This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/30/2019 at 05:19:27 (UTC).

BRENDA WEBB VS GREYHOUND LINES INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 07/10/2017 BRENDA WEBB filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against GREYHOUND LINES INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARC D. GROSS and JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7750

  • 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

MARC D. GROSS

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

WEBB BRENDA

Defendants and Respondents

FIRSTGROUP AMERICA INC

GREYHOUND LINES INC

DOES 1 TO 25

WILLIAM WADE THOMAS DOE1

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

AKUBUILO JUDE A. ESQ.

AKUBUILO JUDE A.

NOTTI JOHN CARMEL

GENISH JONATHAN M.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

FOX DANA ALDEN ESQ.

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

FOX DANA ALDEN

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

2/6/2018: Minute Order

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

2/7/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

3/8/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

Unknown

5/11/2018: Unknown

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF, BRENDA WEBB, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS OF $1,350.00 AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND HER ATTORNEYS OF RKCORD; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORIT

8/15/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF, BRENDA WEBB, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS OF $1,350.00 AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND HER ATTORNEYS OF RKCORD; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORIT

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

9/20/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT WILLIAM WADE THOMAS

9/28/2018: ANSWER OF DEFENDANT WILLIAM WADE THOMAS

Minute Order

10/23/2018: Minute Order

Substitution of Attorney

11/7/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Unknown

2/8/2019: Unknown

Unknown

2/8/2019: Unknown

Notice of Ruling

5/1/2019: Notice of Ruling

Order

5/1/2019: Order

Unknown

11/20/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

12/14/2017: Minute Order

ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS GREYHOUND LINES, INC., FIRSTGROUP AMERICA INC.

8/21/2017: ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS GREYHOUND LINES, INC., FIRSTGROUP AMERICA INC.

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

7/28/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

7/28/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

20 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/02/2019
  • Amended Commission to Obtain and Serve Out of State Subpoenas for the Production of Business Records; Declaration of Hellar-Ann Hancock Attached in Support Thereof; Filed by Greyhound Lines Inc (Defendant); Firstgroup America Inc (Defendant); WILLIAM WADE THOMAS DOE1 (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Continue Trial) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (to Continue Trial); Filed by Greyhound Lines Inc (Defendant); Firstgroup America Inc (Defendant); WILLIAM WADE THOMAS DOE1 (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Notice of Ruling (ON DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL); Filed by Greyhound Lines Inc (Defendant); Firstgroup America Inc (Defendant); WILLIAM WADE THOMAS DOE1 (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Order (Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial); Filed by Greyhound Lines Inc (Defendant); Firstgroup America Inc (Defendant); WILLIAM WADE THOMAS DOE1 (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • Commission to Take Deposition Outside California; Filed by Greyhound Lines Inc (Defendant); Firstgroup America Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2019
  • Notice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by Brenda Webb (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2019
  • Notice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by Brenda Webb (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
39 More Docket Entries
  • 11/20/2017
  • Receipt; Filed by Greyhound Lines Inc (Defendant); Firstgroup America Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2017
  • ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS GREYHOUND LINES, INC., FIRSTGROUP AMERICA INC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2017
  • Answer; Filed by Greyhound Lines Inc (Defendant); Firstgroup America Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Brenda Webb (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Brenda Webb (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Brenda Webb (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC667750    Hearing Date: February 24, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

BRENDA WEBB,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GREYHOUND LINES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC667750

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Dept. 3

10:00 a.m.

February 24, 2020

1. Background Facts

Plaintiff Brenda Webb (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Greyhound Lines, Inc. and FirstGroup America Inc. (“Defendants”) on July 10, 2017, alleging causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. The action arises from allegations that Plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of the bus driver abruptly braking while Plaintiff occupied the bus bathroom.

2. Discussion

Plaintiff moves the Court for an order compelling Defendants to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Four, No. 35.

 

Plaintiff’s counsel, Michael N. Jones, declares that he met and conferred with Defense counsel via telephone and in person, and on “the morning of January 27, 2020, Defendant’s counsel informed me that Defendants would under no circumstances produce the requested information without a court order.” (Jones Decl. ¶ 6.)

Although Defendants opposed Plaintiff’s ex parte application for an Order shortening time on Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses, the motion itself remains unopposed.

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion is in violation of CCP § 1005(b). Pursuant to CCP § 1005(b) “all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing. The moving and supporting papers served shall be a copy of the papers filed or to be filed with the court. However, if the notice is served by mail, the required 16-day period of notice before the hearing shall be increased by five calendar days if the place of mailing and the place of address are within the State of California . . .” Here, the motion was served on “January 29, 2019”, by mail. If the Court were to presume Plaintiff intended to indicate that the motion was served in 2020, not 2019, 16 court-days from January 29 falls on the day of this hearing, February 24, 2020. Such timing does not allow for the mandated 5 additional calendar days for a motion served by mail.

The Court also notes that trial is set for March 20, 2020, less than a month from the present hearing. When the trial was continued on January 24, 2020, discovery was not extended so it tracks the prior trial date of March 3, 2020.  While expert discovery and motion cut-offs were extended, discovery was cut-off on February 3, 2020.  Pursuant to CCP § 2024.020, “any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” Thus, the motion remains outside of the discovery motion cut-off.

Plaintiff has not properly reserved this motion, and is in violation of CCP § 1005(b).  As mentioned above, this motion is unopposed.  However, Defendant appeared in this matter on January 31, 2019, to oppose Plaintiff’s ex parte application to advance the hearing on this matter, arguing that there is no cause for ex parte relief, but also that the motion to compel further responses should not be granted because such production of documents would violate the constitutional right of privacy of Defendant’s passengers. Furthermore, on February 5, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to compel the deposition of Sylvia Reyes, a non-expert passenger witness who was aboard the subject Greyhound bus, set for hearing on March 9, 2020.  It appears both parties are engaging in last-minute discovery and motion practices.  Court suggests the parties work together to agree on what discovery shall proceed past the cut-off date.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFP No. 35 is DENIED. The Court declines to impose sanctions.

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.

Case Number: BC667750    Hearing Date: February 21, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

BRENDA WEBB,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GREYHOUND LINES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC667750

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Dept. 3

10:00 a.m.

February 24, 2020

1. Background Facts

Plaintiff Brenda Webb (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Greyhound Lines, Inc. and FirstGroup America Inc. (“Defendants”) on July 10, 2017, alleging causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. The action arises from allegations that Plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of the bus driver abruptly braking while Plaintiff occupied the bus bathroom.

2. Discussion

Plaintiff moves the Court for an order compelling Defendants to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Four, No. 35.

 

Plaintiff’s counsel, Michael N. Jones, declares that he met and conferred with Defense counsel via telephone and in person, and on “the morning of January 27, 2020, Defendant’s counsel informed me that Defendants would under no circumstances produce the requested information without a court order.” (Jones Decl. ¶ 6.)

Although Defendants opposed Plaintiff’s ex parte application for an Order shortening time on Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses, the motion itself remains unopposed.

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion is in violation of CCP § 1005(b). Pursuant to CCP § 1005(b) “all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing. The moving and supporting papers served shall be a copy of the papers filed or to be filed with the court. However, if the notice is served by mail, the required 16-day period of notice before the hearing shall be increased by five calendar days if the place of mailing and the place of address are within the State of California . . .” Here, the motion was served on “January 29, 2019”, by mail. If the Court were to presume Plaintiff intended to indicate that the motion was served in 2020, not 2019, 16 court-days from January 29 falls on the day of this hearing, February 24, 2020. Such timing does not allow for the mandated 5 additional calendar days for a motion served by mail.

The Court also notes that trial is set for March 20, 2020, less than a month from the present hearing. When the trial was continued on January 24, 2020, discovery was not extended so it tracks the prior trial date of March 3, 2020.  While expert discovery and motion cut-offs were extended, the discovery cut-off in this matter occurred on February 3, 2020.  Pursuant to CCP § 2024.020, “any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” Thus, the motion remains outside of the discovery motion cut-off.

Plaintiff has not properly reserved this motion, and is in violation of CCP § 1005(b).  As mentioned above, this motion is unopposed.  However, Defendant appeared in this matter on January 31, 2019, to oppose Plaintiff’s ex parte application to advance the hearing on this matter, arguing that there is no cause for ex parte relief, but also that the motion to compel further responses should not be granted because such production of documents would violate the constitutional right of privacy of Defendant’s passengers. Furthermore, on February 5, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to compel the deposition of Sylvia Reyes, a non-expert passenger witness who was aboard the subject Greyhound bus, set for hearing on March 9, 2020.  It appears both parties are engaging in last-minute discovery and motion practices.  Court suggests the parties work together to agree on what discovery shall proceed past the cut-off date.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFP No. 35 is DENIED. The Court declines to impose sanctions.

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.