This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/25/2020 at 03:15:06 (UTC).

EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ VS NATIONAL CONCRETE WASHOUT

Case Summary

On 10/17/2017 EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against NATIONAL CONCRETE WASHOUT. 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:

    ****0087

  • Filing Date:

    10/17/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • 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

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

RODRIGUEZ EULOGIO

MIDWEST EMPLOYERS CAS. CO.

Defendants and Respondents

NATIONAL CONCRETE WASHOUT

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

ATLANTIC CONCRETE WASHOUT INC (ERRONEOUS

ATLANTIC CONCRETE WASHOUT INC ERRONEOUS

ATLANTIC CONCRETE WASHOUT INC. ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS "NATIONAL CONCRETE WASHOUT"

NATIONAL CONCRETE WASHOUT INC.

Plaintiff and Not Classified By Court

MIDWEST EMPLOYERS CAS. CO.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

CHAHINE LAW APC

CHAHINE HUSSEIN ALI

CHAHINE HUSSEIN ALI ESQ.

GRAHAM BRUCE N

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA LLP

MIHAI RACHEL ANN

LINSON MONIQUE RACHELLE ESQ.

TORABI SARVNAZ RACHELLE ESQ.

DONAVAN MONIQUE R

DONAVAN MONIQUE R ESQ.

Not Classified By Court Attorney

GRAHAM BRUCE NEILL ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Declaration - DECLARATION OF INTERVENOR COUNSEL RE: OSC

10/15/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF INTERVENOR COUNSEL RE: OSC

Declaration - DECLARATION OF MONIQUE R. DONAVAN

10/21/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF MONIQUE R. DONAVAN

Notice of Lien

9/8/2020: Notice of Lien

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO RE-OPEN DISCOVERY

8/4/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO RE-OPEN DISCOVERY

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (- HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO RE-OPEN DISCOV...)

8/5/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (- HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO RE-OPEN DISCOV...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT) (CONDITIONAL-P...)

7/10/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT) (CONDITIONAL-P...)

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

3/16/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

3/6/2020: Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ERIC H. GODOY

3/3/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ERIC H. GODOY

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT)

2/4/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT)

Notice of Settlement

2/4/2020: Notice of Settlement

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT) OF 02/04/2020

2/4/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT) OF 02/04/2020

Answer

10/9/2019: Answer

Complaint in Intervention

9/20/2019: Complaint in Intervention

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON ATTORNEY FOR [PROPOSED] INTERVENOR, MIDWEST EMPLOY...)

8/13/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON ATTORNEY FOR [PROPOSED] INTERVENOR, MIDWEST EMPLOY...)

[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

7/9/2019: [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

Motion for Leave to Intervene

8/2/2019: Motion for Leave to Intervene

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES [NEGLIGENCE]

10/17/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES [NEGLIGENCE]

28 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/21/2021
  • Hearing09/21/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2021
  • Hearing09/08/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2021
  • Hearing03/08/2021 at 11:00 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2020
  • Hearing12/11/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2020
  • Hearing12/11/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Re-Open Discovery

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) ((conditional Notice filed 02/04/2020 - - Plaintiff has settled his case with defendants. Pending resolution of workers compensation lien with Plaintiff-In-Intervention)) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) (conditional N...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (OF MONIQUE R. DONAVAN); Filed by Atlantic Concrete Washout, Inc. (erroneously sued as "National Concrete Washout") (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
51 More Docket Entries
  • 01/31/2019
  • DocketStipulation and Order (Proposed Order and Stipulation to Continue Trial FSC and Related Motion Discovery Dates Personal Injury Courts Only); Filed by Atlantic Concrete Washout, Inc. (erroneously sued as "National Concrete Washout") (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2018
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Atlantic Concrete Washout, Inc. (erroneously sued as "National Concrete Washout") (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • DocketDEFENDANT ATLANTIC CONCRETE WASHOUT, INC'S (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS "NATIONAL CONCRETE WASHOUT") ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ'S COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Atlantic Concrete Washout, Inc. (erroneously sued as "National Concrete Washout") (Defendant); Atlantic Concrete Washout, Inc's Erroneously Sued As National Concrete Washout (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Eulogio Rodriguez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES [NEGLIGENCE]

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Eulogio Rodriguez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC680087    Hearing Date: March 16, 2020    Dept: 29

Rodriguez v. National Concrete Washout, Inc.

Motion to Re-set FSC and Trial Dates by Plaintiff-in-Intervention Midwest Employers Insurance Co. is GRANTED. Trial is set for April 16, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. The final status conference is set for April 2, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. To the extent that discovery and motion cut-off dates had already passed at the time of filing the Notice of Settlement of the Entire Case, the dates are not reset. To the extent that the discovery and motion cut off dates had not yet expired by that time, the dates are to be determined by the new trial date.

Motion for Sanctions by Plaintiff-In-Intervention Midwest Employers Insurance Co. is GRANTED. The Court imposes sanctions in the amount of $900 on Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Hussein A. Chahine and Chahine Law, APC, jointly and severally, to be paid to moving party Plaintiff-in-Intervention Midwest Employers Insurance Co.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On 10/17/2017, Plaintiff Eulogio Rodriguez alleged that he tripped and fell as a result of a dangerous condition caused by the negligence of Defendant National Concrete Washout. On 9/9/2019, the Court granted Midwest Employer Casualty Company’s (“Midwest”) motion to intervene as a plaintiff under Labor Code section 3852 and 3853 and Code of Civil Procedure section 387 based on Midwest’s allegation that it had a right to subrogation because it paid worker’s compensation benefits to Plaintiff as a result of Defendant’s alleged negligence. The trial was continued to 2/27/2020. The final status conference was set for 2/14/2020.

On 2/4/2020, Rodriguez filed a “Notice of Settlement of Entire Case” on a judicial council form. Plaintiff checked the box on the form that stating: “The entire case has been settled. The settlement is conditional. The settlement agreement conditions dismissal of this matter on the satisfactory completion of specified terms that are not to be performed within 45 days of the date of the settlement. A request for dismissal will be filed no later than (date): See Attachement (sic) 1b.” All language except for the “See Attachment 1b” was part of the printed form; “see attachment 1b” was typewritten. Attachment 1b stated in typewritten language: July 1, 2020 – Plaintiff has settled his case with Defendants. Pending resolution of workers’ compensation lien with Plaintiff-in-Intervention.”

Having received a “Notice of Settlement of Entire Case,” the Court vacated the trial and final status conference dates. Midwest immediately filed a Motion to Re-Set FSC and Trial Dates on the grounds that it had not entered into a settlement with Defendant and thus Rodriguez’s statement that the entire case had been settled was false. Midwest also served a motion for sanctions under section 128.7

MOTION TO RESET FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND TRIAL

The Court grants the motion to reset the FSC and trial dates. Trial is set for April 16, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. The final status conference is set for April 2, 2016. The Notice of Settlement of Entire Case is stricken. To the extent that the discovery and motion cut off dates had not yet passed by that time, the dates are to be determined by the new trial date.

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Midwest seeks sanctions against Rodriguez’s counsel of record pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 for the wrongful filing of the notice of settlement of the entire case. Section 128.7(b) provides in relevant part:

“(b) By presenting to the court [various papers], an attorney is certifying that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, all of the following conditions are met:

. . .

(3) The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support . . . .”

Section 128.7(c) allows the Court to award sanctions for a violation of subdivision (b) is various conditions are met. Specifically, that subdivision provides in relevant part:

“(c) If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys. . . that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation. In determining what sanctions, if any, should be ordered, the court shall consider whether a party seeking sanctions has exercised due diligence.

“(1) A motion for sanctions under this section shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). Notice of motion shall be served as provided in Section 1010 but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion, or any other period as the court may prescribe, the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees.”

Here, the Court concludes that Midwest has exercised due diligence with respect to the situation here. Before Plaintiff filed the notice of settlement of the entire case, Midwest spoke to Plaintiff’s counsel and informed counsel that no settlement had been reached between Midwest and Defendant and that there was no basis for filing a notice of settlement of the entire case. Plaintiff nonetheless filed the notice. The notice was untrue because the action had not been settled between Midwest and Defendant and it was thus not a true statement that the entire action had been settled.

After the notice was filed counsel for Midwest against spoke to Plaintiff’s counsel demanding that the notice be retracted. Plaintiff’s counsel refused to do so. Midwest’s counsel thereafter filed the motion to reset the trial and the FSC and served Plaintiff with the motion for sanctions. Plaintiff had 21 days after the filing of those motions to withdraw the notice, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused to do so.

Plaintiff’s counsel provides no valid reason for filing a notice of settlement of the entire case. If the notice was filed in error, Plaintiff’s counsel could have withdrawn the notice. In opposition, Plaintiff does not claim that the filing was in error, or even address the representation in the notice that the “ENTIRE ACTION” had been settled.

The Court concludes that sanctions under section 128.7 are warranted here. In determining the amount of the sanctions, sanctions “shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of this conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.” Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7, subd. (d). The Court has evaluated all of the facts and circumstances, and concludes, in the exercise of its discertion, that the amount sufficient to deter repetition of this conduct is $900. The Court imposes sanctions in the amount of $900 on Plaintiff’s counsel of record Hussein A. Chahine and Chahine Law, APC, jointly and severally, payable to moving party Plaintiff in Intervention Midwest Employers Insurance Co.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.