This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/08/2019 at 15:18:11 (UTC).

ESTATE OF JASIM AL-KURAISHI ET AL VS LESLEY JOANNA CHAVARRIA

Case Summary

On 06/17/2015 ESTATE OF JASIM AL-KURAISHI filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against LESLEY JOANNA CHAVARRIA. 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:

    ****5481

  • Filing Date:

    06/17/2015

  • 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, Petitioners and Appellants

ABDULKADHIM HALAH JAWAD

ESTATE OF JASIM AL-KURAISHI

MEINTS SAMRAH

Defendants, Respondents, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

CHAVARRIA LESLEY JOANNA

DOES 1 TO 30

MENDEZ DAVID

MENDEZ MANUEL JR.

RICE JANICE MARIE

CHAVARRIA - GOOD FAITH LESLEY JOANNA

MENDEZ - GOOD FAITH DAVID

WU DOE 1 TOMMY

WU TOMMY

Plaintiffs, Petitioners, Cross Defendants and Appellants

ESTATE OF JASIM AL-KURAISHI

MENDEZ MANUEL JR.

RICE JANICE MARIE

CHAVARRIA - GOOD FAITH LESLEY JOANNA

MENDEZ - GOOD FAITH DAVID

10 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

MARKARIAN LAW GROUP

MESAROS CHRISTOPHER P.

BAKER JASON EDWARD

Cross Defendant and Defendant Attorneys

DUNKIN CRAIG LEE ESQ.

MATSUKAS GARIMARIE ESQ.

THOMPSON DAN W.

CULLINS DOUGLAS DRAKE ESQ.

GONTER KARL ROBERT JR

JOHNSON KELLY MARIE

ATANOUS CLEIDIN ZOUMALAN

THOMPSON DAN WHITNEY

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

MATSUKAS GARIMARIE ESQ.

THOMPSON DAN W.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

GONTER KARL ROBERT JR

ATANOUS CLEIDIN ZOUMALAN

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWER TO FORM INTERROGATORIES;REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; AND ETC.

3/8/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWER TO FORM INTERROGATORIES;REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; AND ETC.

Motion to Compel

8/20/2018: Motion to Compel

ORDER PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING NAVORROS TOWING LLC TO COMPLY WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION OF PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE

9/12/2018: ORDER PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING NAVORROS TOWING LLC TO COMPLY WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION OF PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE

DEFENDANT, TOMMY WU'S, EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A COURT ORDER TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE, DISCOVERY ANF MOTION CUT-OFF DATES, DATE TO EXCHANGE SECTION 2034 EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION, AND ALL OTHER PR

9/14/2018: DEFENDANT, TOMMY WU'S, EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A COURT ORDER TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE, DISCOVERY ANF MOTION CUT-OFF DATES, DATE TO EXCHANGE SECTION 2034 EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION, AND ALL OTHER PR

Declaration

9/14/2018: Declaration

Motion for Summary Judgment

12/7/2018: Motion for Summary Judgment

Declaration

2/8/2019: Declaration

Memorandum

2/11/2019: Memorandum

Certificate of Mailing for

2/22/2019: Certificate of Mailing for

Reply

3/15/2019: Reply

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

6/17/2015: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS JANICE MARIE RICE AND MANUEL MENDEZ JR.; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

8/24/2015: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS JANICE MARIE RICE AND MANUEL MENDEZ JR.; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Notice of Change of Address

8/8/2016: Notice of Change of Address

DEFENDANT?S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO VACATE OR CONTINUE TRIAL DATE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO SHORTEN TIME FOR HEARING ON MOTION TO VACATE OR CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; ETC.

2/15/2017: DEFENDANT?S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO VACATE OR CONTINUE TRIAL DATE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO SHORTEN TIME FOR HEARING ON MOTION TO VACATE OR CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; ETC.

NOTICE OF RULING

2/16/2017: NOTICE OF RULING

Proof of Service

5/24/2017: Proof of Service

PROOF OF SERVICE

6/20/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE

NOTICE OF RULING ON PLAINTIFF SAMRAH'S MEINTS' MOTION FOR JOINDER OF PLAINTIFF OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES

6/20/2017: NOTICE OF RULING ON PLAINTIFF SAMRAH'S MEINTS' MOTION FOR JOINDER OF PLAINTIFF OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES

108 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/02/2019
  • Notice (Notice of Proof of Service of Notice of Apppeal); Filed by Halah Jawad Abdulkadhim (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2019
  • Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103; Filed by Halah Jawad Abdulkadhim (Appellant); Estate of Jasim Al-Kuraishi (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2019
  • Appeal - Notice of Default Issued; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • Notice (Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order); Filed by Lesley Joanna Chavarria - GOOD FAITH (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Notice (NOTICE OF TRIAL AND FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE); Filed by Manuel Mendez, Jr. (Defendant); Janice Marie Rice (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2019
  • Appeal - Notice of Appeal/Cross Appeal Filed; Filed by Halah Jawad Abdulkadhim (Appellant); Estate of Jasim Al-Kuraishi (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • Order (Proposed Order on Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement); Filed by Lesley Joanna Chavarria - GOOD FAITH (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
217 More Docket Entries
  • 08/19/2015
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Estate of Jasim Al-Kuraishi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2015
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2015
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Estate of Jasim Al-Kuraishi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Estate of Jasim Al-Kuraishi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2015
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Estate of Jasim Al-Kuraishi (Plaintiff); Halah Jawad Abdulkadhim (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2015
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC585481    Hearing Date: December 18, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

estate of jasim al-kuraishi, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

lesley joanna chavarria, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC585481

Hearing Date: December 18, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to stay

NOTICE

The Court posts this tentative order on December 13, 2019, in advance of the hearing date of December 18, 2019. Any party who does not appear shall waive their right to be heard and shall submit to the Court’s tentative decision to deny the motion to stay. The Court notes that Plaintiffs did not file an opposition or response, so the Court assumes Plaintiffs take no position on the motion. If Plaintiffs’ counsel appears at the hearing and indicates that his clients join in the motion, the Court would give their views great weight in ruling on this motion.

TENTATIVE ORDER

On October 11, 2014, Defendants Lesley Joanna Chavarria, David Mendez, Manuel Mendez Jr. and Janice Marie Rice were involved in a multi-vehicle collision with Jasim Al-Kuraishi, who died. Plaintiffs the Estate of Jasim Al-Kuraishi and Halah Jawad Abdulkadhim (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants on June 17, 2015. Defendant Manuel Mendez Jr. was served on June 24, 2015, and Defendant Janice Marie Rice was served on August 16, 2015. Both defendants answered on August 24, 2015. Defendant Tommy Wu subsequently was added via Doe amendment and answered on July 14, 2017. It was undisputed that Defendant Tommy Wu was not involved in the collision, but changed lanes to avoid it. The Court granted summary judgment to Defendant Tommy Wu on April 8, 2019, and Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 30, 2019.

Now, over six months after Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and less than two months before the trial date, when the case is four-and-one-half years old, Defendants Manuel Mendez Jr. and Janice Marie Rice (the “moving Defendants”) move to stay the case pending appeal. Because the Court granted summary judgment to Tommy Wu, and Defendants Lesley Joanna Chavarria and David Mendez settled with Plaintiffs, the moving Defendants are the only defendants proceeding to trial. Plaintiffs filed no response to this motion, so the Court assumes Plaintiffs take no position on the motion.

The Court denies the moving Defendants’ motion to stay the case. As an initial matter, the moving Defendants were dilatory in seeking a stay. The Court granted summary judgment to Defendant Tommy Wu on April 8, 2019, and Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 30, 2019, but they waited over six months to seek this stay, less than two months before the current trial date.

Putting that aside, the moving Defendants provide no good cause to grant this motion. The moving Defendants argue: “The parties have not been able to participate in further discovery due to the appeal filed by plaintiff.” (Defendants’ Motion, at p. 3.) The parties have had ample opportunity to conduct discovery. This case is four-and-one-half years old, having been filed on June 17, 2015. The moving Defendants answered on August 24, 2015, meaning that they have had approximately four years and four months to conduct discovery against Plaintiffs. Defendant Tommy Wu answered on July 14, 2017, meaning the moving Defendants had approximately one year and nine months to conduct discovery against Defendant Tommy Wu while he was a party to this case. The moving Defendants provide no explanation why they could not take discovery during these ample time periods, supporting the Court’s finding that they were dilatory.

The moving Defendants argue that they were precluded from taking discovery from Defendant Tommy Wu after the Court granted summary judgment, citing Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189.) However, the moving Defendants cite this case selectively and omit dispositive language (in capital letters):

The perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order.

(Ibid.) Whether a matter is “embraced in the action” or “affected by the judgment” depends on whether the proceedings “would have any effect on the ‘effectiveness’ of the appeal.” (Ibid, citing In re Marriage of Horowitz (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 377, 381.) In this case, the Court granted summary judgment to Defendant Tommy Wu based upon his eleventh affirmative defense: The sudden emergency doctrine. While the Court agrees that Defendants could not have taken discovery on that issue, Code of Civil Procedure section 916 would not have precluded the moving Defendants from taking discovery against Defendant Tommy Wu on issues dispositive to the trial, viz., his perception of the events as a witness.

The moving Defendants argue that they will be precluded at trial from litigating their claims for indemnification, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief against Defendant Tommy Wu. That is not correct. Should the District Court of Appeal reverse this Court’s grant of summary judgment, the moving Defendants may file a separate action against him. While the Court acknowledges that this may result in judicial inefficiencies, the Court has balanced the considerations and concludes that the age of the case and Plaintiffs’ right to have their claims redressed in a timely manner outweigh this consideration.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The moving Defendants’ motion to stay this action is denied. The moving Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: December 18, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court