This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/08/2019 at 15:52:00 (UTC).

LAZARO TOMAS PERDOMO VS UTL INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/14/2016 LAZARO TOMAS PERDOMO filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against UTL INC. 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:

    ****3495

  • Filing Date:

    06/14/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

PERDOMO LAZARO TOMAS

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Defendants

UTL INC

STEVENS GLOBAL LOGISTICS INC

SARAVIA NOEL ANTONIO

DOES 1-50

STEVENS GLOBAL LOGISTICS INC.

MARTINEZ YAREL DOE 2

MARTINEZ YANEL

MIDNIGHT XPRESS INC. DOE 1

MIDNIGHT XPRESS ROE 1

MARTINEZ ROE 2 YANEL

MARTINEZ ROE 3 ANATELA

ROES 1 THROUGH 100

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

STEVENS GLOBAL LOGISTICS INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

THE LAW FIRM OF JOSEPH H. LOW IV

Defendant Attorneys

OLSON DEAN A. ESQ.

STAFFORD MICHAEL N. LAW OFFICES OF

HASKINS KEITH A.

SANCHEZ KARINA MARIE

Cross Plaintiff Attorney

SEROTA LORI D. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service

1/3/2018: Proof of Service

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

1/3/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

DECLARATION OF JOSEPH H. LOW IV, IN OPPOSITION TO STEVENS' APPLICATION TO SET AN EARLIER DATE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

4/10/2018: DECLARATION OF JOSEPH H. LOW IV, IN OPPOSITION TO STEVENS' APPLICATION TO SET AN EARLIER DATE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

STEVENS GLOBAL LOGISTICS, INC.'S NOTICE O MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND/OR IN THE ALTERNATWE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AGAINST PLAINTIFF, LAZARO TOMAS PERDOMO;

4/24/2018: STEVENS GLOBAL LOGISTICS, INC.'S NOTICE O MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND/OR IN THE ALTERNATWE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AGAINST PLAINTIFF, LAZARO TOMAS PERDOMO;

Request for Dismissal

1/8/2019: Request for Dismissal

Notice of Ruling

3/27/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order

3/27/2019: Minute Order

CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR INDEMNIFICATION, APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

7/27/2016: CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR INDEMNIFICATION, APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Proof of Service

10/19/2016: Proof of Service

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

12/20/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

12/20/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

2/1/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

Unknown

4/12/2017: Unknown

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE DEFENDANTS' ALTER EGO

6/29/2017: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE DEFENDANTS' ALTER EGO

Proof of Service

7/19/2017: Proof of Service

Minute Order

7/26/2017: Minute Order

DECLARATION OF JOSEPH H. LOW IV, TN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION BROUGHT BY DEFENDANT, STEVENS GLOBAL LOGISTICS, AND PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEF

8/18/2017: DECLARATION OF JOSEPH H. LOW IV, TN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION BROUGHT BY DEFENDANT, STEVENS GLOBAL LOGISTICS, AND PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEF

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

12/18/2017: ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

93 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/26/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to continue the trial and all related matters or, in the alternative, for an order shortening time for service and hearing of motion to continue trial) - Not Held - Clerical Error

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to continue the trial and all related matters or, in the alternative, for an order shortening time for service and hearing of motion to continue trial) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (To Continue the trial and all related matters or, in the alternative, for an order shortening time for service and hearing of motion to continue trial); Filed by Utl, Inc (Defendant); Noel Antonio Saravia (Defendant); Yanel Martinez (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to continue the trial and all...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Utl, Inc (Defendant); Noel Antonio Saravia (Defendant); Yanel Martinez (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2019
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by Stevens Global Logistics, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2018
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Utl, Inc (Defendant); Noel Antonio Saravia (Defendant); Yanel Martinez (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Status of Representation of Yanel Martinez) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
208 More Docket Entries
  • 07/27/2016
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by Stevens Global Logistics, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2016
  • Summons; Filed by Stevens Global Logistics, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2016
  • Answer; Filed by Stevens Global Logistics, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Lazaro Tomas Perdomo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Lazaro Tomas Perdomo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Lazaro Tomas Perdomo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2016
  • COMPLAINT - PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC623495    Hearing Date: November 15, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

lazaro tomas perdomo,

Plaintiff,

v.

utl, inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC623495

Hearing Date: November 15, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to compel depositions

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Lazaro Tomas Perdomo (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendants Noel Antonio Saravia and Yanel Martinez, and the persons most qualified to testify for Defendants Midnight Xpress, Inc. and UTL, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) to appear for depositions. The motion is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, if a party to the action fails to appear for deposition after service of a deposition notice and the party has not served a valid objection to that deposition notice, the party that noticed the deposition may move for an order to compel the deponent to attend and testify at deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., §2025.450, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has the right to take Defendants’ depositions and is entitled to take Defendants’ depositions without leave of court at any time after Plaintiff served Defendants, or after Defendants appeared in the action. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.210, subd. (a).)

Here, on September 10, 2019, Plaintiff served deposition notices on Defendants, which set the depositions of Defendants for September 26, 2019. On September 20, 2019, Defendants objected to the deposition notices on the basis that the selected date was inconvenient for Defendants and their counsel. (See Declaration of Joseph H. Low IV, ¶¶ 3-4.) Plaintiff then took the depositions off calendar, and asked Defendants’ counsel to propose alternative dates. (Declaration of Joseph H. Low IV, ¶ 5.) Plaintiff complains that Defendants have not yet proposed alternative dates for the deposition.

In opposition, Defendants argue that they have not failed to appear for depositions, which Plaintiff concedes did not go forward. However, as Defendants unequivocally stated that they would not appear on September 26, 2019, Plaintiff was not required to conduct the depositions for the mere purpose of noting that Defendants did not appear. (See Civ. Code, § 3532.) Indeed, Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450(a) states that a party may compel a deposition if the party fails to appear for the examination, “or to proceed with it.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450, subd. (a).) Based upon this record, the Court concludes that Defendants failed to proceed with the depositions. The Court therefore grants the motion to compel.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in connection with the motion. The Court concludes that Defendants’ failure to appear for deposition is an abuse of the discovery process. However, the Court cannot award sanctions, as Plaintiff does not state against whom he seeks sanctions in his notice of motion.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.)

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to compel depositions is granted. Defendants Noel Antonio Saravia and Yanel Martinez, and the persons most qualified to testify for Defendants Midnight Xpress, Inc. and UTL, Inc. are to appear for deposition within fourteen (14) days of notice of this order, unless Plaintiff stipulates to extend the deadline.

Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: November 15, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC623495    Hearing Date: November 12, 2019    Dept: 5

ORDER #1 of 3

lazaro tomas perdomo,

Plaintiff,

v.

utl, inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC623495

Hearing Date: November 12, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Motion to compel additional independent medical examinations

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Lazaro Tomas Perdomo (“Plaintiff”) sued Defendants UTL, Inc., Noel Antonio Saravia, Midnight Xpress, Inc., and Yanel Martinez (“Defendants”) based on an incident in which Plaintiff’s arm was crushed between a trailer and another vehicle. Plaintiff has agreed to submit to an independent medical examination with Robert J. Friedman, M.D., who is a neurologist. Defendants request an order compelling Plaintiff to submit to two additional physical examinations: one with an orthopedic surgeon; and one with a forensic medical rehabilitation physician. The motion is denied without prejudice.

Legal Standard

When the physical condition of the plaintiff is in controversy in a personal injury case, the defendant may obtain a physical examination of the plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2032.020, 2032.220.) A defendant is permitted to one physical examination of the plaintiff in a personal injury action on demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.220, subd. (a).) If the defendant seeks to obtain an additional physical examination of the plaintiff, the defendant must obtain leave of court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (a).) A motion to compel an additional physical examination must “specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and specialty, if any, of the person or persons who will perform the examination . . . ,” and must include a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (b).) Additionally, the defendant must make a showing of “good cause” to obtain the second physical examination. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

Defendants have not described the “manner, conditions, scope and nature” of the additional examinations, as required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (b).) Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice as procedurally improper. Further, the Court is unaware of any provision of the Civil Discovery Act that would permit Defendants to require Plaintiff to submit to a vocational examination. The Court does not have the power to create additional methods of discovery, and will not do so here. (Haniff v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 191, 208; see also San Diego Unified Port Dist. v. Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1405 and the cases referenced therein.) Finally, it appears that Defendants attempt to conduct at least one examination more than 75 miles from Plaintiff’s residence, but did not move for leave to do so in the notice of motion. Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to submit to additional medical examinations is denied without prejudice. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

ORDER #2 of 3

lazaro tomas perdomo,

Plaintiff,

v.

utl, inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC623495

Hearing Date: November 12, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to bifurcate

Plaintiff Lazaro Tomas Perdomo (“Plaintiff”) moves to bifurcate the trial of this case into two phases: a liability phase, and a damages phase. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 598, “The court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby . . . make an order . . . that the trial of any issue or any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part thereof in the case[.]”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 598.) However, the Court is not convinced that any efficiencies would result from bifurcation. Instead, it is likely that it would result in duplication of effort.  It is logical and efficient for Plaintiff to present evidence on how and why Defendants are liable for Plaintiff’s injuries at the same time as Plaintiff presents evidence on the injuries that resulted from the underlying accident. Equally important, Plaintiff seeks a continuance between the liability and damages phases to pursue mediation, further contributing to the inefficiency of bifurcation. Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion for bifurcation is denied without prejudice. A trial court may also “on its own motion . . . make such an order at any time.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 598.) Therefore, the parties are free to re-raise this issue with the trial court. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

ORDER #3 of 3

lazaro tomas perdomo,

Plaintiff,

v.

utl, inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC623495

Hearing Date: November 12, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motions to compel further discovery responses

Plaintiff Lazaro Tomas Perdomo (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel further responses from Defendants UTL, Inc., Noel Antonio Saravia, Midnight Xpress, Inc., and Yanel Martinez (“Defendants”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories (“FROG”); and (3) Requests for Admissions (“RFAs”). By timely filing motions to compel further responses, Plaintiff shifted the burden to Defendants to justify their objections. (Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.) Defendants make no attempt to do so. Instead, Defendants’ counsel, Karina M. Sanchez (“Sanchez”) argues that she has been unable to locate Defendants, and therefore that Defendants cannot serve further responses. This does not constitute good cause, so the motions are granted. Defendants shall provide further verified responses, without objections, within twenty (20) days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in connection with the motions against Defendants and their counsel of record. The Court concludes that Defendants’ failure to substantively respond to the discovery is an abuse of the discovery process. The Court orders sanctions against Defendant (but not Defendants’ counsel) in the amount of $1,680, which represents six hours of attorney time at $250 per hour, plus three filing fees of $60 each. The Court declines to impose sanctions against Defendants’ counsel, as the record reflects that counsel has been diligent and that responsibility for this issue lies with Defendants themselves.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is granted. Defendants shall provide verified responses, without objections, to the Request for Production of Documents, Form Interrogatories, and Requests for Admissions within twenty (20) days of notice of this order.

Defendants (but not Defendants’ counsel) shall pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, in the amount of $1,680 within twenty (20) days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.