This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/06/2019 at 02:26:30 (UTC).

FELIPE A REYES VS JEREME ARMON WARE

Case Summary

On 09/05/2017 FELIPE A REYES filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against JEREME ARMON WARE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4817

  • Filing Date:

    09/05/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

REYES FELIPE A.

Defendants and Respondents

WARE JEREME ARMON

DOES 1 TO 25

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

LAW OFFICES OF PFLASTER & BERMAN

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

2/19/2019: Minute Order

Application

4/4/2019: Application

Minute Order

5/31/2019: Minute Order

AMENDED SUMMONS

9/29/2017: AMENDED SUMMONS

SUMMONS

9/5/2017: SUMMONS

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

9/5/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/31/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and Failure to File Default Judgment Pursuant to CRC 3.740 - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • Application (Application for Publication); Filed by Felipe A. Reyes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Felipe A. Reyes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2017
  • AMENDED SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/05/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/05/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Felipe A. Reyes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/05/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC674817    Hearing Date: February 26, 2021    Dept: 32

At the hearing of January 15, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel requested an opportunity to brief the issue whether the three-year service rule applies to this case, given that it was dismissed for some period of time. The Court granted the request and ordered that Plaintiff may file a brief addressing the issues raised in the tentative ruling on or before February 18, 2021. Pursuant to the request of plaintiff, the Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal (CCP 473) scheduled for 01/15/2021 was continued to 02/26/2021 at 01:30 PM in Department 32 at Spring Street Courthouse.

As of February 26, Plaintiff did not file a brief addressing the issues raised in the tentative ruling.  Therefore, the tentative ruling issued on January 15, 2021 is adopted as the order of the court.  The Clerk is to provide notice. 

Case Number: BC674817    Hearing Date: January 15, 2021    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

paolo pasio,

Plaintiff,

v.

denise duross,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19STCV02295

Hearing Date: January 15, 2021

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to compel deposition

Defendant Denise Duross (“Defendant”) moves to compel Plaintiff Paolo Pasio (“Plaintiff”) to appear for deposition. Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, if a party to the action fails to appear for deposition after service of a deposition notice and the party has not served a valid objection to that deposition notice, the party that noticed the deposition may move for an order to compel the deponent to attend and testify at deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., §2025.450, subd. (a).) Defendant has the right to take Plaintiff’s deposition and is entitled to take Plaintiff’s deposition without leave of court at any time. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.210, subd. (a).) Plaintiff concedes that he must appear for deposition. Accordingly, the motion to compel deposition is granted.

The Court declines to award sanctions to either party. Both parties have failed cooperate sufficiently to schedule basic discovery. For this reason, the Court concludes that an award of sanctions to either side would be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

Based upon the foregoing, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition. The deposition shall occur within thirty (30) days of notice of this order unless the parties stipulate to a different date. The deposition may occur remotely unless all parties involved agree to an in-person deposition. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: January 15, 2021 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court