This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/25/2016 at 09:26:51 (UTC).

B T ET AL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/31/2014 B T filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ELIA WEINBACH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4894

  • Filing Date:

    01/31/2014

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

ELIA WEINBACH

 

Party Details

Defendants and Respondents

DA SYLVEIRA RICHARD

DEASY JOHN

DOES 1 TO 20

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Minor

B.T.

Guardian Ad Litem

TUCKER KIMBERLY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

HUNT JAMES A. ASST. GENERAL COUNSEL

Minor Attorney

THE CLAYPOOL LAW FIRM

 

Court Documents

COMPLAINT 1) NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, NEGLIGENT HIRING AND/OR RETENTION, NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN, TRAIN, OR EDUCATE

1/31/2014: COMPLAINT 1) NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, NEGLIGENT HIRING AND/OR RETENTION, NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN, TRAIN, OR EDUCATE

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

4/29/2014: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1) NEGLIGENCE 2) NEGLIGENCE - NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION. 3) NEGLIGENCE- NEGLIGENT HIRING AND/OR RETENTION, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

7/28/2015: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1) NEGLIGENCE 2) NEGLIGENCE - NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION. 3) NEGLIGENCE- NEGLIGENT HIRING AND/OR RETENTION, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Minute Order

7/31/2015: Minute Order

NOTICE OF C1{ANGE OF ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER

3/9/2016: NOTICE OF C1{ANGE OF ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER

LAUSD'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO RECLASSIFY (WALKER MOTION); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; AND DECLARATION OF ERIC R. SCHAEFER

4/29/2016: LAUSD'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO RECLASSIFY (WALKER MOTION); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; AND DECLARATION OF ERIC R. SCHAEFER

Minute Order

5/27/2016: Minute Order

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER ACTION TO LIMITED JURISDICTION COURT

5/27/2016: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER ACTION TO LIMITED JURISDICTION COURT

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND ORDER

8/2/2016: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND ORDER

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO? CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DATES TWO (2) MONTHS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME TO HEAR LAUSD?S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DATES;

9/19/2016: EX PARTE APPLICATION TO? CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DATES TWO (2) MONTHS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME TO HEAR LAUSD?S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DATES;

ORDER ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

9/19/2016: ORDER ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Minute Order

9/19/2016: Minute Order

Minute Order

9/19/2016: Minute Order

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

12/29/2016: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Minute Order

1/31/2017: Minute Order

NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL

6/6/2017: NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REMOVE GUARDIAN AD LITEM AND FOR A COURT APPOINTED GUARDIAN; ETC.

7/27/2017: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REMOVE GUARDIAN AD LITEM AND FOR A COURT APPOINTED GUARDIAN; ETC.

DECLARATION OF BRIAN E. CLAYPOOL IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REMOVE GUARDIAN AD LITEM

7/27/2017: DECLARATION OF BRIAN E. CLAYPOOL IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REMOVE GUARDIAN AD LITEM

15 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/09/2016
  • Notice of Change of Address Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2016
  • Answer to First Amended Complaint (LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRIC T ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2015
  • First Amended Complaint Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2014
  • Summons Issued Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2014
  • Summons Filed Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2014
  • Ord Apptng Guardian Ad Litem (FOR B.T. ) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2014
  • Application-Miscellaneous (FOR B.T. GUARDIAN AD LITEM(FAXED) ) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2014
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC534894    Hearing Date: October 29, 2019    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

B.T., ETC.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC534894

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

October 29, 2019

The Court called this matter for an OSC re: dismissal on 9/12/19. Because no party appeared, and because the case had been pending for more than five years, the Court dismissed the action.

At this time, Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the prior order. Plaintiff explains a variety of circumstances that led to the dismissal, and notes that her appearance attorney went to Stanley Mosk rather than Spring Street on 9/12/19, which contributed to the dismissal.

The motion is denied for two reasons. First, a motion for reconsideration cannot be made after a dismissal is entered. The court loses jurisdiction to rule on a pending motion for reconsideration after entry of judgment. APRI Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 176, 181. An order of dismissal is a judgment (see CCP §581d), and therefore a motion for reconsideration does not lie after a dismissal. Id. at 181. Once a judgment has been entered, the proper challenge is a motion for new trial (CCP §657 ), which may be based on various grounds including errors of law. Ramon v. Aerospace Corp. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1237-1238.

Second, Plaintiff failed to show any new facts or law that would actually give rise to a different outcome. While she provides new facts (the appearance attorney went to the wrong courthouse) to justify reconsideration (if it were jurisdictionally permitted), she does not provide any new facts to show dismissal is not mandatory under the five-year statute. Per CCP §583.310, dismissal is mandatory if a case has been pending for more than five years. This action was filed on 1/31/14. The court file does not reveal any reason the statute would have been tolled at any time between 1/31/14 and the present. Dismissal, therefore, was mandatory as of 1/31/19. The case was not actually dismissed until 9/12/19, almost eight months later.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@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.