This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/30/2019 at 01:22:40 (UTC).

FERNANDO LOPEZ RAMIREZ ET AL VS MAGIC MOUNTAIN LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/01/2016 FERNANDO LOPEZ RAMIREZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Product Liability lawsuit against MAGIC MOUNTAIN LLC. 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:

    ****2200

  • Filing Date:

    03/01/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Product Liability

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

ROBERTS STACY

RAMIREZ FERNANDO LOPEZ

BAKER DYLAN MICHAEL ROBERTS

MURPHY SKYLER

Defendants and Respondents

SIX FLAGS ENTERTIANMENT CORP.

MAGIC MOUNTAIN LLC

MAGIC MOUNTAIN GROUP LLC

DOES 1 TO 100

Guardian Ad Litems

MURPHY FAWNDA

BAKER KEITH

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BIREN LAW GROUP

BIREN MATTHEW BENNETT

GOLDBERG SPENCER N.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

AMARO MICHAEL L. ESQ.

AMARO BALDWIN LLP

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF COURT'S ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DEADLINES; ETC.

1/18/2018: NOTICE OF COURT'S ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DEADLINES; ETC.

NOTICE OF PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL'S CHANGE OF ADDRESS

1/26/2018: NOTICE OF PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL'S CHANGE OF ADDRESS

PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND ALL RELATED DEADLINES; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REQUEST FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR A REGULARLY NOTICED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARA

4/24/2018: PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND ALL RELATED DEADLINES; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REQUEST FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR A REGULARLY NOTICED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARA

Ex Parte Application

12/12/2018: Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

12/12/2018: Minute Order

Notice

12/14/2018: Notice

Opposition

1/31/2019: Opposition

Minute Order

2/14/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

4/10/2019: Notice of Ruling

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LTEM?CIVIL

3/1/2016: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LTEM?CIVIL

SUMMONS

3/10/2016: SUMMONS

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

3/10/2016: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

STIPULATION RE DISMISSAL OF SIX FLAGS ENTERTAINMENT CORP. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

4/1/2016: STIPULATION RE DISMISSAL OF SIX FLAGS ENTERTAINMENT CORP. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF, DYLAN MICHAEL ROBERTS BAKER, SKYLER MURPHY, STACEY ROBERTS AND FERNANDO RAMIREZ'S RESPOSNES TO FORM INTERROCATORIES (SET ONE), ETC

10/11/2016: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF, DYLAN MICHAEL ROBERTS BAKER, SKYLER MURPHY, STACEY ROBERTS AND FERNANDO RAMIREZ'S RESPOSNES TO FORM INTERROCATORIES (SET ONE), ETC

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

12/8/2016: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

Minute Order

12/19/2016: Minute Order

ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY [CENTRAL DISTRICT]

6/22/2017: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY [CENTRAL DISTRICT]

ORDER AND ST1PULATON TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT]

9/18/2017: ORDER AND ST1PULATON TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT]

22 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/10/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Keith Baker (Legacy Party); Fawnda Murphy (Legacy Party); Fernando Lopez Ramirez (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend (name extension) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend name extension)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend name extension) of 02/14/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2019
  • Reply (Plaintiff Skyler Murphy's Reply to Defendant Magic Mountain LLC's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint Re Punitive Damages; Declaration of Andrew G.O. Biren); Filed by Skyler Murphy (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2019
  • Opposition (DEFENDANT, MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF, SKYLAR MURPHY'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT RE PUNITIVE DAMAGES; DECLARATION OF SANAZ CHERAZAIE, ESQ.); Filed by Magic Mountain LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2019
  • Plaintiff Skyler Murphy's Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint re Punitive Damages; Filed by Skyler Murphy (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
52 More Docket Entries
  • 03/10/2016
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2016
  • Summons Issued; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2016
  • Ord Apptng Guardian Ad Litem; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2016
  • Ord Apptng Guardian Ad Litem; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2016
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Fernando Lopez Ramirez (Plaintiff); Skyler Murphy (Plaintiff); Dylan Michael Roberts Baker (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES; AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2016
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LTEM CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2016
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC612200    Hearing Date: November 05, 2019    Dept: 4A

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, and Form Interrogatories

On March 1, 2016, Plaintiffs Fernando Lopez Ramirez; Skyler Murphy, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Fauwda Murphy; Dillan Michael Roberts Baker, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Keith Baker; and Stacy Roberts filed a complaint against Defendants Magic Mountain LLC, Magic Mountain Group LLC, Six Flags Entertainment Corp., and Does 1-100 alleging claims for negligence, product negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, and premises negligence arising out of an accident that occurred at an amusement park on March 9, 2014.

In response to Plaintiffs’ duly propounded written discovery, Defendants timely served responses to Plaintiffs’ special interrogatories, requests for admission, and form interrogatories on February 4, 2019. Defendants served verifications to their responses to these discovery requests are in March 25, 2019. The parties later agreed to an extension of time up to and including May 30, 2019 forPlaintiffss to file any motions to compel further answers. On May 20, 2019, Defendants served supplemental responses to Special Interrogatories, Set 2, Nos. 104 through 239.

Under sections 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), and 2033.230(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the party seeking further responses to written discovery must file its motion to compel within 45 days after receiving the challenged responses. Based on the parties’ stipulation to extend this deadline, Plaintiffs had until May 30, 2019 to file motions to compel further responses to the requests for admission and form interrogatories. Because Defendants served supplemental responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 104 through 239, Plaintiffs could have filed a motion to compel further responses to these interrogatories within 45 days of the May 20, 2019 service date. The time for that motion ran on or about July 5, 2019, depending on whether the deadline was by extended based on service by US Mail.

Plaintiffs filed their motion to compel on October 11, 2019 -- well beyond the deadline for bringing such a motion to the Court under the relevant Code of Civil Procedure sections. Under these circumstances, the court lacks jurisdiction to do anything other than summarily denied plaintiff’s motion to compel. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Plaintiffs argue that their good faith compliance with the Court’s informal discovery conference (IDC) requirement should toll or extend the time for bringing a valid motion to compel. But the Standing Order that imposes the IDC requirement explicitly states: “Scheduling or participating in an IDC does not automatically extend any deadlines imposed by the Code of Civil Procedure for noticing and filing discovery motions. Ideally, the parties should participate in an IDC before a motion is filed because the IDC may avoid the necessity of a motion or reduce its scope. Because of that possibility, attorneys are encouraged to stipulate to extend the 45 . . . day deadline for filing a motion to compel further discovery responses in order to allow time to participate in an IDC. If parties do not stipulate to extend the deadlines, the moving party may file the motion to avoid it being deemed an untimely. However the IDC must take place before the motion is heard so it is suggested that the moving party reserve a date for the motion hearing that is at least 60 days after the date when the IDC reservation is made.” (Standing Order Re Personal Injury Procedures, Central District, filed September 26, 2019, at p. 5.) Similar language was included in the prior Standing Order. (Standing Order Re Personal Injury Procedures, Central District, filed April 16, 2018, at p. 5.)

Because the Court’s standing order explicitly notifies parties of their obligation to comply with the 45-day deadline for bringing a motion to compel, while at the same time participating in an IDC, the IDC requirement cannot be used as an excuse for a late-filed motion to compel. Even so, the Court finds that it lacks authority to grant relief to Plaintiffs because of the appellate rulings that the 45-day deadline is jurisdictional.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to compel because it is untimely under sections 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), and 2033.230(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.