This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/09/2021 at 08:04:32 (UTC).

CHUCKRID HUTAYANA VS YOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF

Case Summary

On 03/02/2018 CHUCKRID HUTAYANA filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against YOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARC D. GROSS, JON R. TAKASUGI, HOLLY E. KENDIG, THOMAS D. LONG and WILLIAM D. STEWART. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6346

  • Filing Date:

    03/02/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MARC D. GROSS

JON R. TAKASUGI

HOLLY E. KENDIG

THOMAS D. LONG

WILLIAM D. STEWART

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

HUTAYANA CHUCKRID

Defendants and Respondents

YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF

DOES 1 TO 100

NORBERT'S ATHLETIC PRODUCTS INC.

Other

POCRASS & DE LOS REYES LLP

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LIRA DAVID R. ESQ.

JOHNSTON THOMAS J

GIRARDI THOMAS V

LIRA DAVID RICHARD

LIRA DAVID RICHARD ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

BEACH THOMAS E. ESQ.

NWOKO CHIKA ANNA-JENNINE

DENNIS EDDIE BANKUTI

BEACH THOMAS EDWIN ESQ.

DAVIDSON DAVID BANKUTI

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

3/29/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF MOTION OF DEFENDANT, YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE, TESTIMONY AT PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF ANTHONY DE

3/19/2021: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF MOTION OF DEFENDANT, YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE, TESTIMONY AT PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION OF ANTHONY DE

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)

2/16/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)

Request for Judicial Notice

2/24/2021: Request for Judicial Notice

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

11/25/2020: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS FILED BY PLAINTIF...)

11/25/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS FILED BY PLAINTIF...)

Objection - OPPOSITION OBJECTION AND RESPONSE OF DEFENDANT YMCA OF GLENDALE TO PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS, ETC.

11/20/2020: Objection - OPPOSITION OBJECTION AND RESPONSE OF DEFENDANT YMCA OF GLENDALE TO PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS, ETC.

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND THE TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE

7/24/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND THE TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE

Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS FILED IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

7/17/2020: Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS FILED IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF MOTION PURSUANT TO EMERGENCY OR...)

4/27/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF MOTION PURSUANT TO EMERGENCY OR...)

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF WILSON C. "TOBY" HAYES, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

3/13/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF WILSON C. "TOBY" HAYES, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

3/24/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

Motion to Continue Trial Date

9/12/2019: Motion to Continue Trial Date

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF DEFENDANT YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, FOR SEPARATE TRIAL ON SEVERAL OF DEFENDANT'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

7/5/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF DEFENDANT YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, FOR SEPARATE TRIAL ON SEVERAL OF DEFENDANT'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Notice of Deposit - Jury

4/24/2019: Notice of Deposit - Jury

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

8/7/2018: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

8/7/2018: ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF FILING PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND DECLARATION OF R. SCOTT SOMMER REGARDING DEFENDANT YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF GLENDALE, LLC

3/22/2018: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF FILING PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND DECLARATION OF R. SCOTT SOMMER REGARDING DEFENDANT YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF GLENDALE, LLC

102 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/21/2021
  • Hearing06/21/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department A at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2021
  • Hearing04/09/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department A at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502; Hearing on Motion to Compel the Deposition of Anthony De Los Reyes, Esq. Filed by Deft Young Men's Christian Association of Glendale, CA et. al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (the Deposition of Anthony De Los Reyes, Esq. Filed by Deft Young Men's Christian Association of Glendale, CA et. al.) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2021
  • DocketReply (of Defendant, Young Men?s Christian Association of Glendale, California, to Plaintiff?s Opposition to Defendant?s Motion to Comepl Deposition of Anthony De Los Reyes; Memorandum of Points and Authorities); Filed by Young Men's Christian Association of (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2021
  • Docketat 3:45 PM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2021
  • DocketStipulation and Order (Continuing Final Status Conference and Trial Dates); Filed by Chuckrid Hutayana (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 03/29/2021); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2021
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (Filed by Deft Young Men's Christian Assoc.) - Not Held - Clerical Error

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2021
  • DocketResponse (to Defendant YMCA's Separate Statement in Support of Motion to Compel Attendance, Testimony and Production of Documents at Deposition of Anthony De Los Reyes); Filed by Chuckrid Hutayana (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
145 More Docket Entries
  • 07/25/2018
  • DocketOpposition Document; Filed by Chuckrid Hutayana (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2018
  • DocketAssociation of Attorney; Filed by Chuckrid Hutayana (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2018
  • DocketDEFENDANTS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT;AND ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2018
  • DocketMotion to Strike; Filed by Young Men's Christian Association of (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2018
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Chuckrid Hutayana (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2018
  • DocketPLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF FILING PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND DECLARATION OF R. SCOTT SOMMER REGARDING DEFENDANT YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF GLENDALE, LLC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Chuckrid Hutayana (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC696346    Hearing Date: April 9, 2021    Dept: A

Matter requires discussion

Case Number: BC696346    Hearing Date: November 25, 2020    Dept: A

The Superior Court is open under “Here for You | Safe for You” Conditions and Orders

Counsel are urged to use remote appearance technology LACourtConnect

If it is indispensable for counsel to be present in court, face masks (without a valve) are mandated (unless a court orders otherwise) and social distancing rules are in force.

Dept. A Burbank protocol for LACourtConnect Appearances.

Video Appearances: Since these are the functional equivalent of a personal appearance in court, no special protocols are in place at this time.

Audio Only Appearances.

  1. Argument is limited to three minutes, unless the court grants a request for additional time.

  2. The reading of argument is feckless and nugatory.

  3. State your name at the beginning of all statements.

  4. Do not speak directly to other counsel without permission of court.

  5. Do not interrupt or attempt to speak over another speaker.

  6. Do not announce your presence until called by your name or case name.

  7. Take a deep breath frequently so that the court may interrupt your presentation, if necessary. (The system does not default to the court unless you are placed on mute by the court or go silent or mute on you own.)

  8. Maintain silence in your surroundings – no keyboarding, dogs barking, children crying, etc.

Hutayana v YMCA

Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Calendar:

10

Case No.:

BC696346

Hearing Date:

November 25, 2020

Action Filed:

March 02, 2018

Trial Date:

Not Set

MP:

Plaintiff Chuckrid Hutayana

RP:

Defendant Young Men's Christian Association of Glendale, LLC

ALLEGATIONS:

Chuckrid Hutayana ("Plaintiff") filed suit against Young Men's Christian Association of Glendale, LLC ("Defendant"), alleging that Plaintiff was a gymnastics instructor who taught at Defendant's property. Plaintiff alleges he broke his neck and injured himself on a gymnastics mat ("Subject Mat") Defendant's property on June 10, 2016 ("Subject Incident").

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on January 02, 2018, alleging five (5) causes of action sounding in: (1) Negligence; (2) Premises Liability; (3) Strict Products Liability (Design Defect); (4) Strict Liability (Failure to Warn); and (5) Products Liability (Negligence).

PRESENTATION:

The instant motion was received by the Court on March 13, 2020, the opposition was received on March 24, 2020, and the reply was received on March 30, 2020. The original hearing date for the instant motion was set for April 07, 2020.

On March 18, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and pursuant to the March 17, 2020, Administrative Order of the Presiding Judge, the Honorable Thomas D. Long continued the instant motion to June 05, 2020. Counsel for Plaintiff was notified and directed to give notice.

On July 22, 2020, the Honorable Thomas D. Long continued the instant matter to October 09, 2020. Counsel for Plaintiff was directed to give notice to any other parties not listed in the certificate of mailing.

On October 09, 2020, the Honorable Thomas D. Long transferred and reassigned the instant case to this Court for all purposes except trial.

On October 20, 2020, the Court vacated the scheduled hearing date for the instant matter and re-set the matter for hearing on November 25, 2020. Counsel for Plaintiff was directed to give notice, including a copy of the minute order.

The Court received a supplemental reply from Plaintiff on November 18, 2020 and an objection and response from Defendant on November 20, 2020.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiff moves for terminating sanctions, or, in the alternative, issue and/or evidence sanctions against Defendant. Plaintiff further moves for associated sanctions in the amount of $3,500.

DISCUSSION:

Standard of Review – Sanctions – Code Civ. Proc. §2023.030(d) authorizes the Court to impose terminating sanctions due to a party’s misuse of the discovery process. “A trial court must be cautious when imposing a terminating sanction because the sanction eliminates a party’s fundamental right to trial, thus implicating due process rights.” Lopez v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal. App. 4th 566, 604, review denied (July 27, 2016). “A decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.” Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 262, 279–80, as modified on denial of reh'g (May 4, 2005). "A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence." (Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1223.) Subsection (d) specifically authorizes the Court to “strik[e] out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process… stay[] further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed… dismiss[] the action, or any part of the action, of that party… [or] rendering a judgment by default against that party.” Code Civ. Proc. §2023.030(d)(1)-(4).

When a party engages in misuse of the discovery process, "[t]he court may impose an issue sanction ordering that designated facts shall be taken as established in the action in accordance with the claim of the party adversely affected by the misuse of the discovery process. The court may also impose an issue sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses. . . . The Court may impose an evidence sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from introducing designated matters in evidence." (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.030, subd. (b) & (c).) Evidence or issue sanctions may be imposed only after parties violated discovery orders, except in sufficiently egregious exceptional circumstances when the offending party engages in a pattern of willful discovery abuse. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1426.) The imposition of specific sanctions typically depends on the severity of the party’s transgression. “The trial court cannot impose sanctions for misuse of the discovery process as a punishment.” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 967, 992.) Rather, any given sanction must be “tailor[ed] to the harm caused by the withheld discovery.” (Do It Urself Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Brown, Leifer, Slatkin & Berns (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 27, 36) (superseded by statute on other grounds). This is because “the purpose of discovery sanctions is not to provide a weapon for punishment, forfeiture and the avoidance of a trial on the merits, but to prevent abuse of the discovery process and correct the problem presented.” (Parker v. Wolters Kluwer U.S., Inc. (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 285, 301.)

Merits – Plaintiff contends that Defendant was put on notice of the facts as to the instant suit when Anthony De Los Reyes, counsel for Plaintiff at the time, sent Defendant the first letter of representation on September 11, 2017, sent the same letter again by certified mail on October 23, 2017, and sent a third letter of representation on November 02, 2017. (Decl. Reyes, ¶¶ 2-4, Exs. 3-5; Petrosian Depo., 64:14-20, Ex. 6.) Plaintiff further contends that Defendant disposed of the Subject Mat in January of 2018, and argues this conduct constitutes spoliation of evidence, and that terminating sanctions are proper as a result. Finally, Plaintiff argues that there exists no secondary evidence to mitigate the prejudice to Plaintiff given that Defendant has admitted there exist no maintenance logs or reports as to the Subject Mat. In the alternative, Plaintiff argues evidentiary and/or issue sanctions are appropriate.

In opposition, Defendant argues that none of Mr. Reyes' letters of representation mentioned pending litigation or the possibility of such, and that Plaintiff offers no evidence in support if its argument that Defendant had knowledge of future litigation when it discarded the Subject Mat. Defendant argues that the context around the letters of representation pointed to the existence of a worker's compensation action. Defendant further contends that it discarded the Subject Mat following the receipt of grant money in December of 2017 that it independently applied for, for the purpose of replacing gymnastics equipment. (Oppo., Exs. A-C.) Defendant also argues that there exists video footage of the incident as well as Plaintiff's own recollection regarding the Subject Mat and so the destruction of said mat would not significantly impair Plaintiff. Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's notice fails to provide adequate details as to evidence, issue, and monetary sanctions.

In reply, Plaintiff argues that, even if Defendant believed that he was bringing a worker's compensation claim, Defendant would still be required to preserve relevant evidence, which includes retention of the Subject Mat. Plaintiff further cites Reeves v. MV Transportation, Inc., (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 666, 682 for the contention that a "culpable state of mind" includes when "the records were destroyed knowingly, even if without intent to violate [a] regulation [requiring their retention]" in the context of whether a court should impose an adverse interference stemming from the destruction of evidence.

As to the instant motion's notice section, Defendant cites no law in support of its contention that evidence and issue sanctions cannot be granted if the notice of motion itself does not detail the specific subject matter as to the evidence and/or issue sanctions requested. The Court notes that Plaintiff identifies the type of evidence and/or issues sanctions later on in the motion. (Mot., 14:4-11.)

On review of the moving papers, the Court finds that Plaintiff sufficiently shows that Plaintiff engaged in spoliation of evidence to the extent where sanctions would be warranted by presenting evidence that Defendant was aware of some kind of pending litigation due to Mr. Reyes' letters of representation, sent before the date that Plaintiff destroyed the Subject Mat. The letters requested copies of employment and personnel records relating to Plaintiff's employment. The first two letters dated September 11, 2017 and October 23, 2020 state:

This office represents Mr. Chuckried Hutayana, a former part-time employee. I am writing to request copies of all employment and personnel records relating to Mr. Hutayana's employment with the Glendale YMCA. Enclosed is an Authorization permitting the release of this information. Please respond at your earliest convenience, of course we will promptly pay the cost of copying all records upon presentation of your invoice.

(Mot., Exs. 3-4.)

The certified copy of the second letter states:

This will confirm our telephone conversation of August 29, 2017, in which I informed you that I have been retained by Chuck Hutayana to represent him regarding the unfortunate accident of June 10, 2016. We have opened our file and are in the process of investigating the matter. Should we obtain a favorable conclusion, you will of course be entitled to a referral fee. Based upon the uncertainty surrounding this case, I cannot tell you exactly what the referral fee would be, but rest assured we will see that you are compensated if we are successful.

(Mot., Ex. 4.)

And finally, the third letter states:

This office represents Mr. Chuckried Hutayana, a former part-time employee. I am writing to request copies of all employment and personnel records relating to Mr. Hutayana's employment with the Glendale YMCA. Enclosed is an Authorization permitting the release of this information. Please respond at your earliest convenience, of course we will promptly pay the cost of copying all records upon presentation of your invoice.

(Mot., Ex. 5.)

While none of Mr. Reyes' three letters to Plaintiff sent before Plaintiff destroyed the Subject Mat referenced the possibility of pending litigation, Defendant itself concedes that it could have inferred the existence of a worker's compensation claim from the letters. (Oppo., 4:8-10.)

And while Defendant sufficiently shows evidence supporting its contention that that the destruction of the Subject Mat was due to a grant with LA-84 independent of the instant litigation (Oppo., Exs. A-C), it fails to rebut Plaintiff's argument that, even if it assumed that Plaintiff was pursuing a worker's compensation case, with that knowledge, it still had a duty to retain evidence relating to Plaintiff's injury, including the Subject Mat.

Plaintiff further sufficiently shows that the destruction of the Subject Mat is likely to be prejudicial to his case. The Court finds that the lack of the physical mat may significantly impair Plaintiff's case given the circumstances of his suit, and given the undisputed lack of maintenance records regarding the mat. Defendant's contentions that video evidence and recollection may suffice are not enough to offset Plaintiff's inability to inspect and otherwise test the physical Subject Mat.

The Court finds that terminating sanctions are not warranted because Plaintiff does not allege a "history of abuse" as to discovery pursuant to Mileikowsky, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at pp. 279-80 and further fails to show an egregious case of intentional spoilation of evidence pursuant to Williams, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 1223, but does find that evidentiary or issue sanctions may be warranted given defendant’s knowledge of some kind of pending litigation and the significant prejudicial effect that the absence of the Subject Mat imposes on Plaintiff. To balance this prejudicial effect and " tailor to the harm" of the missing evidence, the Court may at some time grant an evidentiary or issue sanction tailored to the demonstrable probable impairment of plaintiff’s case; this will very likely require extensive expert testimony based on the evidence that remains available, including the pictures/video of plaintiff. (Do It Urself, supra, 7 Cal. App. 4th at p. 36, i.e., sanction to be tailored to the harm caused..)

Monetary Sanctions – Plaintiff fails to include a request for monetary sanctions in the notice section of the instant motion and further fails to submit an associated declaration explaining the sanctions sought. Accordingly, the Court will deny monetary sanctions.

---

RULING: below,

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Plaintiff Chuckrid Hutayana's Motion for Terminating Sanctions came on regularly for hearing on November 25, 2020, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEWING BEFORE AS A REGULARLY NOTICED MOTION OR AT THE INCEPTION OF TRIAL AS A PROPERLY NOTICED MOTION IN LIMINE.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE

Case Number: BC696346    Hearing Date: October 09, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

CHUCKRID HUTAYANA,

Plaintiff,

v.

YOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION , et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC696346

ORDER TRANSFERRING COMPLICATED PERSONAL INJURY (PI) CASE TO AN INDEPENDENT CALENDAR (IC) COURT

After review of the court file, the Court makes the following order:

Department 31 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented.

AT THE DIRECTION OF DEPARTMENT 1:

This case is hereby transferred and reassigned to the following Independent Calendar Court in THE NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT, JUDGE WILLIAM D. STEWART presiding in DEPT. A of the BURBANK Courthouse, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court.

The Order is signed and filed this date, and incorporated herein by reference. Any pending motions or hearings, including trial and status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar court.

Upon receipt of this notice, counsel for Plaintiff shall give notice to all parties of record.

DATED: October 9, 2020 ___________________________

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where NORBERT'S ATHLETIC PRODUCTS INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF is a litigant

Latest cases where POCRASS & DE LOS REYES LLP is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer LIRA DAVID RICHARD