On 12/16/2016 DUCK JIN CHOI filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against JACQUELYN DEHAVEN. 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.
****4266
12/16/2016
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH
CHOI JI YUN
YOUM CHARLES
CHOI DUCK JIN
SEO MI KYOUNG
CHOI MIN
DEHAVEN MATTHEW
DEHAVEN JACQUEL
SBR CONSTRUCTION INC
DEHAVEN REBECCA
ROCCO RYAN
TOPPILA BRIAN WALTER
AMIRI-DAVANI TIVA S.
ZUCKERMAN PAUL S.
AMIRI-DAVANI TIVA
ALAMO-HECHT NAI. ESQ.
LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY J. LUCETT
DELANY GENNA BROOKE
ZUCKERMAN PAUL S. ESQ.
2/6/2018: PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE OF PLAINTIFF DUCK JIN CHOI AT DEPOSITION AND FOR MONETARY/ISSUE SANCTIONS
7/19/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO; ETC
7/19/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORTES, SET TWO; ETC
8/21/2018: NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANTS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE SPECIALLY SET THE HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANTS FOUR MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES;AND ETC.
10/10/2018: Motion in Limine
10/10/2018: Motion in Limine
10/26/2018: Notice
10/29/2018: Ex Parte Application
10/29/2018: Opposition
1/18/2019: Opposition
2/1/2019: Certificate of Mailing for
3/1/2019: Notice of Ruling
3/13/2019: Notice of Deposit - Jury
3/13/2019: Notice of Ruling
6/7/2019: Minute Order
12/16/2016: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
3/23/2017: NOTICE. OF DEPOSIT OF JURY FEES
3/23/2017: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 5 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; : OSC RE Dismissal
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 5 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial
Hearingat 10:00 AM in Department 5 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference
Hearingat 13:30 PM in Department 5 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery")
Hearingat 13:30 PM in Department 5 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery")
DocketMotion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion; Filed by RYAN ROCCO (Defendant)
DocketMotion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion; Filed by RYAN ROCCO (Defendant)
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Continue Trial) - Held - Motion Granted
DocketComplaint; Filed by Charles Youm (Plaintiff)
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Duck Jin Choi (Plaintiff)
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Duck Jin Choi (Plaintiff)
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Duck Jin Choi (Plaintiff)
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
DocketSUMMONS
DocketComplaint; Filed by Duck Jin Choi (Plaintiff); Mi Kyoung Seo (Plaintiff); Min Choi (Plaintiff) et al.
Case Number: BC644266 Hearing Date: March 11, 2020 Dept: 32
duck jin choi,
Plaintiff, v.
jacquelyn dehaven, et al.,
Defendants.
|
Case No.: BC644266, consolidated with BC653120 and BC678277
Hearing Date: March 11, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE: defendants’ motion TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT |
Defendants Jacquelyn Dehaven, Rebecca Dehaven, and Matthew Dehaven (“Defendants”) move to dismiss the complaint of Plaintiff Duck Jin Choi (Plaintiff”) for failure to prosecute. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410, the court may dismiss an action for delay in prosecution if the plaintiff does not serve the defendant within two years, or bring the action to trial within three years. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 583.410, 583.420.) Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1342, “A party seeking dismissal of a case under Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.410-583.430 must serve and file a notice of motion at least 45 days before the date set for hearing of the motion.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1342, subd. (a).) Defendants filed this motion on February 13, 2020, which is only 27 days before the hearing date. Plaintiff objects to consideration of the motion on this basis. Accordingly, the motion is denied. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.
DATED: March 11, 2020 ___________________________
Stephen I. Goorvitch
Judge of the Superior Court
Case Number: BC644266 Hearing Date: December 13, 2019 Dept: 5
duck jin choi, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
jacquelyn dehaven, et al., Defendants.
|
Case No.: BC644266, consolidated with BC653120 and BC678277
Hearing Date: November 7, 2019
[TENTATIVE] order RE: MOTION for terminating sanctions |
INTRODUCTION
Defendants Ryan Rocco and SBR Construction, Inc. (“Defendants”) move to dismiss the complaint of Plaintiff Duck Jin Choi (“Plaintiff”) as a terminating sanction, which Plaintiff opposes. The Court continues the motion to December 13, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. If Plaintiff does not comply fully with all discovery obligations, including his deposition by that date, the Court intends to grant the motion and dismiss this case.
Legal Standard
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).)
Discussion
In its order of August 30, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents that Defendants served on Plaintiff within twenty (20) days of notice of the order. Defendants served Plaintiff with notice of the ruling by mail on September 14, 2019. Plaintiff thus had until October 9, 2019 to serve responses in compliance with this Court’s order. In his opposition, dated October 24, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel concedes that verified responses have not been provided.
Defendants also argue that Plaintiff has failed to appear for deposition in compliance with this Court’s order of June 7, 2019. In connection with granting Plaintiff’s request to continue trial, the Court ordered that the depositions of the parties occur prior to August 1, 2019. As of the filing date of this motion, Plaintiff has not yet sat for deposition. In opposition to the motion, Plaintiff’s counsel, Eric S. Chun (“Counsel”), states that Plaintiff has not appeared for deposition because “he has been traveling back and forth between California and South Korea” for work. (Declaration of Eric S. Chun, ¶ 8.) Plaintiff cannot indefinitely delay his obligation to sit for deposition because his work requires him to travel. More important, by Counsel’s admission, Plaintiff is in California at times. Thus, Plaintiff must provide a date certain on which Plaintiff will sit for deposition. Otherwise, the Court will find Plaintiff has willfully violated this Court’s order, and dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint.
Conclusion and Order
Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions is continued to December 13, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. If Plaintiff does not comply fully with all discovery obligations, including his deposition, the Court intends to grant this motion and dismiss the case. The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.
DATED: November 7, 2019 ___________________________
Stephen I. Goorvitch
Judge of the Superior Court
Case Number: BC644266 Hearing Date: November 07, 2019 Dept: 5
duck jin choi, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
jacquelyn dehaven, et al., Defendants.
|
Case No.: BC644266, consolidated with BC653120 and BC678277
Hearing Date: November 7, 2019
[TENTATIVE] order RE: MOTION for terminating sanctions |
INTRODUCTION
Defendants Ryan Rocco and SBR Construction, Inc. (“Defendants”) move to dismiss the complaint of Plaintiff Duck Jin Choi (“Plaintiff”) as a terminating sanction, which Plaintiff opposes. The Court continues the motion to December 13, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. If Plaintiff does not comply fully with all discovery obligations, including his deposition by that date, the Court intends to grant the motion and dismiss this case.
Legal Standard
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).)
Discussion
In its order of August 30, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents that Defendants served on Plaintiff within twenty (20) days of notice of the order. Defendants served Plaintiff with notice of the ruling by mail on September 14, 2019. Plaintiff thus had until October 9, 2019 to serve responses in compliance with this Court’s order. In his opposition, dated October 24, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel concedes that verified responses have not been provided.
Defendants also argue that Plaintiff has failed to appear for deposition in compliance with this Court’s order of June 7, 2019. In connection with granting Plaintiff’s request to continue trial, the Court ordered that the depositions of the parties occur prior to August 1, 2019. As of the filing date of this motion, Plaintiff has not yet sat for deposition. In opposition to the motion, Plaintiff’s counsel, Eric S. Chun (“Counsel”), states that Plaintiff has not appeared for deposition because “he has been traveling back and forth between California and South Korea” for work. (Declaration of Eric S. Chun, ¶ 8.) Plaintiff cannot indefinitely delay his obligation to sit for deposition because his work requires him to travel. More important, by Counsel’s admission, Plaintiff is in California at times. Thus, Plaintiff must provide a date certain on which Plaintiff will sit for deposition. Otherwise, the Court will find Plaintiff has willfully violated this Court’s order, and dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint.
Conclusion and Order
Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions is continued to December 13, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. If Plaintiff does not comply fully with all discovery obligations, including his deposition, the Court intends to grant this motion and dismiss the case. The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.
DATED: November 7, 2019 ___________________________
Stephen I. Goorvitch
Judge of the Superior Court