Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/09/2021 at 21:44:54 (UTC).

DANIEL MORALES VS SOUTH PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Case Summary

On 09/06/2017 DANIEL MORALES filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against SOUTH PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CHRISTOPHER K. LUI and DANIEL M. CROWLEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4800

  • Filing Date:

    09/06/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MORALES DANIEL

Defendants and Respondents

SOUTH PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

DOES 1 TO 100

DE LA ROSA ROLAND

Not Classified By Court

MORALES HEIDI

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

KANAREK MARTIN J. ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

BORDIN-WOSK JOSHUA D

Not Classified By Court Attorneys

KANAREK MARTIN JOEL ESQ.

KANAREK MARTIN J.

 

Court Documents

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND THE EXPERT CUT-OFF AND MOTION CUT-OFF DATE

9/17/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND THE EXPERT CUT-OFF AND MOTION CUT-OFF DATE

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MIL NO. 8 VALDES FACEBOOK POST

3/11/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MIL NO. 8 VALDES FACEBOOK POST

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE ROLAND DE LA ROSA'S SPECULATION THAT CAMPUS SUPERVISOR MR. G BELIEVED THAT ROLAND DE LA ROSA AND HIS FRIENDS WERE JUST

3/11/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE ROLAND DE LA ROSA'S SPECULATION THAT CAMPUS SUPERVISOR MR. G BELIEVED THAT ROLAND DE LA ROSA AND HIS FRIENDS WERE JUST

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

3/12/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION SHORTEN TIME TO HEAR MTC

12/23/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION SHORTEN TIME TO HEAR MTC

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION SHORTEN TIME TO HEAR MTC)

12/30/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION SHORTEN TIME TO HEAR MTC)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (DEFENDANT SOUTH PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTION TO ...) OF 02/04/2021

2/4/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (DEFENDANT SOUTH PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTION TO ...) OF 02/04/2021

Declaration - DECLARATION COMPENDIUM OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

6/7/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION COMPENDIUM OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

Opposition - OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

6/7/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

6/19/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT -

3/5/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT -

Notice of Deposit - Jury

2/25/2019: Notice of Deposit - Jury

Proof of Personal Service

2/25/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Objection - Objection PLAINTIFFS OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS EX PARTE TO CALENDAR THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR MAY 9TH, 2019

2/27/2019: Objection - Objection PLAINTIFFS OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS EX PARTE TO CALENDAR THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR MAY 9TH, 2019

Motion for Summary Judgment

4/16/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER CONTINUING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

4/16/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER CONTINUING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY -

1/11/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY -

SUMMONS -

10/16/2017: SUMMONS -

66 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/25/2022
  • Hearing01/25/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2022
  • Hearing01/11/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2021
  • Hearing08/10/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Cabeza Deposition

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2021
  • Docketat 11:00 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Informal Discovery Conference (IDC))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2021
  • DocketInformal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts; Filed by DANIEL MORALES (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2021
  • DocketDeclaration (of Dave Vacca); Filed by SOUTH PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2021
  • DocketMotion to Compel (JAVIER CABEZA TO COMPLY WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA;); Filed by SOUTH PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
104 More Docket Entries
  • 11/14/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by DANIEL MORALES (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2017
  • DocketSummons Issued; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2017
  • DocketOrd Apptng Guardian Ad Litem; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2017
  • DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by DANIEL MORALES (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2017
  • DocketAPPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES EMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC674800    Hearing Date: February 04, 2021    Dept: 28

Motion to Compel Compliance

Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On September 6, 2017, Plaintiff Daniel Morales, by and through his guardian ad litem, Heidi Morales, (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants South Pasadena Unified School District (“District”), Roland De La Rosa (“De La Rosa”), and Does 1 through 100.  Plaintiff alleges that he was attached on campus by another student and alleges causes of action for (1) negligent supervision of students based on Government Code Sections 815.6 and 815.2 and 5 CCR Section 552 against District and Does 1 through 50, (2) negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention based on Government Code Sections 815.6 and 815.2 against District and Does 1 through 50, (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress against all Defendants, (4) assault against De La Rosa, and (5) battery against De La Rosa.  

On March 21, 2019, De La Rosa was dismissed.  

On June 24, 2019, the Court denied Defendant District’s motion for summary judgment.  At the June 24, 2019 Trial Setting Conference, jury trial was scheduled for October 7, 2019.  On September 17, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s ex parte application to continue the jury trial to December 5, 2019, but that only expert discovery and related pre-trial cut-off dates were expended based on the new trial date.  At the December 4, 2019 final status conference, the final status conference and jury trial were continued to December 6, 2019 on the Court’s own motion.  On December 6, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s ex parte application to continue the jury trial and final status conference.  The new trial date was January 29, 2020.  On January 17, 2020, at the request of both parties’ attorneys, the Court granted a trial continuance to March 26, 2020.  On March 12, 2020, on the Court’s own motion, the jury trial was continued to April 2, 2020.  

On March 19, 2020, the jury trial scheduled for April 2, 2020 was vacated because of the state of emergency declared by Governor Newsom.   A trial setting conference was scheduled for April 30, 2020.  On April 16, 2020, the trial setting conference was scheduled to July 24, 2020.  At the July 24, 2020 trial setting conference, jury trial was scheduled for March 10, 2021, and a final status conference was scheduled for February 24, 2021.  All discovery and motion cut-off dates follow the new trial date.  

Defendant filed the subject motion to compel nonparty Javier Cabeza to comply with deposition subpoena on December 21, 2020.  On December 30, 2020, the Court granted Defendant’s ex parte application to shorten time to hear the motion to compel deposition of Javier Cabeza.  The hearing was advanced and continued to February 4, 2021.  

PARTIES’ REQUEST

Defendant District asks the court to compel nonparty Javier Cabeza to comply with a March 13, 2020 deposition subpoena and appear for a deposition within ten days of this Court’s order.  

LEGAL STANDARD

A party seeking discovery from a person who is not a party to the action may obtain discovery by oral deposition, written deposition, or deposition for production of business records.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.010.)  A deposition subpoena may command: (1) only the attendance and testimony of the deponent, (2) only the production of business records for copying, or (3) the attendance and testimony of the deponent, as well as the production of busines records, other documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.)   Personal service of any deposition subpoena is effective to require a deponent who is a resident of California to: personally appear and testify, if the subpoena so specifies; to produce any specified documents; and to appear at a court session if the subpoena so specifies.

DISCUSSION

Notice of Motion

“A written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail or electronic service at an address or electronic service address specified on the deposition record.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1346.)  

The Court notes that Proof of Service attached to Defendant’s motion to compel compliance does not indicate that nonparty Javier Cabezas was properly served with notice of this motion.  Rather, the Proof of Service indicates that “Proof of Personal Service [on Javier Cabezas] will be filed upon receipt.”  The Court has not been informed whether Mr. Cabezas has been properly and personally served with notice of this motion as required by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1346.  

Therefore, the ruling on this motion is conditional upon Defendant filing proof that Mr. Cabezas was personally served in a timely manner.   

Compel Compliance

On March 13, 2020, Defendant served notice of nonparty Javier Cabeza’s deposition to take place on March 17, 2020.  (Sampson Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.)  The parties agreed to reschedule Cabeza’s deposition on March 16, 2020.  (Id., ¶ 4.)  On July 9, 2020 Plaintiff served Defendant with a notice for the deposition of Cabeza to take place on July 31, 2020.  (Id., ¶ 5, Exh. B.)  Due to restrictions put in place due to COVID-19, Cabeza’s deposition could not proceed at the noticed location as scheduled on July 31, 2020.  (Id., ¶ 9.)  On October 8, 2020, Defendant notified Plaintiff that Cabeza had agreed to appear for deposition on October 30, 2020.  (Id., ¶ 10, Exh. D.)  On October 14, 2020, Defendant confirmed with Cabeza that he would appear for deposition on October 30, 2020.  (Vacca Decl., ¶ 2.)  On October 30, 2020, all parties appeared for the remote deposition of Cabeza, but Cabeza did not appear.  (Sampson Decl., ¶ 11.)  Cabeza confirmed by text message that he would not be appearing for deposition.  (Id., Exh. E.)  In the weeks following October 30, 2020, Defendant attempted to coordinate with Cabeza to reset his deposition, but Cabeza did not respond.  (Vacca Decl., ¶ 3.)  On December 9, 2020, Defendant attempted to serve Mr. Cabeza at his new address and left contact information with Cabeza’s aunt, but Cabeza never contacted Defendant’s counsel.  (Ibid.)  On December 11, 2020, Defendant attempted to effectuate service of a subpoena at Cabeza’s new address.  Cabeza indicated that he was refusing to comply with the subpoena.  (Id., ¶ 5.)  As of the filing of this motion, Cabeza has not complied with the deposition subpoena.  (Sampson Decl., ¶ 12.)  

Defendant argues that Cabeza’s deposition testimony is highly relevant to this case because he has personal knowledge of the incident and the circumstances leading up to and immediately following the incident.  

Good cause having been show, the motion is granted.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED, but, again, conditioned upon Defendant filing proof that Mr. Cabezas was personally served with the instant motion in a timely manner. 

Nonparty Javier Cabeza is ordered to comply with the deposition subpoena and appear for deposition within 10 days of this order, unless the parties stipulate in writing to another mutually convenient date and time.  

Defendant South Pasadena Unified School District is to give notice.  

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.  

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer KANAREK MARTIN J.