On 11/09/2016 EDUARDO BARBA filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against BULK TRANSPORTATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
DOES 1 THROUGH 50
J&R FLEET SERVICES LLC DOE 1
ROPER PUMP COMPANY
RANGER INC. ROE 1
KELLEY ROBERT L.
KELLEY ROBERT LANE
HERZOG VANESSA K.
PHILLIPS DAVID MATTHEW
CONSTANTINIDES STRATTON PETER
MILLER WEYD-ANNE N.
KADER NATASHA A.
JOHNSON JERRI LYNN ESQ.
HIRSCHBERG MARK LAWRENCE
6/11/2018: ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
8/22/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
9/14/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF MAILING ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER
11/8/2018: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)
1/3/2019: Proof of Personal Service
4/4/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
4/11/2019: Request for Judicial Notice
4/25/2019: Case Management Order
4/26/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information
3/14/2017: DEFENDANT BULK TRANSPORTATION'S CROSS COMPLAINT FOR: 1. INDEMNITY ; ETC
Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Ranger, Inc. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 09:00 AM in Department 39; Order to Show Cause Re: (Dism of Doe Defendants, and Roe Cross-Defendants)Read MoreRead Less
at 09:00 AM in Department 39; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (by Cross-Defendant, Roper Pump Company)Read MoreRead Less
at 09:00 AM in Department 39; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (by Defendant, Bulk Transportation)Read MoreRead Less
at 09:00 AM in Department 39; Case Management ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro TemporeRead MoreRead Less
Case Management Order; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Response ( to Plaintiffs Opposition to Bulk Transportation Separate Statement); Filed by Bulk Transportation (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Response (to Roper Pump Company Separate Statement of Undisputed Material); Filed by Bulk Transportation (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Reply (to Roper Pump Company Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Bulk Transportation (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DEFENDANT, BULK TRANSPORTATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
DEFENDANT BULK TRANSPORTATION'S CROSS COMPLAINT FOR: 1. INDEMNITY ; ETCRead MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by Bulk Transportation (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by Bulk Transportation (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Cross-Complaint; Filed by Bulk Transportation (Cross-Complainant)Read MoreRead Less
Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Eduardo Barba (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Proof of Service of Summons and ComplaintRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Eduardo Barba (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
ComplaintRead MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by Eduardo Barba (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC639369 Hearing Date: December 02, 2020 Dept: 39
The court GRANTS the unopposed motion and ORDERS non-party Juan A. Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) to comply with Defendant J&R Fleet Services, LLC’s (“J&R Fleet”) deposition subpoena and to appear for a noticed deposition to occur within 30 days of this order, or on a date mutually agreed upon by J&R Fleet and Rodriguez, and to produce all requested documents. Defendant J&R Fleet Services, LLC’s request for sanctions is DENIED for failure to request sanctions in the notice of the motion.
Defendant J&R Fleet is instructed to give notice.
This case arises from allegations that defendant Bulk Transportation negligently owned, operated, designed, or maintained Plaintiff Eduardo Barba’s (“Barba” or “Plaintiff”) truck (the “truck”) in such a manner so as to cause injury to Plaintiff while he was working for Bulk Transportation. Compl. ¶ 4. Plaintiff alleges he suffered injuries while performing maintenance on the truck due to the improper installation, repair, or replacement of a metal safety wire lock on the Power Take-Off (“PTO”) related drive shaft that led to injuries, including the severing of his arm. Compl. ¶¶ 4-6.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts one cause of action for negligence. On January 23, 2018, Plaintiff added Defendant J&R Fleet Services, LLC (“J&R Fleet”) as a Doe Defendant in this action. On November 8, 2018, Plaintiff additionally added Roper Pump Company (“Roper”) and Ranger, Inc. (“Ranger”) as Doe Defendants.
Defendant Bulk Transportation filed a Cross-Complaint on March 14, 2017, alleging three causes of action for: (1) indemnity, (2) contribution, and (3) declaratory relief against Cross-Defendant Roper. On February 27, 2018, Bulk Transportation added cross-defendant Ranger as a Roe Cross-Defendant.
Defendant J&R Fleet presents evidence it issued a deposition subpoena for personal appearance and production of documents and things (the “subpoena”) and notice of taking videotaped deposition of non-party witness and production of documents (the “deposition notice”) on non-party Juan A. Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) on August 19, 2019. Declaration of David M. Phillips (“Phillips Decl.”) Exs. D, E. The subpoena and deposition notice were served on Rodriguez on August 28, 2019, by personal service, and the deposition was scheduled to occur on September 24, 2019. Id. Exs. D-F. Rodriguez did not appear for the scheduled deposition. Id. Ex. G.
Defendant J&R Fleet now moves to compel Rodriguez to appear for his deposition and to produce the identified documents. Non-party Rodriguez has not filed an opposition and does not respond to J&R Fleet’s arguments.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.010(a) allows a party to obtain discovery from a nonparty, including by oral deposition or a deposition for the production of business records and things. Code Civ. Proc. § 2020.010(a).) All subsequent statutory references will be to the Code of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise specified.
Pursuant to section 1987.1(a), “the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.” Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1(a). Section 1987.1(b)(1) allows a party to bring a motion under section 1987.1(a).
Defendant J&R Fleet moves to compel Rodriguez’s compliance with the deposition subpoena pursuant to section 2025.480(a). Because Rodriguez did not appear for the deposition, this motion should have been brought under section 1987.1 rather than section 2025.480—which applies if a deponent appears but fails to answer any question or produce any specified document.
A trial court may construe a motion bearing one label as a different type of motion. Austin v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 244 Cal. App. 4th 918, 930 (2016). “‘The nature of a motion is determined by the nature of the relief sought, not by the label attached to it. The law is not a mere game of words.… The principle that a trial court may consider a motion regardless of the label placed on it by a party is consistent with the court's inherent authority to manage and control its docket.’ [Citation.]” Id. As J&R Fleet has clearly identified the relief it seeks, the court will exercise its discretion to consider the subject motion as a motion to compel compliance with a deposition subpoena under section 1987.1.
J&R Fleet presents evidence it served a subpoena on Rodriguez ordering his appearance and production of documents. Phillips Decl. Ex. D. J&R Fleet contends this testimony is necessary because Rodriguez purchased the Subject Vehicle from Plaintiff after the incident and may have information as to the present location of certain equipment that was on the truck at the time of the incident. Mot. 3. J&R Fleet notes the Subject Vehicle was sold to Rodriguez before any Defendant in this action had the opportunity to inspect the truck or any of its equipment. Mot. 1; Phillips Decl. ¶ 7. Rodriguez did not file an opposition and does not respond to J&R Fleet’s arguments.
Based on the evidence presented, the court finds good cause exists to ORDER Rodriguez to comply with the deposition subpoena and to appear for a noticed deposition to occur within 30 days of this order, or on a date mutually agreed upon by J&R Fleet and Rodriguez, and to produce all requested documents.
II. Monetary Sanctions
Defendant J&R Fleet requests the court impose monetary sanctions under section 2020.240. Defendant did not request these sanctions in the notice of the motion, and the court, therefore, DENIES the request. See Blumenthal v. Superior Court, 103 Cal. App. 3d 317, 320 (1980) (recognizing an individual must be given proper notice that sanctions are being sought); see also Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group June 2020) Discovery Sanctions ¶ 8:2000 (the notice of motion requesting discovery sanctions must contain a request for sanctions that names all individuals against whom sanctions are being sought, specifying the type of sanction sought, the authority for such sanctions, and must be accompanied by a declaration “setting forth facts supporting” the amount of any monetary sanctions sought).
Case Number: BC639369 Hearing Date: July 21, 2020 Dept: 39
Edward Barba v. Bulk Transportation, et al., BC639369
Plaintiff Edward Barba's Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition and Testimony of Person Most Knowledgeable from Roper Pump Company: the unopposed motion is GRANTED.
Defendant Roper Pump Company is ordered to produce a PMK for
deposition by August 31, 2020 (or on a mutually-agreed upon date). Plaintiff’s request for
monetary sanctions is DENIED for failure to comply with the notice requirements
of Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040. Counsel for Plaintiff is to give notice.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases