This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/20/2021 at 20:03:36 (UTC).

BRINA WASHINGTON, ET AL. VS VANETTA N MOSBY, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 11/26/2018 BRINA WASHINGTON filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against VANETTA N MOSBY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Torrance Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CHRISTOPHER K. LUI and DEIRDRE HILL. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******6023

  • Filing Date:

    11/26/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

DEIRDRE HILL

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Cross Plaintiffs and Defendants

WASHINGTON BRITTANY

WASHINGTON STEPHANIE

WASHINGTON ALBERT

WASHINGTON BRINA

CITY OF INGLEWOOD

Defendants and Cross Defendants

MOSBY VANETTA N

CITY OF INGLEWOOD

MOSBY VANETTA N.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

ART SUMMERVILLE

S.I.C. INC.

ART SUMMERVULLE REALITY AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

MOSBY AS TRUSTEE OF THE MOSBY TRUST VANETTA N.

SUMMERVILLE ART

S.I.C. INC

ART SUMMERVILLE REALTY AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff, Cross Plaintiff and Defendant Attorneys

BRANDON LONNIE JAMES

MALLORY GEORGE LORENZO

NIELSEN TANNER R.

SHAPIRO MARC S

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal

2/18/2021: Request for Dismissal

Notice - NOTICE COMPENDIUM OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

12/11/2020: Notice - NOTICE COMPENDIUM OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Separate Statement

12/11/2020: Separate Statement

Motion for Summary Judgment

12/11/2020: Motion for Summary Judgment

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE) OF 12/11/2020

12/11/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE) OF 12/11/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

12/11/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

Case Management Statement

11/25/2020: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

11/17/2020: Case Management Statement

Notice - NOTICE DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MEMORANDUM OF COSTS AS TO DEFENDANT CITY OF INGLEWOOD

10/29/2020: Notice - NOTICE DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MEMORANDUM OF COSTS AS TO DEFENDANT CITY OF INGLEWOOD

Substitution of Attorney

10/20/2020: Substitution of Attorney

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; HE...)

9/22/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; HE...)

Notice of Ruling

9/22/2020: Notice of Ruling

Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

8/28/2020: Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

8/28/2020: Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

8/28/2020: Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

8/28/2020: Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted - DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DEEM MATTERS ADMITTED AS TO PLAINTIFF BRINA WASHINGTON; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

8/21/2020: Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted - DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DEEM MATTERS ADMITTED AS TO PLAINTIFF BRINA WASHINGTON; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL FORM INTERROGATORY RESPONSES, SET TWO, FROM PLAINTIFF BRINA WASHINGTON; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

8/21/2020: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL FORM INTERROGATORY RESPONSES, SET TWO, FROM PLAINTIFF BRINA WASHINGTON; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

82 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/18/2021
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Brina Washington (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department M, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department M, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference; Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2020
  • DocketMotion for Summary Judgment; Filed by S.I.C., Inc., (Defendant); Art Summervulle Reality And Property Management (Defendant); Art Summerville (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Case Management Conference; Trial Setting Conference) of 12/11/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2020
  • DocketSeparate Statement; Filed by S.I.C., Inc., (Defendant); Art Summervulle Reality And Property Management (Defendant); Art Summerville (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2020
  • DocketNotice (Compendium of Exhibits in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by S.I.C., Inc., (Defendant); Art Summervulle Reality And Property Management (Defendant); Art Summerville (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2020
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Vanetta N. Mosby (Defendant); S.I.C., Inc., (Defendant); Art Summervulle Reality And Property Management (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2020
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Brina Washington (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
122 More Docket Entries
  • 02/11/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Cross-Complaint); Filed by City of Inglewood (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • DocketRequest for Refund / Order ((previously granted but no funds received to refund)); Filed by City of Inglewood (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2019
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by Brina Washington (Plaintiff); City of Inglewood (Cross-Complainant); Stephanie Washington (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2018
  • DocketAnswer (of defendant City of Inglewood to Complaint of Plaintiff Briana Washington); Filed by Brina Washington (Plaintiff); Stephanie Washington (Plaintiff); Albert Washington (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2018
  • DocketAmended Complaint (FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES); Filed by Brina Washington (Plaintiff); Stephanie Washington (Plaintiff); Albert Washington (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2018
  • DocketComplaint ( (1st)); Filed by Brina Washington (Plaintiff); Stephanie Washington (Plaintiff); Albert Washington (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2018
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Brina Washington (Plaintiff); Stephanie Washington (Plaintiff); Albert Washington (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Brina Washington (Plaintiff); Stephanie Washington (Plaintiff); Albert Washington (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STCV06023    Hearing Date: September 22, 2020    Dept: M

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. M

BRINA WASHINGTON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No.:

18STCV06023

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

VANETTA N. MOSBY, et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: September 22, 2020

Moving Parties: Defendants Vanetta N. Mosby, et al.

Responding Party: None

(1) Motion to Compel Form Interrogatory Responses, Set Two

(2) Motion to Deem Matters Admitted

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed.

RULING

The motions are GRANTED. Plaintiff Brina Washington is ordered (1) to serve on defendants verified responses to defendants’ Form Interrogatories, Set Two, within 20 days.

The court orders that the truth of the matters specified in defendants’ Requests for Admission, Set One is deemed admitted.

The court orders plaintiff to pay to defendants a monetary sanction in the amount of $720 for both motions within 30 days.

BACKGROUND

On February 1, 2019, Brina Washington, Stephanie Washington, Albert Washington, and Brittany Washington filed a FAC against Vanetta N. Mosby, ind. and as trustee of the Mosby Trust, S.I.C., Inc., Art Summerville Realty and Property Management, Art Summerville, City of Los Angeles, and City of Inglewood for negligence, negligent violation of statutory duty, breach of implied warranty of habitability, breach of statutory warranty of habitability, nuisance, breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, collection of rent for untenable dwelling, constructive eviction, unlawful business practice, and breach of contract.

On March 3, 2020, the court granted plaintiffs’ counsel’s motions to be relieved as counsel.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

Interrogatories

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. CCP §2030.290(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.

Request for Admissions

Pursuant to CCP §2033.280(b), a party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). “Failure to timely respond to RFA does not result in automatic admissions. Rather, the propounder of the RFA must ‘move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction’ under §2023.010 et seq.” Civ. Proc. Before Trial, 8:1370, citing CCP § 2033.280(b). The court “shall” grant the motion to deem RFA admitted, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” CCP §2033.280(c).

DISCUSSION

Defendants request that the court compel plaintiff Brina Washington to respond to their Form Interrogatories, Set Two and to deem admitted the truth of the matters in the Requests for Admission, Set One.

Defendants served discovery requests on July 7, 2020. Responses were due by August 11, 2020. To date, defense counsel has not received responses.

Although not required, the court notes that defense counsel did not send a meet and confer to plaintiff.

The court finds defendants properly served the discovery requests and plaintiff failed to respond. The motions are thus GRANTED.

Sanctions

Under CCP § 2023.030(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.” Under CCP § 2023.010, an example of the misuse of the discovery process is “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

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.” CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).

It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated a motion to deem them admitted. CCP § 2033.280(c).

Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a) states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

Defendants request sanctions against plaintiff in the total amount of $2,520 for both motions. The court finds that $720 ($300/hr. x 2 hrs. plus $120 in filing fees) is a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded against plaintiff.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of the ruling.

Case Number: 18STCV06023    Hearing Date: March 03, 2020    Dept: SWB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. B

BRINA WASHINGTON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No.:

18STCV06023

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

VANETTA N. MOSBY, et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: March 3, 2020

MOVING COUNSEL: Attorney Lonnie J. Brandon, counsel for plaintiffs Brittany Washington, Stephanie Washington, and Brina Washington

RESPONDING PARTY: None

(1) Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

(2) Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

(3) Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

The court considered the moving papers.

RULING

The motions are GRANTED. The court orders that the attorney is relieved as counsel of record for plaintiffs Brittany Washington, Stephanie Washington, and Brina Washington, effective upon the filing of a proof of service of the signed “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel – Civil” (Judicial Council form MC-053) upon the clients (plaintiffs).

BACKGROUND

On February 1, 2019, Brina Washington, Stephanie Washington, Albert Washington, and Brittany Washington filed a FAC against Vanetta N. Mosby, ind. and as trustee of the Mosby Trust, S.I.C., Inc., Art Summerville Realty and Property Management, Art Summerville, City of Los Angeles, and City of Inglewood for negligence, negligent violation of statutory duty, breach of implied warranty of habitability, breach of statutory warranty of habitability, nuisance, breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, collection of rent for untenable dwelling, constructive eviction, unlawful business practice, and breach of contract.

A motion for summary judgment is set for April 2, 2020.

LEGAL STANDARD

The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal. App. 4th 904, 915; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal. App. 2d 398.

CRC Rule 3.1362 (Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel) requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion and declaration on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs’ attorney of record, Lonnie J. Brandon, seeks to be relieved as counsel.

Counsel states in his declaration that communication between himself and his clients has broken down and that they no longer have an attorney-client relationship that would be beneficial to them. He also states that the clients have expressed to him that they are not satisfied with his representation.

The court finds that the attorney has served the clients by mail at the client’s last known address and submitted a declaration establishing that the service requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362, have been satisfied. The court also finds that the attorney has shown sufficient reasons why the motion to be relieved as counsel should be granted and why the attorney has brought a motion under Code of Civil Procedure § 284(2) instead of filing a consent under § 284(1).

The motions are GRANTED.

Moving counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where SIC INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where CITY OF INGLEWOOD is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SHAPIRO MARC S

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MALLORY GEORGE L.