This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/27/2019 at 07:26:00 (UTC).

ANA ROSA RIVERA ET AL VS OSTERKAMP TRUCKING INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/13/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by ANA ROSA RIVERA against OSTERKAMP TRUCKING INC in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3815

  • Filing Date:

    02/13/2018

  • 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

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

GRADIZ ARMANDO RIVERA

ZUNIGA YERY NEFT ALI RIVERA

ZUNIGA NORLAN ARMANDO RIVERA

MORALES ANGIE RIVERA

Defendants and Respondents

OSTERKAMP TRUCKING INC

ZUNIGA MARLYN ARMANDO RIVERA

DOES 1 TO 20

 

Court Documents

Informal Discovery Conference

12/14/2018: Informal Discovery Conference

Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts

1/8/2019: Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts

Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts

1/8/2019: Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts

Minute Order

1/8/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

2/14/2019: Minute Order

Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts

2/15/2019: Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts

Substitution of Attorney

3/6/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

5/3/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Request for Judicial Notice

5/3/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Response

5/24/2019: Response

Opposition

5/24/2019: Opposition

Reply

5/31/2019: Reply

Minute Order

6/6/2019: Minute Order

Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts

6/6/2019: Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts

Stipulation and Order

6/13/2019: Stipulation and Order

Minute Order

6/25/2019: Minute Order

DEFENDANTS, LUCIANO HERNANDEZ?S; AND OSTERKAMP TRUCKING, INC.'S, ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS? COMPLAINT

4/2/2018: DEFENDANTS, LUCIANO HERNANDEZ?S; AND OSTERKAMP TRUCKING, INC.'S, ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS? COMPLAINT

COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL DEATH DUE TO NEGLIGENCE

2/13/2018: COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL DEATH DUE TO NEGLIGENCE

8 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/25/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (Request for Production) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Status Conference (reoutstading discovery) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2019
  • Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by Osterkamp Trucking, Inc (Defendant); Luciano Hernandez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses Reque...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (Proposed order and stipulation to continue trial); Filed by Osterkamp Trucking, Inc (Defendant); Luciano Hernandez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (Request for Production) - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • at 10:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts; Filed by Osterkamp Trucking, Inc (Defendant); Luciano Hernandez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Informal Discovery Conference (IDC))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • Reply (REPLY OF PLAINTIFF ANA ROSA RIVERA TO THE OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT OSTERKAMP TRUCKING, INC., AND LUCIANO HERNANDEZ TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDERS:); Filed by Ana Rosa Rivera (Plaintiff); Angie Rivera Morales (Plaintiff); Yery Neft Ali Rivera Zuniga (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
9 More Docket Entries
  • 01/08/2019
  • at 11:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2019
  • Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts (- Response)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2019
  • Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts (- Resolved)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2019
  • Minute Order ((Informal Discovery Conference (IDC))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2018
  • Informal Discovery Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • DEFENDANTS, LUCIANO HERNANDEZ S; AND OSTERKAMP TRUCKING, INC.'S, ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Osterkamp Trucking, Inc (Defendant); Luciano Hernandez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Ana Rosa Rivera (Plaintiff); Angie Rivera Morales (Plaintiff); Yery Neft Ali Rivera Zuniga (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL DEATH DUE TO NEGLIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC693815    Hearing Date: March 04, 2020    Dept: 74

BC693815 ANA ROSA RIVERA VS OSTERKAMP TRUCKING INC

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses Form Interrogatories and for Sanctions and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions and for Sanctions

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion to compel further response to request for admissions is granted in part. Plaintiffs are each to provide further responses to requests 21, 22 and 24, without objections, within 30 days. The motion to compel further responses to form interrogatory 17.1 is granted. Plaintiffs are each to provide further responses, without objection, within 30 days. Plaintiffs and their attorney Law Offices of Maro Burunsuzyan, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay defendant Osterkamp Trucking, Inc. sanctions of $3645 within 30 days.

Timeliness

Plaintiffs argue the 45-day limitation has expired as the responses were served in September, more than 45 days before the motion was filed, and the informal discovery conference never occurred because of the transfer from personal injury to civil. The IDC was set in the personal injury court. The transfer prevented it, but defendant did attempt to reset it in this court. Plaintiffs withdrew from participating in an IDC in January 2020. This motion was filed in January. The agreement to extend time until 30 days after completion of the IDC was effective. Plaintiffs withdrawal from the IDC process would have triggered the 30-day extension. The motion was timely filed.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions

As to request numbers 21, 22, and 24, plaintiffs objected that “dark clothing”, “reflective clothing” and “jaywalking” were too vague and ambiguous for them to provide a response.

Ambiguity objections as to discovery are overruled unless requests are unintelligible. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in Guzman v. General Motors Corp. (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 438, 444; cf. Standon Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 898, 901.)

These terms are not ambiguous, and are in within common usage. To the extent plaintiffs determine a further definition is required, they established in the response to request number 14 that they are well able to do so.

Motion to Compel Further Response to Form Interrogatory 17.1

Plaintiffs’ objections are not well-taken. The interrogatory seeks only facts known to plaintiffs supporting their response, which does not include expert opinions, attorney-client communications or attorney work product. A reference to the complaint is not appropriate, as the allegations of the complaint are not facts. The interrogatory is not seeking legal theories or arguments.

This interrogatory also requires identification of witnesses. A response that merely states categories of potential witnesses, without identification of specific persons to the extent known, is incomplete. Plaintiffs are required to identify those persons they consider witnesses, even if those persons’ identities are known to defendant.

As to documents, the responsive documents need to be specifically identified. If they have previously been produced, they can be identified by Bates number.

Sanctions

Plaintiffs and their attorney Law Offices of Maro Burunsuzyan, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay defendant Osterkamp Trucking, Inc. sanctions of $3645. The court notes that defendants are entitled to obtain discovery from each plaintiff, just as each plaintiff is entitled to obtain discovery from each defendant.

Case Number: BC693815    Hearing Date: February 28, 2020    Dept: 74

BC693815 ANA ROSA RIVERA ET AL VS OSTERKAMP TRUCKING INC ET AL

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and for Sanctions and Motion to Compel Further Responses Request for Production, and for Sanctions

TENTATIVE RULINGS: The motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, Set Two, is granted in part. The definition of “Identify” is stricken. Plaintiffs are ordered to provide further response to special interrogatory numbers 115, 118, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 135, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 164, 158, 161, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 184, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, without objection, within 30 days. All requests for sanctions are denied.

The motion to compel further responses request for production and for sanctions is taken off calendar as moot as to set three, and taken off calendar as improperly set as to sets four and five. The court defers the issue of sanctions.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two

Plaintiffs argue the 45-day limitation has expired as the responses were served in September, more than 45 days before the motion was filed, and the informal discovery conference never occurred because of the transfer from personal injury to civil. The IDC was set in the personal injury court. The transfer prevented it, but defendant did attempt to reset it in this court. Plaintiffs withdrew from participating in an IDC in January 2020. This motion was filed in January. The agreement to extend time until 30 days after completion of the IDC was effective. Plaintiffs withdrawal from the IDC process would have triggered the 30-day extension. The motion was timely filed.

The interrogatories statute prohibits prefaces, instructions and definitions to prevent propounding parties from attempting to evade the 35-question limit. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1288-1289.) The definition of “Identify” is stricken as an improper instruction.

While not a model declaration, the declaration in support of interrogatories in excess of 35 is sufficient.

“A party's contention may be the subject of discovery, but not the legal reasoning or theory behind the contention.” (Sav-On Drugs v. Sup. Ct. (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 1, 5.) Further response is ordered for special interrogatory numbers 115, 118, 131, 132, and 146.

Agency and/or employment are issues which plaintiffs raised and will be required to prove. They are proper subjects for defendant to address in interrogatories. Further response is ordered for special interrogatory numbers 122, 123, 125, 126, and 130.

Facts regarding how Osterkamp was inadequate in operating it business are also a proper subject for interrogatories. Further response is ordered for special interrogatory numbers 127, 128, and 129.

Insurance, settlement and/or compromises, subrogation and liens are also proper subjects for interrogatories. Further response is ordered for special interrogatory numbers 135, 139, and 140.

Damages are proper subjects for interrogatories, including decedent’s prior financial support of plaintiffs. Further response is ordered for special interrogatory numbers 141, 142, 143, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 164, 144, 145, 158, and 161.

Interrogatories regarding the business owned by decedent are relevant for purposes of damages. Further response is ordered for special interrogatory numbers 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 184, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, and 191.

Special interrogatory numbers 183 and 184 seek contact and employment information of all employees of decedent’s business. This information is subject to the employees’ right of privacy, and there is no showing that all employees are witnesses. No further response is ordered.

Sanctions

Although not all of plaintiffs’ arguments were successful, many were not without some merit. The court finds substantial justification for plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion, and declines to award sanctions.

Motion to Compel Further Responses Request for Production, and for Sanctions

Defendant has combined multiple motions to compel further responses into a single motion. Where a set is served on multiple plaintiffs who provide identical responses, a single motion is permitted. However, defendant has also included additional sets of requests served, some served only on some plaintiffs.

Only set three will be considered. The remainder of the motion is taken off calendar, and defendant may reschedule as separate motions to compel further.

Further responses to set three were apparently served by all plaintiffs after this motion was filed. Those responses are not before the court. The motion is taken off calendar as moot.

Case Number: BC693815    Hearing Date: January 13, 2020    Dept: 74

BC693815 ANA ROSA RIVERA ET AL VS OSTERKAMP TRUCKING INC ET AL

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted. Plaintiffs may file and serve a first amended complaint within ten days.

Plaintiffs have established that they diligently pursued discovery and obtained the information leading to this motion in November, the same month this motion was filed.

Although the amendments introduce new theories and some new facts, it is still based on the same set of general facts as the original complaint.

Courts generally do not consider the validity of proposed amendments to a pleading in a motion for leave to amend. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal. App. 3d 1045, 1047; Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2006) 109 Cal. App. 4th 739, 760.)

Defendants’ arguments regarding the credibility of Rosales and merits of the allegations are beyond the scope of this motion.

The motion is granted. Plaintiff may file and serve an amended complaint within ten days.

Continuance

The trial date will be addressed at the case management conference set for today.