Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/17/2019 at 21:23:06 (UTC).

ARMINDA ACOSTA VS RAUL A ORTIZ ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/25/2017 ARMINDA ACOSTA filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against RAUL A ORTIZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1102

  • Filing Date:

    10/25/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

ACOSTA ARMINDA

Defendants and Respondents

PACIFIC WEST TREE CARE INC

DOES 1 TO 50

ORTIZ RAUL A.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

MANNING SHERI ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

4/10/2019: Minute Order

SUMMONS

10/25/2017: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

10/25/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/25/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by ARMINDA ACOSTA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC681102    Hearing Date: January 28, 2021    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

ARMINDA ACOSTA,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

RAUL A. ORTIZ, et al.

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

.: BC681102

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

January 28, 2021

On October 25, 2017, Plaintiff Arminda Acosta filed this action against Defendants Raul A. Ortiz and Pacific West Tree Care, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) arising from a November 2, 2015 motor vehicle accident.  On September 22, 2020, the Court granted Defendants’ motions to compel and ordered Plaintiff to provide discovery responses and pay monetary sanctions within 20 days of the date of the order.  However, the Court also ordered Defendant, as the moving party, to give notice of the ruling.  There is no Notice of Ruling on file or evidence that Plaintiff received notice of this Court’s ruling Before any sanctions may be imposed the court must make an express finding that there has been a willful failure of the party to serve the required answers(Fairfield v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 113, 118.)  Lack of diligence may be deemed willful where the party understood its obligation, had the ability to comply, and failed to comply.  (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 787; Fred Howland Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 605, 610-611.)  Accordingly, sanctions for failure to obey the Court’s September 22, 2020 Order are premature.  

Defendants’ Motion is DENIED without prejudice. 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  

Dated this 28th day of January 2021

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC681102    Hearing Date: September 22, 2020    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

ARMINDA ACOSTA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

RAUL A. ORTIZ, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

.: 19STCV02510

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’ PACIFIC WEST TREE CAR, INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Dept. 27

8:30 a.m.

September 22, 2020

On October 25, 2017, Plaintiff Arminda Acosta (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Raul A. Ortiz and Pacific West Tree Care, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) for injuries arising from an automobile accident on November 2, 2015. On November 21, 2019, Defendant served Form Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Special Interrogatories via mail.   Having received no responses, Defendant proceeded to file these motions compelling Plaintiff to provide responses to the written.   Defendant also requests monetary sanctions. 

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)   A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)  Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

Plaintiff did not oppose this Motion and it is undisputed that Plaintiff did not serve responses.  Accordingly, Defendant’s Motions are GRANTED and Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses without objections to Defendant’s Set One of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents within 20 days of the date of this Order. 

Monetary Sanctions

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) 

Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff, in the amount of $750.00 for three hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate of $190.00 and $180.00 in filing fees, to be paid within 20 days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  

Dated this 22nd day of September 2019

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer MANNING SHERI