This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/24/2019 at 03:38:06 (UTC).

ADRIANA MARTINEZ ET AL VS LINDA JEAN PAWLIK

Case Summary

On 10/27/2017 ADRIANA MARTINEZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against LINDA JEAN PAWLIK. 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:

    ****1379

  • Filing Date:

    10/27/2017

  • 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

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

MELLO VICTORIA MARIE

MELLO CHRISTINA JENNIFER

MELLO ISABELLA JEANINE

MARTINEZ ADRIANA

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 20

PAWLIK LINDA JEAN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

AVENATTI MICHAEL J. ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

ANDERSON MICHAEL D. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

2/6/2018: Minute Order

ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

2/6/2018: ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

ORDER RE: DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

2/6/2018: ORDER RE: DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF SANTOS MELLO AND SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL CARLOS X. COLORADO, ESQ. OF EAGEN AVENATTI LLP IN THE AMOUNT OF $3310.OO

6/26/2018: DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF SANTOS MELLO AND SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL CARLOS X. COLORADO, ESQ. OF EAGEN AVENATTI LLP IN THE AMOUNT OF $3310.OO

PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF ADRIANA MARTINEZ AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL; ETC.

7/31/2018: PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF ADRIANA MARTINEZ AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL; ETC.

PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF CHRISTINA JENNIFER MELLO AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL; ETC.

7/31/2018: PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF CHRISTINA JENNIFER MELLO AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL; ETC.

PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF SANTOS MELLO AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL; ETC

7/31/2018: PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF SANTOS MELLO AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL; ETC

PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER (CODE CIV. PROC., ? 170.6)

8/3/2018: PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER (CODE CIV. PROC., ? 170.6)

DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF EDUARDO MELLO AND FOR SANCTIONS; AND DECLARATION OF CATHY GONZALEZ

8/6/2018: DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF EDUARDO MELLO AND FOR SANCTIONS; AND DECLARATION OF CATHY GONZALEZ

DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF ADRIANA MARTINEZ AND FOR SANCTIONS; AND DECLARATION OF CATHY GONZALEZ

8/6/2018: DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF ADRIANA MARTINEZ AND FOR SANCTIONS; AND DECLARATION OF CATHY GONZALEZ

Minute Order

8/9/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF COURT ORDER RE: PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE CCP 170.6

8/22/2018: NOTICE OF COURT ORDER RE: PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE CCP 170.6

Notice

11/5/2018: Notice

Ex Parte Application

1/23/2019: Ex Parte Application

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

3/15/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Request for Judicial Notice

3/15/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Minute Order

5/2/2019: Minute Order

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

11/13/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

38 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/02/2019
  • at 10:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Informal Discovery Conference (IDC))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2019
  • Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Plaintiff Adriana Martinez's Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Sanctions; Filed by LINDA JEAN PAWLIK (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2019
  • Defendant's Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Plaintiff Adriana Martinez's Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One; Filed by LINDA JEAN PAWLIK (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2019
  • Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Plaintiff Victoria Mello's Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Sanctions; Filed by LINDA JEAN PAWLIK (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2019
  • Defendant's Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Plaintiff Victoria Mello's Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One; Filed by LINDA JEAN PAWLIK (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2019
  • Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Plaintiff Christina Mello's Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Sanctions; Filed by LINDA JEAN PAWLIK (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
74 More Docket Entries
  • 12/05/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2017
  • Summons; Filed by ADRIANA MARTINEZ (Plaintiff); CHRISTINA JENNIFER MELLO (Plaintiff); ISABELLA JEANINE MELLO (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2017
  • SUMMONS ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2017
  • First Amended Complaint; Filed by ADRIANA MARTINEZ (Plaintiff); CHRISTINA JENNIFER MELLO (Plaintiff); ISABELLA JEANINE MELLO (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2017
  • FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. WRONGFUL DEATH 2. SURVIVAL ACTION DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by ADRIANA MARTINEZ (Plaintiff); CHRISTINA JENNIFER MELLO (Plaintiff); ISABELLA JEANINE MELLO (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. WRONGFUL DEATH; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by ADRIANA MARTINEZ (Plaintiff); CHRISTINA JENNIFER MELLO (Plaintiff); ISABELLA JEANINE MELLO (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC681379    Hearing Date: December 10, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

adriana martinez, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

linda jean pawlik,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC681379

Hearing Date: December 10, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

defendant’S motion for summary judgment

NOTICE

The Court posts this tentative on December 6, 2019, at 9:15 a.m. Any party who does not appear at the hearing shall waive their right to be heard and shall submit to this tentative order being adopted by the Court. Any party who does not appear at the hearing also submits to any changes the Court makes to this tentative order following the hearing. The hearing is scheduled as follows:

Los Angeles Superior Court, Spring Street Courthouse

312 North Spring Street, Department #5 (Second Floor)

Los Angeles, California 90012

December 10, 2019, at 1:30 p.m.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Adriana Martinez, Christina Jennifer Mello, Isabella Jeanine Mello, and Victoria Marie Mello (“Plaintiffs”) filed this wrongful death and survival action against Defendant Linda Jean Pawlik (“Defendant”) following the death of Edward William Mello. Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Mello “was killed in a Woodland Hills motel room where he was shot in the head by an acquaintance of [Defendant] using [Defendant’s] gun.” (First Amended Complaint, ¶ 1.) The First Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant suspected Mr. Mello was attempting to steal assets from her, so she “set him up” by instructing him to visit Jorge Ariel Rodriguez, “a violent individual with a history of previous altercations,” to whom Defendant had furnished her gun. (Id., ¶¶ 21-28.) Mr. Mello’s death occurred on October 29, 2014. (Id., ¶ 26.) This action was filed on October 27, 2017. Therefore, Defendant moves for summary judgment based on the applicable statute of limitations. Following the motion, Plaintiffs dismissed all claims by Eduardo Mello and Santos Mello, but did not oppose the motion for summary judgment. The Court grants the motion for summary judgment with respect to the remaining Plaintiffs’ claims.

LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law[.]  There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)  “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.”  (Ibid.)

DISCUSSION

Defendant seeks summary judgment of Plaintiffs’ claims based upon the statute of limitations, which is two years in a wrongful death action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1.) The statute of limitations on Plaintiffs’ claims accrued when Decedent died, because Defendant’s wrongful acts, if any, occurred at the time of Decedent’s death. (See Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 397.) “An important exception to the general rule of accrual is the ‘discovery rule,’ which postpones accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action.” (Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 807.) Plaintiffs allege in the First Amended Complaint:

On or about May 8, 2017, the investigating detectives assigned to the case fully debriefed Plaintiff ADRIANA MARTINEZ regarding PAWLIK’s involvement in the crime and provided Plaintiff with information substantiating the allegations made herein.

PLAINTIFFS did not discover, and could not in the exercise of reasonable diligence have discovered, the facts constituting their causes of action against Defendant PAWLIK at any date earlier than May 8, 2017.

(First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 35-36.) Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ claims accrued earlier than May 8, 2017.

Defendant relies on Adriana Martinez’s responses to the Requests for Admission that Defendant was arrested on May 20, 2015, and that she was aware of the arrest within thirty (30) days. (Separately Bound Appendix of Evidence in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit H, p. 4.) Defendant also relies on Ms. Martinez’s deposition testimony. Adriana Martinez testified that upon learning of Defendant’s arrest, she also learned that Rodriguez had used Defendant’s gun and that Defendant had had a contentious relationship with Mr. Mello. (Id., Exhibit C, p. 161.) Ms. Martinez testified that because Defendant had been arrested in connection with Decedent’s murder, “obviously she was involved somehow . . . .” (Id., Exhibit C, pp. 161-162.) Ms. Martinez testified that she shared this information with the other Plaintiffs. (Id., Exhibit C, p. 124.)

Defendant’s evidence is sufficient to establish her prima facie burden of establishing that this case is barred by the statute of limitations. Based upon this evidence, Plaintiffs were aware of Defendant’s alleged involved in the death of Mr. Mello no later than June 19, 2015, meaning that the statute of limitations ran on June 19, 2017, long before this action was filed on October 27, 2017. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion and there is no evidence in the record which creates a triable issue on this point. Therefore, Defendant’s motion is granted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: December 10, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC681379    Hearing Date: October 31, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

ADRIANA MARTINEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LINDA JEAN PAWLIK,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC681379

Hearing Date: October 31, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

DEfendant’s mOtion for terminating sanctions

NOTICE

The Court posts this tentative order over two days in advance of the hearing. Any party who does not appear at the hearing shall waive their right to be heard and shall submit to this tentative order.

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant Linda Jean Pawlik (“Defendant”) moves for terminating sanctions against Plaintiffs Eduwardo Mello and Santos Mello. On November 1, 2018, the Court (Lu, J.) granted a motion to compel the depositions of all plaintiffs, including Santos Mello and Eduardo Mello, to occur within twenty (20) days of notice. Notice of the Court’s order was given on November 5, 2018, via regular mail, meaning that the depositions had to occur on or before November 30, 2019. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1005.) The depositions of Eduardo Mello and Santos Mello were noticed for April 9 and 10, 2019, respectively. (Declaration of Andrei Serpik, ¶ 7 & Exh. C.) Neither appeared for his deposition. (Id., ¶ 8 & Exh. D.) Defendant repeatedly attempted to resolve the issue to no avail. (Id., ¶¶ 9-11.) Therefore, Defendant now moves for terminating sanctions.

In response, on October 17, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Request for Dismissal with respect to Eduardo Mello and Santos Mello, arguing that the motion is moot. Plaintiffs are mistaken because the Court has not granted the Request for Dismissal. Nor does the Court intend to grant this request because the request was made without prejudice. Plaintiffs may not circumvent the Court’s order that Eduardo Mello and Santos Mello submit to depositions, dismiss the case without prejudice, and then re-file the case at a later point.

The Court grants the motions for terminating sanctions and dismisses the cases by Eduardo Mello and Santos Mello with prejudice. The Court has ordered the depositions to occur and conducted an Informal Discovery Conference, and Defendant has made multiple attempts to schedule the depositions, to no avail. The Court has considered the availability of other remedies but does not believe any would result in Eduardo Mello and Santos Mello submitting to depositions. Simply, the Court has ordered the depositions to occur, conducted an informal discovery conference, and ordered monetary sanctions. Therefore, dismissal with prejudice is the only remedy, and the Court grants the motions. The Court declines to impose monetary sanctions as they are not necessary given the Court’s decision to dismiss the case.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions is granted. The case is dismissed with prejudice with respect to Plaintiffs Eduardo Mello and Santos Mello. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: October 31, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court