This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/14/2020 at 05:20:48 (UTC).

BALTAZAR HERNANDEZ ET AL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Case Summary

On 07/10/2017 BALTAZAR HERNANDEZ filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against CITY OF LOS ANGELES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CHRISTOPHER K. LUI, DANIEL M. CROWLEY and STEPHEN M. MOLONEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8119

  • Filing Date:

    07/10/2017

  • 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 Judges

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

STEPHEN M. MOLONEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Not Classified By Court

HERNADEZ BALTAZAR

HERAZOL PAULA

HERAZO PAULA

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Defendants

CASTANEDA SERGIO

LOS ANGELES CITY OF

851 S. KENMORE BLISS LLC

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

COHEN GIDI (DOE 21)

COHEN GIDI DOE 21

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

851 S. KENMORE BLISS LLC

COHEN GIDI DOE 21

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BLUMENTHAL HOWARD S. ESQ.

BLUMENTHAL HOWARD SCOTT

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

JACOBS LISA C.

DILTS GREGORY ALLEN

JACOBS LISA CHERYL

MACKEY ROBERT T

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

8/20/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

4/2/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

Notice of Ruling

2/26/2020: Notice of Ruling

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE

2/6/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

1/21/2020: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Notice - NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT DETERMINATION

1/31/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT DETERMINATION

Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement (CCP 877.6)

1/13/2020: Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement (CCP 877.6)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN OR...)

11/5/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN OR...)

Reply - REPLY REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAND FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION

10/2/2019: Reply - REPLY REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAND FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS CITY OF LOS ANGELES' MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAND FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF PAULA HERAZO AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINT

9/26/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS CITY OF LOS ANGELES' MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEMAND FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF PAULA HERAZO AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINT

Substitution of Attorney

4/26/2019: Substitution of Attorney

DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND ALL RELATED CUT-OFF DATES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES;

9/24/2018: DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND ALL RELATED CUT-OFF DATES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES;

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

9/24/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

Summons - on Cross Complaint

10/5/2018: Summons - on Cross Complaint

Demand for Jury Trial -

10/5/2018: Demand for Jury Trial -

Order - Order Re: Motion to Continue Trial, FSC, and all related cut-off dates

10/24/2018: Order - Order Re: Motion to Continue Trial, FSC, and all related cut-off dates

Proof of Personal Service

11/26/2018: Proof of Personal Service

CROSS COMPLAINT - PERS. INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONG DEATH (2 PAGES) -

9/18/2018: CROSS COMPLAINT - PERS. INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONG DEATH (2 PAGES) -

54 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/28/2021
  • Hearing04/28/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2021
  • Hearing04/14/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Baltazar Hernadez (Plaintiff); Paula Herazol (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2020
  • Docketat 09:54 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Court Order

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

    Read MoreRead Less
86 More Docket Entries
  • 09/14/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Baltazar Hernadez (Plaintiff); Paula Herazol (Plaintiff); Paula Herazo (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2018
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint; Filed by Baltazar Hernadez (Plaintiff); Paula Herazol (Plaintiff); Paula Herazo (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2018
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Baltazar Hernadez (Plaintiff); Paula Herazol (Plaintiff); Paula Herazo (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM NAME

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2018
  • DocketAMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Baltazar Hernadez (Plaintiff); Paula Herazol (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC668119    Hearing Date: February 25, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion: Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents

Opposed: Yes

Proposed Ruling: Grant the motion.

Special Issues: None

Law Clerk: Thanh Ho, ext. 0662

Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On July 10, 2017, Plaintiffs Baltazar Hernandez and Paula Herazol aka Paula Herazo (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles, 851 S. Kenmore Bliss, LLC, and Sergio Castaneda for negligence, premises liability, and dangerous condition of public property arising from a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiffs allege that the intersection is a dangerous condition of public property and Defendant City of Los Angeles (“LAC”) is liable to plaintiffs for their injuries.

On January 21, 2019, Defendant LAC filed a motion to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.

ON January 24, 2019, the Court granted Defendant LAC’s ex parte application to have the instant discovery motion to be heard closer to trial date.

Trial is set for March 9, 2020.

PARTYS REQUESTS

Defendant LAC asks the Court to compel Plaintiffs response to Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents because Plaintiffs failed to serve timely responses.

Defendant LAC also asks the Court to impose $750 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel of record for abusing the discovery process.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)  The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served.  All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served.  (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905–906.)

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)  Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded.  There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses.  Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

On November 6, 2019, Defendant LAC served Plaintiffs’ counsel a Supplemental Interrogatory and a Supplemental Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents. (McGuire Decl., ¶ 2, Exh.  A – B.) To date, Plaintiffs’ counsel has not responded to the discovery requests. (Id., ¶ 3.) 

The Court finds the discovery responses are properly compelled.  Plaintiffs does not present evidence showing Plaintiff’s responses should not be compelled.

Plaintiffs argue they are willing to provide supplemental responses and that the requests were merely overlooked and premature. (Opposition, p. 1:28-1:1.) Plaintiffs argue that the motion is not need and a waste the Court’s time because Defendant’s remedy is to move to exclude such evidence from trial. (Opposition, p. 2:1-2:4.) Additionally, Plaintiffs state that they will provide supplemental responses, however, they are awaiting Defendants’ production of PMK, law enforcement, and receipt of records from LACUSC, Rancho Los Amigos and California Hospital’s PMK. (Opposition, p. 2:9-2:13.) Moreover, Plaintiffs contend that sanctions are not warranted because the instant motion is boiler plate and cookie cutter in nature. (Opposition, p. 2:4-2:6.) 

The Court finds Plaintiffs have shown that they acted with substantial justification and that an imposition of sanctions would be unjust. Accordingly, Defendants request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs is ordered serve verified responses without objections to Defendants Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents on Defendant LAC within 20 days of this ruling.

Plaintiffs is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Case Number: BC668119    Hearing Date: February 24, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On July 10, 2017, Plaintiffs Baltazar Hernandez and Paula Herazol aka Paula Herazo (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles, 851 S. Kenmore Bliss, LLC, and Sergio Castaneda for negligence, premises liability, and dangerous condition of public property arising from a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiffs allege that the intersection is a dangerous condition of public property and Defendant City of Los Angeles (“LAC”) is liable to plaintiffs for their injuries.

On January 21, 2019, Defendant LAC filed a motion to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.

ON January 24, 2019, the Court granted Defendant LAC’s ex parte application to have the instant discovery motion to be heard closer to trial date.

Trial is set for March 9, 2020.

PARTYS REQUESTS

Defendant LAC asks the Court to compel Plaintiffs response to Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents because Plaintiffs failed to serve timely responses.

Defendant LAC also asks the Court to impose $750 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel of record for abusing the discovery process.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)  The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served.  All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served.  (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905–906.)

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)  Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded.  There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses.  Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

On November 6, 2019, Defendant LAC served Plaintiffs’ counsel a Supplemental Interrogatory and a Supplemental Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents. (McGuire Decl., ¶ 2, Exh.  A – B.) To date, Plaintiffs’ counsel has not responded to the discovery requests. (Id., ¶ 3.) 

The Court finds the discovery responses are properly compelled.  Plaintiffs does not present evidence showing Plaintiff’s responses should not be compelled.

Plaintiffs argue they are willing to provide supplemental responses and that the requests were merely overlooked and premature. (Opposition, p. 1:28-1:1.) Plaintiffs argue that the motion is not need and a waste the Court’s time because Defendant’s remedy is to move to exclude such evidence from trial. (Opposition, p. 2:1-2:4.) Additionally, Plaintiffs state that they will provide supplemental responses, however, they are awaiting Defendants’ production of PMK, law enforcement, and receipt of records from LACUSC, Rancho Los Amigos and California Hospital’s PMK. (Opposition, p. 2:9-2:13.) Moreover, Plaintiffs contend that sanctions are not warranted because the instant motion is boiler plate and cookie cutter in nature. (Opposition, p. 2:4-2:6.) 

The Court finds Plaintiffs have shown that they acted with substantial justification and that an imposition of sanctions would be unjust. Accordingly, Defendants request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs is ordered serve verified responses without objections to Defendants Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents on Defendant LAC within 20 days of this ruling.

Plaintiffs is ordered to give notice of this ruling.