner Decls. ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs responded to those discovery requests on March 14, 2019 with only objections. Defendant’s counsel attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel, but Plaintiffs’ counsel informed Defendant’s counsel that he had lost contact with his clients and provided an extension to file motions to compel further discovery responses by July 29, 2019. (Id., Lindner Decls. ¶¶ 7-8, citing to Exhs. D-E.)

Defendant then filed the instant Motions to Compel Plaintiffs’ Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on July 7, 2019 before the discovery deadline set by CCP § 2030.300(c). The Court also finds that Defendant has satisfied the meet-and-confer requirement of CCP § 2030.300(b) and submitted separate statements as required by CRC 3.1345(a). Plaintiffs, however, have not opposed the Motions.

II. Discussion

A. Form Interrogatories

“The propounding party must demonstrate that the responses were incomplete, inadequate or evasive, or that the responding party asserted objections that are either without merit or too general. [Citations.]” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)

Defendant asks the Court to compel Nguyen to further respond to FROG Nos. 102.1, 102.2, 102.3, 102.4, 102.5, 102.8, 104.1, 106.1, 106.2, 106.3, 106.5, 106.7, 106.8, 107.1, 108.1, 108.2, 110.1, 110.2, 111.1, 120.1, 120.3, and 120.4. (Notice of Motion to Further Compel Nguyen’s Responses to FROG p. 2.) Defendant also asks for an order compelling Le to further respond to the same FROG as Nguyen, plus FROG Nos. 112.2, 112.4, 112.5, 114.1, and 120.2. (Notice of Motion to Further Compel Le’s Responses to FROG p. 2.)

Having reviewed the Plaintiffs’ discovery responses to the FROG, the Court agrees with Defendant that the responses consist exclusively of boilerplate objections—there are no substantive responses of any sort. For this reason, the responses are incomplete and invasive within the meaning of CCP § 2030.300(a)(1).

Moreover, “[w]hile the party propounding interrogatories may have the burden of filing a motion to compel if it finds the answers it receives unsatisfactory, the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting an interrogatory. [Citation.]” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541, emphasis added.) Here, Plaintiffs fail to oppose the Motions to justify their objections. Accordingly, Plaintiffs must be compelled to further respond to the FROG.

B. Requests for Production of Documents

Defendant further asks for an order compelling Nguyen to further respond to RFP Nos. 1-5 and Le to further respond to RFP Nos. 1-6. (Notice of Motion to Further Compel Nguyen’s Responses to FROG p. 2.) Like their responses to the FROG, Plaintiffs’ responses to the RFP also contain exclusively objections without any production of documents.

A motion to compel further responses to an inspection demand must set forth specific facts showing “good cause” justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (CCP §2031.310(b)(1).) Here, the RFP asks for documents concerning Plaintiffs’ economic damages, the car accident, and Plaintiffs’ medical records of personal injuries. The Court finds that there is good cause for Defendant to request the documents as they are relevant to the merits of this action.

“Once good cause was shown, the burden shifted to [responding party] to justify his objection. [Citation.]” (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) Plaintiffs, however, fail to oppose the Motions to justify their objections. Accordingly, , Plaintiffs must be compelled to further respond to the RFP.

D. Monetary Sanctions

Given the foregoing, monetary sanctions are mandatory under CCP § 2030.300(d) and § 2031.310(h). The Court finds $1,396.60 in attorney fees and costs to be reasonable and awards such amount against Plaintiffs only, each shall pay half of the amount.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the reasons stated, the Motions are GRANTED.

Nguyen is ordered to further respond to FROG Nos. 102.1, 102.2, 102.3, 102.4, 102.5, 102.8, 104.1, 106.1, 106.2, 106.3, 106.5, 106.7, 106.8, 107.1, 108.1, 108.2, 110.1, 110.2, 111.1, 120.1, 120.3, and 120.4 and RFP Nos. 1-5. Le is ordered to further respond to FROG Nos. 102.1, 102.2, 102.3, 102.4, 102.5, 102.8, 104.1, 106.1, 106.2, 106.3, 106.5, 106.7, 106.8, 107.1, 108.1, 108.2, 110.1, 110.2, 111.1, 112.2, 112.4, 112.5, 114.1, 120.1, 120.2, 120.3, and 120.4 as well as RFP Nos. 1-6. Plaintiffs shall further respond within 20 days ofDefendant’s service of a notice of this Order.

Each Plaintiff is also ordered to pay $698.30 in monetary sanctions within thirty (30) days from the date of Defendant serving a notice of this Order.

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.