This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/07/2019 at 02:03:10 (UTC).

DAVID PAGE VS ARTURO GONZALEZ ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/01/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by DAVID PAGE against ARTURO GONZALEZ in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7997

  • Filing Date:

    06/01/2018

  • 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

 

Party Details

Petitioner

PAGE DAVID

Respondents and Defendants

OGANESIAN ROBERT

GONZALEZ ARTURO

PICKARD DAVID

DOES 1 TO 100

MIKES MICRO PARTS INC.

OGANESIAN DEBRA

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

8/28/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

8/28/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

8/29/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

8/29/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

9/4/2018: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

GENERAL DENIAL TO COMPLAINT

9/4/2018: GENERAL DENIAL TO COMPLAINT

CIVIL DEPOSIT

9/4/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

9/6/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

9/6/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

DECLARATION OF DILIGENCE

9/6/2018: DECLARATION OF DILIGENCE

Request for Dismissal

12/11/2018: Request for Dismissal

Answer

12/20/2018: Answer

SUMMONS

6/1/2018: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

6/1/2018: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

2 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/20/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Mikes Micro Parts, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2018
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by David Page (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2018
  • Declaration re: Due Diligence; Filed by David Page (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2018
  • DECLARATION OF DILIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2018
  • Proof Of Service Of Summons; Filed by David Page (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2018
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by David Page (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2018
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2018
  • GENERAL DENIAL TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
4 More Docket Entries
  • 08/29/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by David Page (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2018
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by David Page (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2018
  • Other - (Proof Of Service Of Summons); Filed by David Page (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by David Page (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC707997    Hearing Date: February 28, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

david page,

Plaintiff,

v.

arturo gonzalez, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC707997

Hearing Date: February 28, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motions to compel discovery responses

Defendants Arturo Gonzalez, Robert Oganesian, and Debra Oganesian (“Defendants”) move to compel responses from Plaintiff David page (“Plaintiff”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, set two (“RPD”); (2) Supplemental Request for Production of Documents (“SuppRPD”); (3) Form Interrogatories, set two (“FROG”); (4) Special Interrogatories, set two (“SROG”); and (5) Supplemental Interrogatories (“SuppROG”). Defendant moves to deem admitted specified in Requests for Admissions, set one (“RFA”). The motions are granted.

Defendants served the discovery requests on Plaintiff by mail on September 3, 2019. Plaintiff’s responses were thus due no later than October 8, 2019. As of the filing date of these motions, Defendants have not received responses from Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that Plaintiff has complied with his discovery obligations. Accordingly, the motions to compel responses to the RPD, SuppRPD, FROG, SROG, and SuppROG are granted per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300. Plaintiff is ordered to serve responses to Defendants’ RPD, SuppRPD, FROG, SROG, and SuppROG, without objections, within 30 days of service of this order.

Defendants also move to deem the matters specified in the RFA. Where a party fails to respond to requests for admissions, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The court “shall” grant a motion to deem admitted the matters specified in the requests for admissions, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) As Plaintiff has failed to respond to the RFA, the Court grants the motion to deem admitted.

Defendants seek sanctions against Plaintiff (but not Plaintiff’s counsel) in connection with the motions. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the discovery is an abuse of the discovery process. The Court awards sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,048, based upon eight hours of attorney time at $131 per hour plus six filing fees of $60 each.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendants’ motions to compel responses to the RPD, SuppRPD, FROG, SROG, and SuppRog are granted per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, within 30 days of notice of this order. Plaintiff is deemed to have admitted the truth of all matters specified in the RFA as of this date. Plaintiff (but not Plaintiff’s counsel) is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,408 to Defendants, by and through counsel, within 30 days of notice of this order. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: February 28, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC707997    Hearing Date: November 05, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

David page,

Plaintiff,

v.

arturo gonzalez, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC707997

Hearing Date: November 5, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to be relieved as counsel

Attorney Gerald L. Marcus (“Counsel”) moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff David Page (“Plaintiff”). The motion is granted.

Counsel has filed forms MC-051 and MC-052 and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053 as required. (Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) The basis for this motion is a conflict between Counsel and Plaintiff. This is a proper basis for withdrawal. Accordingly, the motion is granted.

Counsel should note that the order will become effective upon the filing of proof of service of a signed copy of the orders on Plaintiff. Counsel will remain the attorney of record until Counsel files with the court proof of service of the signed order.

DATED: November 5, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court