This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/24/2019 at 03:05:52 (UTC).

CINDY ENRIQUEZ VS JENNY TRAN ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/02/2017 CINDY ENRIQUEZ filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against JENNY TRAN. 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:

    ****3352

  • Filing Date:

    10/02/2017

  • 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

ENRIQUEZ CINDY

Defendants and Respondents

JU JUNHAR

TRAN JENNY

DOES 1 TO 25

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

MITCHELL TIMOTHY P. ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY LUCETT

 

Court Documents

Motion in Limine

3/6/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

3/6/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

3/6/2019: Motion in Limine

Minute Order

3/18/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

3/25/2019: Minute Order

Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

3/25/2019: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

Unknown

11/16/2017: Unknown

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

11/16/2017: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

DEMAND FORJURY

11/16/2017: DEMAND FORJURY

CoverSheet

10/2/2017: CoverSheet

Summons

10/2/2017: Summons

Complaint

10/2/2017: Complaint

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/02/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Jenny Tran (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2019
  • Motion in Limine (Defendant's Motion in Limine No.2); Filed by Jenny Tran (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2019
  • Motion in Limine (Defendant's Motion in Limine No.1); Filed by Jenny Tran (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2019
  • Motion in Limine (Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 3); Filed by Jenny Tran (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • Answer; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Jenny Tran (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • Receipt; Filed by Jenny Tran (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • DEMAND FORJURY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Cindy Enriquez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2017
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2014
  • Summons; Filed by Cindy Enriquez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC673352    Hearing Date: December 24, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

On October 2, 2017, plaintiff Cindy Enriquez filed this action against defendant Jenny Tran relating to an October 2, 2015 motor vehicle accident. Trial was originally set for April 2, 2019. Trial was continued to July 22, 2019, and then to November 21, 2019, and then to December 4, 2019, and finally to January 24, 2020. When trial was continued to November 21, 2019, all discovery cutoff dates were also continued to be based on the new trial date. When trial was continued to December 4, 2019 and then to January 24, 2020, the Court did not continue the discovery cutoff dates, which had already passed. Plaintiff moves to re-open discovery in order to produce her expert for deposition.

Except as otherwise provided, 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 trial of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).) On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).) The court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity and the reasons for the discovery, (2) the diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier, (3) any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)

Plaintiff contends she needs expert discovery re-opened so that Defendant can depose her expert. Plaintiff states that through no fault of her own, the parties were not able to schedule the expert’s deposition any earlier, and that if Defendant has filed a motion in limine to exclude the expert because of the lack of a deposition. Defendant argues she noticed the deposition of Plaintiff’s expert twice before but Plaintiff never provided a deposition date. Defendant also argues this is an improper motion for reconsideration. That is not correct. The Court previously did not continue the expert discovery cutoff date on the ex parte application because a noticed motion was necessary to reopen discovery.

Plaintiff does not identify her expert or the or the subject on which the expert is expected to testify. Based on Defendant’s filed motion in limine to exclude Plaintiff’s expert, it appears the expert at issue is Plaintiff’s medical expert Arthur Kreitenberg, M.D. Plaintiff provides no evidence or explanation about why Plaintiff did not previously provide deposition dates for the expert after Defendant noticed his deposition. On the other hand, Defendant never moved to compel his deposition. Thus both parties displayed a lack of diligence in pursuing the deposition. Plaintiff contends the expert can be deposed before the current January 24, 2019 trial date and that the trial date will not need to be moved again. However, Plaintiff does not state when in the next month before trial the expert is available for a deposition. Defendant does not identify any prejudice she will suffer if the deposition goes forward.

Having considered these various factors, the Court GRANTS the motion and reopens expert discovery for the limited purpose of the deposition of Plaintiff’s expert. The deposition shall be completed before January 13, 2020.

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.