This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/12/2020 at 16:47:03 (UTC).

GLORIA SANCHEZ VS MATTHEW ALFONSO MATTERA ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/28/2018 GLORIA SANCHEZ filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against MATTHEW ALFONSO MATTERA. 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:

    ****9922

  • Filing Date:

    03/28/2018

  • 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 Judges

JON R. TAKASUGI

HOLLY E. KENDIG

THOMAS D. LONG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

SANCHEZ GLORIA

Defendants and Respondents

MATTERA MATTHEW ALFONSO

DOES 1 TO 50

MATTERA SUSAN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

RAFII DANIEL J. ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

LEVIN-BORCOVER LORI D. ESQ.

GRANDY JAMES LAWTON

 

Court Documents

Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

1/10/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

10/18/2019: Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPP TO DEF'S EX PARTE TO CONTINUE HEARING RE MOTIONS TO COMPEL

10/23/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPP TO DEF'S EX PARTE TO CONTINUE HEARING RE MOTIONS TO COMPEL

Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts

10/18/2019: Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts

Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service

9/25/2019: Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service

Answer

9/16/2019: Answer

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

9/4/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Amended Complaint

8/27/2019: Amended Complaint

Notice of Ruling

8/27/2019: Notice of Ruling

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT) OF 08/27/2019

8/27/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT) OF 08/27/2019

Separate Statement

8/1/2019: Separate Statement

Motion for Leave - MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF GIANCARLO IRRIBARREN

7/24/2019: Motion for Leave - MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF GIANCARLO IRRIBARREN

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC))

6/6/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC))

Motion for Summary Adjudication

6/12/2019: Motion for Summary Adjudication

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC))

3/29/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC))

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

5/22/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

5/22/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

SUMMONS -

3/28/2018: SUMMONS -

41 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/29/2021
  • Hearing03/29/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2020
  • Hearing07/13/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2020
  • Hearing06/26/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Gloria Sanchez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Continue the Trial Date and Related Discovery Dates) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2020
  • DocketEx Parte Application (to Continue the Trial Date and Related Discovery Dates); Filed by Gloria Sanchez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue the Trial Date an...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2020
  • DocketOpposition (Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial); Filed by Matthew Alfonso Mattera (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
64 More Docket Entries
  • 06/26/2018
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Matthew Alfonso Mattera (Defendant); Susan Mattera (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Matthew Alfonso Mattera (Defendant); Susan Mattera (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • DocketANSWER TO TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS MATTHEW ALFONSO MATTTERA AND SUSAN MATTERA;DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Gloria Sanchez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • DocketPLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PERSONAL INJURIES 1. NEGLIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC699922    Hearing Date: November 18, 2019    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

GLORIA SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MATTHEW ALFONSO MATTERA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC699922

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DEEMING MOTION SUBSTANTIVELY MOOT; IMPOSING SANCTIONS

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

November 18, 2019

Plaintiff filed this motion to deem RFAs admitted, or to compel supplemental responses[1], on 10/18/19. The parties had been scheduled to have an IDC that same day, but Defendant failed to appear. On 10/24/19, the Court heard Defendant’s ex parte application to continue the IDC and continue the hearing on the MTCF. The Court treated the ex parte hearing as an IDC, and informed Defendant that objection-only responses were not code compliant and needed to be supplemented. The Court declined to continue the hearing on the MTCF.

On 11/04/19, Defendant filed opposition to the motion. Defendant’s opposition establishes that Defendant served supplemental responses to the RFAs at issue on 10/30/19, such that the motion is substantively moot.

The remaining issue is whether to impose sanctions. Defendant argues the Court should not impose sanctions, as Defendant acted reasonably in seeking to have an IDC held prior to determining whether or not further responses were necessary. Defendant points the Court to his ex parte application, which he attaches as Exhibit B to his opposition. Defendant’s ex parte application correctly notes that, while Plaintiff mentioned a 10/18/19 IDC in a meet and confer letter, Plaintiff did not actually file an IDC statement with the Court until the date of the IDC itself, 10/18/19. The parties, however, were engaged in ongoing meet and confer efforts at the time. Plaintiff, on 10/11/19, told Defendant the IDC would go forward because Plaintiff had not received code-compliant responses; Defendant indicated 10/18/19 was not an available date and Defendant would not appear.

The Court’s website does not reflect an IDC as “confirmed” unless and until the IDC statement is filed. In this case, Plaintiff did not file the IDC statement until the date of the hearing, and therefore Defendant would not have been able to confirm the IDC was going forward using the online reservation system.

Despite the foregoing, the Court is inclined to impose sanctions. Objections only responses are almost never served in good faith. Plaintiff made numerous attempts to obtain code-compliant responses without the need for an IDC or a motion. The RFAs were served on 7/23/19, and Defendant refused to provide code-compliant responses until 10/30/19, and even then only after the motion was filed and the Court expressly told Defendant he needed to do so.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $1610. Plaintiff’s attorney bills at the reasonable rate of $250/hour. The Court finds the amount reasonable, and notes that it does not include time spend at the IDC and/or the hearing on the ex parte application, both of which were made necessary by Defendant’s failure to serve code-compliant responses to RFAs. The requested sanctions are therefore awarded in full. Sanctions are sought and imposed against Defendant and his attorney of record, jointly and severally; they are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through her attorney of record, in the amount of $1610, within twenty days.

Plaintiff 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.


[1] Defendant also filed an opposition to a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories. The Court is not in receipt of any moving papers concerning interrogatories, and no second motion is reserved or confirmed in the Court’s online system. The Court is not ruling on any motion concerning interrogatories at this time.