This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/29/2020 at 02:07:27 (UTC).

AUXILIADORA GUITERREZ VS TACOS EL LIMONCITO ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/07/2018 AUXILIADORA GUITERREZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against TACOS EL LIMONCITO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JON R. TAKASUGI, HOLLY E. KENDIG and THOMAS D. LONG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3021

  • Filing Date:

    02/07/2018

  • 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 Judges

JON R. TAKASUGI

HOLLY E. KENDIG

THOMAS D. LONG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

GUITERREZ AUXILIADORA

Defendants and Respondents

EL LIMONCITO RESTAURANT

FELIX-CASTRO FABIOLA G.

FELIX JOSE

DOES 1 TO 50

TACOS EL LIMONCITO

LIMONCITO TACOS EL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

KHAKSHOOY BOB B. ESQ.

AGARWAL SANDEEP GOPAL ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

QUIGG VINCENT J. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling

10/23/2020: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

10/15/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

Notice - NOTICE OF SUSPENSION

5/14/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF SUSPENSION

Proof of Service by Mail

4/14/2020: Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Service by Mail

4/14/2020: Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Service by Mail

4/14/2020: Proof of Service by Mail

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF AUXILIA'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE...) OF 04/24/2020

4/24/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF AUXILIA'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE...) OF 04/24/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND JURY TRIAL)

4/24/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND JURY TRIAL)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND JURY TRIAL) OF 04/24/2020

4/24/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND JURY TRIAL) OF 04/24/2020

Proof of Service by Mail

4/24/2020: Proof of Service by Mail

Notice - NOTICE OF NON-RECEIPT OF OPPOSITIONS

2/13/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF NON-RECEIPT OF OPPOSITIONS

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

1/21/2020: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

1/21/2020: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO HAVE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS DEEMED ADMITTED

1/21/2020: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO HAVE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS DEEMED ADMITTED

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING DATE

1/27/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING DATE

Order - ORDER RE EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

2/4/2020: Order - ORDER RE EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

7/24/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

SUMMONS -

2/7/2018: SUMMONS -

31 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/27/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (for Failure to File Proof of Service) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $1788.40) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $2511.75) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Producti...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Auxiliadora Guiterrez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
55 More Docket Entries
  • 07/24/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 3, Holly E. Kendig, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Tacos El Limoncito (Defendant); Jose Felix (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2018
  • DocketDEFENDANT JOSE FELIX DBA TACOS EL LIMONCITO'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Auxiliadora Guiterrez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2018
  • DocketSummons Issued; Filed by Auxiliadora Guiterrez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Auxiliadora Guiterrez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC693021    Hearing Date: October 27, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

AUXILADORA GUITERREZ,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

TACOS EL LIMONCITO, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC693021

[TENTATIVE] ORDER CONTINUING DISCOVERY MOTIONS

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

October 27, 2020

Plaintiff, Auxiliadora Guiterrez filed this action against Defendants, Tacos El Limoncito, et al. for premises liability and negligence on 2/07/18.

Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and request for production of documents, set one, and to deem request for admissions, set one, admitted on 4/14/20. On 4/24/20, the court set the hearing for Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to request for production of documents and motion to compel responses to form interrogatories for 10/27/20. (Min. Order 4/24/20, Court Order re: Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel.) However, it appears the court inadvertently did not set Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to special interrogatories or motion to deem request for admissions admitted for hearing. The court’s records do not show these motions have been taken off calendar or otherwise scheduled for a different date.

Moreover, the court’s 4/24/20 order which set Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to form interrogatories and request for production of documents for hearing on 10/27/20 ordered moving party, Plaintiff, to give notice of the instant hearing date. As of 10/20/20, no such notice has been filed with this court.

Based on the foregoing, and to ensure Defendant receives proper notice of the subject motions to compel and deem admitted, the hearing on the motions to compel responses to form interrogatories and request for production of documents is continued to _________________ at 1:30 p.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse. Further, the motion to compel responses to special interrogatories and motion to deem request for admissions admitted are set for hearing on the same date. If this date is not an available date for Plaintiff, Plaintiff may use the online reservation system to change the hearing date to the next available convenient date in the system.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@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. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

Dated this 27th day of October, 2020

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC693021    Hearing Date: March 02, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

AUXILADORA GUITERREZ,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

TACOS EL LIMONCITO, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC693021

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DISCOVERY MOTIONS

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

March 2, 2020

Plaintiff, Auxiliadora Guiterrez filed this action against Defendants, Tacos El Limoncito, et al. for premises liability and negligence on 2/07/18. The case was originally set for trial on 8/07/19. On 7/24/19, the parties appeared for an FSC. The parties reported not ready for trial, and the Court continued the FSC to 8/01/19 (the trial date). On 8/01/19, the Court continued the trial date to 2/05/20 per oral stipulation. The minute order was silent concerning extending the discovery cut-off.

On 1/21/20, Plaintiff filed these motions to compel and motion to deem RFAs admitted, setting them for hearing on 2/24/20. On 2/04/20, Plaintiff appeared ex parte seeking an order continuing the trial date. The Court found Plaintiff gave notice of the ex parte application, noted the lack of opposition, and continued the trial to 6/19/20. The Court ordered the discovery and motion cut-off dates to follow the new dates.

Opposition to the 2/24/20 motions was due on or before 2/07/20. The Court prepared a tentative ruling granting the motions, as they were unopposed. However, on 2/18/20, Defendants filed a grossly tardy opposition to the motions. The Court continued the hearing on the motions to 3/02/20 to consider the untimely opposition.

Any reply to the opposition was due on or before 2/24/20. However, because the continuance was not made until 2/24/20, it has not been possible for Plaintiff to file a timely reply brief. To date, the Court has not received a reply brief.

The sole argument made in the opposition is that discovery is cut off, and therefore Defendants need not respond to the outstanding discovery. This is a somewhat unique situation. At the time Plaintiff propounded the discovery, discovery was cut off, and the discovery was improper. However, after Plaintiff propounded the discovery and after Plaintiff filed the discovery motions, the Court re-opened discovery to follow the new trial date.

The Court is not comfortable granting the motion to deem RFAs admitted under the circumstances, as the relief is too extreme. The Court is also not comfortable imposing sanctions. Because this is a unique situation, because the parties did not provide authority concerning how to proceed in such a situation, and because the Court knows of no on point authority, the Court is inclined to exercise its equitable powers to fashion a remedy.

The Court will deem all of the discovery to have been propounded on today’s hearing date, 3/02/20. Defendants will have thirty days, per Code, to respond to the discovery. Objections are not waived, and Defendants are not being compelled to respond. The Court strongly encourages Counsel to resolve any issues relating to this discovery without further law and motion practice.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@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: BC693021    Hearing Date: February 28, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

AUXILADORA GUITERREZ,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

TACOS EL LIMONCITO, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC693021

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DISCOVERY MOTIONS

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

March 2, 2020

Plaintiff, Auxiliadora Guiterrez filed this action against Defendants, Tacos El Limoncito, et al. for premises liability and negligence on 2/07/18.  The case was originally set for trial on 8/07/19.  On 7/24/19, the parties appeared for an FSC.  The parties reported not ready for trial, and the Court continued the FSC to 8/01/19 (the trial date).  On 8/01/19, the Court continued the trial date to 2/05/20 per oral stipulation.  The minute order was silent concerning extending the discovery cut-off. 

On 1/21/20, Plaintiff filed these motions to compel and motion to deem RFAs admitted, setting them for hearing on 2/24/20.  On 2/04/20, Plaintiff appeared ex parte seeking an order continuing the trial date.  The Court found Plaintiff gave notice of the ex parte application, noted the lack of opposition, and continued the trial to 6/19/20.  The Court ordered the discovery and motion cut-off dates to follow the new dates.

Opposition to the 2/24/20 motions was due on or before 2/07/20.  The Court prepared a tentative ruling granting the motions, as they were unopposed.  However, on 2/18/20, Defendants filed a grossly tardy opposition to the motions.  The Court continued the hearing on the motions to 3/02/20 to consider the untimely opposition. 

Any reply to the opposition was due on or before 2/24/20.  However, because the continuance was not made until 2/24/20, it has not been possible for Plaintiff to file a timely reply brief.  To date, the Court has not received a reply brief.

The sole argument made in the opposition is that discovery is cut off, and therefore Defendants need not respond to the outstanding discovery.  This is a somewhat unique situation.  At the time Plaintiff propounded the discovery, discovery was cut off, and the discovery was improper.  However, after Plaintiff propounded the discovery and after Plaintiff filed the discovery motions, the Court re-opened discovery to follow the new trial date. 

The Court is not comfortable granting the motion to deem RFAs admitted under the circumstances, as the relief is too extreme.  The Court is also not comfortable imposing sanctions.  Because this is a unique situation, because the parties did not provide authority concerning how to proceed in such a situation, and because the Court knows of no on point authority, the Court is inclined to exercise its equitable powers to fashion a remedy. 

The Court will deem all of the discovery to have been propounded on today’s hearing date, 3/02/20.  Defendants will have thirty days, per Code, to respond to the discovery.  Objections are not waived, and Defendants are not being compelled to respond.  The Court strongly encourages Counsel to resolve any issues relating to this discovery without further law and motion practice.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@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: BC693021    Hearing Date: February 24, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

AUXILIADORA GUITERREZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TACOS EL LIMONCITO ET AL.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC693021

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION TO DEEM RFAS ADMITTED

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

February 24, 2020

Plaintiff Auxiliadora Guiterrez’s Motions to Compel are Granted.  Defendants is ordered to serve verified responses to the outstanding discovery, without objections, within twenty days.  Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted is Granted.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted in the amount of $1,273.60.  Defendants and its attorney of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the amount of $1,273.60, within twenty days.

Plaintiff propounded special interrogatories, form interrogatories, RFAs, and RPDs on Defendants on April 2, 2018.  To date, Defendants have not served responses.  Plaintiff therefore seeks an order compelling Defendants to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions.

Plaintiff’s motions to compel are granted.  Defendants are ordered to serve verified responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs, without objections, within twenty days.  CCP §§2030.290(a),(b), 2031.300(a),(b).  Plaintiff also moves to deem RFAs admitted.  The motion is granted.  CCP §2033.280(b).

Sanctions are mandatory.  §§2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), 2033.280(c).  Plaintiff seeks sanctions in varying amounts in connection with the four motions.  The Court finds one hour to prepare each of these motions to compel is sufficient to compensate Plaintiff.  The Court awards 1 hour to appear at the hearing on the motion.  The Court therefore awards a total of 5 hours of attorney time at $200/hour, or $1,000 in attorneys’ fees.  The Court also awards four filing fees of $68.40 each, or $273.60 in costs.  Sanctions are sought against and awarded against Defendants and its attorney of record, jointly and severally.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at SSCDEPT31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.orgIf 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.