Search

Attributes

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

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MONTES ARACELI

Defendants and Respondents

DE LUIS ESPINOZA JULIO

FIRST IMAGE NURSERY LLC

DOES 1-100

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

BELORYAN HAIK ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

11/7/2018: Minute Order

Ex Parte Application

11/7/2018: Ex Parte Application

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

Amended Complaint

7/17/2017: Amended Complaint

7 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

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

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • at 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 MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference; Hearing on Ex Parte Application to c...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial); Filed by Araceli Montes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Araceli Montes (Plaintiff)

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

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

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

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

    Read MoreRead Less
12 More Docket Entries
  • 09/28/2017
  • DEFENDANT'S JULIO DE LUIS ESPINOZA ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2017
  • Answer to First Amended Complaint; Filed by Julio De Luis Espinoza (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Araceli Montes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2017
  • Complaint ((1st)); Filed by Araceli Montes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2017
  • First Amended Complaint; Filed by Araceli Montes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2017
  • Defendant's Claim and Order to Go to Small Claims Court (Small Claims)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Araceli Montes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Araceli Montes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC666944    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.: BC666944

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: BC666944    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.: BC666944

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