This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/31/2019 at 04:12:18 (UTC).

ELIZABETH SANCHEZ ET AL VS DEREK AGUIRRE

Case Summary

On 12/11/2017 ELIZABETH SANCHEZ filed a Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle lawsuit against DEREK AGUIRRE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6543

  • Filing Date:

    12/11/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Guardian Ad Litems

SANCHEZ NATIVIDAD

SANCHEZ ELIZABETH

Respondents and Defendants

AGUIRRE DEREK

DOES 1 TO 25

Petitioner, Plaintiff and Guardian Ad Litem

SANCHEZ ELIZABETH

Minor

GOZALEZ ARMANI

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Minor Attorney

YAGHOUBTIL FARID

Defendant Attorney

IVORY ROBIN R. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

COMPLAINT FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE (PERSONAL INJURIES AND PROPERTY DAMAGES) 2. NEGLIGENCE PER SE

12/11/2017: COMPLAINT FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE (PERSONAL INJURIES AND PROPERTY DAMAGES) 2. NEGLIGENCE PER SE

SUMMONS

1/23/2018: SUMMONS

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

1/4/2018: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

Ex Parte Application

5/8/2019: Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

5/8/2019: Minute Order

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT DEREK AGUIRRE; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

5/8/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT DEREK AGUIRRE; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

4/4/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/28/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for an order to continue trial) - Held - Motion Granted

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • DocketEx Parte Application (EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF CHRISTOFFEER GADDINI, ESQ.; PROPOSED ORDER); Filed by ELIZABETH SANCHEZ (Plaintiff); NATIVIDAD SANCHEZ (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for an order to continue trial)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by DEREK AGUIRRE (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT DEREK AGUIRRE; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by ELIZABETH SANCHEZ (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/23/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/23/2018
  • DocketSummons Issued; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/23/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/04/2018
  • DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/04/2018
  • DocketAPPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/11/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by ELIZABETH SANCHEZ (Plaintiff); NATIVIDAD SANCHEZ (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/11/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE (PERSONAL INJURIES AND PROPERTY DAMAGES) 2. NEGLIGENCE PER SE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****6543 Hearing Date: July 20, 2022 Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

ELIZABETH SANCHEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

DEREK AGUIRRE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: ****6543

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH SANCHEZ’S RESPONSES TO SUPPLMENTAL INTERROGATORY (SET ONE), AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

July 20, 2022

  1. INTRODUCTION

On December 11, 2017, Plaintiffs Elizabeth Sanchez (“Elizabeth”), Natividad Sanchez (“Natividad”), and Armani Gonzalez, a minor by and through his Guardian ad Litem Elizabeth, (“Gonzalez”) (collectively, “Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Derek Aguirre (“Defendant”) for injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident caused by Defendant’s alleged negligence. Plaintiffs are referred to by their first names to avoid confusion and no disrespect is intended.

On February 17, 2022, Defendant served Plaintiff Elizabeth with Supplemental Interrogatory, Set One. Having received no responses, Defendant proceeded to file the instant motion to compel Plaintiff Elizabeth responses to Supplement Interrogatory, Set One. Defendant also requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $381.99 against Plaintiff Elizabeth.

  1. LEGAL STANDARD

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

  1. DISCUSSION

    1. Motion to Compel

Here, Defendant argues that responses from Plaintiff Elizabeth to his Supplemental Interrogatory, Set One, were due by March 21, 2022, and even after a unilateral extension was provided until April 12, 2022, no response was ever received. (Kwan Decl. 2-4, Exh. B.) It is noted that no opposition has been filed.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel responses is GRANTED.

    1. Monetary Sanctions

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290, subd. (c).) Where a party fails to provide a timely response to requests for admission, “[i]t is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff Elizabeth, in the amount of $381.99 for two hours at Defendant’s counsel’s hourly rate of $160.17 and $61.65 in filing fees.

  1. CONCLUSION

Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff Elizabeth’s responses to Supplemental Interrogatory Set One is GRANTED. Plaintiff Elizabeth is ordered to provide responses within twenty (20) days of receipt of notice of this order. Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $381.99 against Plaintiff Elizabeth, which is to be paid within thirty (30) days of receipt of notice of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.



Case Number: ****6543    Hearing Date: February 22, 2021    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

ELIZABETH SANCHEZ, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

DEREK AGUIRRE, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

****6543

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO RESET CONFERENCE TRIAL 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

February 22, 2021

On August 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed this Motion for an order to “continue the Conference trial date of September 4, 2020 to July 27, 2021.”  The hearing was originally scheduled for December 22, 2021.  On December 16, 2021, the Court rescheduled the hearing for February 22, 2021 and ordered the moving party to give notice.  There is no amended notice of hearing on file with the Court and no evidence that Defendants received notice of the new hearing date.  Furthermore, trial in this action has since been continued to August 23, 2021, making this Motion moot. 

Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. 

Moving party to give notice.

22nd day of February 2021

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court



Case Number: ****6543    Hearing Date: September 04, 2020    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

ELIZABETH SANCHEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

DEREK AGUIRRE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

.: ****6543

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

September 4, 2020

On December 11, 2017, plaintiffs Elizabeth Sanchez, Natividad Sanchez, and Armani Gonzalez (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendant Derek Aguirre.  Defendant served each plaintiff with supplemental discovery requests on August 20, 2019.  No responses have been received.  Defendant moves to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to his Supplemental Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (Set One) and Supplemental Interrogatories (Set One).

A party may propound a supplemental interrogatory or supplemental demand for production of documents to elicit any later acquired information bearing on all answers previously made by any party.  (Code of Civ. Proc., ;; 2030.070, subd. (a), 2031.050, subd. (a).)  Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., ;; 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)

Plaintiffs opposed the Motion with a consolidated opposition submitted by Elizabeth Sanchez.  There is no evidence that responses were served.  Defendant’s Motions are GRANTED and each individual plaintiff is ordered to serve separate verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Supplemental Demand for Inspection and production of Documents (Set One) and Supplemental Interrogatories (Set One) that were propounded on each of them, within 20 days of the date of this Order.  

Defendant requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $585.25 in connection with each motion.  Plaintiffs oppose this request and argue defense counsel did not provide the discovery responses to them.  Defendant’s motions show that discovery was served on Plaintiffs’ counsel of record at the time.  Furthermore, Defendant’s motions were served on May 6, 2020, which contained copies of the discovery at issue, thereby fulfilling defense counsel’s agreement to provide courtesy copies.  This hearing is more than the 30 days allowed by Code to respond to the discovery requests.  Nevertheless, the Court recognizes Plaintiffs’ attempts to retain counsel during the COVID-19 pandemic and the various medical emergencies that Plaintiffs have experienced.  The Court finds monetary sanctions would be unjust.  Accordingly, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED. 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  

Dated this 4th day of September 2020

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court



Case Number: ****6543    Hearing Date: December 20, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED

Christoffer Gaddini seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Elizabeth Sanchez, Natividad Sanchez, and Armani Sanchez on the grounds that there has been a breakdown in attorney-client communication. Absent a showing of resulting prejudice, an attorney’s request for withdrawal should be granted. (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406.) Counsel’s Motion complies with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362. The Court notes that trial in this matter is currently set for March 11, 2020 and no prejudice will result from granting this motion. Accordingly, this unopposed motion to be relieved is GRANTED and effective upon filing a proof of service showing service of this Order on Plaintiffs and all parties who have appeared. Before the hearing, counsel is to file a proposed order (form MC-053) that includes the phone numbers for the clients.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer IVORY ROBIN R. ESQ.