This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/28/2020 at 04:21:47 (UTC).

YANETT ARLENE ENRIQUEZ VS CHARLES MICHAEL HELDEBRANT

Case Summary

On 10/15/2018 YANETT ARLENE ENRIQUEZ filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against CHARLES MICHAEL HELDEBRANT. 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:

    *******2891

  • Filing Date:

    10/15/2018

  • 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

ENRIQUEZ YANETT ARLENE

Defendant

HELDEBRANT CHARLES MICHAEL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

FINKEL JAKE DANIEL

Defendant Attorney

ADEM STEPHANIE N.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Motion to Quash Subpoena; Hearing ...)

8/26/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Motion to Quash Subpoena; Hearing ...)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Quash Motion to Quash Subpoena; Hearing ...) of 08/26/2020

8/26/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Quash Motion to Quash Subpoena; Hearing ...) of 08/26/2020

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Plaintiff Motion to Quash Defendant's Subpoena

5/19/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Plaintiff Motion to Quash Defendant's Subpoena

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

9/6/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Motion to Reclassify - Motion to Reclassify

10/23/2019: Motion to Reclassify - Motion to Reclassify

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Order Granting Leave to Reclassify Complaint from Limited to Unlimied Jurisdiction

11/12/2019: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Order Granting Leave to Reclassify Complaint from Limited to Unlimied Jurisdiction

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion))

11/26/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion))

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Ruling

11/27/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application FOR AN ORDER SHOTENING TIME T...)

1/17/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application FOR AN ORDER SHOTENING TIME T...)

Motion to Quash - Motion to Quash

2/13/2020: Motion to Quash - Motion to Quash

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Continuance of Hearings)

3/24/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Continuance of Hearings)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Continuance of Hearings) of 03/24/2020

3/24/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Continuance of Hearings) of 03/24/2020

Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial

12/20/2018: Demand for Jury Trial - Demand for Jury Trial

Answer - Answer

12/20/2018: Answer - Answer

Summons - on Complaint

10/15/2018: Summons - on Complaint

Complaint

10/15/2018: Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet

10/15/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

10/15/2018: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

14 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/08/2021
  • Hearing03/08/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Motion to Quash Subpoena; Hearing ...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Quash Motion to Quash Subpoena; Hearing ...) of 08/26/2020; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Quash Motion to Quash Subpoena scheduled for 08/26/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 08/26/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion) scheduled for 08/26/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 08/26/2020; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order: As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 10/18/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 07/27/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Event scheduled for 08/26/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Type changed from Non-Jury Trial to Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2020
  • DocketReset - Court Unavailable, Jury Trial scheduled for 08/26/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Rescheduled by Court was rescheduled to 03/08/2021 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
30 More Docket Entries
  • 11/05/2018
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Yanett Arlene Enriquez (Plaintiff); As to: Charles Michael Heldebrant (Defendant); Service Date: 11/04/18; Service Cost: 78.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 10/18/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/13/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Yanett Arlene Enriquez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2018
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk; As to: Yanett Arlene Enriquez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2018
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Yanett Arlene Enriquez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Yanett Arlene Enriquez (Plaintiff); As to: Charles Michael Heldebrant (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC12891    Hearing Date: August 26, 2020    Dept: 26

Enriquez v. Heldebrant, et al.

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

(CCP §§ 1987.1, 1987.2)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Yanette Arlene Enriquez’s Motion to Quash Subpoena and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL OF RECORD JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $2,400.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

Hearing on Plaintiff Yanette Arlene Enriquez’s Motion for Reclassification is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

ANALYSIS:

On October 15, 2018, Plaintiff Yanette Arlene Enriquez (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Charles Michael Heldebrant (“Defendant”). On November 26, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to reclassify the action to a court of unlimited jurisdiction. To the extent Plaintiff reserved a hearing for a second motion to reclassify, the hearing is placed off calendar. No second motion to reclassify has been filed.

On February 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Quash Subpoena and Request for Sanctions (“the Motion”). Defendant filed an opposition on May 19, 2020.

Plaintiff moves to quash the following deposition subpoena issued by Defendant to Sedgwick Claims Management c/o CSC Lawyers seeking records for Plaintiff from January 1, 2010 to the present that include treatment rendered by Sedgwick Claims Management. (Motion, Finkel Decl., Exh. 2 at Attachment 3.) Specifically, the subpoena requests “any and all records stored in any format, including but not limited to correspondence, payments, payment history, policy information, declarations page, complete claim files, records of any liens, color photos and damage repair estimates, injury records or claim and any other documents contained within any insurance file and/or claim file.” (Ibid.) The subpoena also makes reference to “Claim # 01801001513” without any further information. (Ibid.)

A motion to quash a deposition subpoena may be made under Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, which states: “When a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of [documents], the court, upon motion reasonably made by the party…may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it or directing compliance with it…including protective orders.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.) “The court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the parties, the witness, or the consumer from unreasonable or oppressive demands including unreasonable violations of a witness’s or consumer’s right of privacy.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3.)

Plaintiff objects that the subpoena is overbroad insofar as it seeks records without any time limitation or limitation as to what injuries she allegedly sustained in the subject motor vehicle accident. The law is well-established regarding discovery into private matters such as medical records.

[P]laintiffs are “not obligated to sacrifice all privacy to seek redress for a specific (physical,) mental or emotional injury”; while they may not withhold information which relates to any physical or mental condition which they have put in issue by bringing this lawsuit, they are entitled to retain the confidentiality of all unrelated medical or psychotherapeutic treatment they may have undergone in the past.

(Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864.) In seeking Plaintiff’s privileged medical information, Defendant cannot simply seek evidence that may be relevant to this action or may lead to admissible evidence. When seeking information protected by the right of privacy, Defendant must show that the records are directly relevant to the case. (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 524-25.) Once the Court determines that the records are directly relevant to the action, it must carefully balance the need for discovery against the right of privacy. (Id. at 525.) Finally, the party seeking the discovery must show that the information cannot be obtained through depositions or non-confidential sources, and if discovery is allowed it must be minimally intrusive. (Harding Lawson Assocs. v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 7, 10.)

The subpoena here is apparently directed to Plaintiff’s worker’s compensation claims administrator because Plaintiff had filed a worker’s compensation claim in January 2018 involving injuries similar to those that allegedly arose from the accident at issue this action. (Opp., Adem Decl., ¶5.) However, no evidence is presented in support of this contention. Even if the Court were to find a 2018 worker’s compensation claim involved similar injuries to those raised in this action, the Court does not agree with Defendant that the subpoena only seeks records pertaining to the claim identified. The subpoena simply makes reference to a specific claim number without indicating that the records sought are limited to that claim. To the extent Defendant concedes that only records pertaining to that worker’s compensation claim are relevant, the language of the subpoena should be limited to reflect those limitations. Nor does Defendant explain why records for ten years should be sought when the worker’s compensation claim at issue was only two years ago.

Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff testified to suffering from irritability, fatigue, loss of sleep,

depression and stress, which are “systemic problems that do not relate to any one body part.” (Opp., Adem Decl., ¶6.) Again, there is no proof offered that the worker’s compensation claim is directly relevant to such “systemic problems” such that Defendant should be allowed access of the claim records.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the subpoena should be quashed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2, it is reasonable to award sanctions against Defendant and his counsel in the amount of $2,400.00 based on six hours of attorney time billed at $400.00 per hour.) (Motion, Finkel Decl. ¶17.)

Conclusion

Plaintiff Yanette Arlene Enriquez’s Motion to Quash Subpoena and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL OF RECORD JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $2,400.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC12891    Hearing Date: November 26, 2019    Dept: 94

MOTION FOR RECLASSIFICATION

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Yanette Arlene Enriquez’s Motion for Reclassification is DENIED.

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action for motor vehicle negligence.

MOTION: Plaintiff moves to reclassify this action on the grounds that her economic damages are now $21,000.00 and that non-economic damages will certainly exceed $4,000.00.

OPPOSITION: Plaintiff’s motion fails to offer proof of her claimed economic damages. She has only produced medical records showing bills of $9,282.00. She offers no proof of her purported lost income or that good cause exists regarding the timing of this motion.

ANALYSIS:

On October 15, 2018, Plaintiff Yanette Arlene Enriquez (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Charles Michael Heldebrant (“Defendant”). In the caption, the Complaint states that the amount owing is more than $10,000.00, but less than $25,000.00. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reclassify Action on October 23, 2019. Defendant filed his opposition on November 12, 2019.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040 allows a plaintiff to file a motion for reclassification of an action within the time allowed for that party to amend the initial pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (a).) If the motion is made after the time for the plaintiff to amend the pleading, the motion may only be granted if (1) the case is incorrectly classified; and (2) the plaintiff shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (b).) In Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262, the California Supreme Court held that a matter may be reclassified from unlimited to limited only if it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff's damages will necessarily be less than $25,000. (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257.) If there is a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00, the case cannot be transferred to limited. (Ibid.) This high standard is appropriate in light of “the circumscribed procedures and recovery available in the limited civil courts.” (Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 278.)

In Ytuarte, the Court of Appeals examined the principles it set forth in Walker and held that “the court should reject the plaintiff's effort to reclassify the action as unlimited only when the lack of jurisdiction as an “unlimited” case is certain and clear.” (Id. at 279.) The plaintiff must present evidence to demonstrate a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00, then the trial court must review the record to determine “whether a judgment in excess of $25,000.00 is obtainable.” (Ibid.)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves to reclassify this action as one of unlimited jurisdiction on the grounds that her economic losses are $21,000.00 and her non-economic damages will certainly exceed $4,000.00. Plaintiff’s Motion, however, does not attach evidence demonstrating the amount of her economic damages. At most, she attaches a copy of her deposition testimony in which she testified that she incurred medical expenses of almost $10,000.00. (Motion, Finkel Decl., Exh. 3, pp. 41:18-25, 46:1-13.) Indeed, the opposition papers provide much more convincing evidence of Plaintiff’s damages, including copies of her medical bills totaling $9,282.00. (Opp., Adem Decl., Exh. B.) As for Plaintiff’s claim that she lost income of approximately $10,000.00, there is no supporting evidence in her deposition testimony (or otherwise).

The Court notes that the Motion does not even bother to limit the attached transcript to the relevant portions of Plaintiff’s testimony or highlight the portions on which it relies. Instead the Motion simply attaches nearly 50 pages of the transcript for the Court to read through. This is in direct violation of Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1116, subdivisions (b) and (c) and Plaintiff’s counsel is admonished for failing to comply with the rules.

Nor does Plaintiff’s Motion demonstrate good cause for the timing of this Motion. Plaintiff does not contend that she incurred the medical expenses or lost income after the action was filed. Instead, the Motion simply states that Plaintiff was not deposed until May 2019. The date of Plaintiff’s deposition, however, has not been shown to have any connection with the timing of her damages.

As Plaintiff has not demonstrated a possibility that her damages will exceed the jurisdictional limit of the Court, nor that good cause exists for bringing the instant Motion more than a year after the action was filed, the Motion to Reclassify Action is DENIED.