On 05/19/2017 GREGORY YONGPAE PARK filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against GABRIELA MICHELLE PALACIOS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ROBERT B. BROADBELT, JOEL L. LOFTON and CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
ROBERT B. BROADBELT
JOEL L. LOFTON
CHRISTOPHER K. LUI
PARK GREGORY YONGPAE
PALACIOS GABRIELA MICHELLE
DOES 1 TO 20
HORTON OBERRECHT KIRKPATRICK & MARTHA
YADEGARI MICHAEL ESQ.
YADEGARI MICHAEL MORDECHAI ESQ.
LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY J. LUCETT
DONOVAN TREVOR CASEY
1/28/2020: Memorandum of Points & Authorities
5/24/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS; HEARING ON EX PARTE...) OF 05/24/2019
5/24/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SUBSTITUTING THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEASED PLAINTIFF
5/16/2019: Request for Judicial Notice
5/16/2019: Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT GABRIELLA MICHELLE PALACIOS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE ACTION DUE TO FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH C.C.P. SECTIONS 377.31 AND 366.1
4/26/2019: Proof of Service by Mail
4/11/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities
4/12/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATE...)
3/12/2019: Proof of Service by Mail
3/6/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities
3/7/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Defendant's Ex Parte Application to Dismiss the Ac...)
3/7/2019: Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application to Dismiss the Action Pursuant to C.C. P. Section 366.1
9/29/2017: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2017-09-29 00:00:00
7/2/2018: ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS
8/29/2018: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL FSC AND RELATED MOTION DISCOVERY DATES PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY CENTRAL DISTRICT
10/12/2017: CIVIL DEPOSIT
5/19/2017: ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER -
5/19/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Dismiss - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by PartyRead MoreRead Less
DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Gregory Yongpae Park (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMemorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by Gabriela Michelle Palacios (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration (Declaration of Eydith Kaufman); Filed by Gabriela Michelle Palacios (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMotion to Dismiss; Filed by Gabriela Michelle Palacios (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for an Order Substituting the Personal Representative of the Deceased Plaintiff) - Held - Motion DeniedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Dismiss - Held - Motion DeniedRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder; Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketDEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESRead MoreRead Less
DocketDEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; ETCRead MoreRead Less
DocketMotion to Strike; Filed by Gabriela Michelle Palacios (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Gregory Yongpae Park (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of ServiceRead MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCERead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Gregory Yongpae Park (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVERRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC661797 Hearing Date: February 27, 2020 Dept: 28
Motion to Dismiss the Action
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
On May 19, 2017, Plaintiff Gregory Yongpae Park (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Gabriela Michelle Palacios (“Defendant”) alleging negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on August 31, 2015.¿
On April 26, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss this action due to a failure to commence a survival action due to Plaintiff’ death on July 30, 2018. On May 24, 2019, the court denied Defendant’s motion.
Defendant now moves again to dismiss this action on the same grounds.
Defendant moves the court to dismiss the action on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the May 24, 2019, court Order, and as of this hearing has still not taken steps to substitute a real party in interest in place of deceased Plaintiff.
“It is the policy of the state that a plaintiff shall proceed with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of an action. . . .” (Code Civ. Proc. § 583.130.)
California Code of Civil Procedure section 583.150 states: “This chapter does not limit or affect the authority of a court to dismiss an action . . . under inherent authority of the court.”
California Code of Civil Procedure section 366.1 states: “If a person entitled to bring an action dies before the expiration of the applicable limitations period, and the cause of action survives, an action may be commenced before the expiration of the later of the following times: (a) Six months after the person’s death . . . (b) The limitations period that would have been applicable if the person had not died.”
California Code of Civil Procedure section 377.31 states: “On motion after death of a person who commenced an action or proceeding, the court shall allow a pending action or proceeding that does not abate to be continued by the decedent’s personal representative or, if none, by the decedent’s successor in interest.”¿
On May 24, 2019, the present matter came to hearing before this Court. The Court ordered as follows:
Plaintiff has filed an ex parte application set to be heard on May 24, 2019 that will ask that Un Yong Joung, Plaintiff’s personal representative and executor of Plaintiff’s estate, be permitted to continue litigating this action on behalf of Plaintiff’s estate. Accordingly, the absence of a personal representative to prosecute this action will soon be remedied.
(May 24, 2019, Minute Order, p. 3.)
The court further held that
the Court vacates its order granting Ms. Joung the right to continue this action in Plaintiff’s stead. The Court rules that, if she chooses to seek an order under Code of Civil Procedure section 377.31 to continue this action, Ms. Joung must file a noticed motion supported by a declaration from her demonstrating her right to continue this action as a personal representative or successor in interest of Plaintiff.
(Id. p. 4.)
Defendant now moves to dismiss the action on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to take any additional steps to substitute a real party in interest in place of decedent Plaintiff despite the May 24, 2019, Court Order providing that Plaintiff must do so in a noticed motion to continue this action.
Indeed, Plaintiff has made no filing in this matter since the May 24, 2019, Ex Parte Application for an Order Substituting the Personal Representative of the Deceased Plaintiff. Nine months have now elapsed since the prior order requiring Plaintiff to file a noticed motion to substitute in a party as plaintiff in order to continue this action.
Additionally, this motion was served on Plaintiff’s counsel on January 28, 2020, by mail, However, Plaintiff makes no opposition. Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 583.410(a) and CRC 3.1340, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss this action premised on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.
Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss this Action is GRANTED.
Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.