Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/07/2019 at 01:11:33 (UTC).

ANDREA DEBOSE ET AL VS ROBERT WELLER

Case Summary

On 05/20/2016 ANDREA DEBOSE filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against ROBERT WELLER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1138

  • Filing Date:

    05/20/2016

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

DEBOSE ANDREA

BUSSEY PATRICIA

ARNETTE HENRY

Defendant and Respondent

WELLER ROBERT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF ELLIOTT N. TIOMKIN

TIOMKIN ELLIOTT NICHOLAS ESQ.

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

12/19/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

SUMMONS

12/19/2017: SUMMONS

Minute Order

12/20/2017: Minute Order

Minute Order

4/23/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

7/25/2018: Minute Order

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

10/30/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Minute Order

10/30/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

11/13/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

12/5/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

5/15/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Order - Dismissal

5/20/2019: Order - Dismissal

Unknown

5/20/2019: Unknown

Minute Order

5/20/2019: Minute Order

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

5/20/2016: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

5/23/2016: ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

5/23/2016: ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

5/23/2016: ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

Minute Order

11/3/2017: Minute Order

6 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Why Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's Counsel Should Not Be Sanctioned for Failure to Comply with California Rules of Court Section 3.110(g)) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (for Failure of Plaintiff to Enter Default/Default Judgment) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (for Delaying/Prosecuting the Action Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 583.410) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Delaying/Prosecuting th...) of 05/20/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • Order - Dismissal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Delaying/Prosecuting th...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2019
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Elliott Nicholas Tiomkin, Esq. (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Why Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's Counsel Should Not Be Sanctioned for Failure to Comply with California Rules of Court Section 3.110(g)) - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (for Delaying/Prosecuting the Action Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 583.410) - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (for Failure of Plaintiff to Enter Default/Default Judgment) - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
26 More Docket Entries
  • 05/23/2016
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2016
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2016
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2016
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2016
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2016
  • Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Andrea Debose (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Andrea Debose (Plaintiff); Patricia Bussey (Plaintiff); Henry Arnette (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2016
  • Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Patricia Bussey (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2016
  • Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Henry Arnette (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2016
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC621138    Hearing Date: August 14, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

ANDREA DEBOSE,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

ROBERT WELLER, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC621138

[TENTATIVE] ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES AS TO PLAINTIFF HENRY ARNETTE; (2) FINDING MOTIONS TO COMPEL AS TO PLAINTIFFS ANDREA DEBOSE AND PATRICIA BUSSEY MOOT

Dept. 31

11:00 a.m.

August 14, 2020

Plaintiff, Andrea Debose (“Debose”), Patricia Bussey (“Bussey”), and Henry Arnette (“Arnette”) filed this action against Defendant, Robert Weller for damages arising out of an automobile accident.

On 6/11/20, Defendant, Robert Weller filed the following six motions to compel discovery responses and deem requests for admissions admitted: (1) motion to compel form interrogatories, special interrogatories and request for production of documents against Plaintiff Arnette; (2) motion to deem requests for admissions admitted against Arnette; (3) motion to compel form interrogatories, special interrogatories and request for production of documents against Debose; (4) motion to deem requests for admissions admitted against Debose; (5) motion to compel form interrogatories, special interrogatories and request for production of documents against Bussey; and (6) motion to deem requests for admissions admitted against Bussey.

Defendant propounded the subject discovery on Plaintiffs on 12/9/19. Defendant provided multiple extensions to Plaintiffs and ultimately agreed Plaintiffs would serve responses by 2/27/20. Defendant, however, asserts that responses have not been received as of the filing of the instant motions.

In opposition, Plaintiffs aver that the instant motions are moot because all the subject discovery referenced in the motions to compel were served on Defendant on 2/27/20, with the exception of the discovery requests pertaining to Arnette, as counsel has lost contact with Arnette. Further, Plaintiffs argue Defendant’s motions should be denied because Defendant’s counsel failed to properly meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel or file a separate statement as to the subject discovery dispute. Plaintiffs contend that sanctions are also unwarranted given that responses were timely served, the motions are not opposed, and there is substantial justification for Plaintiffs’ conduct. Finally, Plaintiffs argue sanctions should be imposed against Defendant and defense counsel as defense counsel failed to properly meet and confer in good faith prior to filing the instant motions.

In reply, Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs were supposed to mail and email their discovery responses by 2/27/20, but Defendant did not receive responses from Debose and Bussey until 8/3/20. Defendant contends Plaintiffs fail to establish that they served responses on 2/27/20, and thus, Debose and Bussey should be sanctioned. Further, Defendant avers that Arnette has failed to provide responses, and because Arnette is still represented by Plaintiffs’ counsel, service on counsel was valid and the discovery is still outstanding.

The court notes that there is no meet and confer requirement prior to filing a motion to compel responses pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.290 or 2031.300, or for a motion to deem admitted under CCP § 2033.280. Further, as to Plaintiffs’ argument that Defendant’s failed to attach a separate statement to the instant motions, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1) explicitly states that “[a] separate statement is not required … [w]hen no responses has been provided to the request for discovery,” which is what Defendant’s motions allege.

Nonetheless, the court finds the motions to compel and deem admitted as to Plaintiffs Debose and Bussey are moot in light of the responses served on Defendant prior to the hearing.

Defendant’s motion to compel form interrogatories, special interrogatories and request for production of documents against Plaintiff Arnette is granted. CCP §§ 2030.290(a), (b), 2031.300(a),(b). Plaintiff Arnette is ordered to serve verified responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs, without objections, within ten days.

Moreover, Defendant’s motion to deem request for admissions against Arnette is granted. (CCP § 2033.280(a), (b).) The RFAs are deemed admitted.

The sole remaining issue is whether to impose sanctions. First, as to Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions because of Defendant’s failure to meet and confer prior to filing the instant motions, while the court strongly encourages parties to attempt to meet and confer to resolve disputes without judicial intervention, Defendant was not required to meet and confer prior to filing the instant motions. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).) Second, although Plaintiffs seemingly assert they are not opposing Defendant’s motion, they use their memorandum of points and authorities to argue why Defendant’s motion should be denied and request sanctions against Defendant. The court is unpersuaded Plaintiffs are not opposing the instant motions. Lastly, Plaintiffs argue they acted with substantial justification but do not offer any reasoning or explanation as to how this was the case.

Regarding Plaintiffs Debose and Bussey, while they assert they served discovery responses on the agreed upon extension date of 2/27/20, the evidence shows the parties agreed Plaintiffs would provide responses to Defendant on that date by both mail and email. (See Opp. Exh. D.) However, no evidence is submitted showing that copies were ever emailed to Defendant prior to 7/27/20, and that verifications and the proof of service for the discovery were not then provided to Defendant until 8/3/20. Therefore, sanctions are warranted against Debose and Bussey. Defendant requests sanction of $1,810 for the motion to compel form interrogatories, special interrogatories and request for production of documents against Debose; $1,810 for the motion to deem admitted request for admissions against Debose; $1,810 for the motion to compel form interrogatories, special interrogatories and request for production of documents against Bussey; and $1,810 for the motion to deem admitted request for admissions against Bussey. The court finds this request unreasonable. Defendant is awarded one hour for preparing each form motion to compel at a rate of $200 per hour ($200 x 4 hours), 0.5 hours for preparing the reply, and 0.5 hours for appearing at the hearing for a total of $1,000 in attorney’s fees. Further, the court awards Defendant the $60 filing fee for each of the four motions for a total of $240 in costs. Defendant requests sanctions against Debose and Bussey personally, and against their counsel of record. Defendant, however, does not describe any conduct by Debose and Bussey warranting sanctions against them. Thus, sanctions are imposed against Debose and Bussey’s counsel only in the total amount of $1,240.00. Plaintiffs’ counsel is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $1,240.00, within twenty days.

In addition, sanctions are warranted against Plaintiff Arnette. Defendant requests sanctions of $1,810 for the motion to compel form interrogatories, special interrogatories and request for production of documents against Arnette and $1,810 for the motion to deem admitted request for admissions against Arnette. The court finds this request unreasonable. Defendant is awarded one hour for preparing each form motion to compel and one hour for appearing at the hearing at a rate of $200 per hour for a total of $400 in attorney’s fees. Further, the court awards Defendant the $60 motion filing fee for each of the two motions for a total of $120 in costs.

Given Plaintiffs’ counsel’s attempts to contact Arnette and otherwise attempt to comply with the discovery requests, sanctions are imposed against Arnette only. Plaintiff Arnette is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $620.00, within twenty days.

As a final note, the court realizes that each of Defendant’s motion to compel form interrogatories, special interrogatories and request for production of documents against Debose, Bussey, and Arnette is actually three motions combined into one: (a) motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one, (b) motion to compel special interrogatories, set one, and (c) motion to compel demand for production of documents, set one. In the future, moving party is ordered to obtain separate hearing reservations and pay separate filing fees. Combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants. Moreover, combining motions to avoid payment of separate filing fees deprives the Court of filing fees it is otherwise entitled to collect.

Be that as it may, in the absence of any objection by Plaintiffs and lack of any showing of prejudice, the court will exercise its discretion to hear all nine motions, but the above orders will not become effective until moving party pays an additional $360 in filing fees (6 motions filing fees not paid for x $60 filing fee).

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

Dated this 14th day of August, 2020

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court