This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/25/2020 at 11:35:37 (UTC).

ANTOINETTE MARIE ANGUIANO VS VICTOR LOPEZ VELASQUEZ ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/01/2017 ANTOINETTE MARIE ANGUIANO filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against VICTOR LOPEZ VELASQUEZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GEORGINA T. RIZK, KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE and MARK A. BORENSTEIN. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5158

  • Filing Date:

    12/01/2017

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

GEORGINA T. RIZK

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

ANGUIANO ANTOINETTE MARIE

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Defendants

VELASQUEZ VICTOR LOPEZ

LOPEZ VICTOR VELASQUEZ

NAVARO RUBEN ANTHONY

DOES 1 TO 100

CITY OF HAWAIIAN GARDENS

VELASQUEZ VICTOR LOPEZ AKA VICTOR VELASQUEZ LOPEZ

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff

CITY OF HAWAIIAN GARDENS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

SUBLETTE CAMM. ESQ

BISH MINDY

BISH MINDY SUSAN ESQ.

SUBLETTE CAMM LESLEY ESQ

CRUZ RAQUEL LESLEY ESQ

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

WESIERSKI & SUREK LLP

ROSSER DAVID BLAKE

D'ORO FRANK JOSEPH JR

FERRANTE DAVID MICHAEL ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

4/16/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (- HEARING ON MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED S...)

10/15/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (- HEARING ON MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED S...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT)

2/3/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT)

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME IN WHICH TO FILE PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT

12/23/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME IN WHICH TO FILE PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

12/5/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

Response - RESPONSE TO EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

12/11/2019: Response - RESPONSE TO EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER UPON FURTHER REVIEW BY THE COURT THE FOL...) OF 12/18/2019

12/18/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER UPON FURTHER REVIEW BY THE COURT THE FOL...) OF 12/18/2019

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (1. HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING THE ...)

12/19/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (1. HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING THE ...)

Motion for Summary Judgment

9/19/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL;

7/26/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL;

Motion to Transfer - MOTION TO TRANSFER COMPLICATED PERSONAL INJURY CASE TO INDEPENDENT CALENDAR COURT

4/17/2019: Motion to Transfer - MOTION TO TRANSFER COMPLICATED PERSONAL INJURY CASE TO INDEPENDENT CALENDAR COURT

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

5/1/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death)

10/1/2018: Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death)

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

12/20/2018: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

11/27/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Proof of Service Personal Service -

8/1/2018: Proof of Service Personal Service -

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

12/26/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

SUMMONS -

12/1/2017: SUMMONS -

68 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/20/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Antoinette Marie Anguiano (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2020
  • Docketat 3:30 PM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 04/16/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Notice of Settlement) of 02/03/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Notice of Settlement)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2020
  • DocketNotice of Settlement; Filed by Antoinette Marie Anguiano (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
91 More Docket Entries
  • 02/09/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Victor Velasquez Lopez (AKA) (Defendant); City of Hawaiian Gardens (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2018
  • DocketSummons Issued; Filed by City of Hawaiian Gardens (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2018
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by City of Hawaiian Gardens (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Antoinette Marie Anguiano (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Antoinette Marie Anguiano (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Antoinette Marie Anguiano (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC685158    Hearing Date: December 19, 2019    Dept: 2

Anguiano v. Lopez Velasquez, et al.

Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by Defendants City of Hawaiian Gardens and Victor Lopez Velasquez is DENIED.

This action arises out of a car collision on January 13, 2017. Plaintiff alleges that she was a passenger in a 2010 Honda Odyssey being driven by Defendant Victor Lopez Velasquez. The Honda collided with a 2000 Lexus GS being driven by Defendant Ruben Anthony Navarro, causing Plaintiff to sustain injuries. The complaint further alleges that at the time of the accident Mr. Lopez Velasquez was acting in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant the City of Hawaiian Gardens. The complaint alleges a cause of action for negligence against Defendants City of Hawaiian Gardens and Mr. Lopez Velasquez (collectively, “City Defendants).

The City Defendants have moved for summary adjudication of several issues. As an initial matter, the Court notes that under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(f)(1), a party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty. As noted, the complaint alleges only a single cause of action against the City Defendants. To the extent the motion is directed to that entire cause of action, the motion is properly denominated as a motion for summary judgment, not summary adjudication. The Court will not grant summary adjudication of issues that do not resolve an entire cause of action unless it is an issue of duty or a claim for damages. The Court construes the motion as a motion for summary judgment as to the first cause of action.

The City Defendants argue that the undisputed facts show that the driver of the other vehicle, Defendant Navarro, was solely at fault for the accident.

In support of the motion, the City Defendants rely primarily on the fact that requests for admission had been served on Defendant Navarro and that the requests had been deemed admitted by the Court pursuant to orders dated 7/26/2019 and 10/15/2019. The motions to deem the requests for admission admitted were improper, and the Court’s orders were entered in error. The orders have been vacated nunc pro tunc and new orders denying the motions have been entered. There is no evidence in the Court file that Mr. Navarro was ever served with the Complaint, and he has not appeared in the action. With respect to the Cross-Complaint, the City of Hawaiian Gardens obtained entry of default on 5/1/2019. Entry of default deprives the court of jurisdiction to consider any motion other than a motion for relief from default with respect to that defendant. WA Rose Co. v. Mun. Ct. (Fitzsimmons) (1959) 176 Cal. App. 2d 67, 71. The Court had no jurisdiction to grant the motions.

By defaulting, Defendant Navarro is deemed to admit the well-pleaded, material allegations in the cross-complaint against him. Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal. App. 4th 267, 281. However, even if the cross-complaint contained allegations that were material to the motion here, such admissions would not be binding or admissible as against Plaintiff.

Further, even if the requests for admission had been properly deemed admitted by Mr. Navarro, such admissions likewise would not be binding or admissible against Plaintiff. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.410 (a party’s admission to requests for admission are only binding on the party who has admitted the fact set forth in the admission request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.410(b) (“an admission made under this section is binding only on that party.”)

The City Defendants also rely on a declaration from an accident reconstruction expert, Marc Pryor, P.E. For purposes of this motion, the Court assumes, without deciding, that Mr. Pryor is qualified to give the opinions set forth in the declaration. However, Mr. Pryor’s opinion is based, in part, on the requests for admission and order deeming them admitted, and thus is inadmissible against Plaintiff. The Court sustains the objections to Mr. Pryor’s declaration.

Even if the Court put aside Mr. Pryor’s statements that the reviewed the requests for admission and orders deeming the requests admitted in reaching his opinions, the City Defendants would still not be entitled to summary adjudication. Mr. Pryor’s opinion is that Mr. Navarro was travelling at a speed of approximately 56 to 58 miles per hour before he slammed on the brakes just prior to the collision. Mr. Pryor relies on an analysis of photographs that purport to show skid marks on the scene. Whether the skid marks were the result of the accident at issue here is controverted by the testimony of Officer Bitolas, who testified that at the time of his investigation, he did not see any tire friction marks in the area of the collision or prior to. That testimony is sufficient to raise a triable issue as to the foundation for Mr. Pryor’s opinions.

In any event, even if Mr. Pryor’s opinions were uncontroverted, summary judgment would still be denied. Mr. Pryor’s opinion establishes, at best, that Mr. Navarro was negligent. But it does not establish that his negligence was the sole cause of the accident. Defendants have not established, as a matter of law, that negligence by Mr. Lopez Velasquez did not also cause or contribute to the accident.

The motion for summary adjudication or summary judgment is denied.

RULINGS ON OBJECTIONS:

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE

Objections to Defendant’s Exhibits 5 to 10 are SUSTAINED. The Court has vacated nunc pro tunc its prior orders deeming the Requests for Admission admitted by Mr. Navarro.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.