This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/26/2019 at 03:55:09 (UTC).

ANAYELY FLORES VS LOS ALTOS BOOTS INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/13/2017 ANAYELY FLORES filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against LOS ALTOS BOOTS INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9597

  • Filing Date:

    10/13/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

FLORES ANAYELY

Defendants

EL TORO ENTERPRISES INC. DBA KING EXOTICS

WILD WEST BOOTS INC.

LOS ALTOS BOOTS INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

SUN KEVIN H.

Defendant Attorney

BOOTH HILLARY ARROW

 

Court Documents

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA FAMILY RIGHTS ACT; ETC

10/13/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA FAMILY RIGHTS ACT; ETC

SUMMONS

10/13/2017: SUMMONS

PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER

10/25/2017: PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

10/19/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Minute Order

10/31/2017: Minute Order

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

11/3/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

11/8/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

11/7/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT COMERENCE

12/12/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT COMERENCE

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

12/27/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

12/20/2017: ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

DEFENDANT LOS ALTOS BOOTS, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

12/20/2017: DEFENDANT LOS ALTOS BOOTS, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT LOS ALTOS BOOTS, INC.'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

12/29/2017: DEFENDANT LOS ALTOS BOOTS, INC.'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

1 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/23/2019
  • Docketat 08:31 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Striking of Answer of Defendants Los Altos Boots, Inc. and El Toro Enterprises, Inc.) - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Striking of Answer of Defendants Los ...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • DocketNotice ( of Appearance); Filed by Los Altos Boots, Inc. (Defendant); Wild West Boots, Inc. (Defendant); El Toro Enterprises, Inc. (Defendant) et al.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Anayely Flores (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Los Altos Boots, Inc. (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • Docketat 11:52 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Nunc Pro Tunc Order

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Held - Motion Granted

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Held - Motion Granted

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • DocketOrder Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil; Filed by Michael J. Eyre (Attorney)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
61 More Docket Entries
  • 10/31/2017
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 30; Unknown Event Type - Held - Motion Granted

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/31/2017
  • DocketMinute Order

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/31/2017
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2017-10-31 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/25/2017
  • DocketPEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/25/2017
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/19/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/19/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/13/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA FAMILY RIGHTS ACT; ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/13/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Anayely Flores (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/13/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****9597    Hearing Date: February 07, 2020    Dept: 48

(1) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS;

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS;

(3) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS;

(4) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS;

(5) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Plaintiff moves to compel responses to supplemental interrogatories and supplemental requests for production of documents from Defendant Los Altos Boots, Inc. and requests sanctions.

Plaintiff also moves to compel responses to supplemental requests for production of documents from Defendant El Toro Enterprises, Inc. and requests sanctions.

Plaintiff also moves to compel responses to supplemental interrogatories and supplemental requests for production of documents from Defendant Wild West Boots, Inc. and requests sanctions.

Motion To Compel Responses To Supplemental Interrogatories from Defendant Los Altos Boots, Inc.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to supplemental interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant Los Altos Boots, Inc. is ordered to provide code-compliant, verified responses without objection within 10 days. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED against Defendant Los Altos Boots, Inc., only, in the reduced amount of $960. Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 10 days.

When a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to respond, under CCP ; 2030.290(b) a party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response. A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. CCP ; 2030.290(a). For a motion to compel initial responses, no meet and confer is required. All that needs to be shown is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06. Here, as of the date of the filing of the motions, Plaintiff had not received any responses to supplemental interrogatories from Defendant. See Declaration of Ali Carlsen, ¶ 13. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling responses. The motion to compel responses to supplemental interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant Los Altos Boots, Inc. is ordered to provide code-compliant, verified responses without objection within 10 days.

The opposing Declaration of Hillary Arrow Booth indicating that counsel believed supplemental responses were not required given the wording of the supplemental interrogatories and service of unverified responses is insufficient to moot this motion to compel, or the request for sanctions.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED against Defendant Los Altos Boots, Inc. only[1] in the amount of $960 (2 hours at $450, plus $60 filing fee—see Carlsen Decl., ¶¶ 14 – 17). Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 10 days.

Motion To Compel Responses To Supplemental Requests For Production of Documents from Defendant Los Altos Boots, Inc.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to supplemental requests for production of documents is GRANTED. Defendant Los Altos Boots, Inc. is ordered to provide code-compliant, verified responses without objection within 10 days. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED against Defendant Los Altos Boots, Inc. only, in the amount of $960. Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 10 days.

When a party to whom an inspection demand is directed fails to respond, under CCP ; 2031.300(b) a party making the demand may move for an order compelling a response to the inspection demand. A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. CCP; 2031.300(a). For a motion to compel initial responses, no meet and confer is required. All that needs to be shown is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06. Here, as of the date of the filing of the motions, Plaintiff had not received any responses to supplemental requests for production of documents from Defendant. See Declaration of Ali Carlsen, ¶ 13. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling responses. The motion to compel responses to supplemental requests for production of documents is GRANTED. Defendant Los Altos Boots, Inc. is ordered to provide code-compliant, verified responses without objection within 10 days.

The opposing Declaration of Hillary Arrow Booth indicating that counsel believed supplemental responses were not required given the wording of the supplemental requests for production of documents and service of unverified responses is insufficient to moot this motion to compel, or the request for sanctions.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED against Defendant Los Altos Boots, Inc. only, in the amount of $960 (2 hours at $450, plus $60 filing fee—see Carlsen Decl., ¶¶ 14 – 17). Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 10 days.

Motion To Compel Responses To Supplemental Requests For Production of Documents from Defendant El Toro Enterprises, Inc.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to supplemental requests for production of documents is GRANTED. Defendant El Toro Enterprises, Inc. is ordered to provide code-compliant, verified responses without objection within 10 days. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED against Defendant El Toro Enterprises, Inc. and its counsel of record, Booth LLP[2], in the amount of $960, jointly and severally. Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 10 days.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to supplemental requests for production of documents is GRANTED. Defendant El Toro Enterprises, Inc. is ordered to provide code-compliant, verified responses without objection within 10 days. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED against Defendant El Toro Enterprises, Inc. and its counsel of record, Booth LLP[3], in the amount of $960, jointly and severally. Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 10 days.

When a party to whom an inspection demand is directed fails to respond, under CCP ; 2031.300(b) a party making the demand may move for an order compelling a response to the inspection demand. A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. CCP; 2031.300(a). For a motion to compel initial responses, no meet and confer is required. All that needs to be shown is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06. Here, as of the date of the filing of the motions, Plaintiff had not received any responses to supplemental requests for production of documents from Defendant. See Declaration of Ali Carlsen, ¶ 13. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling responses. The motion to compel responses to supplemental requests for production of documents is GRANTED. Defendant El Toro Enterprises, Inc. is ordered to provide code-compliant, verified responses without objection within 10 days.

The opposing Declaration of Hillary Arrow Booth indicating that counsel believed supplemental responses were not required given the wording of the supplemental requests for production of documents and service of unverified responses is insufficient to moot this motion to compel, or the request for sanctions.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED against Defendant El Toro Enterprises, Inc. and its counsel of record, Booth LLP[4], in the amount of $960 (2 hours at $450, plus $60 filing fee—see Carlsen Decl., ¶¶ 14 – 17), jointly and severally. Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 10 days.

Motion To Compel Responses To Supplemental Interrogatories from Defendant Wild West Boots, Inc.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to supplemental interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant Wild West Boots, Inc. is ordered to provide code-compliant, verified responses without objection within 10 days. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED against Defendant Wild West Boots, Inc. only[5], in the amount of $960. Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 10 days.

When a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to respond, under CCP ; 2030.290(b) a party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response. A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. CCP ; 2030.290(a). For a motion to compel initial responses, no meet and confer is required. All that needs to be shown is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06. Here, as of the date of the filing of the motions, Plaintiff had not received any responses to supplemental interrogatories from Defendant. See Declaration of Ali Carlsen, ¶ 13. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling responses. The motion to compel responses to supplemental interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant Wild West Boots, Inc. is ordered to provide code-compliant, verified responses without objection within 10 days.

Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling responses. The motion to compel responses to supplemental interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant Wild West Boots, Inc. is ordered to provide code-compliant, verified responses without objection within 10 days. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED against Defendant Wild West Boots, Inc. only[6], in the amount of $960. Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 10 days.

Motion To Compel Responses To Supplemental Requests For Production of Documents from Defendant Wild West Boots, Inc.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to supplemental requests for production of documents is GRANTED. Defendant Wild West Boots, Inc. is ordered to provide code-compliant, verified responses without objection within 10 days. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED against Defendant Wild West Boots, Inc. only[7], in the amount of $960. Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 10 days.

When a party to whom an inspection demand is directed fails to respond, under CCP ; 2031.300(b) a party making the demand may move for an order compelling a response to the inspection demand. A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. CCP; 2031.300(a). For a motion to compel initial responses, no meet and confer is required. All that needs to be shown is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06. Here, as of the date of the filing of the motions, Plaintiff had not received any responses to supplemental requests for production of documents from Defendant. See Declaration of Ali Carlsen, ¶ 13. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling responses. The motion to compel responses to supplemental requests for production of documents is GRANTED. Defendant Wild West Boots, Inc. is ordered to provide code-compliant, verified responses without objection within 10 days.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED against Defendant Wild West Boots, Inc. only[8], in the amount of $960 (2 hours at $450, plus $60 filing fee—see Carlsen Decl., ¶¶ 14 – 17). Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 10 days.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.


[1] The notice of motion did not identify counsel by name. The Court construes this to be insufficient compliance with CCP ; 2023.040, which requires that “[a] request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought. . . .”

[2] Booth LLP was identified in the notice of motion as the attorneys against whom sanctions are sought.

[3] Booth LLP was identified in the notice of motion as the attorneys against whom sanctions are sought.

[4] Booth LLP was identified in the notice of motion as the attorneys against whom sanctions are sought.

[5] The notice of motion did not identify counsel by name. The Court construes this to be insufficient compliance with CCP ; 2023.040, which requires that “[a] request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought. . . .”

[6] The notice of motion did not identify counsel by name. The Court construes this to be insufficient compliance with CCP ; 2023.040, which requires that “[a] request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought. . . .”

[7] The notice of motion did not identify counsel by name. The Court construes this to be insufficient compliance with CCP ; 2023.040, which requires that “[a] request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought. . . .”

[8] The notice of motion did not identify counsel by name. The Court construes this to be insufficient compliance with CCP ; 2023.040, which requires that “[a] request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought. . . .”



Case Number: ****9597    Hearing Date: December 30, 2019    Dept: 48

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Anayely Flores

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant El Toro Enterprises, Inc. (attorney declaration only).

PROOF OF SERVICE:

ANALYSIS

Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories

As of the date of the filing of the motions, Plaintiff had not received any responses to supplemental interrogatories from Defendant. See Declaration of Ali Carlsen, ¶ 13. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling responses. The motion to compel responses to supplemental interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant El Toro Enterprises, Inc. is ordered to provide code-compliant, verified responses without objection within 10 days.

The opposing Declaration of Hillary Arrow Booth indicating that counsel believed supplemental responses were not required given the wording of the supplemental interrogatories; but, service of unverified responses are insufficient to moot this motion to compel, or the request for sanctions.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant El Toro Enterprises, Inc. and its counsel of record is GRANTED in the amount of $1,860, jointly and severally. Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 10 days.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where LOS ALTOS BOOTS INC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BOOTH HILLARY ARROW