Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/14/2019 at 09:34:04 (UTC).

BERNADINE RAMIREZ VS 7-ELEVEN INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 07/10/2015 BERNADINE RAMIREZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against 7-ELEVEN INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7791

  • Filing Date:

    07/10/2015

  • 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

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

RAMIREZ BERNADINE

Defendants and Respondents

7-ELEVEN INC

ANDERSON WILLIAM

DOES 1-50

JSVP OPERATING INC.; DOE 1

Cross Defendant

IPT LLC DBA FM FACILITY MAINTENANCE

Intervenor

MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE CO.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

LAW OFFICES OF BOB B. KHAKSHOOY

Defendant Attorneys

SHARDLOW PAUL JEFFREY

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

 

Court Documents

DEFENDANTS 7-ELEVEN, INC. AND JSVP OPERATING, INC.?S NOTICE OF TAKING OFF CALENDAR MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO AUTHORIZE RELEASE OF EMPLOYMENT RECORDS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION IN LI

2/2/2018: DEFENDANTS 7-ELEVEN, INC. AND JSVP OPERATING, INC.?S NOTICE OF TAKING OFF CALENDAR MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO AUTHORIZE RELEASE OF EMPLOYMENT RECORDS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION IN LI

Minute Order

2/7/2018: Minute Order

EX PARTE APPLICATTON FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND TO FILE COMPLAINT AND CROSS-COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 387(A)(B); OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR

2/7/2018: EX PARTE APPLICATTON FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND TO FILE COMPLAINT AND CROSS-COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 387(A)(B); OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR

SUMMONS

2/7/2018: SUMMONS

NOTICE OF RULING

2/22/2018: NOTICE OF RULING

CROSS-DEFENDANT IPT, LLC D/B/A FM FACILITY MAJNTENANCES ANSWER TO THE UNVERIFIED CROSSCOMPLAINT OF 7-ELEVEN, INC.

3/2/2018: CROSS-DEFENDANT IPT, LLC D/B/A FM FACILITY MAJNTENANCES ANSWER TO THE UNVERIFIED CROSSCOMPLAINT OF 7-ELEVEN, INC.

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

4/10/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

Minute Order

5/13/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

6/18/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL., FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (DEPATRNENT 91, 92,93,97)

12/21/2016: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL., FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (DEPATRNENT 91, 92,93,97)

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

3/16/2017: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

Minute Order

3/28/2017: Minute Order

STIPULATION FOR 7-ELEVEN, INC. TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

10/26/2017: STIPULATION FOR 7-ELEVEN, INC. TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

Minute Order

10/26/2017: Minute Order

Summons on Cross Complaint

10/27/2017: Summons on Cross Complaint

Minute Order

10/30/2017: Minute Order

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER J. GREENLEAF IN SUPPORT THEREOF; [PROPOSED] ORDER

10/30/2017: EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER J. GREENLEAF IN SUPPORT THEREOF; [PROPOSED] ORDER

NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

11/1/2017: NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

30 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/24/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2020
  • Hearingat 10:00 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Continue Trial Date) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2019
  • DocketEx Parte Application (to Continue Trial Date); Filed by 7-Eleven, Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc.'s Ex Parte Application to Continue T...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2019
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by IPT, LLC dba FM Facility Maintenance (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Continue Trial Date) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
86 More Docket Entries
  • 01/10/2017
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 93; Jury Trial (Jury Trial; Continued by Stipulation) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/23/2016
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 93; Final Status Conference (Final Status Conference; Continued by Stipulation) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/23/2016
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2016-12-23 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2016
  • DocketORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL., FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (DEPATRNENT 91, 92,93,97)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2016
  • Docket[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by 7-Eleven, Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2016
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Bernadine Ramirez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2016
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2015
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2015
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Bernadine Ramirez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2015
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC587791    Hearing Date: July 16, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Compel a Site Inspection

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On July 10, 2015, Plaintiff Bernadine Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants 7-Eleven, Inc. (“7-Eleven”) and William Anderson for premises liability arising from a slip and fall incident that occurred on July 11, 2013.

On March 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed an amendment to complaint, substituting in JSVP Operating, Inc. (“JSVP”) for Doe 1.

On October 27, 2017, 7-Eleven filed a cross-complaint against IPT, LLC dba FM Facility Maintenance for (1) equitable indemnity, (2) declaratory relief, (3) express contractual indemnity, (4) implied indemnity, and (5) contribution.

On February 7, 2018, Mt. Hawley Insurance Company filed a complaint-in-intervention for its FTB forfeited corporate insured, IPT, LLC dba FM Facility Maintenance.  Dismissal of the complaint-in-intervention with prejudice was entered on April 10, 2018.

On April 16, 2020, based on COVID-19 conditions, the Court advanced and continued the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel an inspection of 7-Eleven’s premises from May 5, 2020 to July 16, 2020.

On July 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the inspection of 7-Eleven’s premises pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300.

Trial is set for January 20, 2021.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff asks the Court compel 7-Eleven to allow Plaintiff and her consultants to inspect 7-Eleven’s property where Plaintiff slipped and fell.

Plaintiff also asks the Court impose $2,748 in monetary sanctions against JSVP and its counsel of record for their abuse of the discovery process.

JSVP asks the Court to impose $1,440 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record for bringing this motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

Due Process

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b) requires moving papers to be filed and served sixteen court-days before the hearing.

Compel Site Inspection

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010 allows a party to inspect land or other property in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action. Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (b) a party making a demand may move for an order compelling a response to the demand.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

Due Process

The moving papers were filed with the Court on July 6, 2020.  This is less than sixteen court-days before the July 16, 2020 hearing date in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b).

Nevertheless, the moving papers were timely served on February 27, 2020, providing ample notice of the arguments within the moving papers.  Accordingly, the Court shall rule on the merits of the motion if the parties submit on the tentative or do not request otherwise at the hearing.

Compel Site Inspection

On December 19, 2019, Plaintiff served a demand for an inspection of 7-Eleven’s property to occur on January 23, 2020.  (Agarwal Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.)  On January 16, 2020, JSVP objected to the inspection demand on the ground that the demand seeks undiscoverable evidence.  (Agarwal Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. B.)  

The Court finds Plaintiff sufficiently met and conferred with JSVP.  (See Agarwal Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. C.)

The Court finds there is good cause to grant the motion.  Plaintiff is entitled to inspect the property where Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell, including friction testing.  This discovery request is reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information because viewing the property and testing it for friction levels is admissible to show whether the property is dangerous.  Accordingly, JSVP’s relevancy objections are without merit.

The Court also finds JSVP’s arguments to be unavailing.  The notice is sufficiently specific as it defines the property by its address and generally states who will inspect the property, and the testing to be done.  JSVP argues the inspection is not specific enough because it does not name who the experts are and it does not conclusively state the exact testing measures that will be implemented.  The Court finds such a level of specificity is not required.  Plaintiff stated the inspection may include friction testing of a defined premises, and that is sufficient.

The Court finds Plaintiff’s request for $2,748 in monetary sanctions for this straight-forward motion is unreasonable.  Rather, the Court finds $450 to be a reasonable amount of sanctions to be imposed against JSVP and its counsel of record for their abuse of the discovery process.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

JSVP is ordered to comply with the inspection demand attached to Sandeep G. Agarwal’s declaration as Exhibit A within 20 days of this ruling.

JSVP and its counsel of record are ordered to pay Plaintiff $450, jointly and severally, within 30 days of this ruling.

JSVP’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

Motion to Compel Deposition and Request for Sanctions

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On July 10, 2015, Plaintiff Bernadine Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants 7-Eleven, Inc. (“7-Eleven”) and William Anderson for premises liability arising from a slip and fall incident that occurred on July 11, 2013.

On March 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed an amendment to complaint, substituting in JSVP Operating, Inc. (“JSVP”) for Doe 1.

On October 27, 2017, 7-Eleven filed a cross-complaint against IPT, LLC dba FM Facility Maintenance for (1) equitable indemnity, (2) declaratory relief, (3) express contractual indemnity, (4) implied indemnity, and (5) contribution.

On February 7, 2018, Mt. Hawley Insurance Company filed a complaint-in-intervention for its FTB forfeited corporate insured, IPT, LLC dba FM Facility Maintenance.  Dismissal of the complaint-in-intervention with prejudice was entered on April 10, 2018.

On February 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel deposition.

On March 20, 2020, pursuant to the Administrative Order of the Presiding Judge Re COVID-19 Pandemic filed on March 17, 2020, the Court advanced and continued the hearing from April 13, 2020 to May 5, 2020.

On April 16, 2020, based on COVID-19 conditions, the Court advanced and continued the hearing from May 5, 2020 to July 16, 2020.

Trial is set for January 20, 2021

PARTYS REQUEST

Plaintiff requests a court order compelling Defendant JSVP Operating, Inc.’s employee Ram Sharma to appear for a deposition.  Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,028.40.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (a) provides: “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . , 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 . . . 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 . . . described in the deposition notice.”

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (b) provides: “A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following:

  1. The motion shall 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.¿

  1. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (c) provides, “(1) If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant JSVP’s employee, Ram Sharma, to appear for deposition.

On December 18, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel served defense counsel with the notice of deposition for JSVP’s employee Ram [last name unknown, but is believed to be a current manager at the subject store], scheduling the deposition for January 21, 2020. ., ¶ 2, Ex. A.)  Defense counsel served an objection to the deposition on January 16, 2020.  (Id., ¶ 3, Ex. B.)  On January 21, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel appeared for the scheduled deposition and took a Certificate of Non-Appearance.  (Id., ¶ 4, Ex. C.)  On February 7, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email to defense counsel to meet and confer. Id., ¶ 7, Ex. F.)

The Court finds Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good faith efforts to meet and confer. California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 requires the motion to be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under section 2016.040. Section 2016.040 provides that “[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.)

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email to defense counsel to meet and confer regarding Ram’s deposition on February 7, 2020.  Plaintiff’s counsel fails to state any further facts as to the results of this attempt.  Without such facts, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff made a good faith attempt to informally resolve the issue of Defendant JSVP’s production of Ram Sharma for deposition. the emails exchanged between counsel prior to the January 21, 2020 deposition are also insufficient to demonstrate good faith efforts to informally resolve the issue.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, the motion is CONTINUED to November 16, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 28.

Plaintiff is ordered to meet and confer with Defendant JSVP and file a supplemental declaration demonstrating Plaintiff’s efforts to meet and confer with Defendant JSVP in good faith.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where IPT Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where 7-ELEVEN INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where Mt. Hawley Insurance Co. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SHARDLOW PAUL J.