This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/15/2019 at 14:09:19 (UTC).

BEATRIZ CASTRO VS SHRUJA HOSPITALITY INC

Case Summary

On 10/24/2017 BEATRIZ CASTRO filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against SHRUJA HOSPITALITY INC. 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:

    ****1079

  • Filing Date:

    10/24/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

CASTRO BEATRIZ

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 50

SHRUJA HOSPITALITY INCORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorney

ROSS STEVEN

 

Court Documents

SUMMONS

10/24/2017: SUMMONS

Unknown

10/24/2017: Unknown

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

10/24/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

Minute Order

5/22/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Motion

4/30/2019: Notice of Motion

Motion for Order

4/30/2019: Motion for Order

Minute Order

4/9/2019: Minute Order

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/22/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Order (Nunc Pro Tunc to Deem the Complaint Filed on October 18, 2017) - Held - Motion Denied

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Order Nunc Pro Tunc to Deem the Complai...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Order (Nunc Pro Tunc to Deem the Complaint Filed on October 18, 2017) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • DocketNotice of Motion; Filed by BEATRIZ CASTRO (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • DocketMotion for Order (Nunc Pro Tunc); Filed by BEATRIZ CASTRO (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/24/2017
  • DocketORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/24/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/24/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by BEATRIZ CASTRO (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/24/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: ****1079 Hearing Date: July 9, 2021 Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE: Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept32@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 in-person or remotely.

NOTE: THERE ARE TWO TENTATIVE RULINGS BELOW

TENTATIVE RULING - NO. 1

DEPARTMENT

32

HEARING DATE

July 9, 2021

CASE NUMBER

****1079

MOTIONS

Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Demand For Production

MOVING PARTY

Defendant Shruja Hospitality, Inc.

OPPOSING PARTY

None

MOTIONS

Defendant Shruja Hospitality, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Beatrix Castro (“Plaintiff”) to: (1) Demand for Production, set one (“RPD”); and (2) Form Interrogatories, set one (“FROG”). Plaintiff has not filed oppositions to the motions.

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a), “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response…[t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or the protection for work product[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 20390.290, subd. (a).). Similarly, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (a), [i]f a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it…[t]he party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2031.300, subd. (a).)

Here, Defendant served the subject discovery requests on Plaintiff on February 3, 2021, electronically. Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by March 9, 2021. As of the filing date of the motions, Defendant has not received responses from Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses to the RPD and FROG.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motions to compel responses to the RPD and FROG per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300, and orders Plaintiff to serve verified responses to the RPD and FROG, without objections, within 20 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Defendant is ordered to provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.

TENTATIVE RULING - NO. 2

DEPARTMENT

32

HEARING DATE

July 9, 2021

CASE NUMBER

****1079

MOTION

Motion to Continue Trial

MOVING PARTY

Defendant Shruja Hospitality, Inc.

OPPOSING PARTY

None

MOTION

Defendant Shruja Hospitality, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves to continue the trial in this matter, which is currently set for September 21, 2021 to December 13, 2021. Plaintiff Beatrix Castro (“Plaintiff”) has not filed an opposition to the motion.

ANALYSIS

“Continuances are granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring a continuance.” (In re Marriage of Falcone and Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.) A trial court has broad discretion in considering a request for a trial continuance. (Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 11, 13-18.) California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 sets forth factors for the Court to consider in ruling on a motion to continue trial.

Defendant seeks a continuance of trial because Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s discovery, which Defendant propounded on February 3, 2021. Given the upcoming discovery cut-off dates, this is good cause for a trial continuance.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motion and orders as follows:

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling, and file a proof of service of such.

'


Case Number: ****1079    Hearing Date: December 01, 2020    Dept: 32

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

Beatriz castro,

Plaintiff,

v.

shruja hospitality Inc.,

Defendant.

Case No.: ****1079

Hearing Date: December 1, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

plaintiff’s MOTION for a nunc pro tunc order

Plaintiff Beatriz Castro (“Plaintiff”) against Defendant Shruja Hospitality, Inc. (“Defendant”) alleging that her hand became wedged and stuck in an elevator at Defendant’s premises. Plaintiff alleges that the accident occurred on October 18, 2015, and she filed this action on October 24, 2017. The Court held a final status conference on April 9, 2019, during which it advanced and vacated the trial date and set an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for failure to serve Defendant. On April 30, 2019, approximately 18 months after the complaint was filed, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order nunc pro tunc to deem the complaint has having been filed on October 18, 2017. The Court denied the motion without prejudice to Plaintiff re-filing the motion after Defendant was served. Plaintiff served Defendant on October 28, 2019, and then filed this motion. Plaintiff establishes good cause to grant the motion, which is not opposed by Defendant. Therefore, the motion is granted. The Court shall deem the complaint to have been filed on October 18, 2017.

Defendant was served on October 28, 2019, and Defendant did not file an answer or responsive pleading within the statutory deadline. Therefore, the Court sets an Order to Show Cause re: Entry of Default and Default Judgment for January 29, 2021, at 8:30 a.m. The Court orders Plaintiff to file her request for entry of default and request for entry of default judgment on or before January 4, 2021. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: December 1, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court