This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/16/2019 at 11:49:08 (UTC).

JASON ASHLEY VS TIMOTHY KREHBIEL ET AL

Case Summary

On 07/29/2016 JASON ASHLEY filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against TIMOTHY KREHBIEL. 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:

    ****9036

  • Filing Date:

    07/29/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

ASHLEY JASON

Defendants and Respondents

VAGEDES BRIDGET

428 S. HEWITT STREET PARTNERSHIP

KREHBIEL TIMOTHY

OSTOYA JACEK

DOES 1-15

RESIDENT DOE 5

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF RONALD M. PAPELL

PAPELL RONALD MARC

Defendant Attorneys

FOX DANA ALDEN ESQ.

VANDERFORD TY STEPHEN ESQ.

 

Court Documents

COMPENDIUM OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT RESIDENT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

2/14/2018: COMPENDIUM OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT RESIDENT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT TIMOTHY KREHBIEL RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AGAINST DEFENDANTS TIMOTHY KREHBIEL AND RESIDENT [C

7/25/2018: PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT TIMOTHY KREHBIEL RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AGAINST DEFENDANTS TIMOTHY KREHBIEL AND RESIDENT [C

ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

8/1/2018: ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

DEFENDANT TIMOTHY KREHBIEL'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; ETC

8/28/2018: DEFENDANT TIMOTHY KREHBIEL'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; ETC

Reply

10/16/2018: Reply

Unknown

12/13/2018: Unknown

Reply

1/9/2019: Reply

Reply

1/9/2019: Reply

Notice

1/15/2019: Notice

Order

1/16/2019: Order

Notice of Ruling

1/17/2019: Notice of Ruling

Motion for Summary Judgment

1/28/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment

Notice

2/11/2019: Notice

Unknown

4/11/2019: Unknown

Notice of Ruling

6/10/2019: Notice of Ruling

DEFENDANTS TIMOTHY KREHBIEL, BRIDGET VAGEDES, AND 428 S. HEWITT STREET PARTNERSHIP'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

9/19/2016: DEFENDANTS TIMOTHY KREHBIEL, BRIDGET VAGEDES, AND 428 S. HEWITT STREET PARTNERSHIP'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

2/28/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

3/2/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

88 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 49; Status Conference (re Mandatory Settlement Conference and the RESERVATION for any Motions for Summary Judgment (c/f 4-19 on court's motion)) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 49; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment ((c/f 4-19 on court's motion)) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by Jason Ashley (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • Notice of Ruling (Resident's Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (c/f 4-19 on court's m...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • Objection (to Pltf's Evidence iso MSJ); Filed by Resident (DOE 5) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • Reply (iso MSJ); Filed by Resident (DOE 5) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • Reply (to Sep. Statement iso MSJ); Filed by Resident (DOE 5) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 49; Status Conference (remediation completion) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 49; Status Conference (re mediation completion OR completion of MSC) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
162 More Docket Entries
  • 08/11/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jason Ashley (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jason Ashley (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jason Ashley (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2016
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Jason Ashley (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC629036    Hearing Date: April 12, 2021    Dept: 49

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Jason Ashley,

Plaintiff,

Case No.

BC629036

v.

[Tentative] Ruling

Timothy Krehbiel, et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: April 12, 2021

Department 49, Judge Stuart M. Rice

Moving Party: Defendants Resident, Timothy Krehbiel, Bridget Vagedes, 428 S. Hewitt Street Partnership

Responding Party:      Plaintiff Jason Ashley

Ruling: Defendants’ motion for issue sanctions is denied.

Q You were walking along the side the forklift on Seaton shortly before the accident occurred; correct?

A Yes.

Q And before the accident occurred, you started walking toward the forklift; correct?

A Not that I know of.

Q So your testimony thus far has been you’re walking alongside the forklift to the left of the forklift; right?

A Yes.

Q So you’re walking to the left the forklift, and then you’re approaching the forklift from time to time to push Bridget; correct?

MR. PAPELL: That’s what you’ve testified to.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. VANDERFORD: Q And so you – and you can’t recall how many steps you had to take to walk from your position to the left of the forklift to get to the position where you could push Bridget; correct. You said you could not recall how many steps that was.

A Correct.

Q But you know it was some steps; correct?

A I don’t know if it was some steps. I leaned in.

Q Were you moving your feet at that time that you leaned?

A Yes.

Q And did you – did you place your foot right in front of wheel of the forklift?

MR. PAPELL: If you know the answer to that.

THE WITNESS: I don’t know.

MR. VANDERFORD: Q Well, let’s take it one microsecond at a time. All right?

MR. PAPPELL: Good luck with this.

MR. VANDERFORD: Q So you’re walking alongside, and at some point, you realize that your foot was under the wheel of the forklift; correct?

A Yes.

Q And do you have any idea how your foot got placed under the forklift wheel?

MR. PAPELL: Do you have any idea?

THE WITNESS: I don’t. Only –

MR. PAPELL: Excuse me? Don’t say another word, or I’ll take you outside again. We’ll have another conversation.

(Pl. Depo. 210:2-211:23.)

we did take our client outside because we were concerned that we had made an error in answering this interrogatory, a clerical error. In fact, Counsel will be advised that the witness was prepared to testify that indeed he thought he was quote, unquote, "intoxicated." He did not equate it with being drunk. That being said that would be his explanation.

. . .

If you want to reschedule the deposition, we make that offer of proof that he will say that, in fact, he did read the answer, and he did intend to indicate he was somewhat intoxicated by the alcohol he consumed but not drunk.

(Id. 227:18-25, 229:2-6.)

Defendants then contend that Plaintiff’s counsel impeded discovery of relevant documents by failing to produce Plaintiff’s expert witness’s “entire files” prior to deposition, and by refusing to allow the expert from producing them during the deposition despite having relied thereon in forming his opinion. Defense counsel Ty Vanderford declares that “[w]hen Plaintiff’s “attorney Carlos Hernandez realized the documents entitled ‘Jason’s version of incident’ and ‘Recent gossip-How I met B. Vagedes, T. Krehbiel, N. Fiore’ were referenced in Mr. Jasinski’s report, Mr. Hernandez physically snatched the file from Mr. Jasinski and concealed it in his briefcase, claiming the documents were subject to the attorney-client privilege.” (Vanderford Decl. ¶ 10.)

Plaintiff is ordered to produce his handwritten notes concerning his injuries, the document entitled “Jason’s version of the incident,” and the text messages included in the email entitled “Recent gossip-How I met B. Vagedes, T. Krehbiel, N. Fiore” within 30 days of ruling.

In this motion, Defendants remark that the contents of “Jason’s version of the incident” contradict his sworn testimony and conclude that “the concealed document explains exactly how it came to pass that Plaintiff inadvertently placed his foot underneath the slow-moving forklift.” (Motion 8:21-22.) Again, this document is no longer “concealed” as it was ordered produced and is now part of the potential evidence in this case. Any conflicts between Plaintiff’s testimony and his prior written accounts may be presented to the fact finder for credibility determinations. Inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s former and present statements do not form the basis for issue sanctions despite the necessity of court intervention for defendant to receive the requested documents.  

Date: April 12, 2021

Honorable Stuart M. Rice

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC629036    Hearing Date: July 01, 2020    Dept: 49

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Jason Ashley,

Plaintiff,

Case No.

BC629036

v.

[Tentative] Ruling

Timothy Krehbiel, et al.

Defendants.

Hearing Date: July 1, 2020

Department 49, Judge Stuart M. Rice

(1) Resident’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Moving Party:  Defendant Resident, Joined by Defendants Timothy Krehbiel, Bridget Vagedes, and 428 S. Hewitt Street Partnership

Responding Party:      Plaintiff Jason Ashley

Ruling: Resident’s motion is denied as to plaintiff’s original passports and loans, and granted as to plaintiff’s handwritten notes regarding his injuries, document entitled “Jason’s version of incident,” and the text messages included in the “Recent gossip” email. Plaintiff is ordered to produce those documents within 30 days of this ruling. Both parties’ requests for sanctions are denied.

Meet and Confer

Motion to Compel

Defendant Resident, joined by defendants Timothy Krehbiel, Bridget Vagedes, and 428 S. Hewitt Street Partnership, moves for an order compelling plaintiff to produce all documents requested in the second amended notice of taking deposition of plaintiff Jason Ashley, and all documents requested in the file of plaintiff’s retained expert witness Robert Jasinski. The court finds plaintiff’s opposition timely in light of the continuance of this motion.

Documents Sought in Notice of Plaintiff’s Deposition

Documents Sought in Notice of Expert Robert Jasinski’s Deposition

Conclusion

Date: July 1, 2020

Honorable Stuart M. Rice

Judge of the Superior Court