Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/05/2019 at 04:05:20 (UTC).

EARLEAN BAILEY VS MARY JOAN ARNAIZ ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/27/2016 EARLEAN BAILEY filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against MARY JOAN ARNAIZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are BRIAN F. GASDIA, MARGARET MILLER BERNAL and MARGARET M. BERNAL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8451

  • Filing Date:

    04/27/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Norwalk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

BRIAN F. GASDIA

MARGARET MILLER BERNAL

MARGARET M. BERNAL

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

BAILEY EARLEAN

Defendants and Respondents

ARNAIZ MARY JOAN

GENTRY VANESSA

GENTRY JOSEPH

GO ANDREW

DOES 1 TO 100

DOES 1-100

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

CELLINO AND BARNES L.C.

Defendant Attorneys

JEDRZEJEK MATEUSZ M

KELLY FRANCINE B. LAW OFFICES OF

KELLY FRANCINE B.

HARTSUYKER STRATMAN & WILLIAMS-ABREGO

 

Court Documents

DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; ETC.

1/24/2018: DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; ETC.

Motion to Compel

4/15/2019: Motion to Compel

PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT AND ANDREW GO?S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF SUBPOENA TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE; DECLARATION OF EARLEAN BAILEY

4/23/2018: PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT AND ANDREW GO?S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF SUBPOENA TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE; DECLARATION OF EARLEAN BAILEY

Minute Order

6/21/2018: Minute Order

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ANDREW GO TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE]

7/13/2018: SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ANDREW GO TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES [SET ONE]

Opposition

8/15/2018: Opposition

PLAINTIFF EARLEAN BAILEY'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT ANDREW GO'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION, ETC

8/27/2018: PLAINTIFF EARLEAN BAILEY'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT ANDREW GO'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION, ETC

Notice

11/16/2018: Notice

Request for Judicial Notice

4/15/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Ex Parte Application

5/7/2019: Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

5/7/2019: Minute Order

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

5/7/2019: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

SUMMONS

9/7/2016: SUMMONS

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

9/14/2016: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

9/27/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF CROSSCOMPLAINT; SUMMONS; ORIGINAL COMPLAINT; ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL UPON CROSS-DEFENDANT VANESSA GENTRY

10/12/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE OF CROSSCOMPLAINT; SUMMONS; ORIGINAL COMPLAINT; ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL UPON CROSS-DEFENDANT VANESSA GENTRY

Unknown

7/25/2017: Unknown

NOTICE OF RULING RE: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

11/2/2017: NOTICE OF RULING RE: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

96 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/03/2019
  • Motion to Compel (Compliance With Records Subpoena); Filed by Earlean Bailey (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Earlean Bailey (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F, Margaret Miller Bernal, Presiding; Ex-Parte Proceedings - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2019
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for ([Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)]); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (for an Order continuing Trial dates or in the alternative shortening time to hear plaintiffs motion to continue trial date); Filed by Earlean Bailey (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Ex-Parte Proceedings BY PLAINTIFF FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRI...) of 05/07/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Ex-Parte Proceedings BY PLAINTIFF FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRI...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • Opposition (Defendant Andrew Go's Opposition to Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial); Filed by Andrew Go (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department R, Brian F. Gasdia, Presiding; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
198 More Docket Entries
  • 09/07/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/12/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2016
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Earlean Bailey (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC618451    Hearing Date: December 08, 2020    Dept: C

BAILEY v. ARNAIZ, et al.

CASE NO.: BC618451

HEARING: 12/8/20 @ 1:30 PM

#8

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff Bailey’s motion for partial summary adjudication is DENIED.

Defendant to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Bailey moves for summary adjudication of its 1st and 3rd causes of action.

This is a Negligence action involving a three-vehicle rear end collision that occurred on 8/24/14. The Complaint asserts a single cause of action for Motor Vehicle Negligence.

Plaintiff Bailey moves for summary adjudication of Defendant Go’s Affirmative Defense Nos. 1-4, 6-7, and 10-11.

Evidentiary Objections

The court declines to rule on Defendant’s evidentiary objections because they are not in proper form. (CRC § 3.1354.)

Standard

A Plaintiff has met its burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. (CCP 437c(p)(1).)

Procedural Defects

Plaintiff’s MSA is procedurally defective because Plaintiff is only seeking summary adjudication of Defendant’s defenses, but failed to prove each element of her negligence claim.

Therefore, on this basis alone, Plaintiff is not entitled to summary adjudication of her single cause of action for Motor Vehicle Negligence.

Merits

Plaintiff contends that Defendant Go’s Affirmative Defense Nos. 1-4, 6-7, and 10-11 fail.

The court notes that Plaintiff’s separate statement divides each affirmative defense into separate issues for adjudication. Unlike a defense motion for summary adjudication, where a single affirmative defense may dispose of a cause of action, a Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication of a single affirmative defense does not completely dispose of a cause of action. Therefore, this court will not separately adjudicate Defendant’s affirmative defenses.

The court finds that triable issues exist regarding whether Defendant Go was negligent. Defendant Go testified that he was hit from behind by a vehicle driven by Co-Defendant Gentry, forcing his vehicle to spin and hit Plaintiff’s vehicle. (Go Deposition, 26:1-15; Defendant’s Ex. G, Traffic Collision Report.)

Motion is DENIED.

Case Number: BC618451    Hearing Date: December 07, 2020    Dept: C

BAILEY v. ARNAIZ, et al.

CASE NO.: BC618451

HEARING: 12/8/20 @ 1:30 PM

#8

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff Bailey’s motion for partial summary adjudication is DENIED.

Defendant to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Bailey moves for summary adjudication of its 1st and 3rd causes of action.

This is a Negligence action involving a three-vehicle rear end collision that occurred on 8/24/14. The Complaint asserts a single cause of action for Motor Vehicle Negligence.

Plaintiff Bailey moves for summary adjudication of Defendant Go’s Affirmative Defense Nos. 1-4, 6-7, and 10-11.

Evidentiary Objections

The court declines to rule on Defendant’s evidentiary objections because they are not in proper form. (CRC § 3.1354.)

Standard

A Plaintiff has met its burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. (CCP 437c(p)(1).)

Procedural Defects

Plaintiff’s MSA is procedurally defective because Plaintiff is only seeking summary adjudication of Defendant’s defenses, but failed to prove each element of her negligence claim.

Therefore, on this basis alone, Plaintiff is not entitled to summary adjudication of her single cause of action for Motor Vehicle Negligence.

Merits

Plaintiff contends that Defendant Go’s Affirmative Defense Nos. 1-4, 6-7, and 10-11 fail.

The court notes that Plaintiff’s separate statement divides each affirmative defense into separate issues for adjudication. Unlike a defense motion for summary adjudication, where a single affirmative defense may dispose of a cause of action, a Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication of a single affirmative defense does not completely dispose of a cause of action. Therefore, this court will not separately adjudicate Defendant’s affirmative defenses.

The court finds that triable issues exist regarding whether Defendant Go was negligent. Defendant Go testified that he was hit from behind by a vehicle driven by Co-Defendant Gentry, forcing his vehicle to spin and hit Plaintiff’s vehicle. (Go Deposition, 26:1-15; Defendant’s Ex. G, Traffic Collision Report.)

Motion is DENIED.