This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/10/2019 at 08:44:11 (UTC).

DARTAYOUS HUNTER VS GENERAL MOTORS LCC

Case Summary

On 11/16/2017 DARTAYOUS HUNTER filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against GENERAL MOTORS LCC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3669

  • Filing Date:

    11/16/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

HUNTER DARTAYOUS

Defendants and Respondents

GENERAL MOTORS LCC

DOES 1 THROUGH 10

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

SUSAN LEE JU ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

ARENS MARY LYNN ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Unknown

2/1/2018: Unknown

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

2/1/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Minute Order

2/16/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

4/19/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

7/6/2018: Minute Order

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

8/27/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

Unknown

1/30/2018: Unknown

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT OF PLAPTIFF DARTAYOUS HUNTER

1/4/2018: ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT OF PLAPTIFF DARTAYOUS HUNTER

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

12/18/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Unknown

11/17/2017: Unknown

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

11/17/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

SUMMONS

11/16/2017: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY MERCHANTABILITY UNDER THE SONG-BEVERLY WARRANTY ACT. ;ETC

11/16/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY MERCHANTABILITY UNDER THE SONG-BEVERLY WARRANTY ACT. ;ETC

1 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/27/2018
  • REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2018
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Status Conference (Status Conference; Order of Dismissal) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Status Conference (Status Conference; Matter continued) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service (OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Trial Date Set) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2018
  • CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
2 More Docket Entries
  • 01/04/2018
  • ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT OF PLAPTIFF DARTAYOUS HUNTER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Dartayous Hunter (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2017
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2017
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Dartayous Hunter (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY MERCHANTABILITY UNDER THE SONG-BEVERLY WARRANTY ACT. ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC683669    Hearing Date: February 23, 2021    Dept: 31


Case Number: BC722807    Hearing Date: February 23, 2021    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

LAURENT CORSON,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

MSP PARTNERS I, LLC, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC722807

[TENTATIVE] (1) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF; (2) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S IME

Dept. 31

10:30 a.m.

February 23, 2021

  1. Background

    Plaintiff, Laurent Corson filed tis action against Defendants, MSP Partners I, LLC, et al. alleging that Plaintiff was attacked with a metal spatula by Defendant, Jose Rubio, who was employed by MSP Partners I, LLC at the time.

    Defendants, MSP Partners I, LLC and Jose Rubio (collectively, “Defendants”) now move for an order (1) to compel the deposition of Plaintiff and production of documents, and (2) to compel compliance with independent medical examination and request for sanctions.

    These matters were originally heard on 8/13/20, where they were continued to 2/23/21. The court was advised at the hearing the meet and confer meetings regarding these motions were done. (Min. Order 8/13/20.)

  2. Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition and Production of Documents, filed 6/25/20

    Defendants, MSP Partners I, LLC and Jose Rubio noticed Plaintiff’s deposition on numerous occasions. Mostly recently, Defendant scheduled the deposition for 6/10/20. To date, Plaintiff has failed to appear for Plaintiff’s deposition.

    CCP §2025.450(b)(2) provides, “The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”

    Here, Plaintiff has failed to appear for deposition despite Defendants properly noticing such multiple times. Any opposition to the motion was due by 2/8/21. To date, no opposition has been filed. Moreover, Defendants assert there is good cause to compel production of documents included in the deposition notice because they are key to the allegations in the complaint and are required to ascertain Plaintiff’s damages and claims.

    The motion is unopposed and granted. (CCP § 2025.450(a).) Further, Defendants establish good cause for the production of requested documents. Plaintiff Laurent Corson is ordered to appear for deposition at a date, time, and location to be noticed by Defendant. Defendant must give at least ten days’ notice of the deposition (notice extended per Code if by other than personal service). Pursuant to CCP § 2025.310, at the election of either Plaintiff or Defendant, the deposition must be completed remotely.

    No sanctions are requested and none are imposed in connection with this motion.

  3. Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Independent Medical Examination (“IME”), filed 7/9/20

    Defendants, MSP Partners I, LLC and Jose Rubio seek to Compel Plaintiff’s IME per CCP § 2032.240.

    CCP § 2032.240 provides that, when a plaintiff fails to respond to a demand, the defendant may move for an order compelling a response to the demand and compelling compliance with the request for an exam. Moreover, CCP §2032.310(b) provides, “A motion for an examination under subdivision (a) shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and the specialty, if any, of the person or persons who will perform the examination. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”

    On 6/1/20, Defendants propounded a demand for physical examination with Dr. Michel Brones for 7/6/20. The IME did not go forward on that date as Plaintiff failed to appear. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion.

    Therefore, Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff’s IME is granted.

    Plaintiff is ordered to appear for examination with Dr. Michel Brones’ located at 4835 Van Nuys Blvd., Suite 208, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403. The Court notes that Defendant has set forth the proposed scope of the examination, as well as the manner, conditions, and nature of the examination, in the prior notice of IME, and that the scope of the examination may not be expanded in connection with the compelled IME. Counsel must meet and confer to determine the date and time for the examination; if Plaintiff does not meaningfully participate in the meet and confer process, Defendants may unilaterally set the date and time for the examination with at least ten days’ notice to Plaintiff (extended per Code if by other than personal service). The court also requires that the examination be conducted in a manner compliant with all public health orders and recommendations applicable because of the pandemic.

    Defendants are ordered to give notice.

    Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

     

    Dated this 23rd day of February, 2021

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where General Motors, LLC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SUSAN LEE JU ESQ.