This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/06/2019 at 00:07:22 (UTC).

VERONICA VALENCIA VS KEVIN LOPEZ ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/06/2016 VERONICA VALENCIA filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against KEVIN LOPEZ. 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:

    ****2879

  • Filing Date:

    12/06/2016

  • 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

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

VALENCIA VERONICA

Defendants and Respondents

KEVIN LOPEZ TRUCKING

DOES 1 TO 50

LOPEZ KEVIN

VASQUEZ RONALD

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

YAGOUBZADEH JONATHAN M.

Defendant Attorneys

CHAPMAN ARTHUR J. ESQ.

CHAPMAN GLUCKSMAN DEAN ROEB & BARGER

WEINBERGER DAVID

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/3/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES;AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

4/18/2018: ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES;AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

DEFENDANT, KEVIN LOPEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA KEVIN LOPEZ TRUCKINGS NOTICE OF POSTING OF JURY FEES

4/18/2018: DEFENDANT, KEVIN LOPEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA KEVIN LOPEZ TRUCKINGS NOTICE OF POSTING OF JURY FEES

Unknown

4/18/2018: Unknown

ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL FSC AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY

5/3/2018: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL FSC AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY

Motion to Continue Trial Date

9/19/2018: Motion to Continue Trial Date

Minute Order

10/24/2018: Minute Order

Order

10/24/2018: Order

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

1/29/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Proof of Personal Service

2/1/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Minute Order

4/4/2019: Minute Order

Answer

4/15/2019: Answer

Unknown

12/6/2016: Unknown

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR 1. NEGLIGENCE; ETC

12/6/2016: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR 1. NEGLIGENCE; ETC

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

12/6/2016: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

SUMMONS

12/6/2016: SUMMONS

4 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/15/2019
  • Answer; Filed by RONALD VASQUEZ (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Continue Trial and All Related Dates) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial and All Rel...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Veronica Valencia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2019
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Veronica Valencia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2018
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2018
  • Order (Joint Motion To Continue Trial); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2018
  • Minute Order ((Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
6 More Docket Entries
  • 04/18/2018
  • ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES;AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • DEFENDANT, KEVIN LOPEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA KEVIN LOPEZ TRUCKINGS NOTICE OF POSTING OF JURY FEES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Veronica Valencia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR 1. NEGLIGENCE; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2016
  • PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2016
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Veronica Valencia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC642879    Hearing Date: February 05, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

veronica valencia,

Plaintiff,

v.

kevin lopez, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC642879

Hearing Date: February 5, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

PLAINTIFF’s motion to deem admitted

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Veronica Valencia (“Plaintiff”) moves to deem admitted matters specified in Requests for Admission, Set One (“RFA”) propounded on Defendant Ronald Vasquez (“Defendant”). Plaintiff personally served the RFA on Defendant on September 20, 2019. Defendant thus had until October 21, 2019 to respond. As of the filing date of this motion, Plaintiff has not received responses from Defendant. Defendant’s counsel has provided a declaration stating that Defendant is not returning his calls or cooperating with him.

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 of 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 of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) As Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff’s RFA, the motion is granted.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in connection with this motion. The Court concludes that Defendant’s failure to timely respond to the discovery is an abuse of the discovery process, and awards sanctions. The Court imposes sanctions against Defendant (but not Defendant’s counsel) in the amount of $1,060, which represents four hours of attorney time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $250 per hour, plus the filing fee at $60. The Court declines to impose sanctions against Defendant’s counsel, as the evidence before the Court suggests Defendant alone bears responsibility for the failure to reply to the RFA.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted is granted. Defendant is deemed to have admitted the matters specified in the RFA as of this date. Defendant is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,060 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within 30 days of notice of this order. Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.

DATED: February 5, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC642879    Hearing Date: November 20, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

veronica valencia,

Plaintiff,

v.

kevin lopez, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC642879

Hearing Date: November 20, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

PLAINTIFF’s motion for order compelling Defendant’S DEPOSITION

Plaintiff Veronica Valencia (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel the deposition of Ronald Vasquez (“Defendant”). Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, if a party to the action fails to appear for deposition after service of a deposition notice and the party has not served a valid objection to that deposition notice, the party that noticed the deposition may move for an order to compel the deponent to attend and testify at deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., §2025.450, subd. (a).) Plaintiff has the right to take Defendant’s deposition and is entitled to take Defendant’s deposition without leave of court at any time after Plaintiff served Defendant, or after Defendant appeared in the action. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.210, subd. (a).) On September 20, 2019, Plaintiff served a deposition notice on Defendant, in which Plaintiff set Defendant’s deposition for October 15, 2019. Defendant did not object to or attend the deposition. Defendant has not opposed this motion. Therefore, the motion is granted.

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel. The Court finds Defendant’s failure to appear for deposition a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) The Court therefore imposes sanctions against Defendant and his counsel of record, David Weinberger, Esq., in the amount of $1,060, which represents four hours of attorney time at $250 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s deposition is granted. Defendant is to appear for deposition within 30 days of notice of this order, unless Plaintiff stipulates to extend the deadline. Defendant and his counsel of record, David Weinberger, Esq., jointly and severally, are ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,060 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within 30 days of notice of this order. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: November 20, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court