This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/11/2019 at 00:58:24 (UTC).

GRAVITY INVESTMENTS CORP ET AL VS ACCESS INSURANCE SERVICES

Case Summary

On 11/07/2016 GRAVITY INVESTMENTS CORP filed a Contract - Professional Negligence lawsuit against ACCESS INSURANCE SERVICES. 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:

    ****9931

  • Filing Date:

    11/07/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Professional Negligence

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

GRAVITY INVESTMENTS CORP

YIK VANN

GRAVITY INVESTMENTS CORP.

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

WOO WOODWARD

ACCESS INSURANCE SERVINGS INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

SMITH CRAIG R. ESQ.

SMITH CRAIG RICHARD

Defendant Attorney

SCHRIEFFER PAUL KARSTEN

 

Court Documents

DEFENDANT ACCESS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF GRAVITY INVESTMENTS CORP'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S ORDER AS TO REQUEST FOR DOCUMENT

1/18/2018: DEFENDANT ACCESS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF GRAVITY INVESTMENTS CORP'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S ORDER AS TO REQUEST FOR DOCUMENT

DEFENDANT ACCESS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF GRAVITY INVESTMENTS CORP.'S COMPLIANCE WITH COURT'S NOVEMBER 9,

2/8/2018: DEFENDANT ACCESS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF GRAVITY INVESTMENTS CORP.'S COMPLIANCE WITH COURT'S NOVEMBER 9,

Unknown

3/19/2018: Unknown

Unknown

3/23/2018: Unknown

NOTICE OF LODGING EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ACCESS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. AND WOODWARD LOO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS' ENTIRE COMPLAINT

5/25/2018: NOTICE OF LODGING EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ACCESS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. AND WOODWARD LOO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS' ENTIRE COMPLAINT

PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER

7/2/2018: PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER

NOTICE OF RULING RE: PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

8/21/2018: NOTICE OF RULING RE: PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PROOF OF SERVICE OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ETC.

9/25/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ETC.

Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter

10/9/2018: Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter

Minute Order

2/1/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

3/18/2019: Minute Order

SUMMONS

11/7/2016: SUMMONS

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

2/2/2017: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

2/24/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

Unknown

5/19/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

6/20/2017: Minute Order

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO USE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER

6/20/2017: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO USE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

10/18/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

81 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/06/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 58; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 58; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 58; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 58; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (For an Order Continuing Trial or in the Alternative for an Order Shortening Time for Notice of Motion for Motion to Continue Trial) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (of Unnamed Doe Defendants) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore (Felipe Carrillo, CSR #9555)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal of Unnam...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (For an Order Continuing Trial or in the Alternative for an Order Shortening Time for Notice of Motion for Motion to Continue Trial; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Craig R. Smith); Filed by Gravity Investments Corp. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
172 More Docket Entries
  • 02/28/2017
  • CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2017
  • Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Commissioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2017
  • AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1. PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2016
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Gravity Investments Corp. (Plaintiff); Vann Yik (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC639931    Hearing Date: November 05, 2019    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: November 5, 2019

Case Name: Gravity Investments Corp., et al. v. Access Insurance Services, Inc., et al.

Case No.: BC639931

Motion: Motion to Augment Expert Witness List/Declaration

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Gravity Investments Corp. and Vann Yik

Responding Party: Defendants Access Insurance Services, Inc. and Woodward Loo

Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Augment Expert Witness Disclosure is granted.

This is an action in which Plaintiffs allege that they requested workers’ compensation coverage from their insurance agents—Defendants Access Insurance Services, Inc. and Woodward Loo—but that Defendants failed to obtain such coverage for Plaintiffs. Subsequently, Plaintiffs’ employee filed a workers’ compensation claim for which Plaintiffs did not have coverage. Thus, on July 10, 2017, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint alleging a cause of action for professional negligence.

Plaintiffs seek to augment their expert witness disclosure by designating Ronen Kleinman for the purposes of testifying as to damages.

Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.620 states,

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.

(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.

(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.

Plaintiffs have established they could not with due diligence have designated Kleinman until this point because counsel prosecuting the underlying workers’ compensation claim did not make a demand from Plaintiffs until September 2019. That is, while it was obvious Plaintiffs needed an expert for the issue of damages, without a demand in the underlying workers’ compensation case, designation would have been somewhat futile.

The Court acknowledges that absent other Court action, augmentation would prejudice Defendants in that given the discovery cut-off date (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.030), it appears that Defendants would have no opportunity to depose Kleinman in contravention of Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.620(d).

Therefore, the Court will, in the exercise of its discretion, continue the trial in this matter to a date to be discussed with counsel. This is so that Defendants will have opportunity to conduct further discovery.

The Court notes that Defendants also argue that the proposed expert testimony would be impermissibly speculative. While this could certainly be true, the proper vehicle for such inquiry is a motion in limine.