This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/10/2019 at 22:22:08 (UTC).

PAMELA BAILEY VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTAT

Case Summary

On 01/28/2016 PAMELA BAILEY filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTAT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8489

  • Filing Date:

    01/28/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

BAILEY PAMELA

Defendants and Respondents

BURKES JULIA

DOES 1 TO 50

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

LEVIN ELLEN ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

O'SHEA TIMONTHY J. L/O OF

MACDONALD SCOTT L.

WEND CHRISTOPHER P

 

Court Documents

Unknown

12/19/2017: Unknown

Unknown

12/28/2017: Unknown

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

2/1/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

2/20/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2/20/2018: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Unknown

2/20/2018: Unknown

Unknown

2/28/2018: Unknown

Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

9/21/2018: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

Ex Parte Application

3/7/2019: Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

3/7/2019: Minute Order

Unknown

1/28/2016: Unknown

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL; ETC.

9/18/2017: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL; ETC.

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL

10/4/2017: OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL

ORDER RE: MOTION TO SET ASIDE OR VACATE DISMISSAL

10/30/2017: ORDER RE: MOTION TO SET ASIDE OR VACATE DISMISSAL

SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

11/13/2017: SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

11/13/2017: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

NOTICE OF RULING RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DISMISSAL

11/13/2017: NOTICE OF RULING RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DISMISSAL

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

12/5/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

23 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/07/2019
  • Association of Attorney; Filed by Julia Burkes (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to continue trial, final status conference and all statutory dates) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference; Hearing on Defendant/Cross-Complaina...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND ALL STATUTORY DATES); Filed by Los Angeles County Metropolitan (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2018
  • [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANPORTATION AUTHORITY DBA METRO FOR: (1) COMPARATIVE INDEMNITY AND APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT; ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • Answer to Cross-Complaint; Filed by Julia Burkes (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
56 More Docket Entries
  • 07/28/2017
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 93; Jury Trial (Jury Trial; Order of Dismissal) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • Minute order entered: 2017-07-28 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2017
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 93; Final Status Conference (Final Status Conference; Off Calendar) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2017
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2017
  • Minute order entered: 2017-07-13 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Pamela Bailey (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2016
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2016
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC608489    Hearing Date: January 24, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. opposing papers have been filed.

BACKGROUND

On January 28, 2016, Plaintiff Pamela Bailey (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority dba Metro (erroneously sued and served as Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority) and Julia Burkes alleging motor vehicle negligence motor vehicle negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on June 6, 2015.

On November 13, 2017, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority dba Metro filed a cross-complaint against Defendant/Cross-Defendant Julia Burkes seeking comparative indemnity, apportionment of fault, total equitable indemnity, and declaratory relief.

On November 1, 2019, the Court dismissed the cross-complaint as to Defendant/Cross-Defendant Julia Burkes only.

On December 13, 2019, Ellen Levin, Esq., Plaintiff’s counsel, filed a motion to be relieved as counsel pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.

Trial is set for March 9, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Eric G. Rudin, Esq. and Baer Treger LLP ask the Court to relieve them as counsel for Plaintiff because Plaintiff has failed to keep in contact with her counsel.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362 (Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel) requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion and declaration on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)).

The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

DISCUSSION

Ellen Levin, Esq. asks the Court to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff because there has been a breakdown in communication between Ellen Levin, Esq. and Plaintiff.

CONCLUSION

The Court finds the motion must be denied for two reasons.

First and foremost, trial is less than seven weeks away.  This is not enough time for Plaintiff to retain substitute counsel and for that counsel to prepare for trial.  Thus, Plaintiff would be prejudiced if this motion is granted.

Second, Ellen Levin, Esq. has failed to file a completed MC-053 form, which is mandatory pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.

CONCLUSION

The motion is DENIED.

Ellen Levin, Esq. is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Case Number: BC608489    Hearing Date: November 26, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion to Compel Compliance with a Subpoena

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On January 28, 2016, Plaintiff Pamela Bailey (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority dba Metro (erroneously sued and served as Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority) and Julia Burkes alleging motor vehicle negligence motor vehicle negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on June 6, 2015.

On November 13, 2017, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority dba Metro filed a cross-complaint against Defendant/Cross-Defendant Julia Burkes seeking comparative indemnity, apportionment of fault, total equitable indemnity, and declaratory relief.

On October 25, 2019, Defendant/Cross-Defendant Julia Burkes filed a motion to compel compliance with a deposition subpoena pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1.

On November 1, 2019, the Court dismissed the cross-complaint as to Defendant/Cross-Defendant Julia Burkes only.

Trial is set for March 9, 2020.

PARTYS REQUEST

Defendant Julia Burkes (“Moving Defendant”) asks the Court to compel non-party Kenneth Bradley, M.D.’s compliance with a deposition subpoena.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a) states, “[i]f a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.  In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”

“[U]pon motion reasonably made by the party, judges may rule upon motions for quashing, modifying or compelling compliance with, subpoenas.”  (Lee v. Swansboro Country Property Owners Ass'n (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 575, 582-583.)

DISCUSSION

On October 17, 2019, Moving Defendant personally served a deposition subpoena on non-party Kenneth Bradley, M.D. to appear for a deposition on November 7, 2019.  (Kincaid Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. A.)  On October 21, 2019, Dr. Bradley expressed his desire to not comply with the subpoena to Moving Defendant’s counsel.  (Kincaid Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. B.)  Just four days later, this motion was filed.

The Court finds the motion is properly granted.  Dr. Bradley was designated as a non-retained expert.  (Kincaid Decl., 7.)  Dr. Bradley’s deposition is necessary to allow Moving Defendant to prepare for trial.  Moving Defendant did not wait to see if Dr. Bradley would actually appear for his deposition prior to filing this motion, but the reasonable inference from the continued pendency of this motion to compel is that Dr. Bradley did not appear for the November 7, 2019 deposition.  Accordingly, Dr. Bradley’s attendance is properly compelled.

Non-party Kenneth Bradley, M.D. is ordered to comply with the deposition notice attached to Ivette Kincaid’s declaration as Exhibit A within 20 days of this ruling.

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.