This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/18/2022 at 22:48:50 (UTC).

DAVID FALZONE ET AL VS LEAH SMOLYANSKY

Case Summary

On 08/04/2017 DAVID FALZONE filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against LEAH SMOLYANSKY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CHRISTOPHER K. LUI and DANIEL M. CROWLEY. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1121

  • Filing Date:

    08/04/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

MYERS JENNIFER

FALZON DAVID

Defendant

SMOLYANSKY LEAH

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

BREITER BRIAN J.

BREITER BRIAN JAMES

BREITER BRIAN

Defendant Attorney

SULLIVAN PAUL FRANCIS

 

Court Documents

Notice - NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

6/3/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

7/25/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CONTINUED FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE DATE AND TRIAL DATE

8/5/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CONTINUED FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE DATE AND TRIAL DATE

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND RESET ALL RELATED CUTOFF DATES BASED ON THE NEW TRIAL DATE

9/25/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND RESET ALL RELATED CUTOFF DATES BASED ON THE NEW TRIAL DATE

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIA...)

9/25/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIA...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; DEFENDANT LEAH SMOLY YANSKY'S EX PAR...)

11/18/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; DEFENDANT LEAH SMOLY YANSKY'S EX PAR...)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND RESET ALL RELATED CUTOFF DATES BASED ON THE NEW TRIAL DATE PER STIPULATION

11/18/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND RESET ALL RELATED CUTOFF DATES BASED ON THE NEW TRIAL DATE PER STIPULATION

Notice of Ruling

11/19/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

2/5/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND RESET ALL RELATED CUTOFF DATES BASED ON THE NEW TRIAL DATE ER STIPULATION

2/13/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND RESET ALL RELATED CUTOFF DATES BASED ON THE NEW TRIAL DATE ER STIPULATION

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR...)

2/14/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR...)

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

2/14/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Notice of Ruling

2/14/2020: Notice of Ruling

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

2/26/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Ex Parte Application - DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND RESET ALL RELATED CUTOFF DATES BASED ON THE NEW TRIAL DATE PER STIPULATION

2/26/2020: Ex Parte Application - DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND RESET ALL RELATED CUTOFF DATES BASED ON THE NEW TRIAL DATE PER STIPULATION

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FO...)

2/27/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FO...)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/02/2020

4/2/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/02/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

4/2/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

45 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/10/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/10/2022
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement)) of 01/10/2022); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/10/2022
  • DocketOrder - Dismissal; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/10/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement))); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/24/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/24/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement))); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/14/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/12/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by LEAH SMOLYANSKY (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/07/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/07/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
81 More Docket Entries
  • 01/18/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/18/2019
  • DocketStipulation and Order ([Proposed] to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District)); Filed by LEAH SMOLYANSKY (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/25/2017
  • DocketDEFENDANT LEAH SMOLYANSKY'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/14/2017
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by DAVID FALZON (Plaintiff); JENNIFER MYERS (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/14/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by DAVID FALZON (Plaintiff); JENNIFER MYERS (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/14/2017
  • DocketDECLARATION OF DUE DILIGENCE (CCP 415.20)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/14/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/04/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/04/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by DAVID FALZON (Plaintiff); JENNIFER MYERS (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/04/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: ****1121 Hearing Date: August 13, 2021 Dept: 28

Motion to Continue Trial

Having reviewed the motion, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On August 4, 2017, Plaintiffs David Falzone & Jennifer Meyers (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Leah Smolyansky (“Defendant”) and DOES 1 - 10, alleging 2 causes of action arising from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on March 23, 2016.

On July 15, 2021, Defendant filed this instant motion to continue trial.

Trial is set for September 14, 2021.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant requests the Court continue the trial date to October 14, 2021 and set all related dates in accordance with the new trial date.

LEGAL STANDARD

CRC 3.1332(b) provides, as follows: “A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.”

CRC 3.1332(c) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.”

CRC 3.1332(d) provides, as follows:

In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include:

(1) ; The proximity of the trial date; (2) ; Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; (3) ; The length of the continuance requested; (4) ; The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; (5) ; The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; (6) ; If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; (7) ; The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (8) ; Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) ; Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; (10) ; Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and (11) ; Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.

DISCUSSION

Defendant asserts that there is good cause for a continuance because Defendant will be out of the country on the scheduled trial date. Defendant will be in Israel, observing religious holidays. Defendant will be available on October 14, 2021. Defendant, being an essential party to the case where liability is disputed, is an essential party without whom the trial cannot proceed.

The Court notes that there is no Opposition to the motion.

As such, the Court will GRANT the motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED.

The Jury Trial scheduled for 09/14/2021 is advanced to this date and continued to 10/14/21 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at Spring Street Courthouse.

The Final Status Conference scheduled for 08/31/2021 is advanced to this date and continued to 09/30/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 28 at Spring Street Courthouse.

Discovery and Law and Motion, and all pre-trial cut-offs track the new trial date.

Defendants are ordered to give notice.

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

"


Case Number: ****1121    Hearing Date: April 1, 2021    Dept: 28

Motion to Compel a Second Deposition

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

BACKGROUND

On August 4, 2017, Plaintiffs David Falzone (“Plaintiff Falzone”) and Jennifer Myers (“Plaintiff Myers”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant Leah Smolyansky (“Defendant”).  Plaintiffs allege general and motor vehicle negligence in the complaint arising from an automobile collision that occurred on March 23, 2016.

On February 22, 2021, Defendant filed a motion to compel a second deposition of Plaintiff Falzone pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.610.

Trial is set for May 4, 2021.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant asks the Court to compel Plaintiff Falzone to appear for a second deposition within twenty one days from this hearing.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.610 provides, as follows:

(a) Once any party has taken the deposition of any natural person, including that of a party to the action, neither the party who gave, nor any other party who has been served with a deposition notice pursuant to Section 2025.240 may take a subsequent deposition of that deponent.

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), for good cause shown, the court may grant leave to take a subsequent deposition, and the parties, with the consent of any deponent who is not a party, may stipulate that a subsequent deposition be taken.

(c) This section does not preclude taking one subsequent deposition of a natural person who has previously been examined under either or both of the following circumstances:

(1) The person was examined as a result of that person’s designation to testify on behalf of an organization under Section 2025.230.

(2) The person was examined pursuant to a court order under Section 485.230, for the limited purpose of discovering pursuant to Section 485.230 the identity, location, and value of property in which the deponent has an interest.

(d) This section does not authorize the taking of more than one subsequent deposition for the limited purpose of Section 485.230.

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues there is good cause to take Plaintiff Falzone’s second deposition because Plaintiff’s damages have increased from several thousand to three million dollars after Plaintiff Falzone’s first deposition, which was taken on April 16, 2018.  (Motion, p. 4:17-4:24; Sullivan Decl., ¶ 2-3, Exh. A.)  Defendant proposes the second deposition to be limited to questions pertaining to Plaintiff’s damages and last a maximum of two hours.  (Motion, p. 5:14-5:16.)  

Plaintiff Falzone argues that he has never demanded less than six figures.  (Twomey Decl., 8.)  Plaintiff Falzone’s symptoms have not changed from his discovery responses or deposition, they have only continued.  (Twomey Decl., ¶ 7.)  Since Plaintiff Falzone’s initial deposition, he has undergone physical and vision therapy, which are the same therapies he performed before his deposition.  (Twomey Decl., 6.)  Plaintiff has consulted a second neurologist who ordered a brain MRI and brain fMRI.  (Ibid.The reports of these exams and imaging studies have been provided to Defendant and Defendant deposed the second neurologist.  (Ibid.)

The Court finds Defendant has offered no evidence of good cause to grant the motion.  Plaintiff’s damages have increased as a result of treatment Defendant has already been apprised of.  Defendant makes no showing that supplemental discovery requests won’t address his concerns.  Moreover, trial is just over a month away.  There is insufficient time for a deposition to be conducted and a transcript to be generated and properly incorporated into trial-related materials.  Therefore, the Court finds the motion is properly denied.

CONCLUSION

The motion is DENIED.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Defendant is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

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 SULLIVAN PAUL F.