This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/27/2019 at 04:15:40 (UTC).

GUADALUPE PATINO ET AL VS YESENIA GARCIA ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/13/2017 GUADALUPE PATINO filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against YESENIA GARCIA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7395

  • Filing Date:

    04/13/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

PATINO GUADALUPE

PATINO JENNIFER

Defendants and Respondents

GARCIA YESENIA

RAMIREZ JOSE JESUS

DOES 1 TO 100

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

SNYDER KENNETH L. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

9/27/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

10/15/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

10/15/2018: Unknown

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/15/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 7; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2018
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Jury Trial) of 10/15/2018); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2018
  • Minute Order ((Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 7; Final Status Conference (Final Status Conference; Off Calendar) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2018
  • Minute Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2017
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Guadalupe Patino (Plaintiff); Jennifer Patino (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Guadalupe Patino (Plaintiff); Jennifer Patino (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC657395    Hearing Date: August 26, 2020    Dept: U

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHWEST DISTRICT

GAGIK HARUTYUNYAN, an individual,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ALCO HOLDING CO., a Nevada corporation; ALCOINVEST, LLC, a limited liability company; NEW ERA INVESTMENTS, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendants.

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) ) ) )

CASE NO: BC657305

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: UNITED SPECIALTY’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Dept. U

8:30 a.m.

August 26, 2020

I. BACKGROUND

On April 11, 2017, Gagik Harutyunyan (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Alco Holding Co., Alcoinvest, LLC, New Era Investments, LLC, and Does 1 through 100, alleging claims for negligence and premises liability. On June 25, 2018, United Specialty Insurance Company (United Specialty) filed a cross-complaint in intervention against George Ralph Thibault (Thibault), Artin Shahnazarian (Shahnazarian), and Roes 1 through 10, alleging claims for: (1) implied indemnity; (2) comparative equitable indemnity; (3) equitable conversion; and (4) declaratory relief. On February 8, 2019, Thibault and Shahnazarian were substituted in as Doe Defendants 1 and 2, respectively.

On May 8, 2020, Shahnazarian filed a cross-complaint against 420 College and Does 1 through 20, alleging claims for: (1) apportionment of fault; (2) declaratory relief; (3) indemnification; and (4) breach of contract. On June 29, 2020, 420 College filed a cross-complaint against Shahnazarian and Moes 1 through 20, alleging claims for: (1) apportionment of fault; (2) declaratory relief; (3) indemnification; and (4) breach of contract.

On June 11, 2020, United Specialty filed the pending motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to its Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One, and Supplemental Request for Production, Set One, both without objections, and the imposition of sanctions in the amounts of $2,450 and $2,100 against Plaintiff and his counsel.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS & DISCUSSION

A. Supplemental Interrogatories

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, a party who fails to serve timely responses to interrogatories waives any objections to the requests, including those based on privilege and work product. The Court can relieve this waiver if: (1) the party subsequently serves a response that is in substantial compliance and (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(a).) 

The party requesting information may move for an order compelling responses to the interrogatories when the party served with the requests fails to serve its timely response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(b).) The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c).) 

On August 28, 2019, United Specialty served by postal mail its Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiff. Thirty days, plus five days for service by mail, made Plaintiff’s discovery deadline October 2, 2019. United Specialty’s counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel an email requesting a response to the interrogatories, without objection, within ten days. However, Plaintiff still has not served these discovery responses nor filed any opposition to this motion. Therefore, United Specialty’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to its Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One, is well-taken.

United Specialty also requests $2,450 in sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel. United Specialty’s counsel, Warren Gilbert (Gilbert), declares that he spent two and one-half hours preparing this motion, points and authorities, and declaration. Gilbert expects to spend one and one-half hours reviewing and replying to Plaintiff’s opposition and an additional three hours traveling to and from and appearing for the hearing. Thus, Gilbert requests seven hours in attorneys’ fee at a rate of $350 per hour. As Plaintiff has not filed any opposition and Gilbert will likely appear telephonically for the hearing, thus obviating the necessity of travel, the Court finds three and one-half hours reasonable. There is no evidence that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification in his failure to provide responses. Therefore, United Specialty’s request for sanctions is granted in the amount of $1,225 ($350/hour x 3.5 hours).

B. Request for Production

Under California Civil Procedure section 2031.300, a party who fails to serve timely responses to requests for production waives any objections to the requests, including those based on privilege and work product. The Court can relieve this waiver if: (1) the party subsequently serves a response that is in substantial compliance and (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(a).) 

The party requesting information may move for an order compelling responses to the requests for production when the party served with the requests fails to serve its timely response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(b).) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(c).) 

On August 28, 2019, United Specialty served via postal mail its Supplemental Request for Production, Set One, on Plaintiff. Thirty days, plus five days for service by mail, made Plaintiff’s responses due October 2, 2019. After not receiving any responses, United Specialty’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel on April 24, 2020 requesting production of the documents, without objection, within ten days. However, Plaintiff still has not served responses nor filed any opposition. Thus, United Specialty’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to its Supplemental Request for Production is well-taken.

United Specialty requests $2,100 in sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel. Gilbert declares that he spent two hours preparing this motion, its supporting points and authorities, and declaration. He expects to spend an additional one and one-half hours reviewing and replying to Plaintiff’s opposition and three hours traveling to and from and appearing for this hearing. Thus, Gilbert requests six and one-half hours at an hourly rate of $350. The Court notes that six and one-half hours at an hourly rate of $350 does not equal $2,100. Moreover, as Plaintiff has not filed any opposition, Gilbert will likely be appearing for the hearing telephonically, obviating the need for travel, and Gilbert is already recovering for the one hour spent attending this hearing, the Court finds two hours at a rate of $350 per hour reasonable. Therefore, the Court orders $700 ($350/hour x 2 hours) in sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, United Specialty’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to its Supplemental Request for Production, Set One, and Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One, are GRANTED.

United Specialty’s requests for sanctions are GRANTED in the amounts of $700 and $1,225, for a total of $1,925 in sanctions, which must be paid by Plaintiff to United Specialty within 30 days of this ruling.

United Specialty is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling.

DATED: August 26, 2020

_____________________

Hon. Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC657395    Hearing Date: August 25, 2020    Dept: U

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHWEST DISTRICT

GAGIK HARUTYUNYAN, an individual,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ALCO HOLDING CO., a Nevada corporation; ALCOINVEST, LLC, a limited liability company; NEW ERA INVESTMENTS, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendants.

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) ) ) )

CASE NO: BC657305

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: UNITED SPECIALTY’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Dept. U

8:30 a.m.

August 26, 2020

I. BACKGROUND

On April 11, 2017, Gagik Harutyunyan (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Alco Holding Co., Alcoinvest, LLC, New Era Investments, LLC, and Does 1 through 100, alleging claims for negligence and premises liability. On June 25, 2018, United Specialty Insurance Company (United Specialty) filed a cross-complaint in intervention against George Ralph Thibault (Thibault), Artin Shahnazarian (Shahnazarian), and Roes 1 through 10, alleging claims for: (1) implied indemnity; (2) comparative equitable indemnity; (3) equitable conversion; and (4) declaratory relief. On February 8, 2019, Thibault and Shahnazarian were substituted in as Doe Defendants 1 and 2, respectively.

On May 8, 2020, Shahnazarian filed a cross-complaint against 420 College and Does 1 through 20, alleging claims for: (1) apportionment of fault; (2) declaratory relief; (3) indemnification; and (4) breach of contract. On June 29, 2020, 420 College filed a cross-complaint against Shahnazarian and Moes 1 through 20, alleging claims for: (1) apportionment of fault; (2) declaratory relief; (3) indemnification; and (4) breach of contract.

On June 11, 2020, United Specialty filed the pending motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to its Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One, and Supplemental Request for Production, Set One, both without objections, and the imposition of sanctions in the amounts of $2,450 and $2,100 against Plaintiff and his counsel.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS & DISCUSSION

A. Supplemental Interrogatories

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, a party who fails to serve timely responses to interrogatories waives any objections to the requests, including those based on privilege and work product. The Court can relieve this waiver if: (1) the party subsequently serves a response that is in substantial compliance and (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(a).) 

The party requesting information may move for an order compelling responses to the interrogatories when the party served with the requests fails to serve its timely response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(b).) The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c).) 

On August 28, 2019, United Specialty served by postal mail its Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiff. Thirty days, plus five days for service by mail, made Plaintiff’s discovery deadline October 2, 2019. United Specialty’s counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel an email requesting a response to the interrogatories, without objection, within ten days. However, Plaintiff still has not served these discovery responses nor filed any opposition to this motion. Therefore, United Specialty’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to its Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One, is well-taken.

United Specialty also requests $2,450 in sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel. United Specialty’s counsel, Warren Gilbert (Gilbert), declares that he spent two and one-half hours preparing this motion, points and authorities, and declaration. Gilbert expects to spend one and one-half hours reviewing and replying to Plaintiff’s opposition and an additional three hours traveling to and from and appearing for the hearing. Thus, Gilbert requests seven hours in attorneys’ fee at a rate of $350 per hour. As Plaintiff has not filed any opposition and Gilbert will likely appear telephonically for the hearing, thus obviating the necessity of travel, the Court finds three and one-half hours reasonable. There is no evidence that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification in his failure to provide responses. Therefore, United Specialty’s request for sanctions is granted in the amount of $1,225 ($350/hour x 3.5 hours).

B. Request for Production

Under California Civil Procedure section 2031.300, a party who fails to serve timely responses to requests for production waives any objections to the requests, including those based on privilege and work product. The Court can relieve this waiver if: (1) the party subsequently serves a response that is in substantial compliance and (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(a).) 

The party requesting information may move for an order compelling responses to the requests for production when the party served with the requests fails to serve its timely response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(b).) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(c).) 

On August 28, 2019, United Specialty served via postal mail its Supplemental Request for Production, Set One, on Plaintiff. Thirty days, plus five days for service by mail, made Plaintiff’s responses due October 2, 2019. After not receiving any responses, United Specialty’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel on April 24, 2020 requesting production of the documents, without objection, within ten days. However, Plaintiff still has not served responses nor filed any opposition. Thus, United Specialty’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to its Supplemental Request for Production is well-taken.

United Specialty requests $2,100 in sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel. Gilbert declares that he spent two hours preparing this motion, its supporting points and authorities, and declaration. He expects to spend an additional one and one-half hours reviewing and replying to Plaintiff’s opposition and three hours traveling to and from and appearing for this hearing. Thus, Gilbert requests six and one-half hours at an hourly rate of $350. The Court notes that six and one-half hours at an hourly rate of $350 does not equal $2,100. Moreover, as Plaintiff has not filed any opposition, Gilbert will likely be appearing for the hearing telephonically, obviating the need for travel, and Gilbert is already recovering for the one hour spent attending this hearing, the Court finds two hours at a rate of $350 per hour reasonable. Therefore, the Court orders $700 ($350/hour x 2 hours) in sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, United Specialty’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to its Supplemental Request for Production, Set One, and Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One, are GRANTED.

United Specialty’s requests for sanctions are GRANTED in the amounts of $700 and $1,225, for a total of $1,925 in sanctions, which must be paid by Plaintiff to United Specialty within 30 days of this ruling.

United Specialty is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling.

DATED: August 26, 2020

_____________________

Hon. Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer SNYDER KENNETH L.