On 10/06/2016 CARIN MEMMER filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against MIDTOWN CARPET COMPANY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GEORGINA T. RIZK and KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
****6026
10/06/2016
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
GEORGINA T. RIZK
KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE
MEMMER CARIN
GAFOURI QAYUM
DOES 1 TO 25
GAFOURI MASSOUD
MIDTOWN CARPET COMPANY
VAZIRI LAW GROUP APC.
SHAVER KORFF & CASTRONOVO LAW O/O
HANGER STEINBERG SHAPIRO & ASH
SHAPIRO MARC STEVEN ESQ.
VO ALEX SILVA ESQ.
KORFF EVE HELENE ESQ.
8/1/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion
8/29/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION
8/30/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (1- HEARING ON SELF-REPRESENTED PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATI...)
9/3/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (- HEARING ON DEFENDANT MASSOUD GAFOURI'S MOTION TO COMPEL DIS...)
9/4/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON SELF-REPRESENTED PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION ...)
9/6/2019: Notice of Ruling
9/11/2019: Notice of Ruling
9/26/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION
10/16/2019: Notice of Ruling
11/27/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS)
10/6/2016: SUMMONS -
3/6/2017: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
3/6/2017: CIVIL DEPOSIT -
6/18/2018: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
1/22/2019: Opposition - Opposition PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE AND OPPOSITON TO MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITON OF PLAINTIFF; DECLARATION OF STEFANO G. FORMICA
1/23/2019: Notice - Notice Notice of Change of Time for Motion to Compel Deposition
1/24/2019: Reply - Reply TO PLAINTIFF'S LATE SERVED OPPOSITION
1/25/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)
Hearing01/22/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 2 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial
Hearing01/06/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 2 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 2, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Held
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions)); Filed by Clerk
DocketNotice of Motion for Terminating Sanctions for Plaintiff's Violation of a Court order for Failure to Provide Further Responses to Interrogatories and Demands for Production of Documents and for Costs; Filed by Massoud Gafouri (Defendant)
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Massoud Gafouri (Defendant)
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 2, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Not Held - Vacated by Court
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 2, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (Take Judicial Notice Requests For Reasonable Accomodations Are Confidential For Ex-Parte Relief Notice Of Motion) - Held
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Self-Represented Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application:...)); Filed by Clerk
DocketOpposition (Opposition to Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application); Filed by Massoud Gafouri (Defendant)
DocketAnswer; Filed by Massoud Gafouri (Defendant); Qayum Gafouri (Defendant)
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Carin Memmer (Plaintiff)
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Carin Memmer (Plaintiff)
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Carin Memmer (Plaintiff)
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
DocketSUMMONS
DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
DocketComplaint; Filed by Carin Memmer (Plaintiff)
Case Number: BC636026 Hearing Date: November 27, 2019 Dept: 2
MEMMER v. MIDTOWN CARPET COMPANY, et al.
Defendant Massoud Gafouri’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions, filed on 10/31/2019, is DENIED without prejudice. The Court imposes monetary sanctions on Plaintiff in the amount of $560. Plaintiff is admonished that ongoing failure to comply with Court orders will result in further sanctions, up to and including evidentiary, issue or terminating sanctions.
On August 1, 2019, Defendant filed two motions to compel responses to Defendant’s supplemental interrogatories and supplemental demand for production of documents, set one and defendant’s special interrogatories and demand for production, set two. The motions were heard and granted. Plaintiff was ordered to serve her verified responses, without objection, within 30 days. The due date was October 3, 2019.
The Court subsequently granted Plaintiff an additional extension to October 17, 2019 to respond to the Supplemental Demand for Production of Documents for Inspection and Copying, Set Number One. The deadline for plaintiff’s response to defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set Number Two and Supplemental Interrogatories, Set Number One, remained October 3, 2019.
On October 3, 2019, Plaintiff emailed an unsigned and unverified set of responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set Number Two. The responses did not contain a response to special interrogatory number six. No responses to defendant’s supplemental interrogatories, set number one, were provided. Defendant was subsequently provided with documentation that Plaintiff was excused from work due to a medical issue until October 19, 2019.
On October 31, 2019, Defendant filed this motion for terminating sanctions. No opposition has been filed.
The Court is troubled by Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. However, “terminating sanctions are to be used sparingly because of the drastic effect of their application.” Department of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell (2017) 18 Cal. App. 5th 154, 191-92. Sanctions are generally imposed in an incremental approach, with terminating sanctions being the last resort.
Here, although Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order, she has made some progress toward compliance. Further, the documentation that Plaintiff provided to defense counsel supports the conclusion that compliance was interrupted for medical reasons. Thus, although Plaintiff’s behavior is unacceptable, the Court does not conclude that terminating sanctions are justified at this juncture.
The Court does find that monetary sanctions are justified and imposes further monetary sanctions in the amount of $560. Issue and evidentiary sanctions have not been sought, so the Court does not impose any such sanctions.
Plaintiff is admonished that she must comply with the Court’s previous orders, including providing signed verifications. If Plaintiff fails to comply within the next 30 days, Defendant may renew the motion for sanctions.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.