This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/14/2019 at 09:39:39 (UTC).

DUCK JIN CHOI ET AL VS JACQUELYN DEHAVEN ET AL

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4266

  • Filing Date:

    12/16/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

CHOI JI YUN

YOUM CHARLES

CHOI DUCK JIN

SEO MI KYOUNG

CHOI MIN

Defendants

DEHAVEN MATTHEW

DEHAVEN JACQUEL

SBR CONSTRUCTION INC

DEHAVEN REBECCA

ROCCO RYAN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

TOPPILA BRIAN WALTER

AMIRI-DAVANI TIVA S.

ZUCKERMAN PAUL S.

AMIRI-DAVANI TIVA

Defendant Attorneys

ALAMO-HECHT NAI. ESQ.

LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY J. LUCETT

DELANY GENNA BROOKE

Other Attorneys

ZUCKERMAN PAUL S. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

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

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

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 DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO; ETC

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORTES, SET TWO; ETC

7/19/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORTES, SET TWO; ETC

NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANTS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE SPECIALLY SET THE HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANTS FOUR MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES;AND 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.

Motion in Limine

10/10/2018: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

10/10/2018: Motion in Limine

Notice

10/26/2018: Notice

Ex Parte Application

10/29/2018: Ex Parte Application

Opposition

10/29/2018: Opposition

Opposition

1/18/2019: Opposition

Certificate of Mailing for

2/1/2019: Certificate of Mailing for

Notice of Ruling

3/1/2019: Notice of Ruling

Notice of Deposit - Jury

3/13/2019: Notice of Deposit - Jury

Notice of Ruling

3/13/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order

6/7/2019: Minute Order

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

12/16/2016: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

NOTICE. OF DEPOSIT OF JURY FEES

3/23/2017: NOTICE. OF DEPOSIT OF JURY FEES

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

3/23/2017: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

41 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/16/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 5 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; : OSC RE Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 5 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2019
  • Hearingat 10:00 AM in Department 5 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2019
  • 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")

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2019
  • 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")

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2019
  • DocketMotion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion; Filed by RYAN ROCCO (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2019
  • DocketMotion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion; Filed by RYAN ROCCO (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Continue Trial) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
87 More Docket Entries
  • 03/10/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Charles Youm (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Duck Jin Choi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Duck Jin Choi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Duck Jin Choi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2016
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2016
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2016
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Duck Jin Choi (Plaintiff); Mi Kyoung Seo (Plaintiff); Min Choi (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC644266    Hearing Date: March 11, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 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

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 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

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 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