This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/20/2019 at 02:41:13 (UTC).

ARACELI MONTES VS FIRST IMAGE NURSERY LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 07/07/2017 ARACELI MONTES filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against FIRST IMAGE NURSERY 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 STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6944

  • Filing Date:

    07/07/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

MONTES ARACELI

Defendants and Respondents

DE LUIS ESPINOZA JULIO

FIRST IMAGE NURSERY LLC

DOES 1-100

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorney

BELORYAN HAIK ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

11/7/2018: Minute Order

Ex Parte Application

11/7/2018: Ex Parte Application

Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death)

11/15/2018: Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death)

Unknown

11/15/2018: Unknown

Motion to Continue Trial Date

11/19/2018: Motion to Continue Trial Date

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

12/5/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice of Ruling

12/20/2018: Notice of Ruling

Unknown

12/20/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

12/20/2018: Minute Order

Order

12/20/2018: Order

Notice

12/26/2018: Notice

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

4/11/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Minute Order

4/29/2019: Minute Order

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

9/22/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

DEFENDANT'S JULIO DE LUIS ESPINOZA ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

9/28/2017: DEFENDANT'S JULIO DE LUIS ESPINOZA ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Complaint

7/7/2017: Complaint

CoverSheet

7/7/2017: CoverSheet

Summons

7/7/2017: Summons

7 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/07/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to continue the trial date, discovery, and law motion cut-off dates) - Held - Motion Granted

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference; Hearing on Ex Parte Application to c...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • DocketEx Parte Application (Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial); Filed by Araceli Montes (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Araceli Montes (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/07/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/26/2018
  • DocketNotice (of Errata regarding the Notice of Ruling on Plaintiff's Motion to Continue Trial); Filed by Araceli Montes (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/21/2018
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/20/2018
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial - Held - Motion Granted

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
12 More Docket Entries
  • 09/28/2017
  • DocketDEFENDANT'S JULIO DE LUIS ESPINOZA ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/28/2017
  • DocketAnswer to First Amended Complaint; Filed by Julio De Luis Espinoza (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/22/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Araceli Montes (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/22/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/17/2017
  • DocketComplaint ((1st)); Filed by Araceli Montes (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/17/2017
  • DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by Araceli Montes (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/17/2017
  • DocketDefendant's Claim and Order to Go to Small Claims Court (Small Claims)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • DocketComplaint

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Araceli Montes (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Araceli Montes (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****6944 Hearing Date: February 28, 2022 Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE: Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit. The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling. If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged). Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.

TENTATIVE RULING

DEPARTMENT

32

HEARING DATE

February 28, 2022

CASE NUMBER

****6944

MOTION

Motion to Set Aside Dismissal

MOVING PARTY

Plaintiff Araceli Montes

OPPOSING PARTY

None

MOTION

Plaintiff Araceli Montes through her legal representative, Arman Tsaturyan (“Counsel”), moves to set aside the Court’s order of August 16, 2021, in which the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to appear for jury trial. The motion is unopposed.

ANALYSIS

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), a court “may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” In addition, a court must vacate a default or dismissal when a motion for relief under Section 473, subdivision (b) is filed timely and accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect “unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., 473, subd. (b).)

The party or the legal representative must seek such relief “within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (Code Civ. Proc., 473, subd. (b); see Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 980 [“because more than six months had elapsed from the entry of default, and hence relief under section 473 was unavailable”]; People v. The North River Ins. Co. (2011) 200 Ca.App.4th 712, 721 [motion for relief under section 473 must be brought “within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months”]). “The six-month limit is mandatory; a court has no authority to grant relief under section 473, subdivision (b), unless an application is made within the six-month period.” (Arambula v. Union Carbide Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 333, 340, citations omitted.)

Here, Plaintiff advances Counsel’s declaration. Counsel avers that he failed to appear for jury trial due to the mistaken belief that the Court had vacated the final status conference and trial after it granted Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions. (Declaration of Arman Tsaturyan, 2-3.) The Court finds Counsel demonstrates his failure to appear for jury trial was a result of mistake, inadvertence, and neglect on his part.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the Order of Dismissal, and vacates the order of August 16, 2021 dismissing Plaintiff’s entire action.

Further the Court sets an Order to Show cause re dismissal for failure to enter default and/or default judgment regarding Defendants First Image Nursery, LLC and Julio De Luis Espinoza on MAY 2, 2022 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 32.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.



Case Number: ****6944    Hearing Date: January 21, 2021    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

araceli montes,

Plaintiff,

v.

first image nursery, llc, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: ****6944

Hearing Date: January 21, 2021

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S ANSWER

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Araceli Montes (“Plaintiff”) has filed a motion to strike the answer of Defendant Julio De Luis Espinoza (“Defendant”) to the First Amended Petition as a terminating sanction. The motion is granted.

Legal Standard

The Court has discretion to impose terminating sanctions when a party willfully disobeys a discovery order. (Code Civ. Proc., ;; 2023.010, subd. (g) & 2030.290, subd. (c).) The Court may impose a terminating sanction by striking a party’s pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2023.030, subd. (d)(1).)

Discussion

On October 2, 2020, the Court ordered Defendant to appear for deposition within 45 days of notice of the order. Plaintiff served Defendant with notice of the ruling by mail on that date. Defendant thus had until November 23, 2020 to appear for deposition in compliance with the Court’s order. As of the date Plaintiff filed this motion, Defendant has not appeared for deposition in violation of the Court’s order. Further, while Plaintiff gave Defendant notice of this motion, Defendant has not filed any opposition. The Court therefore concludes that Defendant has no meritorious arguments against the motion and the relief sought.  (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 487; Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 796-797.) 

Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions is granted and the Court orders Defendant’s answer to the First Amended Complaint stricken. Accordingly, Defendant is in default as of the date of this order.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.

DATED: January 21, 2021 ___________________________

Michael E. Whitaker

Judge of the Superior Court



Case Number: ****6944    Hearing Date: October 02, 2020    Dept: 32

 

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

araceli montes,

Plaintiff,

v.

first image nursery, llc, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: ****6944

Hearing Date: October 2, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to compel deposition

Plaintiff Araceli Montes (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant Julio De Luis Espinoza (“Defendant”) to appear for deposition. Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, if a party to the action fails to appear for deposition after service of a deposition notice and the party has not served a valid objection to that deposition notice, the party that noticed the deposition may move for an order to compel the deponent to attend and testify at deposition.  (Code Civ. Proc., ;2025.450, subd. (a).)  

Plaintiff first noticed Defendant’s deposition for November 15, 2018. (Declaration of Haik Beloryan, Exh. A.) Defendant failed to appear. (Id., ¶ 5.) Defendant then noticed Defendant’s deposition for August 6, 2019. (Id., Exh. B.) Defendant again failed to appear. (Id., ¶ 6.) Plaintiff then noticed Defendant’s deposition for March 19, 2020. (Id., Exh. D.) On March 12, 2020, Plaintiff mailed Defendant a letter, in which Plaintiff informed Defendant that if he did not confirm his attendance the day before the deposition, Plaintiff would assume he did not intend to appear. (Id., Exh. E.) Defendant failed to do so, based upon which Plaintiff vacated the deposition. (Id., ¶ 10.) Moreover, Defendant does not oppose this motion. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is granted.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $2,160. The Court finds that Defendant’s conduct is an abuse of the discovery process warranting sanctions. The Court orders Defendant to pay sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,560 based upon six hours of attorney time at $250 per hour plus one filing fee of $60. However, this award of sanctions is stayed and shall be automatically vacated if Defendant complies with this order. In other words, if Defendant submits to the deposition, he need not pay the sanctions.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s deposition is granted. Defendant shall appear for a deposition within 45 days of notice of this order unless Plaintiff stipulates to a different date. The Court orders Defendant to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,560. However, this award of sanctions is stayed and shall be automatically vacated if Defendant complies with this order.

The Court sets the following dates:

Final Status Conference: August 3, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.

Trial: August 16, 2021, at 8:30 a.m.

The discovery and motions cut-off shall be based on the new trial date. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: October 2, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court