On 11/07/2017 ANGEL PAIZ GARCIA filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against SUPERIOR ENTERPRISES LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
****2295
11/07/2017
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
JON R. TAKASUGI
GARCIA ANGEL PAIZ
ROES 1-50 INCLUSIVE
KAZEM HADI
SUPERIOR ENTERPRISES LLC
DOES 1 TO 50 INCLUSIVE
HANASSAB FRED F. ESQ.
HOFFMAN GARY L
2/5/2019: Demand for Jury Trial
2/5/2019: Answer
2/6/2019: Cross-Complaint
2/7/2019: Summons
2/11/2019: Summons
2/11/2019: Cross-Complaint
3/11/2019: Order
3/11/2019: Minute Order
3/11/2019: Ex Parte Application
3/12/2019: Notice of Ruling
6/14/2019: Motion to Compel
11/7/2017: CoverSheet
11/7/2017: Summons
11/7/2017: Complaint
Motion to Compel (RESPONSES TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY); Filed by Superior Enterprises, LLC (Defendant)
at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court
at 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court
Notice of Ruling; Filed by Superior Enterprises, LLC (Defendant)
at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for an order shortening time to immediately hear defendant's motion to continue trial and final status conference or, alternatively, specially setting said motion) - Held
Order (By the Court granting ex parte appl. to cont. FSC/trial and related dates); Filed by Clerk
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for an order shortening time ...)); Filed by Clerk
Ex Parte Application (Defendant, Superior Enterprises Llc's Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time to Immediately Hear Defendant's Motion to Continue Trial and Final Status Conference or, Alternatively, Specially Setting Said Motion; Memorandum of Points and Au); Filed by Superior Enterprises, LLC (Cross-Complainant)
Summons (on Cross-Complaint); Filed by Superior Enterprises, LLC (Defendant)
Cross-Complaint; Filed by Superior Enterprises, LLC (Cross-Complainant)
Summons (on Complaint); Filed by Superior Enterprises, LLC (Defendant)
Cross-Complaint; Filed by Superior Enterprises, LLC (Cross-Complainant)
Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Superior Enterprises, LLC (Defendant)
Answer; Filed by Superior Enterprises, LLC (Defendant)
Complaint; Filed by Angel Paiz Garcia (Plaintiff)
Complaint
Summons; Filed by Angel Paiz Garcia (Plaintiff)
Case Number: BC682295 Hearing Date: November 18, 2019 Dept: 3
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
|
ANGEL PAIZ GARCIA, Plaintiff(s), vs. SUPERIOR ENTERPRISES, LLC, ET AL., Defendant(s). |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
Case No.: BC682295 [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL Dept. 3 1:30 p.m. November 18, 2019 |
Plaintiff, Angel Paiz Garcia’s attorney of record, Fred Hanassab, moves to be relieved as counsel. Counsel declares he has lost contact with Plaintiff, such that further representation is not possible. The motion is denied without prejudice for two reasons.
First, Counsel declares the moving papers were served on Client at an address he was unable to confirm. Counsel declares he attempted to confirm the address via telephone and certified mail. The Court wishes to hear from Counsel, at the hearing, concerning the results of each of these attempts. Did Counsel receive the signed return receipt? Did Counsel get Plaintiff’s voicemail? Did Counsel leave a message? Does Counsel have an e-mail address and, if so, did Counsel try to reach Plaintiff via e-mail? Counsel must address these issues by way of an amended declaration.
Second, if Counsel is unable to serve Plaintiff at a confirmed address, Counsel must serve the moving papers on the Clerk of the Court pursuant to CCP §1101(b) and CRC 3.1362(d).
Counsel is ordered to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.Case Number: BC682295 Hearing Date: November 07, 2019 Dept: 3
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
|
ANGEL PAIZ GARCIA, Plaintiff(s), vs. SUPERIOR ENTERPRISES, LLC, ET AL., Defendant(s). |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
Case No.: BC682295 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS Dept. 3 1:30 p.m. November 7, 2019 |
Defendant propounded form interrogatories, RPDs, and a demand for statement of damages on Plaintiff on 92/05/19. On 7/15/19, the Court entered an order granting Defendant’s motions to compel responses to the outstanding discovery, and also imposing sanctions; the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses within ten days. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the order; at this time, Defendant seeks an order imposing terminating sanctions.
Pursuant to Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 776, the Court should typically impose lesser sanctions prior to awarding terminating sanctions. However, there are circumstances where imposition of terminating sanctions is appropriate without first imposing issue and/or evidentiary sanctions. See Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exch. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 490-91.
Terminating sanctions are imposed at this time for three reasons. First, the Court previously imposed monetary sanctions. Second, a brief review of the prior motions reveals that the discovery at issue goes to the “heart” of Plaintiff’s case, and therefore an issue or evidentiary sanction would be tantamount to a terminating sanction. Third, Plaintiff has not opposed this motion and appears to have abandoned the case.
Plaintiff’s case against Moving Defendant is dismissed.
Defendant is ordered to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.