This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/30/2019 at 00:33:35 (UTC).

ALONSO OCON ET AL VS CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ET AL

Case Summary

On 09/28/2017 ALONSO OCON filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CITY OF SANTA CLARITA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GEORGINA T. RIZK. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7779

  • Filing Date:

    09/28/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • 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

GEORGINA T. RIZK

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

OCON ALONSO

GARCIA MARCELA

Defendants and Respondents

CITY OF SANTA CLARITA

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SULLY-MILLER CONTRACTING COMPANY

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DOES 1 TO 100

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

WHEELER ALEXANDER R.

PARRIS RUTGER R.

GORDON ELLERY SHANE

PARRIS RUTGER R. ESQ.

DOUGLASS JONATHAN WARREN ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

YOKA & SMITH LLP

GATES JAMES W. ESQ.

FAENZA CHRISTOPHER EDWARD

GIOVACCHINI GINA N. ESQ.

FAENZA CHRISTOPHER EDWARD ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

3/28/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Lodging

1/30/2019: Notice of Lodging

Reply

1/18/2019: Reply

Reply

1/18/2019: Reply

Objection

1/18/2019: Objection

Objection

1/18/2019: Objection

Unknown

1/23/2019: Unknown

Opposition

1/11/2019: Opposition

Objection

1/11/2019: Objection

Objection

1/11/2019: Objection

Request for Judicial Notice

1/11/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Motion for Summary Judgment

11/9/2018: Motion for Summary Judgment

Motion for Summary Judgment

11/9/2018: Motion for Summary Judgment

Proof of Personal Service

11/9/2018: Proof of Personal Service

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

6/27/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

11/27/2017: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

CORRECTED PROOF OF SERVICE BY OVERNIGHT MAIL

12/11/2017: CORRECTED PROOF OF SERVICE BY OVERNIGHT MAIL

COMPLAIN 1. NEGLIGENCE/CONTRACTOR LIABIIIY ;ETC

9/28/2017: COMPLAIN 1. NEGLIGENCE/CONTRACTOR LIABIIIY ;ETC

58 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Jury Trial - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • Order - Dismissal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Jury Trial) of 03/28/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2019
  • Notice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by Alonso Ocon (Plaintiff); Marcela Garcia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Sully-Miller Contracting Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by City of Santa Clarita (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Alonso Ocon (Plaintiff); Marcela Garcia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
77 More Docket Entries
  • 11/27/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Alonso Ocon (Plaintiff); Marcela Garcia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Alonso Ocon (Plaintiff); Marcela Garcia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Alonso Ocon (Plaintiff); Marcela Garcia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Alonso Ocon (Plaintiff); Marcela Garcia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2017
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2017
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2017
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Alonso Ocon (Plaintiff); Marcela Garcia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2017
  • COMPLAIN 1. NEGLIGENCE/CONTRACTOR LIABIIIY ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC677779    Hearing Date: February 04, 2020    Dept: 29

Ocon et al. v. City of Santa Clarita, et al.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Litili LLC to Compel Litili, LLC to Comply with Subpoena is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Request No. 7: The Court grants the motion to compel with respect to this request in part. The request is overbroad. Litili LLC is ordered to produce documents created by Litili LLC, through its agents and employees, to the extent that copies of such documents have been provided to Dr. Saint Martin. Responsive documents must be produced no later than 2/10/2020.

Requests No. 8, 9 and 11: The Court denies the motion to compel with respect to these requests. Requests 8 and 9 seek all agreements between Litili and Dr. Saint Martin for work as an expert for the last 10 years. Request number 11 seeks all invoices for work generated by Dr. Saint Martin for expert work for the last 10 years. Plaintiff argues that these agreements are relevant to bias.

The Court must balance the need for evidence that goes to the credibility or bias of the witness against his or her privacy interests and the privacy interests of third parties. The Court of Appeal has engaged in this balancing with respect to disclosure of financial information from expert witnesses and has concluded that an expert may be compelled to answer general questions calling for estimates of the total amount of compensation received from plaintiff- and defense-side work. See Allen v. Superior Court (1984) 151 Cal. App. 3d 447, 454 (holding that a medical expert may be asked questions directed toward disclosing “how much compensation he derives form defense work”); Stony Brook I Homeowners Ass’n v. Superior Court (200) 84 Cal. App. 4th 691, 700 (directing trial court to enter order compelling expert to provide “a numerical estimate of the amount of income generated from said defense- and plaintiff-related litigation.”) Plaintiff has not shown the need for individual agreements or invoices and the Court is not aware of any decision in which production of documents at that level of detail has been compelled.

Request No. 10: The Court denies the motion to compel with respect to this request. This request seeks a list of all cases in which Dr. Saint Martin has testified as an expert for the time period of January 1, 2010 to the present. Litili has established that no such documents exist.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC677779    Hearing Date: January 17, 2020    Dept: 29

Ocon et al. v. City of Santa Clarita et al.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Augment Plaintiffs’ Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2034 Expert Witness List is GRANTED.

1) Plaintiffs can move to augment their expert witness list by adding the name and address of any expert witness subsequently retained if Plaintiffs engaged in a timely exchange of expert witness information. Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.610

There is no issue with the timeliness of each parties’ designation of experts. Plaintiffs served their designation on 9/3/19. Opposition, Ex. 1. Defendant served its designation on 8/30/19. Id., Ex. 2.

2) To grant Plaintiffs’ requested relief, the court must find that Plaintiffs would not in the exercise of reasonable diligence have determined to include this expert as a non-retained expert on safety measures and controls for lane closures -- or that the failure to call that expert was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2034.620(c).

While Plaintiffs have designated retained experts on design standards and traffic control plans, requirements for and placement of traffic control devices, as well as construction zone safety (Opposition, Ex. 1, Declaration of Alexander Wheeler, ¶ 1), Plaintiffs have established that they could not have determined to include Eric Serrano as a non-retained expert at the time of Plaintiffs’ initial designation given that Defendant did not produce Mr. Serrano for deposition until 12/10/19 after expert witness lists had already been exchanged. Plaintiffs did not previously know the substance of his testimony and his qualifications to render any opinions. Declaration of Jonathan Douglass, ¶ 4.

3) The court has discretion to grant leave to augment or amend an expert witness list after considering the extent to which the opposing party has relied on the list and whether the opposing party will suffer prejudice. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2034.610 (a), (b).

Defendant has not established that it has relied on the Plaintiffs’ expert witness designation to such an extent that it will suffer prejudice in maintaining its action or defense on the merits. Defendant argues a number of things -- that Mr. Serrano is not qualified to render an expert opinion, and therefore, his testimony is inadmissible; his testimony adds nothing to the case; his testimony is more prejudicial than probative; and the testimony is duplicative and cumulative. Motion 2:3-18.

These arguments are irrelevant to the motion. They are properly addressed to the trial court by way of motion in limine.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC677779    Hearing Date: January 14, 2020    Dept: 29

Ocon et al. v. City of Santa Clarita et al. BC677779

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions, Set Three is TAKEN OFF CALENDAR.

Before a hearing may be held on a motion to compel further response to written discovery, the moving party must seek an Informal Discovery Conference with the court. Standing Order Re: Personal Injury Procedures, Central District, ¶¶ 12-13, effective 9/26/18. The court’s file does not indicate that the Plaintiff requested or that the parties participated in an IDC prior to the hearing date. The Court thus declines to hear the motion.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC677779    Hearing Date: December 09, 2019    Dept: 2

   

Ocon v. City of Santa Clara et al.

Plaintiffs’ Three Motions to Compel Responses to Supplemental Interrogatory, Set Two; Special Interrogatories, Set Three; and Request for Production of Documents, Set Two are GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions, Set Three is CONTINUED to January 14, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. Pursuant to the Standing Order Re Personal Injury Procedures, Central District, ¶¶ 12-13, effective 9/26/2018, the “parties must participate in an [informal discovery conference] before a motion to compel further responses to discovery will be heard unless the moving party submits evidence, by way of declaration, that the opposing party has failed or refused to participate in an IDC.” Id. ¶13. “If parties do not stipulate to extend the deadlines, the moving party may file the motion to avoid it being deemed untimely. However, the IDC must take place before the motion is heard . . . .” Here, the Court file does not reflect that an IDC was ever held, and the moving party has not submitted a declaration establishing that the opposing party failed or refused to participate in an IDC. The Court continues the motion so that an IDC may be held before the motion is heard. The moving party is to schedule an IDC forthwith, and, if there are no available dates for an IDC prior to the new hearing date, the moving party is to continue the hearing to a date after the IDC.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.