Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC642083    Hearing Date: May 3, 2021    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:  Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept32@lacourt.org www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Cross-Defendants Janine Ann Andrade and Briannon Padilla (“Cross-Defendants”) move to compel responses from Plaintiff Alberto Noriega (“Plaintiff”) to Form Interrogatories, set two (“FROG”). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion.

ANALYSIS

Cross-Defendants served the written discovery on Plaintiff on December 30, 2020 by mail. Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by February 3, 2021. Accordingly, the motion to compel responses to the FROG is granted per Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290. Plaintiff is ordered to serve responses to Cross-Defendants’ FROG, without objections, within 30 days of service of notice of this order.

Cross-Defendants seek monetary sanctions in connection with the motion. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the discovery requests is an abuse of the discovery process. (See Code Civ. Proc., § § 23023.010, subd. (d), 2030.290, subd. (c).) The Court awards monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $380.34, which represents two hours of attorney time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $160.17 per hour, plus the filing fee.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Cross-Defendants’ motion to compel responses to the FROG per Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, and orders Plaintiff to serve verified responses, without objections, within 30 days of notice of this order.

The Court further orders Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $380.34 to Cross-Defendants, by and through counsel, within 30 days of notice of this order.

Cross-Defendants are ordered to provide notice of this order and file a proof of service of such.

MOTION

Defendants Janine Ann Andrade and Briannon Padilla (“Defendants”) move to deem admitted matters specified in Requests for Admissions, set one (“RFA”), which Defendants propounded on Plaintiff Alberto Noriega (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion.

ANALYSIS

Where a party fails to respond to requests for admissions, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The court “shall” grant a motion to deem admitted the matters specified in the requests for admissions, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Defendants served the RFA on Plaintiff on December 30, 2020 by mail. Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by February 3, 2021. As of the filing date of this motion, Plaintiff has not responded to the RFA.

The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s failure to serve verified responses was an abuse of the discovery process, and awards monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d), 2033.280, subd. (c).) The Court imposes monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $380.34, which represents two hours of time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $160.17 per hour, plus the filing fee.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to deem admitted matters specified in the RFA and orders Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $380.34 to Defendants, by and through counsel, within 30 days of notice of this order.

Defendants are ordered to provide notice of this order and file a proof of service of such.

Case Number: BC642083    Hearing Date: March 26, 2021    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE: Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Defendants Janine Ann Andrade and Briannon Padilla (“Defendants”) move to deem admitted matters specified in Requests for Admission, set one (“RFA”), which Defendants propounded on Plaintiff Alberto Noriega (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion.

ANALYSIS

Where a party fails to respond to requests for admissions, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The court “shall” grant a motion to deem admitted the matters specified in the requests for admissions, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Defendants served the RFA on Plaintiff on December 30, 2020 by mail. Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by February 3, 2021. As of the filing date of this motion, Plaintiff has not responded to the RFA.

Defendants seek monetary sanctions in connection with the motion. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s failure to serve verified responses to the RFA was an abuse of the discovery process, and awards monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d); 2033.280, subd. (c).) The Court imposes monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $380.34, which represents two hours of time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $160.17 per hour, plus the filing fee.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to deem admitted matters specified in the RFA, and orders that Plaintiff is deemed to have admitted the matters specified in the RFA as of the date of the hearing. The Court further orders Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $380.34 to Defendants, by and through counsel, within 30 days of notice of this order.

Defendants are ordered to provide notice of this order and file a proof of service of such.

Case Number: BC642083    Hearing Date: March 25, 2021    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE: Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Cross-Defendants Janine Ann Andrade and Briannon Padilla (“Cross-Defendants”) move to compel responses from Plaintiff Alberto Noriega (“Plaintiff”) to Form Interrogatories, set two (“FROG”). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion.

ANALYSIS

Cross-Defendants served the written discovery on Plaintiff on December 30, 2020 by mail. Plaintiff’s responses were thus dye by February 3, 2021. Accordingly, the motion to compel responses to the FROG is granted per Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290. Plaintiff is ordered to serve responses to Cross-Defendants’ FROG, without objections, within 30 days of service of notice of this order.

Cross-Defendants seek monetary sanctions in connection with the motions. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the discovery requests is an abuse of the discovery process. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d); 2030.290, subd. (c).) The Court awards monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $380.34, which represents two hours of attorney time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $160.17 per hour, plus the filing fee.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Cross-Defendants’ motion to compel responses to the FROG per Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, and orders Plaintiff to serve verified responses, without objections, within 30 days of notice of this order.

The Court further orders Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $380.34 to Cross-Defendants, by and through counsel, within 30 days of notice of this order.

Cross-Defendants are ordered to provide notice of this order and file a proof of service of such.

Case Number: BC642083    Hearing Date: August 26, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

NOTICE

The Court posts this tentative order two days before the hearing. Any party who does not appear shall waive the right to be heard on any part of this order, including the new final status conference and trial dates, and shall submit to the entry of this order.

TENTATIVE ORDER

Attorney Eduardo A. Brito of LA Injury Attorneys (“Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Alberto Noriega (“Plaintiff”). Counsel has filed forms MC-051 and MC-052 as required, and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053 as required. (Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) The basis for this motion is a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. This constitutes good cause.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court grants this motion. Counsel should note that Counsel will remain attorney of record until Counsel files with the Court proof of service of the signed order. Counsel must serve a copy of this order, as well as the signed order (form MC-053), on Plaintiff within ten (10) days.

The Court vacates the final status conference and trial dates, per the Presiding Judge’s order of July 10, 2020. This case was filed on November 29, 2016. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310, an action shall be brought to trial within five years.  However, for purposes of computing this time, the Court excludes all time for which “[b]ringing the action to trial . . . was impossible, impracticable, or futile.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 583.340(c).)  Beginning on March 16, 2020, there have been no civil jury trials in the Los Angeles County Superior Court due to COVID-19.  Pursuant to the Presiding Judge’s order of July 10, 2020, civil jury trials will resume on the first court day in January 2021, which is January 4, 2021.  Therefore, this time period—March 16, 2020 to January 4, 2021, which is 294 days, is excluded. The deadline for purposes of section 583.310 shall be September 19, 2022.

The Court sets the following dates:

Final Status Conference: June 25, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.

Trial:  July 9, 2021, at 8:30 a.m.

The discovery and motions shall be based on the new trial date. 

Counsel shall provide notice in the manner required by this order. Counsel also shall file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: August 26, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC642083    Hearing Date: December 20, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

Plaintiff Maria Alamo (“Alamo”) filed this action against Defendant City of Montebello (“Montebello”) following an accident involving a city bus. Plaintiff Alberto Noriega (“Noriega”) filed an action based upon the same accident. Then, Montebello filed a cross-complaint against Janine Ann Andradre (“Andrade”) and, later, Briannon Padilla (“Padilla”). Now, Andrade and Padilla seek to compel a deposition of Noriega on January 10, 2020.

Andradre and Padilla assert that Noriega has failed to appear at four properly-noticed depositions. (Flannery Decl. ¶¶ 7-8, 9-10, 11-12, 13-14, Exs. B-H.) Noriega represents that he does not oppose the deposition, but indicates that he requires accommodation because he suffers from severe jaw pain, headaches and an inability to concentrate.

The Court is concerned because it does not appear that the parties have made a good-faith effort to resolve this dispute without court intervention. Indeed, there is no declaration stating that the parties have met-and-conferred pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450(b). The correspondence between the parties contributes to the Court’s concerns.

Therefore, the Court continues the hearing on this motion. In the interim, the parties are ordered to meet-and-confer to attempt to resolve this dispute amongst themselves. The Court’s tentative views are as follows:

1. If Noriega stipulates that he will not testify live at trial, a deposition by way of written question and answer is sufficient.

2. If Noriega wishes to testify at trial, which is his right, he must submit to a live deposition in advance of trial, and the parties must work together to structure the deposition in a manner as to accommodate his injuries.

3. If the parties cannot work together to accommodate Noriega’s injuries, the Court would order a deposition on a specific date and would order the parties to retain a discovery referee to preside over the deposition. If so, the Court would order the parties to bear the cost equally.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court continues the hearing on this motion to January 15, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. The parties to the motion are ordered to meet-and-confer on or before January 2, 2020. If the parties resolve the issue, they are ordered to take the motion off-calendar on or before January 6, 2020. If not, the parties are ordered to file a joint statement detailing their efforts to meet-and-confer, describing any agreements, and informing the Court that the motion must be heard. The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.

DATED: December 20, 2019 ___________________________

Hon. Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court