This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/22/2022 at 02:31:21 (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, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CHRISTOPHER K. LUI, DANIEL M. CROWLEY, STEPHEN M. MOLONEY and THERESA M. TRABER. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8119

  • Filing Date:

    07/10/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

STEPHEN M. MOLONEY

THERESA M. TRABER

 

Party Details

Petitioners and Plaintiffs

HERNADEZ BALTAZAR

HERAZOL PAULA

HERAZO PAULA

Respondents, Cross Defendants and 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

Respondents, Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

851 S. KENMORE BLISS LLC

COHEN GIDI DOE 21

Not Classified By Court, Plaintiff and Petitioner

HERAZO PAULA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

BLUMENTHAL HOWARD S. ESQ.

BLUMENTHAL HOWARD SCOTT

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

JACOBS LISA C.

DILTS GREGORY ALLEN

MACKEY ROBERT T

JACOBS LISA CHERYL

 

Court Documents

Order - Dismissal

5/19/2022: Order - Dismissal

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT); ORDER TO SHOW...) OF 05/19/2022

5/19/2022: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT); ORDER TO SHOW...) OF 05/19/2022

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT); ORDER TO SHOW...)

5/19/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT); ORDER TO SHOW...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

4/18/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

3/18/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

4/5/2021: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

Notice of Ruling

4/14/2021: Notice of Ruling

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION DF (CITY) EX PARTE FOR ODER TO COMPEL PF SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

8/31/2021: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION DF (CITY) EX PARTE FOR ODER TO COMPEL PF SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

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

9/3/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ODER...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

9/17/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Notice of Settlement

9/17/2021: Notice of Settlement

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 09/17/2021

9/17/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 09/17/2021

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

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

Request for Dismissal

7/13/2020: Request for Dismissal

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/16/2020

4/16/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/16/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

4/16/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

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

66 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/19/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (for Failure to File Proof of Service of Summons and Cross-Complaint) - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/19/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/19/2022
  • DocketOrder - Dismissal; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/19/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement); Order to Show...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/19/2022
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement); Order to Show...) of 05/19/2022); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/18/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/18/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement))); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/18/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/18/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement))); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/22/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
106 More Docket Entries
  • 09/14/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

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

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/21/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/01/2018
  • DocketAMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/01/2018
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Baltazar Hernadez (Plaintiff); Paula Herazol (Plaintiff); Paula Herazo (Legacy Party)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/01/2018
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint; Filed by Baltazar Hernadez (Plaintiff); Paula Herazol (Plaintiff); Paula Herazo (Legacy Party)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/01/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM NAME

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/10/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE ;ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/10/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/10/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Baltazar Hernadez (Plaintiff); Paula Herazol (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****8119    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: ****8119    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.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer DILTS GREGORY A.