This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/30/2022 at 11:08:56 (UTC).

GILBERT BELL VS KYLE JOHNSON

Case Summary

On 07/10/2019 GILBERT BELL filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against KYLE JOHNSON. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH, SAMANTHA JESSNER, DAVID J. COWAN, LAURA A. SEIGLE and ELIZABETH R. FEFFER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3804

  • Filing Date:

    07/10/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

ELIZABETH R. FEFFER

SAMANTHA JESSNER

DAVID J. COWAN

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant

BELL GILBERT AN INDIVIDUAL

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

JOHNSON KYLE AN INDIVIDUAL IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS CONSERVATOR FOR NICHELLE NICHOLS AN INDIVIDUAL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

BOWEN WILLIAM

BOWEN WILLIAM DALEBOUT

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

ZAKARI RAYMOND V

KERNAN S. MICHAEL

IVIE RICKEY

ZIALCITA MARIVEL

 

Court Documents

Complaint

7/10/2019: Complaint

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

5/12/2022: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL READINESS CONFERENCE)

4/25/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL READINESS CONFERENCE)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/19/2022

4/19/2022: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/19/2022

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

4/19/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW) OF 01/24/2022

1/24/2022: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW) OF 01/24/2022

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW)

1/24/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW)

Substitution of Attorney

1/4/2022: Substitution of Attorney

Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

12/3/2021: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

12/3/2021: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

12/3/2021: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL) OF 08/27/2021

8/27/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL) OF 08/27/2021

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL)

8/27/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

8/26/2021: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Notice of Ruling

7/19/2021: Notice of Ruling

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

7/19/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVERY...)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW) OF 07/06/2021

7/6/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW) OF 07/06/2021

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW)

7/6/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW)

53 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/11/2022
  • Hearing10/11/2022 at 09:30 AM in Department 39 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2022
  • Hearing09/30/2022 at 09:30 AM in Department 39 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2022
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 39; Jury Trial ((estimated for 7 days)) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 39; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2022
  • DocketStipulation and Order (Stipulation to Continue Trial and Related Dates and [Proposed] Order); Filed by Gilbert Bell, , an individual (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2022
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 39; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2022
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 39, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Trial Readiness Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Readiness Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2022
  • Docketat 1:58 PM in Department 39, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
80 More Docket Entries
  • 08/14/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2019
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 08/14/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/12/2019
  • DocketNotice of Related Case; Filed by Kyle Johnson, an individual, in his individual capacity, and as conservator for Nichelle Nichols, an individual (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2019
  • DocketPI General Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2019
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([PI General Order] and Standing Order re PI Procedures and Hearing Dates); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Gilbert Bell, , an individual (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Gilbert Bell, , an individual (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Gilbert Bell, , an individual (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2019
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******3804    Hearing Date: March 05, 2020    Dept: 1

#1 – Gilbert Bell v. Kyle Johnson (*******3804) 

On August 9, 2019 and August 12, 2019, Defendant/Petitioner Kyle Johnson filed a Notice of Related Case in civil law cases *******3804 Bell v. Johnson and 18VECV00350 GB Entertainment, LLC v. Hawkins, et al, probate law case 18STPB04265 In re: Conservatorship of Nichelle Nichols, and harassment case 19CHRO00883 Bell v. Johnson. Department 1 received a copy of the Notice on August 15, 2019. On September 25, 2019, Department 1 issued an order on the Notice of Related Case ruling “the court declines to relate any of the cases listed in the Notice of Related Case.”

On February 4, 2020, Kyle Johnson filed a Motion to Relate Cases in civil law case *******3804 with the hearing set in Department 1. The motion seeks to relate civil law case *******3804, currently pending in Department 39 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, and harassment case 19CHRO00883, currently pending in Department F48 of the Chatsworth Courthouse. The motion is unopposed. (CCP ; 1005.)

Johnson’s first motion heading incorrectly states that the “California Rules of Court and the Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rules require defendant to file the motion with the Supervising Judge of the Van Nuys District.” (Mo. at 3.) Johnson noticed the hearing for this motion in Department 1 in the Central District and neither *******3804 nor 19CHRO00883 are assigned to either Van Nuys courthouse in the Northwest District. Johnson’s motion is brought pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 3.300(h)(1)(D), (Mo. at 3), which provides:

In the event that any of the cases listed in the notice are not ordered related under (A), (B), or (C), any party in any of the cases listed in the notice may file a motion to have the cases related. The motion must be filed with the presiding judge or the judge designated by the presiding judge. 

(CRC 3.300(h)(1)(D).) Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 3.3(f)(2), which implements CRC 3.300(h)(1)(D) provides, in relevant part: 

In the event that the judge designated under California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1)(A)(B)(C) to make the decision, does not order related any of the cases set forth in the Notice of Related Cases, any party may file a motion to have the cases related. Department 1 shall hear the motion, if the cases are all pending in the Central District or are pending in two or more different districts. If the cases are all pending in one district that is other than the Central District, the motion shall be heard by the Supervising Judge of that district. 

Here, *******3804 is pending in the Central District and 19CHRO00883 is pending in the North Valley District. Accordingly, Department 1 is the proper department to hear Johnson’s motion pursuant to LASC Local Rule 3.3(f)(2). 

As noted above, Department 1 previously issued an order on a Notice of Related Case involving these two cases on September 25, 2019. This court found the cases involved different claims and required the determination of different factual and legal issues. This court further found there would not be a substantial duplication of judicial resources if the cases were heard by different judicial officers. 

Johnson’s single-page argument in his memorandum of points and authorities disagreeing with this court’s conclusions are not persuasive and are notably incomplete. Johnson contends the cases are related because they involve the same parties citing CRC 3.300(a)(1). (Mo. at 3.) Johnson fails to note CRC 3.300(a)(1) requires the cases also be based upon the same or similar claims, which the court addressed in its September 25, 2019 order. The civil complaint also asserts contract and habitability claims which are entirely unrelated to the harassment action.

Johnson contends the cases “arise from substantially the same incidents and events” citing CRC 3.300(a)(2). (Mo. at 3-4.) Johnson similarly fails to note CRC 3.300(a)(2) also requires that the cases will result in the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact, which the court also addressed in its September 25, 2019 order. The issues in the harassment restraining order case are limited to whether Johnson should be physically restrained from Bell, whereas the civil complaint seeks damages for assault, infliction of emotional distress, elder abuse, trespass, habitability violations, and breach of contract.

Johnson also argues there will be a waste of judicial resources citing CRC 3.300(a)(4) because it is likely both cases will proceed to trial. (Mo. at 4.) However, as this court ruled in its September 25, 2019 order, there will not be a substantial duplication of judicial resources if the two cases are heard by different judges given the limited scope of the harassment restraining order case.

Finally, Johnson contends the parties’ “due process rights in regards to the unlimited jurisdiction civil matter could be impeded by a summary adjudication at the civil harassment hearing” due to the potential application of claim and issue preclusion. (Mo. at 4.) Johnson does not support this contention with any legal authority. (See Fenton v. City of Delano (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 400, 410 (“A point totally unsupported by argument and authority may be rejected by the reviewing court without discussion.”).) Moreover, Johnson’s concerns regarding conflicting rulings or the impact of a ruling in either case is best addressed by the judicial officers in the assigned cases rather than by formally relating the two cases, which are currently assigned to different divisions within the Los Angeles Superior Court. (See LASC Local Rule 5.2 (assigning civil harassment restraining order cases to the Family Law Division).)

The court finds no basis to reconsider its September 25, 2019 ruling that *******3804 and 19CHRO00883 are not related. The Motion to Relate Cases is DENIED in its entirety.

Clerk shall give notice.


Case Number: *******3804    Hearing Date: July 21, 2020    Dept: 39

Gilbert Bell v. Kyle Johnson, et al., *******3804

Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint by Defendant Kyle Johnson: the motion is DENIED. Defendant is to file an answer within 10 days.


Case Number: *******3804 Hearing Date: July 19, 2021 Dept: 39

Gilbert Bell v. Kyle Johnson

Case No. *******3804

Motions to Compel

Motion to Deem Admitted

Defendant Kyle Johnson (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Giblert Bell (“Plaintiff”) to: (1) Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”), and (2) Form Interrogatories, Set Two (“FROG”). Defendant also moves to deem the matters specified in the Requests for Admission, Set One (“RFAs”) to have been admitted. Defendant served the RPD on February 2, 2021, and the FROG and RFAs on March 18, 2021. Plaintiff has not responded. Nor did Plaintiff oppose the motions. The record provides no good cause. Therefore, the motions are granted.

Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel-of-record in connection with the motions. The Court finds that the failure to respond to discovery under these circumstances constitutes an abuse of discretion, warranting sanctions. The Court orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions in the amount of $3,200 based upon eight hours at a reasonable billing rate of $400 per hour, plus three filing fees of $61.65 each.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motions to compel are granted. Plaintiff shall provide verified responses to the Requests for Production, Set One, and the Form Interrogatories, Set Two, without objections, within thirty (30) days. Defendant’s motion to deem admitted is granted. Plaintiff is deemed to have admitted all matters specified in the Requests for Admission. The Court orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions in the amount of $3,384.95 within thirty (30) days. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.


Case Number: *******3804 Hearing Date: January 26, 2022 Dept: 39

Gilbert Bell v. Kyle Johnson

Case No. *******3804

Motion to be Relieved

Counsel for Defendant Kyle Johnson filed a motion to be relieved on December 3, 2021, which is set for hearing on January 26, 2022. However, a substitution of counsel form was filed on January 4, 2022, indicating that Kyle Johnson has retained new counsel. Therefore, the motion is taken off-calendar as moot. Defendant Kyle Johnson shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer BOWEN WILLIAM DALEBOUT