This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/28/2020 at 11:57:41 (UTC).

DAVID J DANN VS HAROLD J NOLASCO ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/28/2018 DAVID J DANN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against HAROLD J NOLASCO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GEORGINA T. RIZK, KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE and MARK A. BORENSTEIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9936

  • Filing Date:

    03/28/2018

  • 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 Judges

GEORGINA T. RIZK

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

DANN DAVID J.

Defendants and Respondents

BRANDELL GLENDA

DOES 1 TO 20

BRANDELL SHLOMO

NOLASCO HAROLD J.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

MCCOOL CLINTON T. ESQ.

MCCOOL CLINTON THOMAS ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

PERKINS JAMES

PERKINS JAMES ESQ.

 

Court Documents

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

5/12/2020: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

5/13/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF RULING

1/17/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF RULING

Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone - NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE NON-OPPOSITION TO AN APPROPRIATE PROTECTIVE ORDER AND REQUEST FOR A FAIR AND EQUITABLE PROTECTIVE ORDER

1/3/2020: Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone - NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE NON-OPPOSITION TO AN APPROPRIATE PROTECTIVE ORDER AND REQUEST FOR A FAIR AND EQUITABLE PROTECTIVE ORDER

Reply - REPLY REPLY BRIEF OF DEF. HAROLD NOLSACO RE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

1/7/2020: Reply - REPLY REPLY BRIEF OF DEF. HAROLD NOLSACO RE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER FILED BY DEFENDANT HAR...)

1/9/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER FILED BY DEFENDANT HAR...)

Notice - NOTICE OF RULING

1/13/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF RULING

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SHORTEN TIME TO [HEAR] DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

1/17/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SHORTEN TIME TO [HEAR] DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Motion for Protective Order

12/9/2019: Motion for Protective Order

Notice - NOTICE OF SIGNED ORDER

11/13/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF SIGNED ORDER

Order - ORDER RE: STIPULATION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT ENTERED ON 07/22/2019 AS TO DEFENDANT HAROLD NOLASCO

9/9/2019: Order - ORDER RE: STIPULATION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT ENTERED ON 07/22/2019 AS TO DEFENDANT HAROLD NOLASCO

Answer

9/9/2019: Answer

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF TAKING MOTION OFF-CALENDAR

9/11/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF TAKING MOTION OFF-CALENDAR

Motion to Quash Service of Summons

8/20/2019: Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

7/22/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

7/18/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

4/30/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

DECLARATION OF DUE DILIGENCE -

5/15/2018: DECLARATION OF DUE DILIGENCE -

14 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/29/2021
  • Hearing03/29/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2021
  • Hearing02/24/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2021
  • Hearing02/10/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2020
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Harold J. Nolasco (Defendant); Glenda Brandell (Defendant); Shlomo Brandell (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2020
  • Docket[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Harold J. Nolasco (Defendant); Glenda Brandell (Defendant); Shlomo Brandell (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 2, Mark A. Borenstein, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
23 More Docket Entries
  • 08/30/2019
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Harold J. Nolasco (Defendant); Glenda Brandell (Defendant); Shlomo Brandell (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2019
  • DocketNotice of Motion and Motion to Vacate the Default and to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Harold J. Nolasco (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2019
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by David J. Dann (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by David J. Dann (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by David J. Dann (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2018
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by David J. Dann (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2018
  • DocketDECLARATION OF DUE DILIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by David J. Dann (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC699936    Hearing Date: January 09, 2020    Dept: 2

Dann v. Nolasco, et al.

Motion by Defendant Harold J. Nolasco for a Protective Order is DENIED.

Plaintiff served written discovery on all defendants, including Defendant Harold Nolasco. Defense counsel, on behalf of Mr. Nolasco, seeks an order striking the form and special interrogatories because defense counsel cannot locate Mr. Nolasco.

The party to whom interrogatories and demand for inspection and production of documents are made may promptly move for a protective order to protect that party from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression or undue burden and expense. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2031.060; Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2030.290(a)(1).

Defendant has not shown good cause for the protective order that it seeks here. It is not in the interest of justice to relieve Defendant of his duty to respond to discovery and deprive Plaintiff of remedies entitled to him by statute because Defendant cannot be located. Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff served Defendant by substituted service and that an answer was filed on his behalf on 9/9/19. Defendant has not shown unwarranted oppression or undue burden and expense to warrant an order that Plaintiff withdraw the discovery requests served on Defendant Harold J. Nolasco.

Defendant cites Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4th 1569, 1583, which does not compel the relief that Defendant seeks here. In that case, the Court ruled that the Court has discretion to deny a motion to deem admitted requests for admission served on a party where the defendant could not be found provided the Court was satisfied that defendant was not evading the lawsuit or discovery, was unaware of its pendency, and that reasonable efforts to locate the defendant had been made and were on going. The Court is empowered to fashion a remedy that will do justice to a situation. Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1583.

Brigante is distinguishable. There, the defendant who could not be located was subject to an order deeming admitted “devastating” requests for admission. The effect of the admissions was to establish each element of Plaintiff’s case and “obliterate” any possible defense. Id. at 1573.

Defendant there asked the court for relief from the time requirements until such time that Defendant could be located, not an order that Defendant not be required to participate in discovery at all. Id. Here, by contrast, Defendant essentially seeks an order that would relieve Defendant of any responsibility for participating in discovery at all. In the exercise of its discretion, the Court declines to impose such an order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.