Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/19/2021 at 06:10:09 (UTC).

VERLEEDA DORHAN, ET AL. VS FABIOLA ALVAREZ LOPEZ, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 02/01/2019 VERLEEDA DORHAN filed a Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle lawsuit against FABIOLA ALVAREZ LOPEZ. 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 Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1221

  • Filing Date:

    02/01/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Uninsured 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

MARSHALL EFREM

DORHAN VERLEEDA

Defendants

LOPEZ FABIOLA ALVAREZ

EUGENIO JORGE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

MOLAYEM HOMA

Defendant Attorney

KABIR ROSE

 

Court Documents

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Hearing

2/24/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Hearing

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Defendants' Opposition to Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Opposition for Request for Sanctions and Declaration of Rose Kabir, Esq.

3/4/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Defendants' Opposition to Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Opposition for Request for Sanctions and Declaration of Rose Kabir, Esq.

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave Motion for Leave to Intervene; He...)

3/17/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave Motion for Leave to Intervene; He...)

Order (name extension) - Order [Proposed] Order re Ex Parte Application by Defendant for an Order Moving Motion Hearing Dates

1/15/2021: Order (name extension) - Order [Proposed] Order re Ex Parte Application by Defendant for an Order Moving Motion Hearing Dates

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application Ex Parte Application by Defen...)

1/15/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application Ex Parte Application by Defen...)

Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted - Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

9/16/2020: Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted - Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant)

8/25/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant)

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information - Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

1/14/2020: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information - Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel Defendant's Deposition

1/15/2020: Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel Defendant's Deposition

Motion for Leave to Intervene - Motion for Leave to Intervene

1/24/2020: Motion for Leave to Intervene - Motion for Leave to Intervene

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Rose Kabir in Opposition to Plaintiff's Request for Sanctions

1/28/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Rose Kabir in Opposition to Plaintiff's Request for Sanctions

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

3/23/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

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

3/24/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

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

5/18/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Intervene) of 07/07/2020

7/7/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Intervene) of 07/07/2020

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

5/21/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

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

2/1/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Summons - Summons on Complaint

2/1/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

20 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/04/2022
  • Hearing02/04/2022 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; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave Motion for Leave to Intervene; He...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Leave Motion for Leave to Intervene scheduled for 03/17/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 03/17/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 03/17/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 03/17/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted scheduled for 03/17/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 03/17/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2021
  • DocketOpposition Defendants' Opposition to Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Opposition for Request for Sanctions and Declaration of Rose Kabir, Esq. Filed by: Fabiola Alvarez Lopez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2021
  • DocketOpposition to Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted and Opposition for Request for Sanctions and Declaration of Rose Kabir, Esq. Filed by: Fabiola Alvarez Lopez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2021
  • DocketNotice of Hearing; Filed by: Fabiola Alvarez Lopez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Ex Parte Application Ex Parte Application by Defendant for an Order Moving Motion Hearing Dates: Filed By: Fabiola Alvarez Lopez (Defendant),Jorge Eugenio (Defendant); Result: Granted; Result Date: 01/15/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
46 More Docket Entries
  • 05/21/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Verleeda Dorhan (Plaintiff); Efrem Marshall (Plaintiff); As to: Fabiola Alvarez Lopez (Defendant); Service Date: 05/19/2019; Service Cost: 150.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Verleeda Dorhan (Plaintiff); As to: Jorge Eugenio (Defendant); Service Date: 05/19/2019; Service Cost: 140.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 07/31/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 02/04/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Verleeda Dorhan (Plaintiff); Efrem Marshall (Plaintiff); As to: Fabiola Alvarez Lopez (Defendant); Jorge Eugenio (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Verleeda Dorhan (Plaintiff); Efrem Marshall (Plaintiff); As to: Fabiola Alvarez Lopez (Defendant); Jorge Eugenio (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Verleeda Dorhan (Plaintiff); Efrem Marshall (Plaintiff); As to: Fabiola Alvarez Lopez (Defendant); Jorge Eugenio (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Verleeda Dorhan (Plaintiff); Efrem Marshall (Plaintiff); As to: Fabiola Alvarez Lopez (Defendant); Jorge Eugenio (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC01221    Hearing Date: March 17, 2021    Dept: 26

Dorhan, et al. v. Lopez, et al.

MOTION TO INTERVENE

(CCP § 387)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Proposed Intervenor Loya Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to Intervene is GRANTED.

COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION TO BE FILED AND SERVED WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On February 1, 2019, Plaintiffs Verleeda Dorhan and Efrem Marshall (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants Fabiola Alvarez Lopez and Jorge Eugenio (“Defendants”). Plaintiffs filed a proof of service of the Summons and Complaint demonstrating that Defendants were sub-served in this action effective May 29, 2019. Defendants filed an Answer on July 17, 2019. On January 15, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Defendant Lopez’s Appearance at Deposition.

On January 24, 2020, non-party Loya Casualty Insurance Company (“Loya Casualty”) filed a Motion to Intervene. The motion was denied without prejudice on July 7, 2020. On August 20, 2020, Loya Casualty filed the instant Motion to Intervene. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

The right to intervene is set forth at Code of Civil Procedure section 387. Intervention is allowed when “[t]he person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and that person is so situated that the disposition of the action may impair or impede that person's ability to protect that interest, unless that person's interest is adequately represented by one or more of the existing parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (d)(1)(B).) Whether the petitioner has an interest in the matter in litigation is a question of fact that must be determined by the court before leave to file is granted. (Muller v. Robinson (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 511, 515; In re Yokohama Special Bank (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 545.) The burden rests on the one seeking to intervene to show that this is a proper case for intervention. (Id. at 515.)

Loya Casualty demonstrates it was Defendants’ insurer at the time of the accident that is the subject of this action. (Motion, Middleton Decl., ¶¶1-5; Kabir Decl., Exh. A.) Loya Casualty also presents evidence that it has been unable to communicate with Defendants to secure their participation in this action. (Motion, Kabir Decl., ¶¶3-12 and Exhs. B-C.) It is undisputed that Defendants have not responded to the deposition notices and that their insurer has an interest in the action. The insurer would be required to satisfy any judgment rendered against Defendants. (See Cal. Ins. Code § 11580, subd. (b)(2); Reliance Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 386.) Nor would intervention enlarge the issues in this action, as the insurer would simply assert defenses on Defendants’ behalf. (Reliance Ins. Co., supra at 386 (citing Truck Ins. Exch. v. Superior Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 342, 346).)

Based on the foregoing, Proposed Intervenor Loya Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion to Intervene is GRANTED. COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION TO BE FILED AND SERVED WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES; DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs’ Motion Compelling Defendant Lopez to Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One and for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED. INTERVENOR LOYA CASUALTY IS TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTIONS WITHIN 10 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. DEFENDANT LOPEZ IS ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $460.00 TO PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

No tentative ruling to issue on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted and Request for Sanctions. Ruling to depend on what happens at the hearing.

ANALYSIS:

On February 1, 2019, Plaintiffs Verleeda Dorhan and Efrem Marshall (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendants Fabiola Alvarez Lopez and Jorge Eugenio (“Defendants”)

Plaintiffs propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Admission, Set One, on Defendant Lopez (“Plaintiff”) on June 26, 2019. (Motions, Yim Decl., Exh. A.) Following Defendant Lopez’s service of unverified responses on August 28, 2020, Plaintiffs’ counsel met and conferred regarding service of verified responses. (Id. at Exhs. B-C.) Plaintiffs extended the deadline for verifications to September 8, 2020. (Id. at Exh. C.) Following no verifications from Defendant Lopez after the last deadline, Plaintiffs filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Sanctions; and (2) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted and Request for Sanctions on September 16, 2020. (Id. at ¶5.) Defendant Lopez filed oppositions on March 4, 2021.

Discussion

There is no requirement for a prior meet and confer effort before a motion to compel initial responses or motion to deem admissions admitted can be filed. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2033.280.) Further, the motion can be brought any time after the responding party fails to provide the responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2033.280.) Based on Defendant Lopez’s failure to respond to the propounded discovery, Plaintiffs are entitled to an order compelling service of verified responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set One, without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)

The Court does not find that its order granting the Motion to Intervene is reason to deny the relief sought in the instant Motions. Intervenor Loya Casualty contends it can serve verifications for the responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Admission, Set One. (Opps., Kabir Decl., ¶12.) Based on its ability to now serve verified responses, Intervenor Loya Casualty is to serve verified responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set One to Plaintiffs’ counsel within 10 days’ notice of this order.

Defendant Lopez’s failure to timely respond to the Form Interrogatories, Set One, also constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Sanctions are appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 and have been properly noticed. However, the amount sought is excessive under a lodestar calculation. Therefore, the request for sanctions is granted against Defendant Lopez in the amount of $460.00 based on one hour of attorney time billed at $400.00 an hour and $60.00 in costs. (Motion, Yim Decl., ¶7.)

With respect to the Requests for Admission, Set One, the Discovery Code mandates that the Court make “an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted” unless the responding party “has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” If verifications to the responses to the Requests for Admission, Set One, are served prior to the hearing on March 17, 2021, the Motion to Deem the Requests for Admission Admitted will be denied. Therefore, the Court will not issue a tentative ruling on the Motion to Deem the Requests for Admission Admitted and Request for Sanctions at this time.

Conclusion

Plaintiffs’ Motion Compelling Defendant Lopez to Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One and for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED. INTERVENOR LOYA CASUALTY IS TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTIONS WITHIN 10 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. DEFENDANT LOPEZ IS ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $460.00 TO PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

No tentative ruling to issue on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted and Request for Sanctions. Ruling to depend on what happens at the hearing.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC01221    Hearing Date: August 25, 2020    Dept: 26

Dorhan, et al. v. Lopez, et al.

MOTION TO INTERVENE

(CCP § 387)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Verleeda Dorhan and Efrem Marshall’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Fabiola Alvarez Lopez and Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On February 1, 2019, Plaintiffs Verleeda Dorhan and Efrem Marshall (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendants Fabiola Alvarez Lopez and Jorge Eugenio (“Defendants”). Plaintiffs filed a proof of service of the Summons and Complaint demonstrating that Defendants were sub-served in this action effective May 29, 2019. Defendants filed an Answer on July 17, 2019. On January 15, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Compel Defendant Lopez’s Appearance at Deposition (“the Motion”).

On July 7, 2020, the Court denied non-party Loya Casualty Insurance Company’s motion to intervene in the action.

To date, no opposition has been filed to the Motion to Compel Deposition.

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, section (a) states in relevant part:

If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) The motion must also “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice” and “be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (b)(1), (2).) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

A court shall impose monetary sanctions if the motion to compel is granted unless the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or other circumstances would make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

Plaintiffs present evidence that Defendant Lopez failed to appear for her properly noticed deposition on December 16, 2019 despite two earlier continuances at her request. (Motion, Yim Decl., ¶¶2-5 and Exh. A-D.) However, Plaintiffs do not demonstrate that they met and conferred with Defendant Lopez following the December 16, 2019 deposition date. (Id. at ¶6.) No effort was made to understand why Defendant Lopez failed to appear or to reschedule the deposition. (Ibid.) A meet and confer effort to reach an informal resolution is mandatory under the statutory language. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.450, subd. (b); 2016.040.) In fact, any party that fails to meet and confer as required is subject to sanctions based on costs incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.020.)

Therefore, Plaintiffs Verleeda Dorhan and Efrem Marshall’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Fabiola Alvarez Lopez and Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

Clerk to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC01221    Hearing Date: July 07, 2020    Dept: 26

Dorhan, et al. v. Lopez, et al.

MOTION TO INTERVENE

(CCP § 387)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Proposed Intervenor Loya Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to Intervene is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

ANALYSIS:

On February 1, 2019, Plaintiffs Erlida Dorhan and Efrem Marshall (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants Fabiola Alvarez Lopez and Jorge Eugenio (“Defendants”). Plaintiffs filed a proof of service of the Summons and Complaint demonstrating that Defendants were sub-served in this action effective May 29, 2019. Defendants filed an Answer on July 17, 2019. On January 15, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Defendant Lopez’s Appearance at Deposition.

On January 24, 2020, non-party Loya Casualty Insurance Company (“Loya Casualty”) filed the instant Motion to Intervene. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

The right to intervene is set forth at Code of Civil Procedure section 387. Intervention is allowed when “[t]he person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and that person is so situated that the disposition of the action may impair or impede that person's ability to protect that interest, unless that person's interest is adequately represented by one or more of the existing parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (d)(1)(B).) Whether the petitioner has an interest in the matter in litigation is a question of fact that must be determined by the court before leave to file is granted. (Muller v. Robinson (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 511, 515; In re Yokohama Special Bank (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 545.) The burden rests on the one seeking to intervene to show that this is a proper case for intervention. (Id. at 515.)

Loya Casualty contends it was Defendant’s insurer at the time of the accident that gives rise to this action. However, it submits no admissible evidence of this fact. (Motion, Kabir Decl., ¶¶1-3.) The only evidence in support of the Motion is the declaration of Loya Casualty’s attorney, who offers no facts or evidence in support of her contention. (Ibid.) The declaration contains only a bare statement of personal knowledge regarding the facts in the declaration. (Id. at ¶1.) “Where the facts stated do not themselves show it, such bare statement of the affiant has no redeeming value and should be ignored.” (Snider v. Snider (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 741, 754.) No declaration is submitted by a sworn agent of Loya Casualty. The Court, therefore, cannot take as true the statement that Loya Casualty was Defendant’s insurer.

Loya Casualty does present evidence that it has been unable to communicate with Defendants to secure their participation in this action. (Motion, Kabir Decl., ¶¶3-8 and Exhs. B-D.) It is undisputed that Defendants have not responded to the deposition notices and that their insurer would have an interest as it would be required to satisfy any judgment rendered against Defendant. (See Cal. Ins. Code § 11580, subd. (b)(2); Reliance Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 386.) Nor would intervention enlarge the issues in this action, as the insurer would simply assert defenses on Defendants’ behalf. (Reliance Ins. Co., supra at 386 (citing Truck Ins. Exch. v. Superior Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 342, 346).)

Based on the foregoing, Proposed Intervenor Loya Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion to Intervene is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Moving party to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer KABIR, ROSE