This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/14/2019 at 09:38:08 (UTC).

SERGIO ALVAREZ VS ROMERO MOTORS CORPORATION ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/27/2016 SERGIO ALVAREZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ROMERO MOTORS CORPORATION. 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:

    ****8701

  • Filing Date:

    10/27/2016

  • 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

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

ALVAREZ SERGIO

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-20

ROMERO MOTORS CORPORATION

ROMERO MOTORS MAZDA

AQUIRECORPO'S NORWALD AUTO AUCTION

NORWALD AUTO AUCTION

AQUIRECORP'S NORWALK AUTO AUCTION

ROMERO MOTORS MAZDA AND HYUNDAI

NORWALK AUTO AUCTION

ROMERO RICHARD

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF BOB B. KHAKSHOOY

KHAKSHOOY BOB BABAK

Defendant Attorney

NHAN LILY ARTHUR

 

Court Documents

PLAINTIFF SERGIO ALVAREZ?S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER BROUGHT BY DEFENDANT AQUIRECORPO'S NORWALK AUTO AUCTION MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

5/11/2018: PLAINTIFF SERGIO ALVAREZ?S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER BROUGHT BY DEFENDANT AQUIRECORPO'S NORWALK AUTO AUCTION MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

PLAINTIFF SERGIO ALVAREZ'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT RICHARD ROMERO'S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; ETC

5/16/2018: PLAINTIFF SERGIO ALVAREZ'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT RICHARD ROMERO'S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; ETC

MINUTE ORDER

5/24/2018: MINUTE ORDER

Notice of Ruling

5/25/2018: Notice of Ruling

ORDER GRANTING SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT RICHARD ROMERO'S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

5/30/2018: ORDER GRANTING SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT RICHARD ROMERO'S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

Minute Order

5/30/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

6/7/2018: Notice of Ruling

Answer

7/23/2018: Answer

Order

10/22/2018: Order

Minute Order

10/22/2018: Minute Order

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

1/2/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Separate Statement

1/2/2019: Separate Statement

Notice

1/7/2019: Notice

Ex Parte Application

3/1/2019: Ex Parte Application

Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts

3/1/2019: Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts

Minute Order

3/1/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

3/4/2019: Notice of Ruling

Notice of Ruling

3/4/2019: Notice of Ruling

27 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/06/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2020
  • Hearingat 10:00 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • DocketNotice ( of Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses taken off Calendar); Filed by Aquirecorp's Norwalk Auto Auction (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Aquirecorp's Norwalk Auto Auction (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Aquirecorp's Norwalk Auto Auction (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2019
  • Docketat 11:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
54 More Docket Entries
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketMotion to Quash Service of Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketMotion to Quash; Filed by Aquirecorp's Norwalk Auto Auction (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • DocketDemurrer; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • DocketDemurrer - without Motion to Strike

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • DocketDemurrer; Filed by Aquirecorp's Norwalk Auto Auction (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Sergio Alvarez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2016
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2016
  • DocketPLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. PREMISES LIABILITY; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2016
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Sergio Alvarez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC638701    Hearing Date: January 15, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Compel Compliance with a Subpoena

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On October 27, 2016, Plaintiff Sergio Alvarez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Romero Motors Corporation, Aquirecorpo’s Norwalk Auto Auction, Aquirecorp’s Norwalk Auto Auction (erroneously sued and served as Norwalk Auto Auction), Romero Motors Mazda and Hyundai, and Richard Romero.  The complaint alleges premises liability, negligence, negligence per se, and res ipsa loquitur arising from a metal bar falling on Plaintiff’s head on October 28, 2014.

On December 18, 2019, Defendant Aquirecorp’s Norwalk Auto Auction filed a motion to compel compliance with a deposition subpoena issued to non-party Clara Alvarez pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1.

Trial is set for March 6, 2020.

PARTYS REQUEST

Defendant Aquirecorp’s Norwalk Auto Auction (“Moving Defendant”) asks the Court to compel non-party Clara Alvarez’s compliance with a deposition subpoena.

Moving Defendant also asks the Court to impose $1,733.75 against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel for their refusal to allow Ms. Alverez to be deposed.

Plaintiff asks the Court to impose $3,720 against Moving Defendant and its counsel of record for bringing this motion.

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 August 23, 2019, Moving Defendant served a deposition subpoena on non-party Clara Alvarez to appear for a deposition on September 25, 2019.  (Nhan Decl., ¶ 5-6, Exh. A-B.)  On September 3, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Moving Defendant stating Plaintiff’s counsel is engaged in a mandatory settlement conference on September 25, 2019.  (Khakshooy Decl., 2, Exh. A.)  In that same email, Plaintiff’s counsel stated “our deposition may come off the calendar, and we will let you know.”  (Ibid.On September 24, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel refused to allow the deposition to go forward.  (Nhan Decl., ¶ 9, Exh. D.)  Non-party Clara Alvarez did not appear for her deposition on September 25, 2019.  (Nhan Decl., ¶ 16, Exh. K.)

The Court finds the motion is properly granted.  Moving Defendant properly noticed non-party Clara Alvarez’s deposition for September 25, 2019.  Plaintiff’s September 3, 2019 correspondence cannot be viewed as an objection to Moving Defendant’s deposition notice.  Importantly, that email conveyed to Moving Defendant that Plaintiff would contact Moving Defendant if the September 25, 2019 hearing date need to be continued.  Rather, Moving Defendant did not know until September 24, 2019, one day before the deposition, that it was not going forward.

The Court finds circumstances exist such that an imposition of sanctions would be unjust.  This dispute should have been handled without the Court’s intervention.  As such, the Court declines to impose sanctions.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

The Court orders non-party Clara Alvarez to appear for a deposition within 20 days of this ruling.

Moving Defendant's request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Case Number: BC638701    Hearing Date: November 26, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion to Compel Compliance with a Subpoena

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On October 27, 2016, Plaintiff Sergio Alvarez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Romero Motors Corporation, Aquirecorpo’s Norwalk Auto Auction, Aquirecorp’s Norwalk Auto Auction (erroneously sued and served as Norwalk Auto Auction), Romero Motors Mazda and Hyundai, and Richard Romero.  The complaint alleges premises liability, negligence, negligence per se, and res ipsa loquitur arising from a metal bar falling on Plaintiff’s head on October 28, 2014.

On November 1, 2019, Defendant Aquirecorp’s Norwalk Auto Auction filed a motion to compel compliance with a deposition subpoena issued to non-party Clara Alvarez.

Trial is set for March 6, 2020.

PARTYS REQUEST

Defendant Aquirecorp’s Norwalk Auto Auction (“Moving Defendant”) asks the Court to compel non-party Clara Alvarez’s compliance with a deposition subpoena.

Moving Defendant also requests Plaintiff’s counsel to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,413.75.

Plaintiff requests Moving Defendant and its counsel of record to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,520.

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

The Court initially notes that Moving Defendant cites the wrong law in seeking to compel non-party Clara Alvarez’s attendance and testimony at a deposition.  California Code of Civil procedure sections 2025.220, 2025.230, and 2025.450 do not apply to non-parties.  Rather, California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 is the proper procedural vehicle to secure compliance with a deposition subpoena.  The Court finds that this mistake is minor given that all arguments made would be the same regardless of the section of the code relied on.

On August 23, 2019, Moving Defendant served a deposition subpoena on non-party Clara Alvarez to appear for a deposition on September 25, 2019.  (Nhan Decl., ¶ 5-6, Exh. A-B.)  On September 24, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel refused to allow the deposition to go forward.  (Nhan Decl., 9, Exh. D.)  Non-party Clara Alvarez did not appear for her deposition on September 25, 2019.  (Nhan Decl., 16, Exh. K.)

Plaintiff argues the motion should be denied because non-party Clara Alvarez was not served with the motion to compel.  (Motion, pp. 3:16-4:8.)  The Court agrees.  California Rules of Court, rule 3.1346 requires “[a] written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an answer to a deposition question . . . must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail or electronic service at an address or electronic service address specified on the deposition record.”  There is no evidence that non-party Clara Alvarez received notice of the moving papers.  Thus, the motion cannot be granted.

The Court finds it in the interest of justice that the hearing on the motion be continued for Moving Defendant to serve the moving papers on non-party Clara Alvarez pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1346.

The motion is CONTINUED to January 15, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 4A of Spring Street Courthouse located at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, 90012.

Non-party Clara Alvarez may file and serve an opposition and Moving Defendant may file and serve a supplemental reply pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b).

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.