On 05/12/2017 GREGORY TORRES filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against HONEWELL INC. 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.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH
WALKER EVELYN COLLAZO
SOTO DIANA MARIE
GREEN MELINDA C.
WALKER EVELYN C.
GARRETT BY HONEYWELL
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC
FINE LINE DESIGNS
GARRETT ENGINE BOOSTING SYSTEMS (FKA)
TURBO 2000 CORPORATION
HONEYWELL ENGINE CONTROL SYSTEMS
APPROVE TURBO COMPONENTS INC.
HONEYWELL ENGINES & SYSTEMS INC.
CAMARILLO AIRCRAFT SERVICE
AKBARI A. ILYAS ESQ.
9/21/2018: EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF PARALLEL AIRZONA ACTION;AND ETC.
9/21/2018: Minute Order
9/21/2018: EX PARTE ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF PARALLEL ARIZONA ACTION
3/20/2019: Status Report
3/21/2019: Minute Order
5/12/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURY, WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL FOR: (1) STRICT LIABILITY; ETC
at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's MotionRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Status Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Status Report; Filed by Gregory Torres (Plaintiff); Diana Marie Soto (Plaintiff); Melinda C. Green (Plaintiff) et al.Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 5; Ex-Parte Proceedings - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
Order; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
Ex-Parte Application; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
Minute OrderRead MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2018-09-21 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
EX PARTE ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF PARALLEL ARIZONA ACTIONRead MoreRead Less
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF PARALLEL AIRZONA ACTION;AND ETC.Read MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURY, WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL FOR: (1) STRICT LIABILITY; ETCRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Gregory Torres (Plaintiff); Diana Marie Soto (Plaintiff); Melinda C. Green (Plaintiff) et al.Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC661236 Hearing Date: September 15, 2020 Dept: B
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT
Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Tuesday, September 15, 2020
Department B Calendar No. 7
Gregory Torres, et al. v. Honeywell, Inc., et al.
Avco Corporation’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint/Gregory Torres, et al.’s Ex Parte Application for an Order Continuing Hearing on Avco Corporation’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint
Gregory Torres, et al.’s Ex Parte Application for an Order Authorizing Filing Under Seal Exhibits A and B to the Declaration of Michael S. Miska, and a Table Graphic Within the Opposition Memorandum Lodged in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
Gregory Torres, et al.’s Ex Parte Application to Continue Hearing on Avco Corporation’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint is granted.
Gregory Torres, et al.’s Ex Parte Application to Seal is granted pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court (“CRC”), Rule 2.550, et seq.
Motion to Quash Continuance
Plaintiffs have the burden to establish the existence of jurisdiction. See, Dill v. Berquist Construction Co., Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439-40. Defendant contends that Defendant lacks the requisite minimum contacts with California to warrant the exercise of personal jurisdiction and, therefore, that the court lacks both general and specific jurisdiction.
However, Plaintiffs are entitled to a continuance to conduct discovery on the limited issue of minimum contacts to attempt to meet their burden to establish the existence of jurisdiction. See, Ziller Elec. Lab GmbH v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1234. “The plaintiff has the right to conduct discovery with regard to the issue of jurisdiction to develop the facts necessary to sustain this burden.” Mihlon v. Superior Court (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710.
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have already been granted a continuance and any further continuance would be futile. In addition, Defendant states that Plaintiff has missed the timing deadline to compel further responses to written discovery. However, Plaintiffs have specifically identified the discovery that they are seeking – a deposition of the person most knowledgeable with respect to Defendant’s contacts with California. To state that discovery will not lead to such evidence is premature at this time.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ ex parte application to continue Avco Corporation’s motion to quash is granted. The motion is continued to October 21, 2020. Any supplemental opposition and/or reply are to be filed and served per CCP § 1005(b).
“A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” CRC, Rule 2.551(b)(1). CRC, Rule 2.551(b)(4) also provides that the party requesting that a record be filed under seal must lodge it with the court when the motion or application is made and, pending the determination of the motion or application, the lodged record will be conditionally under seal. “A record must not be filed under seal without a court order. The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties.” CRC, Rule 2.551(a).
“The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish: (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” CRC, Rule 2.550(d).
Here, Plaintiffs have set forth facts to establish the findings required under CRC, Rule 2.550(d) to order that a record be filed under seal. The application is made pursuant to CRC, Rule 2.550 and CRC, Rule 2.551 based on Plaintiffs’ assertion that the overriding interest of maintaining the confidentiality of certain documents produced in discovery by Defendants and attached to the supplemental opposition is confidential and constitute trade secrets. Plaintiffs contend that the need to maintain this confidentiality outweighs the right of public access to this information. Plaintiffs also state that there is a substantial probability that interest will be prejudiced if the documents are not sealed, the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored, and there are no less restrictive means.
Plaintiffs have identified the overriding interest as protecting the trade secrets of Defendant and protecting the dissemination of confidential materials. (Declaration, Michael S. Miska, ¶¶ 1-4). The Court finds that moving party submitted competent evidence to support a finding that the overriding interests identified by moving party overcome the public right of access to the disclosure of confidential materials, that the overriding interest supports sealing the record, and that a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed. The Court also finds that the proposed sealing order is narrowly tailored. Moving party’s proposed sealing order only seeks to seal the specific matters that relate to confidential material. The Court also finds that there are no less restrictive means to achieve the overriding interest.
Therefore, Plaintiffs’ ex parte application to seal is granted pursuant to CRC, Rule 2.550 et seq. Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases