This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/08/2019 at 20:37:36 (UTC).

SHAWN JOYNER VS CITY OF SANTA MONICA ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/03/2015 SHAWN JOYNER filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against CITY OF SANTA MONICA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9994

  • Filing Date:

    11/03/2015

  • 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

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

JOYNER SHAWN

Defendants and Respondents

BIG BLUE BUS

DOES 1-50

RODRIGUEZ ERNESTO

SANTA MONICA CITY OF

BUS BIG BLUE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

GEBRIEL GIRMA H.

GEBRIEL GIRMA HAILE ESQ.

BOLES EEAN L. ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

NAGAKAWA Y CHRISTOPHER DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY

 

Court Documents

[PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL,FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT)

2/21/2018: [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL,FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT)

DECLARATION OF Y. CHRISTOPHER NAGAKAWA RE: MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2

3/12/2018: DECLARATION OF Y. CHRISTOPHER NAGAKAWA RE: MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2

JOINT PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

3/12/2018: JOINT PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE #2 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF'S CRIMINAL HISTORY

3/26/2018: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE #2 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF'S CRIMINAL HISTORY

[PROPOSED] JOINT STATEMENT TO BE READ TO THE JURY

3/26/2018: [PROPOSED] JOINT STATEMENT TO BE READ TO THE JURY

PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR MINI-OPENINGS AND COURT CONDUCTED VOIR DIRE

3/26/2018: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR MINI-OPENINGS AND COURT CONDUCTED VOIR DIRE

Minute Order

5/29/2018: Minute Order

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND TRIAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF Y. CHRISTOPHER NAGAKAWA; EXHIBITS "A"-"C"; (PROPOSED) ORDER

8/2/2018: EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND TRIAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF Y. CHRISTOPHER NAGAKAWA; EXHIBITS "A"-"C"; (PROPOSED) ORDER

Minute Order

10/25/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

10/25/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

12/18/2018: Minute Order

Ex Parte Application

6/3/2019: Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

6/3/2019: Minute Order

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

8/30/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

8/30/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

DEFENDANT CITY OF SANTA MONICA'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

10/26/2017: DEFENDANT CITY OF SANTA MONICA'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

DEFENDANT CITY OF SANTA MONICA'S PROPOSED STATEMENT OF THE CASE

10/26/2017: DEFENDANT CITY OF SANTA MONICA'S PROPOSED STATEMENT OF THE CASE

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE #2 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF'S CRIMINAL HISTORY

11/7/2017: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE #2 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF'S CRIMINAL HISTORY

49 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (For Order Continuing Final Status Conference and Trial) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application For Order Continuing Final St...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (For Order Continuing Final Status Conference and Trial); Filed by Santa Monica, City of (Defendant); Ernesto Rodriguez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Plaintiff Shawn Joyner's Opposition to Defendants' Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial; Filed by Shawn Joyner (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Ex-Parte Proceedings (Filed by Defendants to Continue The Final Status Conference and Trial) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2019
  • Minute Order ((Ex-Parte Proceedings Filed by Defendants to Continue The Fina...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
115 More Docket Entries
  • 08/30/2016
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Shawn Joyner (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2016
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Shawn Joyner (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2016
  • DEFENDANTS CITY OF SANTA MONICA AND ERNESTO RODRIGUEZ'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2016
  • Answer; Filed by Santa Monica, City of (Defendant); Ernesto Rodriguez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2015
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Shawn Joyner (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC599994    Hearing Date: January 16, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

SHAWN JOYNER,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

CITY OF SANTA MONICA, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC599994

[TENTATIVE] ORDER

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

January 16, 2020

1. Relevant Background Concerning Discovery Dispute

The discovery cut-off date in this case was originally scheduled for 10/18/17. The parties agreed, on numerous occasions, to continue the trial date without extending the discovery cut-off. On 10/10/19, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated request to continue the trial date; the Court’s minute order makes clear that the discovery cut-off will run from the new trial date. The same day, Defendants gave notice of the order; their notice indicated the Court continued the trial date, FSC, AND discovery cut-off.

On 12/12/19, the parties participated in an IDC concerning Defendants’ requests to move forward with Plaintiff’s deposition, IME, RFP, and other written discovery. Plaintiff argued discovery was cut off as of 10/18/17, and all of the outstanding discovery was improper. The Court, in its minute order, stated:

Re-opening discovery could have been an error. At this juncture, the Court has no recollection of

the discussions held two months ago, other than there was a stipulation to continue because

Plaintiff needed to re-designate an expert. In fact, the Court learned today Plaintiff filed an

Objection to Defendant’s Notice of Ruling on 11/8/19, however no motion was filed with this

Court to correct a clerical error, misunderstanding of the stipulation, or for reconsideration.

Whether it was appropriate at the time or not, discovery and motions cut-off extensions ordered

October 10, 2019, are still the law of this case. Plaintiff’s claim discovery closed October 18,

2017, is disingenuous because it was opened on June 3 and July 26, 2019, for Plaintiff to depose

two witnesses, and clearly opened recently for Plaintiff to designate two additional experts.

Discovery between the parties has been reciprocal all through 2017 to 2019, and most of the

continuances in 2018 were to depose the bus driver who was on medical leave.

Even if discovery was closed, Defendant has made a strong showing to re-open it based upon the expanded injuries claimed by Plaintiff.

Plaintiff has not been deposed, submitted to an IME, provided updated medical records, nor

responded to form interrogatories. Unless and until this Court’s October 10, 2019, order gets

modified, discovery for both sides remains open tracking the trial date of February 19, 2020.

2. Matters on Calendar Today

On calendar today are (a) Plaintiff’s motion to correct or modify the 10/10/19 order, and (b) Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to complete discovery.

3. Motion to Correct or Modify

Plaintiff moves to correct or modify the Court’s 10/10/19 order, contending it appears to have been entered as a result of an error either on the part of Plaintiff’s attorney’s junior staff member who appeared at the hearing or the Clerk. Plaintiff contends the Court’s stated reasons for re-opening discovery in its 12/12/19 minute order are incorrect. Plaintiff argues the parties never agreed to re-open discovery, and any order re-opening discovery was erroneous and should be set aside. Plaintiff moves pursuant to CCP §473(b) and (d).

Defendants oppose the motion, arguing §473 is not the proper vehicle for the motion, which should have been a motion for reconsideration. Defendants argue the parties agreed to the re-opening of discovery, and Defendants relied on the agreement. Finally, Defendants argue Plaintiff’s recent statement that he has been seeing a pain management doctor and received a new treatment is sufficient to re-open discovery in its own right.

CCP §473(b) provides, “The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” The Court finds §473(b) is an appropriate vehicle for the relief, as Plaintiff seeks relief based on the contention that his attorney and/or the clerk made a mistake in connection with the stipulation. While the mandatory relief provision only applies to defaults and dismissals, the discretionary provision contains no such limitation.

Despite the fact that the vehicle is appropriate, the Court finds the additional discovery is necessary in light of Plaintiff’s addition of a pain management expert. Plaintiff argues he was not obligated to disclose this expert earlier. This may be true; however, once he did disclose the expert, a need arose for Defendants to conduct discovery concerning these new allegations. The motion to vacate or correct the order is therefore denied.

4. Motion to Compel

Because the motion to vacate is denied, the motion to compel is granted. The parties are ordered to meet and confer forthwith to determine scheduling details. Responses must be served within ten days, as the trial date is pending on 2/19/20. No sanctions are sought or imposed.

Defendants are ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@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.

Case Number: BC599994    Hearing Date: January 14, 2020    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

SHAWN JOYNER,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

CITY OF SANTA MONICA, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC599994

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

January 14, 2020

The parties have three motions to compel on calendar on 1/14/20 (one at 10:00 a.m. and two at 1:30 p.m.) and a motion to vacate prior order on calendar 1/16/20. The four motions present opposing issues, and the Court wishes to hear all of the motions together. The 1/14/20 hearings are therefore continued to 1/16/20 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 3, to be heard contemporaneously with the scheduled 1/16/20 motion. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.