This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/03/2020 at 07:42:37 (UTC).

EVELYN RAMOS VS 4688 HUNTINGTON DRIVE LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/12/2018 EVELYN RAMOS filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against 4688 HUNTINGTON DRIVE LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JON R. TAKASUGI, HOLLY E. KENDIG and THOMAS D. LONG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7672

  • Filing Date:

    03/12/2018

  • 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

JON R. TAKASUGI

HOLLY E. KENDIG

THOMAS D. LONG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

RAMON EVELYN

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-50

4688 HUNTINGTON DRIVE LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

AZIZI DAVID ESQ.

AZIZI DAVID

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

ECOFF CAMPAIN & TILLIES LLP

TALEBI ANDREW ARASCH

TILLES YARON M

ECOFF LAWRENCE CRAIG

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling

3/27/2020: Notice of Ruling

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

2/18/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION - OTHER MOTION TO SUBMIT TARDY EXPERT WITNE...)

3/24/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION - OTHER MOTION TO SUBMIT TARDY EXPERT WITNE...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER CORRECTING CONTINUANCE DATES PURSUANT TO ...)

2/18/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER CORRECTING CONTINUANCE DATES PURSUANT TO ...)

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO.3 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO PLAINTIFF'S MEDICAL LIENS

2/7/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO.3 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO PLAINTIFF'S MEDICAL LIENS

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO.2: TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE AND/OR MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT RATES TO DISCOUNT PLAINTIFF'S PAST AND FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES

2/7/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO.2: TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE AND/OR MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT RATES TO DISCOUNT PLAINTIFF'S PAST AND FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

2/10/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Motion to Submit Tardy Expert Witness List

2/4/2020: Motion to Submit Tardy Expert Witness List

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVERY")) OF 01/06/2020

1/6/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVERY")) OF 01/06/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVERY"))

1/6/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVERY"))

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION)

5/10/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION)

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING TERMINATING SANCTIONS

4/30/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING TERMINATING SANCTIONS

Notice - Notice Plaintiffs Notice Of Non Opposition To Defendants Motions To Compel

12/6/2018: Notice - Notice Plaintiffs Notice Of Non Opposition To Defendants Motions To Compel

Motion to Compel - Motion to Compel MOTION TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, ETC.

2/4/2019: Motion to Compel - Motion to Compel MOTION TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, ETC.

Motion to Compel - Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

10/17/2018: Motion to Compel - Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

3/21/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER -

3/12/2018: ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER -

SUMMONS -

3/12/2018: SUMMONS -

51 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/21/2022
  • Hearing03/21/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2022
  • Hearing03/07/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2021
  • Hearing03/12/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; : OSC RE Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Plaintiff's Responses to Supplemental (1) Interrogatories and (2) Requests for Production of Documents; Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $2,025;) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (Motion to Submit Tardy Expert Witness Information) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Deposition of Plaintiff's Retained Experts or, in the Alternative, Exclude them from Testifying at Trial, and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $2,497.50;) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference; Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposit...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference; Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposit...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2020
  • DocketReply (to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Submit Tardy Expert Witness Information); Filed by 4688 Huntington Drive, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
88 More Docket Entries
  • 05/03/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by 4688 Huntington Drive, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Evelyn Ramon (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2018
  • DocketRequest-Waive Court Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2018
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2018
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Evelyn Ramon (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2018
  • DocketORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE 2. PREMISES LIABILITY

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC697672    Hearing Date: September 16, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

EVELYN RAMOS,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

4688 HUNTINGTON DRIVE, LLC, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC697672

[TENTATIVE] (1) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORY RESPONSES

(2) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUBMIT TARDY EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION

(3) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF’S RETAINED EXPERTS

Dept. 31

8:30 a.m.

September 16, 2020

Plaintiff, Evelyn Ramos filed this action against Defendant, 4688 Huntington Drive, LLC for damages arising from a slip and fall at Defendant’s property.

Currently, Defendant moves (1) to compel Plaintiff’s responses to supplemental interrogatories and RPDs, (2) to submit tardy expert witness information, and (3) to compel deposition of Plaintiff’s retained experts or exclude them from testifying at trial. Plaintiff opposes each of the motions. As of 9/10/20, no replies have been filed.

The court notes trial in this matter was originally set for 2/26/20. On 2/18/20, the court granted Defendant’s ex parte application to continue the trial, which continued the trial date to 5/13/20. However, the court’s order explicitly stated, “All discovery and motion cut-off dates remain closed, except for any motion hearing set according to the previously scheduled cut off dates. Counsel may reopen discovery by filing a noticed motion.” (Minute Order 2/18/20.) Based on current conditions, including, but not limited to, the spread of COVID-19, trial was the trial date was vacated and a trial setting conference was set for 9/16/20. (Minute Order 4/2/20.) This order did not reopen discovery. (See Beverly Hospital v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1295 [“postponement or continuance of a trial does not automatically operate to reopen discovery.”]; Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1586 [“a party who notices a discovery motion to be heard after the discovery motion cutoff date does not have a right to have the motion heard.”].)

CCP § 2024.020 makes clear that all discovery must be completed at least 30 days prior to trial, and all discovery motions must be heard at least 15 days prior to trial; the section also makes clear that the original, not continued, trial date governs. § 2024.050 provides a mechanism to re-open discovery; Defendants in this case did not make a motion per § 2024.050. In light of the lack of an order re-opening discovery, the motion to compel responses, compel expert depositions, and motion to submit tardy expert list is denied.

While the court need not reach the other issues, the court notes Plaintiff filed a declaration on 7/21/20, providing that Plaintiff responded to all supplemental discovery requests on 7/16/20. The motion to compel responses appear to be moot considering the responses served on Defendant prior to the hearing.

Moreover, the court notes concerning Defendant’s motion to submit a tardy expert designation, CCP § 2034.710 permits the Court to relieve a party from his failure to timely designate experts, but this section makes clear that the motion must be heard prior to the discovery cut-off, unless exceptional circumstances are shown. Defendant does not allege any exceptional circumstances here. While Defendant’s counsel states Defendant’s prior attorney gave his notice of resignation one day before the expert witness designation was due, there is no explanation of why the prior attorney failed to serve the expert witness designation. Defendant’s current counsel merely asserts the prior attorney made a mistake and forgot to serve the expert designation, but there is no explanation of what the mistake was or why and how the prior attorney forgot to serve the expert witness designation.

The court notes trial in this matter was vacated because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The court encourages the parties to meet and confer concerning expert issues and attempt to resolve the issues without court intervention if possible.

Defendant’s motion to compel responses to supplemental discovery, motion to submit tardy expert witness information, and motion to compel Plaintiff’s expert’s depositions are denied.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

Dated this 16th day of September, 2020

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC697672    Hearing Date: January 06, 2020    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

EVELYN RAMOS,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

4688 HUNTINGTON DRIVE, LLC, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC697672

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

January 6, 2020

Defendant propounded special interrogatories, set two on Plaintiff on 9/11/19. To date, despite an attempt to meet and confer, Plaintiff has not served responses. Defendant therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions.

Defendant’s motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to special interrogatories, set two, without objections, within ten days. CCP §2030.290(a),(b).

Sanctions are mandatory. §2030.290(c). Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $1600/motion. Defense Counsel bills at the rate of $325/hour, which the Court reduces to $200/hour. The Court awards the requested 1.3 hours to prepare the motion to compel. No opposition was filed and therefore no reply was necessary. The Court awards the requested two hours of appearance time. The Court awards a total of 3.3 hours of attorney time at the rate of $200/hour, for a total of $660 in attorneys’ fees. The Court also awards the filing fee of $60.

Sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiff and her attorney of record, jointly and severally; they are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $720, within twenty days.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.