Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/25/2019 at 04:24:46 (UTC).

CHRISTIAN FRAZIER PRINCE VS KAYDEN MATTHEW DENBESTEN ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/05/2017 CHRISTIAN FRAZIER PRINCE filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against KAYDEN MATTHEW DENBESTEN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5673

  • Filing Date:

    01/05/2017

  • 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 Judge

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

PRINCE CHRISTIAN FRAZIER

Defendants and Respondents

DENBESTEN STEVE

DENBESTEN KAYDEN MATTHEW

DOES 1 TO 25

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

BYBERG GREGORY B. ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

HAMILTON SUSAN

 

Court Documents

Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default Judgment

11/16/2018: Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default Judgment

Unknown

1/7/2019: Unknown

Minute Order

1/7/2019: Minute Order

Demand for Jury Trial

5/16/2019: Demand for Jury Trial

Answer

5/16/2019: Answer

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/16/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Kayden Matthew Denbesten (Defendant); Steve Denbesten (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Kayden Matthew Denbesten (Defendant); Steve Denbesten (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5)) of 01/07/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2019
  • Minute Order ((Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2018
  • Notice of Motion and Motion to Vacate Dismissal; Filed by Christian Frazier Prince (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 7; Jury Trial (Jury Trial; Order of Dismissal) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-07-05 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 7; Final Status Conference (Final Status Conference; Off Calendar) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-06-21 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Christian Frazier Prince (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC645673    Hearing Date: March 25, 2021    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

CHRISTINE FRAZIER PRINCE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

KAYDEN MATTHEW DENBESTEN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

.: BC645673

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

February 22, 2021

On January 5, 2017, Plaintiff Christian Frazier Prince filed this action against Kayden Matthew Denbesten and Steve DenbestenOn October 2, 2019, the Court issued an order granting Defendants’ motions to compel Plaintiff’s written discovery responses.  On December 27, 2019, the Court imposed terminating sanctions on Plaintiff for failure to serve discovery responses in compliance with the October 2, 2019 Order. On June 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed this application for relief from dismissal on the grounds of attorney fault.  On February 22, the Court continued the hearing on this application to allow Defendants to file an opposition.  

“The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)  Application for this relief shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.  (Ibid.)  “[T]he court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment, or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against his or her client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.”  (Ibid.)

Typically, when the requisite sworn statement of attorney fault is presented, the court shall “vacate¿any¿... resulting default judgment or¿dismissal entered¿against his or her client.”¿(Rodriguez v. Brill¿(2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 715, 725.) However, an application for mandatory relief from a terminating sanction imposed for failing to provide discovery responses is only in proper form if accompanied by verified responses to the discovery in question. Such service would demonstrate a willingness and ability to comply with discovery requests and related orders and demonstrate that pending discovery would not be a source of further delay. (Id., 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 729 .) The phrase “in proper form” is also satisfied by substantial compliance, which is demonstrated with a willingness and ability to comply with the procedural requirements that led to the dismissal. (Id.)

This Motion to set aside dismissal was timely filed within six months of dismissal.  However, the dismissal was entered pursuant to a motion for terminating sanctions based on Plaintiff’s failure to serve discovery responses as ordered.  No substantially-compliant discovery responses have been submitted to the Court.  

Accordingly, the Application to set aside dismissal is DENIED.  

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  

Dated this 25th day of March 2021

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC645673    Hearing Date: February 22, 2021    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

CHRISTINE FRAZIER PRINCE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

KAYDEN MATTHEW DENBESTEN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

.: BC645673

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

February 22, 2021

On January 5, 2017, Plaintiff Christian Frazier Prince filed this action against Kayden Matthew Denbesten and Steve DenbestenOn October 2, 2019, the Court issued an order granting Defendants’ motions to compel Plaintiff’s written discovery responsesOn December 27, 2019, the Court imposed terminating sanctions on Plaintiff for failure to serve discovery responses in compliance with the October 2, 2019 Order. On June 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed this application for relief from dismissal on the grounds of attorney fault. 

“The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)  Application for this relief shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.  (Ibid.)  “[T]he court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment, or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against his or her client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.”  (Ibid.)

This Motion to set aside dismissal was timely filed within six months of dismissal and the Court finds dismissal was due to counsel’s excusable neglect.  The unopposed Motion to set aside the December 27, 2019 dismissal is GRANTED and the action is reinstated.  Trial is set for September 15, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27 and the final status conference is set for September 1, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 27.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  

Dated this 22nd day of February 2021

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC645673    Hearing Date: January 21, 2021    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

CHRISTIAN FRAZIER PRINCE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

KAYDEN MATTHEW DENBESTEN, et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

.: BC645673

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

January 21, 2021

The Notice of Motion does not identify a hearing date or time.  The Court recognizes this Motion was filed on June 19, 2020 when the Court Reservation System was unavailable.  Therefore, the hearing is continued to February 22, 2021 so that Plaintiff may give notice.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  

Dated this 21st day of January 2021

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC645673    Hearing Date: December 27, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

On January 5, 2017, plaintiff Christine Frazier Prince filed this action against defendants Kayden Matthew Denbesten and Steve Denbesten (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages and injuries from a January 9, 2015 motor vehicle collision. On May 16, 2019, Defendants served a Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Special Interrogatories, and Form Interrogatories on Plaintiff. Responses were due on June 20, 2019. Defendants did not receive responses. Defendants then moved to compel Plaintiff’s responses to discovery and monetary sanctions. Plaintiff filed no opposition to the motions. On October 2, 2019, the Court granted the motions ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses to Defendants’ form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production, and to pay monetary sanctions. Defendants served a notice of ruling on Plaintiff on October 7, 2019. Plaintiff did not serve responses or pay the sanctions. Defendants move for terminating sanctions. Plaintiff did not oppose this motion.

Where a party fails to obey an order compelling answers to discovery, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2023.010, subd. (c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) The Court may impose a terminating sanction against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).) Misuse of the discovery process includes failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery or disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (g).) A terminating sanction may be imposed by an order dismissing part or all of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d)(3).)

The court should consider the totality of the circumstances, including conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful, the determent to the propounding party, and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain discovery. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) If a lesser sanction fails to curb abuse, a greater sanction is warranted. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) However, “the unsuccessful imposition of a lesser sanction is not an absolute prerequisite to the utilization of the ultimate sanction.” (Deyo v. Killbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 787.) Terminating sanctions should not be ordered lightly, but are justified where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and there is evidence that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.)

Before any sanctions may be imposed the court must make an express finding that there has been a willful failure of the party to serve the required answers. (Fairfield v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 113, 118.) Lack of diligence may be deemed willful where the party understood its obligation, had the ability to comply, and failed to comply. (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 787; Fred Howland Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 605, 610-611.) The party who failed to comply with discovery obligations has the burden of showing that the failure was not willful. (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 788; Cornwall v. Santa Monica Dairy Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 250; Evid. Code, §§ 500, 605.)

Plaintiff filed no opposition to this Motion and did not serve responses to discovery, did not pay monetary sanctions, and disobeyed a court order to do so. Defendants served a notice of ruling on Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court concludes Plaintiff knew of her discovery obligations and , knew of the court order compelling her compliance. Given Plaintiff’s prior failure to comply with discovery obligations, failure to file oppositions to these motions, and apparent disinterest in prosecuting this action, the Court finds Plaintiff’s conduct is willful and lesser sanctions would not curb the abuse.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s action is dismissed. As the Court is granting terminating sanctions it declines to also impose monetary sanctions.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer BYBERG GREGORY B. ESQ.