This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/26/2020 at 02:58:22 (UTC).

BRYAN CHRISTOPHER GOFF VS MIKE DAVIS ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/25/2018 BRYAN CHRISTOPHER GOFF filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against MIKE DAVIS. 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:

    ****7833

  • Filing Date:

    05/25/2018

  • 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 Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

GOFF BRYAN CHRISTOPHER

Defendants and Respondents

DAVID MIKE

DAVIS MIKE

HAMMOND ROBERT

DOES 1-50

WORLDWIDE REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT LLC

DAVIS MIKE AKA MIKE DAVID

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

KIRAKOSIAN LEON ESQ.

KIRAKOSIAN LEVON

Defendant Attorneys

DWYER ROBERT J

DWYER ROBERT JAMES

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATO...)

9/25/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATO...)

Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT (1ST)

7/20/2020: Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT (1ST)

Answer

8/13/2020: Answer

Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES ALLEGATION

7/10/2020: Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES ALLEGATION

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; AND D

6/5/2020: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; AND D

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO PROVIDE RESPONSES, AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTI

6/5/2020: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO PROVIDE RESPONSES, AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTI

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND OTHER TANGIBLE THINGS AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY S

6/5/2020: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND OTHER TANGIBLE THINGS AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY S

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; AND DECL

6/5/2020: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; AND DECL

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

6/8/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 06/08/2020

6/8/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 06/08/2020

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY

6/26/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY

Stipulation - No Order - STIPULATION - NO ORDER TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER

3/26/2020: Stipulation - No Order - STIPULATION - NO ORDER TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL

3/27/2020: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

3/30/2020: Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

Substitution of Attorney

11/5/2019: Substitution of Attorney

[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

11/7/2019: [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

Answer

10/17/2019: Answer

COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY (MOTOR VEHICLE) FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE; ETC

5/25/2018: COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY (MOTOR VEHICLE) FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE; ETC

10 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/25/2021
  • Hearing05/25/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; : OSC RE Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2020
  • Hearing11/09/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2020
  • Hearing10/28/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel ( RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND OTHER TANGIBLE THINGS AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel ( RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATO...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/13/2020
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Mike Davis (Defendant); Worldwide Real Estate Development, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/12/2020
  • Docketat 11:01 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
17 More Docket Entries
  • 03/26/2020
  • DocketStipulation - No Order (to File Amended Answer); Filed by Mike Davis (Defendant); Worldwide Real Estate Development, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 5; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2019
  • Docket[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Mike Davis (Defendant); Robert Hammond (Defendant); Worldwide Real Estate Development, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2019
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Mike Davis (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by Mike Davis (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Mike Davis (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Bryan Christopher Goff (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY (MOTOR VEHICLE) FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC707833    Hearing Date: September 25, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

bryan christopher goff,

Plaintiff,

v.

mike davis, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC707833

Hearing Date: September 25, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motions to compel discovery responses

Defendants Mike Davis and Worldwide Real Estate Development LLC (“Defendants”) move to compel responses from Plaintiff Bryan Christopher Goff (“Plaintiff”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”); and (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”). Plaintiff moves to deem admitted specified in Requests for Admissions, Set One (“RFA”). However, Defendants concede that, on the date Plaintiff’s responses were due, Plaintiff served objections to the requests. While Plaintiff’s responses were unverified, Plaintiff was not required to verify responses that consist only of objections. (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 656.) Accordingly, Defendants should have filed motions to compel further responses if Defendants are dissatisfied with Plaintiff’s objections.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendants’ motions to compel are denied without prejudice to Defendants filings motions to compel further responses. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: September 25, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC707833    Hearing Date: July 09, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

bryan christopher Goff,

Plaintiff,

v.

mike davis, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC707833

Hearing Date: July 9, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to strike portions of Plaintiff’s complaint

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Bryan Christopher Goff (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Mike Davis (“Defendant Davis”) and Defendant Worldwide Real Estate Development, LLC (“Defendant Worldwide”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Davis “was inattentive and as a result failed to see that Plaintiff was in the driveway.” (Complaint, ¶ 14.) Plaintiff alleges that “Defendant Davis failed to stop and hit Plaintiff.” (Ibid.) Plaintiff asserts causes of action for negligence, battery, and assault. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants “acted with oppression, fraud and malice with an intention of causing injury to Plaintiff,” seeking punitive damages. (Complaint, ¶¶ 33, 42.) Defendants now move to strike the prayer for punitive damages and related allegations. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion, which is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a

motion to strike the whole pleading or any part thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, subd. (b).) On a motion to strike, the court may: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782.) In ruling on a motion to strike punitive damages, “judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth.” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.) To state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff must allege the elements set forth in the punitive damages statute, Civil Code section 3294. (Coll. Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 721.) Per Civil Code section 3294, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

There are several problems with Plaintiff’s complaint. As an initial matter, Plaintiff admits that Defendant Davis was “inattentive” and did not see him in the driveway. (Complaint, ¶ 14.) This allegation directly contradicts the subsequent allegation that Defendant Davis intended to hit Plaintiff. Similarly, Plaintiff alleges no facts suggesting that Defendant Davis acted with the intention to cause harm to Defendant. The complaint merely contains conclusory allegations, which are insufficient.

The complaint also alleges insufficient facts to hold Defendant Worldwide liable for punitive damages. “[T]he imposition of punitive damages upon a corporation is based upon its own fault. It is not imposed vicariously by virtue of the fault of others.” (City Products Corp. v. Globe Indemnity Co. (1979) 88 Cal. App. 3d 31, 36.) “Corporations are legal entities which do not have minds capable of recklessness, wickedness, or intent to injure or deceive. An award of punitive damages against a corporation therefore must rest on the malice of the corporation’s employees. But the law does not impute every employee’s malice to the corporation. Instead, the punitive damages statute requires proof of malice among corporate leaders: the officers, directors, or managing agents.” (Cruz v. Home Base (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 160, 167, internal quotations and citation omitted.)

Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition supports the Court’s decision to grant the motion. (See Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) Therefore, Defendants’ motion to strike is granted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages and the related allegations is granted with leave to amend. Plaintiff may file a first amended complaint within ten (10) days of notice of this order. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: July 9, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court