This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/05/2019 at 03:51:49 (UTC).

MARIA ALAMO VS CITY OF MONTEBELLO

Case Summary

On 11/29/2016 MARIA ALAMO filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against CITY OF MONTEBELLO. 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:

    ****2083

  • Filing Date:

    11/29/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

ALAMO MARIA

NORIEGA ALBERTO

Defendants and Respondents

MONTEBELLO CITY OF

DOES 1 TO 25

LARA DAVID DOE 2

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN

ANDRADE JANINE ANN DOE 1

PADILLA BRIANNON

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

AZIZI DAVID ESQ.

FLANNERY COURTNEY DAWN

SARAJIAN ALEX ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

COLVIN RODGER A. ESQ.

NEBENZAHL MICHAEL R. ESQ.

ALVAREZ-GLASMAN & COLVIN

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

1/5/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

1/18/2018: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF JOINDER N CROSS-COMPLAINANT'S APPLICATION FOR PUBLICATION

4/18/2018: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF JOINDER N CROSS-COMPLAINANT'S APPLICATION FOR PUBLICATION

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/18/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

7/23/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

8/10/2018: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF CROSS-DEFENDANT JANINE ANN ANDRADE; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

9/4/2018: ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF CROSS-DEFENDANT JANINE ANN ANDRADE; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

CITY OF MONTEBELLO'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED CASES; ETC

9/27/2018: CITY OF MONTEBELLO'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED CASES; ETC

Order

10/25/2018: Order

Motion to Compel Discovery

11/2/2018: Motion to Compel Discovery

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

11/13/2018: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Ex Parte Application

11/20/2018: Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

11/20/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

1/22/2019: Minute Order

DEFENDANT CITY OF MONTEBELLO'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSSCOMPLAINT;ETC.

2/23/2017: DEFENDANT CITY OF MONTEBELLO'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSSCOMPLAINT;ETC.

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

3/15/2017: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

3/28/2017: ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

4/20/2017: SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

29 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/25/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Alberto Noriega (Plaintiff); Briannon Padilla (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Montebello, City of (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Monetary Sanctions) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Monetary Sancttions) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Responses to Demand for Production of Documents and Request for Monetary Sanctions) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Productio...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2018
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Maria Alamo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2018
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Montebello, City of (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
63 More Docket Entries
  • 02/23/2017
  • Motion for Leave; Filed by Montebello, City of (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2017
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by Montebello, City of (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2017
  • DEFENDANT CITY OF MONTEBELLO'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSSCOMPLAINT;ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2017
  • CROSS-COMPLAINT OF THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO FOR NEGLIGENCE, COMPARATIVE INDEMNITY, AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Alberto Noriega (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2017
  • Answer; Filed by Montebello, City of (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2017
  • DEFENDANT CITY OF MONTEBELLO'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2016
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Maria Alamo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

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

DEPARTMENT

32

HEARING DATE

May 3, 2021

CASE NUMBER

BC642083, related to BC649722

MOTION

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories; Request for Monetary Sanctions

MOVING PARTIES

Cross-Defendants Janine Ann Andrade and Briannon Padilla

OPPOSING PARTY

None

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.


DEPARTMENT

32

HEARING DATE

May 3, 2021

CASE NUMBER

BC642083, related to BC649722

MOTION

Motion to Deem Admitted

MOVING PARTIES

Defendants Janine Ann Andrade and Briannon Padilla

OPPOSING PARTY

None

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

DEPARTMENT

32

HEARING DATE

March 26, 2021

CASE NUMBER

BC642083, related to BC649722

MOTION

Motion to Deem Admitted Matters in Requests for Admission Set 1; Request for Monetary Sanctions

MOVING PARTIES:

Defendants Janine Ann Andrade and Briannon Padilla

OPPOSING PARTY:

None

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

DEPARTMENT

32

HEARING DATE

March 25, 2021

CASE NUMBER

BC642083, related to BC649722

MOTION

Motion to Compel Responses To Form Interrogatories; Request for Monetary Sanctions

MOVING PARTIES

Cross-Defendants Janine Ann Andrade and Briannon Padilla

OPPOSING PARTY

None

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

maria alamo,

Plaintiff,

v.

city of montebello,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC642083, consolidated with

BC649722

Hearing Date: August 26, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to be relieved as counsel

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

Maria alamo,

Plaintiff,

v.

city of montebello.,

Defendant.

ALBERTO NOIEGA,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; CITY OF MONTEBELLO,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC642083

Hearing Date: December 20, 2019

[Tentative] order RE:

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF ALBERTO NORIGEA

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

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where MONTEBELLO CITY OF is a litigant