This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/29/2019 at 00:01:05 (UTC).

CECELIA KLEINER VS RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

Case Summary

On 12/01/2015 CECELIA KLEINER filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2681

  • Filing Date:

    12/01/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

KLEINER CECELIA

ROVEN JONATHAN D. ESQ.

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BIREN MATTHEW B.F. ESQ.

CHEONG DENOVE ROWELL & BENNETT

BERMAN MITCHELL EVAN

FACCONE JOSEPH JR. ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

STONE GREGORY E. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

3/8/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA; MOTION FOR COURT ORDER TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PRODUCE MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS, OR IT THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR ISSUE EVIDENCE SANCTIONS

3/12/2018: MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA; MOTION FOR COURT ORDER TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PRODUCE MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS, OR IT THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR ISSUE EVIDENCE SANCTIONS

Minute Order

3/13/2018: Minute Order

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AURHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JOSEPH FACCONE, JR.;[PROPOSED] ORDER

3/14/2018: EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AURHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JOSEPH FACCONE, JR.;[PROPOSED] ORDER

NOTICE OF RULING

3/16/2018: NOTICE OF RULING

Motion for Order

3/29/2018: Motion for Order

Reply

4/27/2018: Reply

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF GREGORY S. MILLER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

6/19/2018: SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF GREGORY S. MILLER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Minute Order

4/12/2019: Minute Order

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

12/1/2015: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Notice of Change of Address

4/1/2016: Notice of Change of Address

PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF LIEN

4/20/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF LIEN

CIVIL DEPOSIT

12/15/2016: CIVIL DEPOSIT

Minute Order

6/27/2017: Minute Order

ORDER RE: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

6/27/2017: ORDER RE: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

PROOF OF SERVICE OF ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

7/26/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JONATHAN ROVEN

8/9/2017: PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JONATHAN ROVEN

NOTICE OF RULING ON EX PARTE TO CONTINUE TRIAL

11/30/2017: NOTICE OF RULING ON EX PARTE TO CONTINUE TRIAL

66 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/25/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Interro...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2019
  • Reply (Reply and Notice of No Opposition Received to Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories); Filed by Ralphs Grocery Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Ex-Parte Proceedings - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion; Filed by Ralphs Grocery Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion; Filed by Ralphs Grocery Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (For Stipulated Continuance of Trial) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (For Stipulated Continuance of Trial); Filed by Cecelia Kleiner (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
159 More Docket Entries
  • 04/01/2016
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Cecelia Kleiner (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2016
  • Answer; Filed by Ralphs Grocery Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2016
  • DEFENDANT RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY DBA RALPHS'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Cecelia Kleiner (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/06/2016
  • Notice of Lien; Filed by Cecelia Kleiner (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/06/2016
  • NOTICE OF LIEN

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Cecelia Kleiner (Plaintiff); Jonathan D. Roven, Esq. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2015
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC602681    Hearing Date: March 18, 2021    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE: Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept32@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 in-person or remotely.

TENTATIVE RULING

DEPARTMENT

32

HEARING DATE

March 18, 2021

CASE NUMBER

BC602681

MOTION

Motion for Sanctions

MOVING PARTY

Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company

OPPOSING PARTY

Plaintiff Cecelia Kleiner

MOTION

Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company (“Defendant”) moves to dismiss the complaint of Plaintiff Cecelia Kleiner (“Plaintiff”) as a terminating sanction. In the alternative, Defendant moves for issue or evidentiary sanctions. Defendant has not submitted a separate statement in connection with her request for issue or evidentiary sanctions. Defendant’s motion for issue or evidentiary sanctions is therefore denied as procedurally defective. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(7).) The Court considers the motion as a motion for terminating and monetary sanctions only.

ANALYSIS

The court has discretion to impose terminating sanction when a party willfully disobeys a discovery order. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (g), 2030.290, subd. (c).) The court may impose a terminating sanction by striking a party’s pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d)(1).)

In its order of June 25, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses to supplemental interrogatories and supplemental requests for production that Defendant served on Plaintiff within 30 days of notice of the order. Defendant served Plaintiff with notice of the ruling by mail on June 28, 2019. Plaintiff thus had until July 30, 2019 to serve responses in compliance with this Court’s order. As of the filing date of this motion, Plaintiff had not served responses to the discovery. Plaintiff disobeyed this Court’s order of June 25, 2019. However, Plaintiff has since served responses. (See Declaration of Raymond D. McElfish, Exhibits F & G.) Accordingly, the motion for terminating sanctions is denied.

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff failed to produce experts for deposition. This Court has not made any orders with respect to the deposition of Plaintiff’s experts. As such, Plaintiff’s failure to produce experts for deposition cannot be the basis for a motion for terminating sanctions.

However, the Court concludes that monetary sanctions are warranted due to Plaintiff’s failure to obey this Court’s order of June 25, 2019. The Court imposes monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record, McElfish Law Firm, in the amount of $1,310, which represents five hours of attorney time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $250 per hour, plus the filing fee.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants, in part, Defendant’s motion for sanctions, and orders Plaintiff and her counsel of record, McElfish Law Firm, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,310 to Defendant, by and through counsel, within 30 days of notice of this order.

Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this order and file a proof of service of such.

Case Number: BC602681    Hearing Date: January 04, 2021    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

cecelia kleiner,

Plaintiff,

v.

ralphs grocery company,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC602681

Hearing Date: January 4, 2021

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Plaintiff’s motion to re-open discovery

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Cecelia Kleiner (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company (“Defendant”) after she slipped and fell. The complaint was filed on December 1, 2015, and the Court found that the deadline for trial, per Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310, is September 21, 2021, having tolled a certain time period under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.240. Trial currently is set for April 2, 2021. Now, Plaintiff moves to reopen discovery, which Defendant opposes. The motion is denied.

LEGAL STANDARD

In determining whether to re-open discovery, the court must consider the necessity of and reasons for the additional discovery, the diligence or lack thereof by the party seeking to reopen discovery in attempting to complete discovery prior to the cutoff, whether permitting the discovery will prevent the case from going forward on the trial date or will otherwise prejudice any party, and any past continuances of the trial date. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)

DISCUSSION

Defendant filed an answer on February 10, 2016, and the discovery cut-off was April 28, 2020. In other words, the parties have had over four years to conduct discovery in this case. Now, Plaintiff seeks to re-open discovery based upon the declaration of her counsel, Tara Heckard-Bryant (“Counsel”). Counsel states that she wishes to depose Defendant’s person most knowledgeable, and to supplement Plaintiff’s discovery responses. Further, Counsel indicates that she would produce Plaintiff for an independent medical examination. (Declaration of Tara Heckard-Bryant, ¶ 9.) However, Counsel provides no credible explanation for her failure to complete discovery during the ample discovery window. Therefore, the motion is denied.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to re-open discovery is denied. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: January 4, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC602681    Hearing Date: February 18, 2020    Dept: 32

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

cecelia kleiner,

Plaintiff,

v.

ralphs grocery company,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC602681

Hearing Date: February 18, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

defendant’s request that the court hold nazarian zarneh in Contempt

Department #32 will be dark for motions on February 13, 2020.  Each party is ordered to email the Court’s clerk at SSCDept32@lacourt.org before 1:30 p.m. that day to inform the clerk whether you are submitting on the Court’s tentative or whether you are requesting a hearing.  If any party requests a hearing, one will be scheduled.  If you do not request a hearing or fail to email the Court’s clerk before 1:30 p.m. on the date of the hearing, you will waive the right to be heard and shall submit to this tentative order, which shall issue.

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company (“Defendant”) seeks to hold a third-party witness, Nazarian Zarneh (“Deponent”), in contempt of court for failure to obey a deposition subpoena. Given the trial date of February 19, 2020, the last date for the Court to hear discovery motions was February 4, 2020. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).) Defendant has not demonstrated that Plaintiff Cecelia Kleiner stipulated in writing to the Court’s consideration of this untimely motion, as required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.060.) Nor has Defendant sought leave to bring an untimely motion regarding discovery. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).)

Moreover, Defendant has been dilatory in pursuing this discovery. This case was filed on December 1, 2015, meaning that discovery has been ongoing for approximately four years. In his declaration, Defendant’s counsel states that Deponent’s significance became clear only recently. Counsel states that he deposed a customer witness on December 4, 2019, and she testified that she reported the spill to Deponent, then an employee. However, Defendant’s counsel does not explain why it took four years to identify and depose this witness. Even if the witness was refusing to participate, there was ample time to compel her deposition.

Based upon the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to hold a third-party witness in contempt is denied. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: February 18, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC602681    Hearing Date: February 13, 2020    Dept: 32

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

cecelia kleiner,

Plaintiff,

v.

ralphs grocery company,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC602681

Hearing Date: February 13, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

defendant’s request that the court hold nazarian zarneh in Contempt

Department #32 will be dark for motions on February 13, 2020.  Each party is ordered to email the Court’s clerk at SSCDept32@lacourt.org before 1:30 p.m. that day to inform the clerk whether you are submitting on the Court’s tentative or whether you are requesting a hearing.  If any party requests a hearing, one will be scheduled.  If you do not request a hearing or fail to email the Court’s clerk before 1:30 p.m. on the date of the hearing, you will waive the right to be heard and shall submit to this tentative order, which shall issue.

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company (“Defendant”) seeks to hold a third-party witness, Nazarian Zarneh (“Deponent”), in contempt of court for failure to obey a deposition subpoena. Given the trial date of February 19, 2020, the last date for the Court to hear discovery motions was February 4, 2020. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).) Defendant has not demonstrated that Plaintiff Cecelia Kleiner stipulated in writing to the Court’s consideration of this untimely motion, as required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.060.) Nor has Defendant sought leave to bring an untimely motion regarding discovery. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).)

Moreover, Defendant has been dilatory in pursuing this discovery. This case was filed on December 1, 2015, meaning that discovery has been ongoing for approximately four years. In his declaration, Defendant’s counsel states that Deponent’s significance became clear only recently. Counsel states that he deposed a customer witness on December 4, 2019, and she testified that she reported the spill to Deponent, then an employee. However, Defendant’s counsel does not explain why it took four years to identify and depose this witness. Even if the witness was refusing to participate, there was ample time to compel her deposition.

Based upon the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to hold a third-party witness in contempt is denied. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: February 13, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer STONE GREGORY EDWARD