This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/27/2019 at 06:49:47 (UTC).

ELEAZAR ALONSO VS ANTONIO RINCON ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/12/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by ELEAZAR ALONSO against ANTONIO RINCON 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:

    ****1887

  • Filing Date:

    04/12/2018

  • 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 and Plaintiff

ALONSO ELEAZAR

Respondents and Defendants

GUZMAN CARLOS

GUZMAN JOSE

RINCON ANTONIO

DOES 1 TO 50

 

Court Documents

Answer

12/21/2018: Answer

Demand for Jury Trial

12/21/2018: Demand for Jury Trial

Notice of Deposit - Jury

2/7/2019: Notice of Deposit - Jury

Motion to Compel

5/22/2019: Motion to Compel

Motion to Compel

5/22/2019: Motion to Compel

Motion to Compel

5/22/2019: Motion to Compel

Motion to Compel

5/22/2019: Motion to Compel

SUMMONS

4/12/2018: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

4/12/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

4/12/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/22/2019
  • Motion to Compel (Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Answers to Request for Statement of Damages); Filed by Antonio Rincon (Defendant); Carlos Guzman (Defendant); Jose Guzman (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Motion to Compel (Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories); Filed by Antonio Rincon (Defendant); Carlos Guzman (Defendant); Jose Guzman (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Motion to Compel (Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories); Filed by Antonio Rincon (Defendant); Carlos Guzman (Defendant); Jose Guzman (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Motion to Compel (Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Response to Request for Production of Documents); Filed by Antonio Rincon (Defendant); Carlos Guzman (Defendant); Jose Guzman (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2019
  • Notice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by Antonio Rincon (Defendant); Carlos Guzman (Defendant); Jose Guzman (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Antonio Rincon (Defendant); Carlos Guzman (Defendant); Jose Guzman (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2018
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Antonio Rincon (Defendant); Carlos Guzman (Defendant); Jose Guzman (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Eleazar Alonso (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Eleazar Alonso (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC701887    Hearing Date: January 17, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

ELEAZAR ALONSO,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANTONIO RINCON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC701887

Hearing Date: January 17, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

DEFENDANTS’ motions FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

Plaintiff Eleazar Alonso (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Antonio Rincon, Carlos Guzman, and Jose Guzman (collectively “Defendants”) following a motor vehicle collision. Now, Defendants move for additional monetary sanctions, as well as evidentiary or terminating sanctions, based upon Plaintiff’s failure to serve responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, request for production of documents, and request for statement of damages. Plaintiff opposes the motion and his counsel represents that she has complied with all overdue discovery requests by providing verified responses, without objections. (Declaration of Sherri Manning, ¶ 2.) Therefore, terminating sanctions are not appropriate. The only issue before this Court is whether to impose monetary sanctions. The Court previously ordered monetary sanctions, and Counsel provides good cause to find that no further sanctions are necessary, given her personal issues.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendants’ motion for terminating and monetary sanctions is denied. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: January 17, 2020 ___________________________

Hon. Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court