This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/27/2019 at 16:15:55 (UTC).

EMILIANO CHACON VS WALNUT PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ET AL

Case Summary

On 09/28/2016 EMILIANO CHACON filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against WALNUT PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5523

  • Filing Date:

    09/28/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Defendants and Respondents

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

WALNUT PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

DOES 1 TO 30

Others

ANTHONY

SALVADOR JORGE

Guardian Ad Litem and Not Classified By Court

CHACON RAMONA

Minor

CHACON EMILIANO

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorney

HUNT JAMES A. ASST. GENERAL COUNSEL

Not Classified By Court Attorney

KARPEL JEFFREY ELIOT

Minor Attorney

LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY E. KARPEL

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASE

9/5/2018: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASE

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL D. MORTENSON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATFORNEY'S FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES

9/6/2018: DECLARATION OF MICHAEL D. MORTENSON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATFORNEY'S FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL

9/7/2018: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL

Petition to Confirm Minor's Compromise Hearing

1/11/2019: Petition to Confirm Minor's Compromise Hearing

Minute Order

2/28/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

3/19/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order

4/9/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

4/17/2019: Notice of Ruling

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

9/28/2016: PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM- CIVIL

9/29/2016: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM- CIVIL

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL

10/13/2016: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL

SUMMONS

10/24/2016: SUMMONS

CORRECTED SUMMONS

11/2/2016: CORRECTED SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

11/22/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

12/5/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

AMENDED PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

2/15/2017: AMENDED PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

2/21/2017: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

4/14/2017: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

11 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/18/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Emiliano Chacon (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Petition to Confirm Minor's Compromise - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Petition to Confirm Minor's Compromise)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Ramona Chacon (Non-Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2019
  • Notice (Notice of Ruling on Petition to Approve Minor's Compromise); Filed by Ramona Chacon (Non-Party); Emiliano Chacon (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Petition to Confirm Minor's Compromise - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Petition to Confirm Minor's Compromise)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2019
  • Petition to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim; Filed by Ramona Chacon (Non-Party); Emiliano Chacon (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
33 More Docket Entries
  • 10/24/2016
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2016
  • Ord Apptng Guardian Ad Litem; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2016
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2016
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2016
  • NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2016
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2016
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM- CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2016
  • PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC635523    Hearing Date: January 27, 2021    Dept: 28

Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. has been filed.

BACKGROUND

On September 28, 2016, Plaintiff Emiliano Chacon, by and through his guardian ad litem, Ramona Chacon, (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Walnut Park Elementary School, Los Angeles School District, “Anthony,” and Jorge Salvador. Plaintiff alleged battery, negligence, negligent supervision, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and respondeat superior in his complaint for a physical altercation that took place on October 16, 2015.

On February 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

On February 21, 2017, the Court dismissed Defendant Walnut Park Elementary School without prejudice.

On April 14, 2017, the Court dismissed Defendant LAUSD for causes of action three (IIED) and four (NEID) only.

On January 11, 2019, Petitioner Ramona Chacon (“Petitioner”) filed a petition to approve a compromise of pending action for Claimant Emiliano Chacon (“Claimant”). 

On February 28, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on Petitioner’s petition to approve a compromise of pending action because of three defects in the petition that needed to be corrected.

On April 9, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on Petitioner’s petition to approve a compromise of pending action because Petitioner had not yet submitted documentation correcting the three defects highlighted in the February 28, 2019 minute order.

On December 9, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on Petitioner’s petition to approve a compromise of pending action because Petitioner still had not yet submitted documentation correcting the three defects highlighted in the February 28, 2019 minute order.

On January 23, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Petitioner’s petition to approve a compromise of pending action to February 20, 2020 because the Court was closed for motions on January 27, 2020.

On February 20, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Petitioner’s petition to approve a compromise of pending action to September 17, 2020 as requested by Plaintiff.

On September 8, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Petitioner’s petition to approve a compromise of pending action to September 23, 2020 because the Court was closed for motions on September 17, 2020.

On September 23, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Petitioner’s petition to approve compromise of pending action as well as the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Submit Supplemental Documentation in Support of Minor’s Compromise to January 27, 2021.  The Court’s order noted it was inclined to deny the petition, but it was unclear if Petitioner had notice of the hearing.

PARTYS REQUEST

Petitioner Ramona Chacon (“Petitioner”) asks the Court to grant the petition to approve a compromise of pending action for minor Claimant Emiliano Chacon (“Claimant”). 

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 7.952, subdivision (a), Petitioner and Claimant are required to attend the hearing on the petition.  However, Claimant’s presence at this hearing is excused based on the settlement amount and Claimant’s age.  Petitioner must appear at this hearing.

DISCUSSION

The Court has repeatedly continued this hearing for nearly two years in order for Petitioner to file necessary documentation to remedy defects in the originally filed petition.  

Most recently, on September 23, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on the petition to approve compromise of pending action, thereby providing Petitioner yet another opportunity to file the required supplemental documents, and ordered Petitioner’s counsel to file and serve a Notice of Change of Address.  Petitioner’s counsel filed the Notice of Change of Address on October 27, 2020.  However, Petitioner has still not lodged documentation with the Court alleviating the deficiencies present within the petition to approve a compromise of pending action for Claimant Emiliano Chacon filed on January 11, 2019. As stated in the Court’s December 9, 2019 ruling the continued hearings requesting this information is a burden on the Court and all other parties to this action.

It is apparent that an additional continuance will not serve the interest of justice as Petitioner has established a habit of disregarding the Court’s granting of leave to file the necessary documentation.  Therefore, the Court finds the petition must be denied.

CONCLUSION

The petition is DENIED.

The clerk shall give notice of this ruling.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

Case Number: BC635523    Hearing Date: September 24, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Augment Expert Witness List

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On November 30, 2017, Plaintiff Almir Mansilla (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Haas Automation, Inc. (“Defendant”).  Plaintiff alleges strict liability, negligence, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability in the complaint in relation to a defective mini mill causing Plaintiff injuries on December 7, 2015.

On May 13, 2020, Defendant filed a motion for leave to augment its expert witness list pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.610.

On May 14, 2020, the Court scheduled the hearing on Defendant’s motion for September 24, 2020.

Trial is set for February 16, 2021.

PARTYS REQUESTS

Defendant asks the Court for leave to substitute Dr. Caroline Crump with Dr. David A. Krauss as Defendant’s expert on human factors.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.610, subdivision (a), on motion of any party who has engaged in a timely exchange of expert witness information, the court may grant leave to either or both of the following: (1) augment that party’s expert witness list and declaration by adding the name and address of any expert witness whom that party has subsequently retained, or (2) amend that party’s expert witness declaration with respect to the general substance of the testimony that an expert previously designated is expected to give.  Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.610, subdivision (b), a motion under subdivision (a) shall be made at a sufficient time in advance of the time limit for the completion of discovery under Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 2024.010) to permit the deposition of any expert to whom the motion relates to be taken within that time limit.  Under exceptional circumstances, the court may permit the motion to be made at a later time.  Additionally, the motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.610, subd. (c).)

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.620 provides that the court shall grant leave to augment or amend an expert witness list or declaration only if all of the following conditions are satisfied:

(a) The court has taken into account the extent to which the opposing party has relied on the list of expert witnesses.

(b) The court has determined that any party opposing the motion will not be prejudiced in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits.

(c) The court has determined either of the following:

(1) The moving party would not in the exercise of reasonable diligence have determined to call that expert witness or have decided to offer the different or additional testimony of that expert witness.

(2) The moving party failed to determine to call that expert witness, or to offer the different or additional testimony of that expert witness as a result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, and the moving party has done both of the following: (A) sought leave to augment or amend promptly after deciding to call the expert witness or to offer the different or additional testimony, and (B) promptly thereafter served a copy of the proposed expert witness information concerning the expert or the testimony described in Section 2034.260 on all other parties who have appeared in the action.

Under section 2034.620, subdivision (d), leave to augment or amend is conditioned on the moving party making the expert available immediately for a deposition under Article 3 (commencing with Section 2034.410), and on any other terms as may be just, including, but not limited to, leave to any party opposing the motion to designate additional expert witnesses or to elicit additional opinions from those previously designated, a continuance of the trial for a reasonable period of time, and the awarding of costs and litigation expenses to any party opposing the motion.

DISCUSSION

On September 16, 2019, Plaintiff served his expert designation list on Defendant, which included a human factors expert.  (Sargoy Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. B.)  At that time, Defendant’s supplemental expert designation was due on September 27, 2019.  (Sargoy Decl., 4.)  Dr. David A. Krauss was unavailable for the then scheduled November 4, 2019 trial date.  (Ibid.)  Due to his unavailability, Dr. Krauss recommended his associate, Dr. Caroline Crump, as an adequate alternative human factors expert.  (Sargoy Decl., 5.)  Defendant designated Dr. Crump.  (Sargoy Decl., 5, Exh. C.)  Dr. Crump was expected to testify on the interaction between man and machine, human factors/behavior, perceptual cues around at the time of the incident, and the design and effectiveness of warnings and instructions.  (Sargoy Decl., 6.) Sargoy Decl., 8.)

After a number of continuances, trial is now set for February 16, 2021.  (Sargoy Decl., ¶¶ 9-11, Exh. E.)  As a result, Dr. Krauss is now available to testify as Defendant’s human factors expert.  (Sargoy Decl., 12.)  On April 17, 2020, Defendant learned of Dr. Krauss’ availability and sought to meet and confer with Plaintiff.  (Sargoy Decl., 13, Exh. F.)  On April 21, 2020, Defendant agreed to make Dr. Krauss immediately available for a deposition before the prior expert discovery cut-off date of June 30, 2020.  (Sargoy Decl., 14, Exh. G.)  Plaintiff’s counsel refused to allow Dr. Krauss to replace Dr. Crump as one of Defendant’s experts.  (Sargoy Decl., 15, Exh. H.)  Dr. Krauss is expected to testify on the same topics that Dr. Crump was to testify on.  (Sargoy Decl., 19.)

The Court finds the motion is properly granted.

There is no evidence showing Plaintiff has relied on Dr. Crump being Defendant’s expert.  While available for a deposition, Dr. Crump’s testimony has not been elicited.  Further, Dr. Crump has not prepared any report or produced any documents in this case.

There is no evidence showing Plaintiff will be prejudiced if the motion is granted.  Plaintiff’s argument that he will be prejudiced by Defendant’s attempt to swap human factors experts after taking Plaintiff’s human factors expert is without merit.  Both Dr. Crump and Dr. Krauss were going to opine on the same subjects.  Defendant makes clear that it prefers to have Dr. Krauss as its expert since Dr. Crump was the alternative option when faced with Dr. Krauss’ unavailability and a then impending deadline to designate Defendant’s experts.  The facts before the Court do not show Defendant is engaging in gamesmanship.  Instead, the facts show Defendant had to designate an expert, who has not contributed to the discovery in this case, out of relentless time pressures that have been relieved after the designation.

The Court finds Defendant’s failure to name Dr. Krauss was the result of a “surprise.”  COVID-19 has caused chaos, including the extensive continuances in this case and others.  No one, including Defendant, could have predicted on September 27, 2019 that trial would be continued and Dr. Krauss would then become available.  Accordingly, the motion is properly granted.

Plaintiff argues there is no legal authority supporting the substitution of Dr. Crump because she is still available to be deposed and appear at trial.  The Court disagrees.  California Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.610 does not mandate a designated expert sought to be replaced must be unavailable to be replaced.  Richaud v. Jennings (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 81 also does not stand for the proposition.  The Court in Richaud merely discussed replacing a designated expert in the context of that expert being unavailable for trial.  (Id. at pp. 90-91.)  The Court is unaware of authority stating a designated expert must be unavailable to be replaced and, thus, the Court declines to hold such here.

Plaintiff also argues the motion must be denied because Defendant did not move to augment its expert designation promptly.  The Court disagrees.  Four days passed between the time in which Defendant learned of Dr. Krauss’ availability and when Defendant sought to meet and confer with Plaintiff.  (See Sargoy Decl., ¶¶ 13-14, Exh. F-G.)  This is clearly prompt action.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

Case Number: BC635523    Hearing Date: September 23, 2020    Dept: 28

Petition to Approve Minors Compromise

Having considered the petitioning papers, the Court rules as follows.  No opposing papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

On September 28, 2016, Plaintiff Emiliano Chacon, by and through his guardian ad litem, Ramona Chacon, (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Walnut Park Elementary School, Los Angeles School District, “Anthony,” and Jorge Salvador. Plaintiff alleged battery, negligence, negligent supervision, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and respondeat superior in his complaint for a physical altercation that took place on October 16, 2015.

On February 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

On February 21, 2017, the Court dismissed Defendant Walnut Park Elementary School without prejudice.

On April 14, 2017, the Court dismissed Defendant LAUSD for causes of action three (IIED) and four (NEID) only.

On January 11, 2019, Petitioner Ramona Chacon (“Petitioner”) filed a petition to approve a compromise of pending action for Claimant Emiliano Chacon (“Claimant”).

On February 28, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on Petitioner’s petition to approve a compromise of pending action because of three defects in the petition that needed to be corrected.

On April 9, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on Petitioner’s petition to approve a compromise of pending action because Petitioner had not yet submitted documentation correcting the three defects highlighted in the February 28, 2019 minute order.

On December 9, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on Petitioner’s petition to approve a compromise of pending action because Petitioner still had not yet submitted documentation correcting the three defects highlighted in the February 28, 2019 minute order.

On January 23, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Petitioner’s petition to approve a compromise of pending action to February 20, 2020 because the Court was closed for motions on January 27, 2020.

On February 20, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Petitioner’s petition to approve a compromise of pending action to September 17, 2020 as requested by Plaintiff.

On September 8, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Petitioner’s petition to approve a compromise of pending action to September 23, 2020 because the Court was closed for motions on September 17, 2020.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Submit Supplemental Documentation in Support of Petition for Minor’s Compromise is set for February 20, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Petitioner Rebekah Lynn Rogers (“Petitioner”) requests that the Court grant the petition to approve a compromise of pending action for Plaintiff Robert Green, Jr. (“Claimant”).

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 7.952, subdivision (a), Petitioner and Claimant are typically required to attend the hearing on the petition. However, Claimant’s presence at this hearing are excused based on the settlement amount and Claimant’s age.  Petitioner must appear at this hearing.

DISCUSSION

The Court has repeatedly continued this hearing in the past year and a half in order for Petitioner to file necessary documentation to remedy defects in the originally filed petition.  However, Petitioner has still not lodged documentation with the Court alleviating the deficiencies present within the petition to approve a compromise of pending action for Claimant Emiliano Chacon filed on January 11, 2019.  As stated in the Court’s December 9, 2019 ruling the continued hearings requesting this information is a burden on the Court and all other parties to this action.  It is apparent that an additional continuance will not serve the interest of justice as Petitioner has established a habit of disregarding the Court’s granting of leave to file the necessary documentation.  Therefore, the Court finds the petition must be denied.

Despite the above findings, it is unclear if Petitioner has notice of this hearing because the Court’s mailing of the September 8, 2020 minute order continuing this hearing to September 23, 2020 was returned as undeliverable.  As such, it is in the interest of justice to continue the hearing again and provide notice to all parties and order all parties to give notice to each other.

CONCLUSION

The hearing on the petition to approve a compromise of pending action for Claimant filed on January 11, 2019 is CONTINUED to January 27, 2021 at 8:30 a.m.

The hearing on the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Submit Supplemental Documentation in Support of Petition for Minor’s Compromise is CONTINUED to January 27, 2021 at 8:30 a.m.

The Court gives notice of this ruling to all parties.

All parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling to each other.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

Case Number: BC635523    Hearing Date: September 22, 2020    Dept: 28

Petition to Approve Minors Compromise

Having considered the petitioning papers, the Court rules as follows.  No opposing papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

On September 28, 2016, Plaintiff Emiliano Chacon, by and through his guardian ad litem, Ramona Chacon, (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Walnut Park Elementary School, Los Angeles School District, “Anthony,” and Jorge Salvador. Plaintiff alleged battery, negligence, negligent supervision, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and respondeat superior in his complaint for a physical altercation that took place on October 16, 2015.

On February 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

On February 21, 2017, the Court dismissed Defendant Walnut Park Elementary School without prejudice.

On April 14, 2017, the Court dismissed Defendant LAUSD for causes of action three (IIED) and four (NEID) only.

On January 11, 2019, Petitioner Ramona Chacon (“Petitioner”) filed a petition to approve a compromise of pending action for Claimant Emiliano Chacon (“Claimant”).

On February 28, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on Petitioner’s petition to approve a compromise of pending action because of three defects in the petition that needed to be corrected.

On April 9, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on Petitioner’s petition to approve a compromise of pending action because Petitioner had not yet submitted documentation correcting the three defects highlighted in the February 28, 2019 minute order.

On December 9, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on Petitioner’s petition to approve a compromise of pending action because Petitioner still had not yet submitted documentation correcting the three defects highlighted in the February 28, 2019 minute order.

On January 23, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Petitioner’s petition to approve a compromise of pending action to February 20, 2020 because the Court was closed for motions on January 27, 2020.

On February 20, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Petitioner’s petition to approve a compromise of pending action to September 17, 2020 as requested by Plaintiff.

On September 8, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Petitioner’s petition to approve a compromise of pending action to September 23, 2020 because the Court was closed for motions on September 17, 2020.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Submit Supplemental Documentation in Support of Petition for Minor’s Compromise is set for February 20, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Petitioner Rebekah Lynn Rogers (“Petitioner”) requests that the Court grant the petition to approve a compromise of pending action for Plaintiff Robert Green, Jr. (“Claimant”).

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 7.952, subdivision (a), Petitioner and Claimant are typically required to attend the hearing on the petition. However, Claimant’s presence at this hearing are excused based on the settlement amount and Claimant’s age.  Petitioner must appear at this hearing.

DISCUSSION

The Court has repeatedly continued this hearing in the past year and a half in order for Petitioner to file necessary documentation to remedy defects in the originally filed petition.  However, Petitioner has still not lodged documentation with the Court alleviating the deficiencies present within the petition to approve a compromise of pending action for Claimant Emiliano Chacon filed on January 11, 2019.  As stated in the Court’s December 9, 2019 ruling the continued hearings requesting this information is a burden on the Court and all other parties to this action.  It is apparent that an additional continuance will not serve the interest of justice as Petitioner has established a habit of disregarding the Court’s granting of leave to file the necessary documentation.  Therefore, the Court finds the petition must be denied.

Despite the above findings, it is unclear if Petitioner has notice of this hearing because the Court’s mailing of the September 8, 2020 minute order continuing this hearing to September 23, 2020 was returned as undeliverable.  As such, it is in the interest of justice to continue the hearing again and provide notice to all parties and order all parties to give notice to each other.

CONCLUSION

The hearing on the petition to approve a compromise of pending action for Claimant filed on January 11, 2019 is CONTINUED to January 27, 2021 at 8:30 a.m.

The hearing on the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Submit Supplemental Documentation in Support of Petition for Minor’s Compromise is CONTINUED to January 27, 2021 at 8:30 a.m.

The Court gives notice of this ruling to all parties.

All parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling to each other.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

Case Number: BC635523    Hearing Date: September 17, 2020    Dept: 28

Petition on minor's compromise hearing and Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Submit Supplemental Documentation in Support of Petition for Minor's Compromise shceduled on 9-17-20 are continued to 9-23-20, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28, Spring Street Courthouse.Dept. 28 is dark on 9-17-20.

Case Number: BC635523    Hearing Date: February 20, 2020    Dept: 28

Petition to Approve Minors Compromise

Having considered the petitioning papers, the Court rules as follows.  No opposing papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

On September 28, 2016, Plaintiff Emiliano Chacon, by and through his guardian ad litem, Ramona Chacon, (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Walnut Park Elementary School, Los Angeles School District, “Anthony,” and Jorge Salvador. Plaintiff alleged battery, negligence, negligent supervision, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and respondeat superior in his complaint for a physical altercation that took place on October 16, 2015.

On February 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

On February 21, 2017, the Court dismissed Defendant Walnut Park Elementary School without prejudice.

On April 14, 2017, the Court dismissed Defendant LAUSD for causes of action three (IIED) and four (NEID) only.

On January 11, 2019, Petitioner Ramona Chacon (“Petitioner”) filed a petition to approve a compromise of pending action for Claimant Emiliano Chacon (“Claimant”).

On February 28, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on Petitioner’s petition to approve a compromise of pending action because of three defects in the petition that needed to be corrected.

On April 9, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on Petitioner’s petition to approve a compromise of pending action because Petitioner had not yet submitted documentation correcting the three defects highlighted in the February 28, 2019 minute order.

On December 9, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on Petitioner’s petition to approve a compromise of pending action because Petitioner still had not yet submitted documentation correcting the three defects highlighted in the February 28, 2019 minute order.

On January 23, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Petitioner’s petition to approve a compromise of pending action to February 20, 2020 because the Court was closed for motions on January 27, 2020.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Submit Supplemental Documentation in Support of Petition for Minor’s Compromise is set for February 20, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Petitioner Rebekah Lynn Rogers (“Petitioner”) requests that the Court grant the petition to approve a compromise of pending action for Plaintiff Robert Green, Jr. (“Claimant”).

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 7.952, subdivision (a), Petitioner and Claimant are typically required to attend the hearing on the petition. However, Petitioner’s and Claimant’s presence at this hearing are excused pursuant to the Court’s April 9, 2019 minute order.

DISCUSSION

Despite four continuances spanning nearly an entire year, Petitioner has still not lodged documentation with the Court alleviating the deficiencies present within the petition to approve a compromise of pending action for Claimant Emiliano Chacon filed on January 11, 2019.  As stated in the Court’s December 9, 2019 ruling the continued hearings requesting this information is a burden on the Court and all other parties to this action.  It is apparent that an additional continuance will not serve the interest of justice as Petitioner has established a habit of disregarding the Court’s leave to file the necessary documentation.  Therefore, the Court finds the petition must be denied.

CONCLUSION

The petition to approve a compromise of pending action for Claimant filed on January 11, 2019 is DENIED.

Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Case Number: BC635523    Hearing Date: December 09, 2019    Dept: 4A

Petition to Approve Minors Compromise

Having considered the petitioning papers, the Court rules as follows.  No opposing papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

On September 28, 2016, Plaintiff Emiliano Chacon, by and through his guardian ad litem, Ramona Chacon, (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Walnut Park Elementary School, Los Angeles School District, “Anthony,” and Jorge Salvador. Plaintiff alleged battery, negligence, negligent supervision, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and respondeat superior in his complaint for a physical altercation that took place on October 16, 2015.

On February 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

On February 21, 2017, the Court dismissed Defendant Walnut Park Elementary School without prejudice.

On April 14, 2017, the Court dismissed Defendant LAUSD only as to causes of action three (IIED) and four (NEID).

On January 11, 2019, Petitioner Ramona Chacon (“Petitioner”) filed a petition to approve a compromise of pending action for Claimant Emiliano Chacon (“Claimant”).

On February 28, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on Petitioner’s petition to approve a compromise of pending action because of three defects in the petition that needed to be corrected.

On April 9, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on Petitioner’s petition to approve a compromise of pending action because Petitioner had not yet submitted documentation correcting the three defects highlighted in the February 28, 2019 minute order.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal is set for January 28, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Petitioner Rebekah Lynn Rogers (“Petitioner”) requests that the Court grant the petition to approve a compromise of pending action for Plaintiff Robert Green, Jr. (“Claimant”).

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 7.952, subdivision (a), Petitioner and Claimant are typically required to attend the hearing on the petition. However, Petitioner’s and Claimant’s presence at this hearing are excused pursuant to the Court’s April 9, 2019 minute order.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner has still not lodged documentation with the Court alleviating the deficiencies that must be corrected for the Court to approve a compromise of pending action for Claimant Emiliano Chacon filed on January 11, 2019.  Petitioner has had nearly a year to submit this documentation.  The continued hearings requesting this information are a burden on the Court and all other parties to this action.  The Court finds it in the interest of justice to continue the hearing and to set an OSC Re: Dismissal for Failure to Submit Supplemental Documentation ISO Petition for Minor’s Comp.

Therefore, the petition is CONTINUED to January 27, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 4A at Spring Street Courthouse located at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. 

The Court sets an OSC Re: Dismissal for Failure to Submit Supplemental Documentation ISO Petition for Minor’s Comp. for January 27, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 4A at Spring Street Courthouse located at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012.

Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where ANTHONY INC. DBA ANTHONY INTERNATIONAL is a litigant