This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/27/2019 at 16:22:05 (UTC).

EDUARDO BARBA VS BULK TRANSPORTATION

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9369

  • Filing Date:

    11/09/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

BARBA EDUARDO

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

BULK TRANSPORTATION

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

J&R FLEET SERVICES LLC DOE 1

RANGER INC.

Cross Defendants

ROPER PUMP COMPANY

RANGER INC. ROE 1

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

KELLEY ROBERT L.

KELLEY ROBERT LANE

Defendant Attorneys

HERZOG VANESSA K.

PHILLIPS DAVID MATTHEW

CONSTANTINIDES STRATTON PETER

Cross Defendant Attorneys

MILLER WEYD-ANNE N.

KADER NATASHA A.

JOHNSON JERRI LYNN ESQ.

HIRSCHBERG MARK LAWRENCE

 

Court Documents

ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

6/11/2018: ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

8/22/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Unknown

9/4/2018: Unknown

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF MAILING ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER

9/14/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF MAILING ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

11/8/2018: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Proof of Personal Service

1/3/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Notice

2/8/2019: Notice

Declaration

2/8/2019: Declaration

Declaration

2/19/2019: Declaration

Opposition

2/19/2019: Opposition

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

4/4/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Request for Judicial Notice

4/11/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Reply

4/19/2019: Reply

Case Management Order

4/25/2019: Case Management Order

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

4/26/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

CoverSheet

11/9/2016: CoverSheet

Complaint

11/9/2016: Complaint

DEFENDANT BULK TRANSPORTATION'S CROSS COMPLAINT FOR: 1. INDEMNITY ; ETC

3/14/2017: DEFENDANT BULK TRANSPORTATION'S CROSS COMPLAINT FOR: 1. INDEMNITY ; ETC

86 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/26/2019
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Ranger, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 39; Order to Show Cause Re: (Dism of Doe Defendants, and Roe Cross-Defendants)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 39; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (by Cross-Defendant, Roper Pump Company)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 39; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (by Defendant, Bulk Transportation)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 39; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • Case Management Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • Response ( to Plaintiffs Opposition to Bulk Transportation Separate Statement); Filed by Bulk Transportation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • Response (to Roper Pump Company Separate Statement of Undisputed Material); Filed by Bulk Transportation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • Reply (to Roper Pump Company Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Bulk Transportation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
137 More Docket Entries
  • 03/14/2017
  • DEFENDANT, BULK TRANSPORTATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2017
  • DEFENDANT BULK TRANSPORTATION'S CROSS COMPLAINT FOR: 1. INDEMNITY ; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Bulk Transportation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2017
  • Answer; Filed by Bulk Transportation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2017
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by Bulk Transportation (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Eduardo Barba (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2017
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Eduardo Barba (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2016
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2016
  • Summons; Filed by Eduardo Barba (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC639369    Hearing Date: December 02, 2020    Dept: 39

[TENTATIVE] RULING:

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.

Background

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.

Discussion

I. Discussion

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.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where BULK TRANSPORTATION A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer HIRSCHBERG MARK LAWRENCE

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MILLER WEYD-ANNE N.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer JOHNSON JERRI LYNN