Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/08/2019 at 02:00:06 (UTC).

ARLENE J KRAMER VS SHARON LONSTEIN

Case Summary

On 10/11/2016 ARLENE J KRAMER filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against SHARON LONSTEIN. 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 Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6744

  • Filing Date:

    10/11/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • 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

Plaintiff and Petitioner

KRAMER ARLENE J.

Defendants and Respondents

LONSTEIN SHARON

DOES 1 TO 100

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

MANGOLI SHAWN LEVI

Defendant Attorney

COX LAURIE SUE

 

Court Documents

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

10/11/2016: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

SUMMONS

10/11/2016: SUMMONS

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT SHARON LONSTEIN; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

2/6/2017: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT SHARON LONSTEIN; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Unknown

9/7/2017: Unknown

PROPOSED ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL FSC AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY

3/9/2018: PROPOSED ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL FSC AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY

PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL;

6/1/2018: PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL;

PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL;

6/5/2018: PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL;

Minute Order

6/5/2018: Minute Order

PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL;

6/5/2018: PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL;

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE RE TRIAL CONTINUANCE

6/6/2018: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE RE TRIAL CONTINUANCE

ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS

7/23/2018: ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

8/22/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

Association of Attorney

10/4/2018: Association of Attorney

Minute Order

10/5/2018: Minute Order

Ex Parte Application

10/5/2018: Ex Parte Application

Order

10/5/2018: Order

Minute Order

3/1/2019: Minute Order

Ex Parte Application

3/1/2019: Ex Parte Application

8 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/15/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to continue trial) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2019
  • Ex Parte Application ( to Continue Trial, FSC); Filed by sharon Lonstein (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2019
  • Order (on Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial, FSC, and All Related Dates, Including Discovery and Motion Cutoff Dates); Filed by sharon Lonstein (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference; Hearing on Ex Parte Application to c...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3; Ex-Parte Proceedings

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3; Ex-Parte Proceedings

    Read MoreRead Less
28 More Docket Entries
  • 03/09/2018
  • [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2017
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2017
  • Receipt; Filed by sharon Lonstein (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2017
  • PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE ASSOCIATION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2017
  • Association of Attorney; Filed by Arlene J. Kramer (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2017
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT SHARON LONSTEIN; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2017
  • Answer; Filed by sharon Lonstein (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Arlene J. Kramer (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2016
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC636744    Hearing Date: January 07, 2021    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

ARLENE J KRAMER,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

SHARON LONSTEIN, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC636744

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE

Dept. 31

8:30 a.m.

January 7, 2021

 

Plaintiff, Arlene J. Kramer (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant, Sharon Lonstein (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

Plaintiff moves for trial preference based on her age and because her physical and emotional condition is declining. Plaintiff is 75 years old.

Plaintiff moves for preference pursuant to CCP §36(a), which provides:

(a) A party to a civil action who is over 70 years of age may petition the court for a preference, which the court shall grant if the court makes both of the following findings:

(1) The party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole.

(2) The health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party's interest in the litigation.

Plaintiff asserts she is 75 years old and is in declining health. Plaintiff contends she has a substantial interest in this action, and preference is necessary because she is in constant pain and her health is declining, especially in light of the recent loss of Plaintiff’s husband, which has taken an enormous toll on her.

In opposition, Defendant contends Plaintiff has waited over four years to bring the instant motion, and not all information concerning Plaintiff’s recent medical condition has been produced in discovery. Further, Defendant contends Plaintiff does not adequately show there is a risk of death or incapacity for Plaintiff if the trial proceeds as scheduled.

Plaintiff, in reply, contends Defendant will not be prejudiced if the motion is granted because Defendant will have enough time to conduct discovery concerning Plaintiff’s condition. In addition, Plaintiff avers she did not delay in bringing the instant motion, but rather she filed it as soon it became clear it was necessary. Furthermore, Plaintiff asserts she recently underwent a hip surgery and is still recovering, which can take several years to recover from. Finally, Plaintiff asserts that she is at high-risk of hospitalization or death because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Nevertheless, the court finds that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden to show her health is such that her interest in the litigation will be prejudiced if preference is not granted. CCP § 36.5 expressly permits a party’s attorney to provide information concerning the client’s medical condition for purposes of a motion for preference. Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration states that Plaintiff is 75 years old, Plaintiff underwent hip surgery on 12/31/19, Plaintiff suffers from chronic trochanter bursitis and osteoarthritis, Plaintiff lost her husband on 5/8/20, and Plaintiff is physically and emotionally strained. (Mot. Aumais Decl. ¿¿ 3-6.) However, Plaintiff’s counsel does not describe any of Plaintiff’s conditions in detail to show that Plaintiff fails to show any of the conditions render Plaintiff’s health such that preference is necessary to avoid prejudicing her interest in the action.

Provided there is evidence that the party involved is over 70, all subdivision (a) requires is a showing that that party’s “’health ... is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing [her] interest in the litigation.’” (Fox v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 529, 534.) While the court empathizes with Plaintiff’s desire to move on with the case and her concerns regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, nothing in Plaintiff’s motion or the attached declaration tend to show that Plaintiff will be prejudiced if trial preference is not granted, or that Plaintiff’s ability to participate in the trial will be reduced if the trial is not set on preference.

The motion for preference is denied. The ruling is without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to renew the motion if Plaintiff can show that her health is such that she will be prejudiced if preference is not granted.

Plaintiff 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.orgIf 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 7th day of January, 2021

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer MANGOLI SHAHRAM