This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/04/2019 at 06:22:05 (UTC).

GARY APPLEBY VS PHELIPPE CANTON LAMOUSSE ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/31/2017 GARY APPLEBY filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against PHELIPPE CANTON LAMOUSSE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1940

  • Filing Date:

    10/31/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

APPLEBY GARY

Defendants and Respondents

DARWICHE BARRAN

DOES 1 TO 50

CANTON-LAMOUSSE PHELIPPE CANTON

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorney

BERNARD STEPHEN ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

O'BRIEN PATRICK K. ESQ

 

Court Documents

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

10/31/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

SUMMONS

10/31/2017: SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

11/22/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

3/19/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Notice of Change of Firm Name

12/24/2018: Notice of Change of Firm Name

NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY

6/12/2018: NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY

NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY

4/5/2018: NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY

Summons

1/4/2018: Summons

Cross-Complaint

1/3/2018: Cross-Complaint

Answer

1/3/2018: Answer

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/30/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Stephen, Bernard, Esq. (Attorney)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/24/2018
  • DocketNotice of Change of Firm Name; Filed by BARRAN DARWICHE (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • DocketNotice; Filed by BARRAN DARWICHE (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/12/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/05/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketNotice; Filed by BARRAN DARWICHE (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/04/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by BARRAN DARWICHE (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/03/2018
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by BARRAN DARWICHE (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/03/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by BARRAN DARWICHE (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/03/2018
  • DocketCross-Complaint

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/03/2018
  • DocketAnswer

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/22/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/22/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by GARY APPLEBY (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/31/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/31/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by GARY APPLEBY (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/31/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****1940    Hearing Date: March 17, 2020    Dept: 28

  Plaintiff's application for a continuance of the trial

The application is granted in part.  Trial is continued to October 30, 2020 at 8:30 in Dept. 28.  The Final Status Conference is continued to October 16, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.  Discovery deadlines track the new trial date. 

IF THE PARTIES DO NOT STIPULATE TO THIS TENTATIVE, THEY SHOULD ARRANGE FOR COURT CALL TO MAKE ARGUMENTS.  

IF THE PARTIES ARE UNWILLING TO APPEAR BY COURT-CALL, THE COURT WILL CONTINUE THE APPLICATION HEARING DATE TO A DATE TO BE DETERMINED.  



Case Number: ****1940    Hearing Date: December 14, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Dismiss

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On October 31, 2017, Plaintiff Gary Appleby (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Phelippe Canton-Lamousse (“Defendant Canton-Lamousse”) and Barran Darwiche.  Plaintiff alleges general and motor vehicle negligence arising from a pedestrian-automobile collision that occurred on November 22, 2016.

On May 29, 2020, Defendant Canton-Lamousse filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 583.420.

Trial is set for July 13, 2021.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant Canton-Lamousse asks the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s action against Defendant Canton-Lamousse because Plaintiff served Defendant Canton-Lamousse with the complaint over two years after filing this action.

LEGAL STANDARD

“The court may in its discretion dismiss an action for delay in prosecution. . . .”  (Code Civ. Proc. ; 583.410.)  However, a court must first find either: (1) service has not been effectuated within two years since commencement of the action, (2) an action is not brought to trial within three years after it is commenced against a defendant, or (3) a new trial is granted and the action is not brought to trial within a certain time.  (Code Civ. Proc. ; 583.420, subd. (a).)

After California Code of Civil Procedure section 583.420, subdivision (a) is satisfied, the Court analyzes a variety of relevant factors, including those prescribed in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1342, subdivision (e).

“(1) The court’s file in the case and the declarations and supporting data submitted by the parties and, where applicable, the availability of the moving party and other essential parties for service of process;

(2) The diligence in seeking to effect service of process;

(3) The extent to which the parties engaged in any settlement negotiations or discussions;

(4) The diligence of the parties in pursuing discovery or other pretrial proceedings, including any extraordinary relief sought by either party;

(5) The nature and complexity of the case;

(6) The law applicable to the case, including the pendency of other litigation under a common set of facts or determinative of the legal or factual issues in the case;

(7) The nature of any extensions of time or other delay attributable to either party;

(8) The condition of the court’s calendar and the availability of an earlier trial date if the matter was ready for trial;

(9) Whether the interests of justice are best served by dismissal or trial of the case; and

(10) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to a fair determination of the issue.”

California Rules of Court, rule 2.30, subdivision (b) states “[i]n addition to any other sanctions permitted by law, the court may order a person, after written notice and an opportunity to be heard, to pay reasonable monetary sanctions to the court or an aggrieved person, or both, for failure without good cause to comply with the applicable rules.”

DISCUSSION

On November 22, 2016, the automobile collision that underlies Plaintiff’s action occurred.  (Canton-Lamousse Decl., ¶ 2.)  The complaint was filed on October 31, 2017On March 18, 2020, Plaintiff personally served Defendant Canton-Lamousse with the summons and complaint.  (Canton-Lamousse Decl., 4.)

Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant Canton-Lamousse at his address listed in a police report drafted in relation to the November 22, 2016 accident on three occasions between November 8, 2017 and November 16, 2017.  (Bernard Decl., 5, Exh. 2.)  On November 16, 2017, an individual at that residence said Defendant Canton-Lamousse does not reside at that address.  (Ibid.Defendant Canton-Lamousse’s counsel assured Plaintiff’s counsel that contact was being made with Defendant Canton-Lamousse and that he would be provided for a deposition.  (Bernard Decl., 5.)  On September 20, 2019, Defendant Canton-Lamousse’s counsel notices Defendant Canton-Lamousse’s deposition.  (Bernard Decl., 5, Exh. 6.)  On November 5, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel notices Defendant Canton-Lamousse’s deposition.  (Bernard Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. 10.)  Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant Canton-Lamousse with the summons and complaint on six occasions between November 6, 2019 and November 13, 2019 to no avail.  (Bernard Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. 11.)

The Court finds Plaintiff was diligent in trying to serve Defendant Canton-Lamousse with the summons and complaint.  Plaintiff persistently attempted to serve Defendant Canton-Lamousse from just over a week after the complaint was filed through the effective service date on March 18, 2020.  Defendant Canton-Lamousse has not shown that any other factor listed in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1342, subdivision (e) necessitates a dismissal of this action.  Thus, the motion must be denied.

CONCLUSION

The motion to dismiss is DENIED.

Defendant Canton-Lamousse is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Defendant Canton-Lamousse is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer BERNARD STEPHEN