This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/08/2019 at 02:34:24 (UTC).

GERALD BENNETT VS RICARDO NARANJO

Case Summary

On 06/26/2017 GERALD BENNETT filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against RICARDO NARANJO. 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:

    ****6483

  • Filing Date:

    06/26/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

BENNETT GERALD

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 THROUGH 20

NARANJO RICARDO

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

LAW OFFICES OF BOB B. KHAKSHOOY

Defendant Attorney

O'NEILL MICHAEL J.

 

Court Documents

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE 2. NEGLIGENCE PER SE

6/26/2017: PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE 2. NEGLIGENCE PER SE

SUMMONS

6/26/2017: SUMMONS

Minute Order

12/10/2018: Minute Order

Declaration re: Due Diligence

1/11/2019: Declaration re: Due Diligence

Proof of Service by Mail

1/11/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

1/11/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Declaration re: Due Diligence

1/11/2019: Declaration re: Due Diligence

Answer

1/16/2019: Answer

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/16/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Ricardo Naranjo (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2019
  • Declaration re: Due Diligence; Filed by Gerald Bennett (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2019
  • Declaration re: Due Diligence; Filed by Gerald Bennett (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Gerald Bennett (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2019
  • Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Gerald Bennett (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2018
  • Minute Order ((Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2017
  • PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE 2. NEGLIGENCE PER SE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Gerald Bennett (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC666483    Hearing Date: January 29, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

GERALD BENNETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICARDO NARANJO,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC666483

Hearing Date: January 29, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

Defendant Ricardo Naranjo (“Defendant”) moves to compel further responses to certain Requests for Production (“RPD”), Form Interrogatories (“FROG”), and Special Interrogatories (“SROG”). As an initial matter, Defendant filed only one motion but sought to compel further responses to both the FROG and the SROG. Therefore, Defendant must pay an additional filing fee of $60.

In response to each RPD, Plaintiff Gerald Bennett (“Plaintiff”) provided the following responses: “Discovery is ongoing. Plaintiff will provide responsive documents to this request once they become available” or “Unavailable at this time. Discovery is ongoing.” In response to most of the FROGs and SROGs, Plaintiff provided the following responses in whole or in part: “Discovery is ongoing” or “Unavailable at this time. Discovery is ongoing.” With respect to FROG Number 11.2, Plaintiff responded: “Plaintiff does not have all pertinent and responsive information related to each of his workers’ compensation claims at this point.” With respect to FROG Number 20.8, Plaintiff responded: “Please refer to the traffic collision report.” Finally, with respect to SROG Number 13, Plaintiff objected to a request to “[i]temize in detail the dollar amounts of each damage which you allege you sustained as a result of the subject accident.”

With the exception of his response to SROG Number 13, Plaintiff has not provided code-compliant responses. The objection to SROG Number 13 has no merit and is overruled. Under normal circumstances, the Court would require the parties to conduct an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) before the hearing on this motion. These are not normal circumstances. Plaintiff’s responses are so flagrantly and obviously in violation of the Code of Civil Procedure, and his objections are so clearly without merit, that the Court excuses the requirement of an IDC. Therefore, Defendants’ motions are granted, though Defendants’ counsel is cautioned to schedule an IDC in the future.

Defendant notices sanctions against Plaintiff and counsel-of-record, the Law Offices of Bob B. Khakshooy, in the amount of $1,355 for each motion. The Court finds Plaintiff to have abused the discovery process, as discussed above. However, the Court finds the sanctions to be excessive. Therefore, the Court orders Plaintiff and counsel-of-record, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel, in the amount of $1,110, based upon six hours of attorney time at $185 per hour, plus three filing fees of $60 each.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motions to compel further responses to the RPD, FROG, and SROG are granted. Plaintiff shall provide code-compliant responses, without objections, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Plaintiff and counsel-of-record, the Law Offices of Bob B. Khakshooy, shall pay sanctions to Defendants, by and through counsel, in the amount of $1,290 within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: January 29, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court