This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/20/2020 at 18:00:28 (UTC).

EDDIE JONES VS ARMANDO FEDERICO REYES ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/15/2018 EDDIE JONES filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against ARMANDO FEDERICO REYES. 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, MARK C. KIM and DENNIS J. LANDIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4130

  • Filing Date:

    02/15/2018

  • 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

MARK C. KIM

DENNIS J. LANDIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Appellant

JONES EDDIE

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 - 25

BARRIOS DANIEL

CITY LOGISTICS & TRANSPORTATION MATTER

REYES ARMANDO FEDERICO

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

SMITH MARC L.

AZIZI DANIEL ESQ.

YAGHOUBTIL FARID

GADDINI CHRISTOFFER M.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

JOHNSON JERRI LYNN ESQ.

BAER KARLA COTTIS

PAPPAS NICHOLAS JAMES

 

Court Documents

Separate Statement

7/8/2019: Separate Statement

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF RONALD R. HEARD IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

7/8/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF RONALD R. HEARD IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION)

7/25/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION)

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

8/21/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE TO CONTINUE TRIAL TO ALLOW HEARING OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

9/3/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE TO CONTINUE TRIAL TO ALLOW HEARING OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Proof of Service by Mail

1/8/2020: Proof of Service by Mail

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. TWO FOR ORDER EXCLUDING EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY, QUESTIONS & ARGUMENT RE NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, ETC.

2/13/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. TWO FOR ORDER EXCLUDING EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY, QUESTIONS & ARGUMENT RE NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, ETC.

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. THREE FOR ORDER PRECLUDING REPTILE OR GOLDEN RULE TYPE STATEMENTS

2/13/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. THREE FOR ORDER PRECLUDING REPTILE OR GOLDEN RULE TYPE STATEMENTS

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 03/17/2020

3/17/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 03/17/2020

Other - - PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR COPIES

4/7/2020: Other - - PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR COPIES

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DEEM THE THUTH OF MATTERS SPECIFIED IN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, TO DEFENDANT ARMANDO FEDERICO REYES ADMITTED AND CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED;

8/10/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DEEM THE THUTH OF MATTERS SPECIFIED IN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, TO DEFENDANT ARMANDO FEDERICO REYES ADMITTED AND CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED;

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES, WITHOUT OBJECTIONS, TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE;

8/10/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES, WITHOUT OBJECTIONS, TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE;

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DEEM THE TRUTH OF MATTERS SPECIFIED IN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, TO DEFENDANT CITY LOGISTICS & TRANSPORT ADMITTED AND CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED;

8/10/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DEEM THE TRUTH OF MATTERS SPECIFIED IN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, TO DEFENDANT CITY LOGISTICS & TRANSPORT ADMITTED AND CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED;

Minute Order - (Case Management Conference)

10/18/2018: Minute Order - (Case Management Conference)

Notice - Notice NOTICE OF RULING RE DEFENDANTS APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDEATION OF THE COURTS OCTOBER 4, 2018 ORDER

1/22/2019: Notice - Notice NOTICE OF RULING RE DEFENDANTS APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDEATION OF THE COURTS OCTOBER 4, 2018 ORDER

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

2/26/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

2/26/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Separate Statement

5/8/2019: Separate Statement

100 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/19/2020
  • Hearing08/19/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department S27 at 275 Magnolia, Long Beach, CA 90802; Hearing on Ex Parte Application FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF CHRISTOFFER GADDINI, ESQ.; PROPOSED ORDER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2020
  • DocketNotice (Notice of Continued Ex Parte to Continue Trial); Filed by Armando Federico Reyes (Defendant); CITY LOGISTICS & TRANSPORT Erroneously Sued As CITY LOGISTICS & TRANSPORTATION MATTER (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/07/2020
  • DocketPlaintiff's Request for Copies; Filed by Eddie Jones (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/07/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRI...), Minute Order (Court Order), Minute Order (Court Order)]); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2020
  • DocketAppellate Order Reinstating Appeal (NOA: 02/04/20 B304056); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2020
  • Docketat 11:16 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application ( FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF CHRISTOFFER GADDINI, ESQ.; PROPOSED ORDER) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 03/27/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2020
  • DocketNotice (Defendants' Notice of Continued Ex Parte to Continue Trial); Filed by Armando Federico Reyes (Defendant); CITY LOGISTICS & TRANSPORT Erroneously Sued As CITY LOGISTICS & TRANSPORTATION MATTER (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
191 More Docket Entries
  • 03/06/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Eddie Jones (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons (PARTY SERVED: CITY LOGISTICS & TRANSPORTATION MATTER BY SUBSTITUTED SERVICE, LEFT W/ RUTH DOLDWIN-SECURITY GUARD ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2018
  • DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Eddie Jones (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Eddie Jones (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE (PERSONAL INJURIES AND PROPERTY DAMAGES) 2. NEGLIGENCE PER SE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Eddie Jones (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC694130    Hearing Date: January 14, 2020    Dept: S27

INTRODUCTION
Defendants City Logistics & Transportation and Armando Reyes move for summary adjudication of Plaintiffs’ claims for general damages
ALLLEGATIONS AND UNDISPUTED FACTS
On October 16, 2016 Plaintiff Eddie Jones was driving his motorcycle in the northbound lanes of Santa Fe Avenue in the City of Compton. Defendant Reyes, driving a vehicle owned by City Logistics in the course of his employment, made a left turn in front of Plaintiff Eddie Jones resulting in a collision.
Michelle Jones is Eddie Jones’ wife. She was driving a vehicle about 30 feet behind her husband. There were two vehicles between her and her husband’s motorcycle. 
A prior summary adjudication motion sought to eliminate her claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. That motion was denied because the court found a triable issue as to whether she had contemporaneous awareness of her husband’s injury.
ISSUES
CCP §437c(f)(1):
“A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there is no affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.”
Defendant seek adjudication of each Plaintiff’s entitlement to general damages.
DISCUSSION
Civil Code §3333.4:
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (c), in any action to recover damages arising out of the operation or use of a motor vehicle, a person shall not recover non-economic losses to compensate for pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, and other nonpecuniary damages if any of the following applies:
(1) The injured person was at the time of the accident operating the vehicle in violation of Section 23152 or 23153 of the Vehicle Code and was convicted of that offense.
(2) The injured person was the owner of a vehicle involved in the accident and the vehicle was not insured as required by the financial responsibility laws of this state.
(3) The injured person was the operator of a vehicle involved in the accident and the operator cannot establish his or her financial responsibility as required by the financial responsibility laws of this state.
There is no dispute that the Plaintiffs are husband and wife.
` In exhibit B, Michelle Jones’ deposition, she is asked at page 131: So as far as you knew, the motorcycle had insurance on it at the time of the accident?” Her response was somewhat unclear: “As far as I knew, I don’t – yeah. I don’t know. Eddie pretty much took care of the vehicles. Yes, ma’am.”
Exhibit C is Eddie Jones’ deposition. At page 16 he is asked if he owned the motorcycle he was riding on the day of the accident. He unequivocally confirms “Yes, I did.” He had owned the vehicle “five, six months.” At page 17 he testified that he and Michelle had been married since 2014.
Exhibit D is Eddie Jones’ responses to form interrogatories. Interrogatory 4.1 asked if any policy of insurance was in effect. He answered “no.”
As to Eddie Jones, Defendant argues that pursuant to CC §3333.4 the absence of insurance on his motorcycle at the time of the accident bars his claim for general damages.
As to Michelle Jones, Defendant argues she is a co-owner citing to the case of Iremia v. Hilmar Unified School Dist. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 324. Plaintiff in that case was a passenger in an uninsured vehicle driven by her husband, who had owned the vehicle for a day or two. The Plaintiff had no knowledge of husband’s ownership. Defendant characterizes the court as agreeing that the Plaintiff had an ownership interest under community property law, but “carved out a limited exception” for an unknowing community property interest.
However, one views the holding, what distinguishes the present case is that Michelle was not a passenger in the vehicle and was not injured by the collision with the uninsured motorcycle.  
The opposition spends many pages on generalities regrading summary judgment, and then proceeds to discuss triable issues over Michelle’s ownership.
There is no mention of Eddie Jones in the opposition, although an issue is directed towards him.
It appears, based on his discovery responses that there is no triable issue regarding Eddie Jones’ disentitlement to general damages.
The court will grant summary adjudication as against Eddie Jones. CC §3333.4 bars his claim for general damages because he admits his motorcycle was uninsured.
The court disagrees with arguments about Michelle’s ownership interests. It does not matter that she was not the registered owner or that she did not ride the motorcycle. The evidence is clear that the motorcycle was purchased during the Jones’ marriage. She has a community property interest – unlike Iremia she was not unaware that her husband purchased the vehicle. Whether or not it was registered, she had an ownership interest. It would appear CC §3333.4(a)(2) applies:
“The injured person was the owner of a vehicle involved in the accident and the vehicle was not insured as required by the financial responsibility laws of this state.”
The court will take oral argument and require Plaintiff to identify specifically by exhibit, page and line number the evidence purportedly creating a triable issue on ownership, but the tentative ruling is grant summary adjudication as to Michelle Jones’ claim for general damages.

Case Number: BC694130    Hearing Date: October 24, 2019    Dept: S27

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

The operative complaint is the first amended complaint. (Court’s 10/4/18 Order & Court’s 1/18/19 Order.) Plaintiffs Eddie Jones and Michelle Jones (collectively “Plaintiffs”) assert the following causes of action against Defendants Armando Federico Reyes, Daniel Barrios, and City Logistics & Transport in the first amended complaint: (1) negligence; (2) loss of consortium; and (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs alleged “Defendant(s) negligently entrusted, maintained, controlled, managed, drove, manufactured, operated, repaired, distributed, inspected, and repaired said automobile so as to cause them to collide with Plaintiffs, thereby causing the…injuries and damages to Plaintiffs.” (FAC ¶10.)

INTRODUCTION

Defendants City Logistics & Transport, Inc. and Armando Reyes (collectively “Defendants”) move for an order compelling Plaintiff Michelle Jones (“Plaintiff”) to submit to a second deposition within ten days or as directed by the court.

STANDARD

C.C.P. §2025.480 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(a) If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.

(b) This motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition, and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(c) Notice of this motion shall be given to all parties and to the deponent either orally at the examination, or by subsequent service in writing. If the notice of the motion is given orally, the deposition officer shall direct the deponent to attend a session of the court at the time specified in the notice.

C.C.P. §2025.610 provides, as follows:

(a) may take a subsequent deposition of that deponent.

(b)

(c)

(1) .

(2) , 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) .

ANALYSIS

Defendants are not entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to submit to a second deposition.

Defendants argue good cause exists under C.C.P. §2025.610(b) because Plaintiff did not produce any of the documents requested (via the Second Amended Notice of Deposition) at her deposition. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.) (Motion, pg. 3.) (Declaration of Freeburg ¶4; Exhibits A-B.) Defendants argue the “documents, regarding insurance and ownership, are now central to whether general damages may be recovered in this action.” (Motion, pg. 3.) (Declaration of Freeburg ¶4.)

However, Defendants did not establish good cause exists to compel Plaintiff to submit to a second deposition. First, Defendants should have brought a timely motion to compel production of the requested documents under C.C.P. §2025.480. It is too late now for Defendants to bring a motion under C.C.P. §2025.480. Defendants took Plaintiff’s deposition on April 9, 2019, more than six months ago. (Declaration of Freeburg ¶4; Exhibit B.) (Declaration of Gaddini ¶4.) Second, as argued by Plaintiff, Defendants’ request for a second deposition is an overly broad remedy to address the discovery issue raised in the motion, specifically Plaintiff’s failure to produce the requested documents at deposition. (Opposition, pg. 2.) Defendants have not “established good cause for an all-encompassing second deposition” of Plaintiff. (Opposition, pg. 2.)

In the reply, Defendants represent they are “agreeable to limiting the scope of the second deposition to the documents that were not previously produced.” (Reply, pg. 2.) However, as discussed above, Defendants should have brought a timely motion to compel production of the documents under C.C.P. §2025.480 and Defendants did not establish good cause for a second deposition.

The court notes that good cause might have existed had Plaintiff produced the requested documents after the deposition (voluntarily or pursuant to a court order) and Defendants had questions for Plaintiff regarding the documents.

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion is denied.

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion to compel a second deposition is denied.