This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/26/2019 at 04:11:16 (UTC).

HABIB VEERA VS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/06/2017 HABIB VEERA filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8730

  • Filing Date:

    10/06/2017

  • 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 Judge

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

VEERA HABIB

Defendants and Respondents

AROCHE ULYSSES

MANHATTAN BEACH CITY OF

DOES 1 TO 50

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

LAW OFFICES OF MAX DRAITSER

Defendant Attorney

MCCUNE DANA JOHN

 

Court Documents

SUMMONS

10/6/2017: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

10/6/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/08/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2019
  • [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Manhattan Beach, City of (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Manhattan Beach, City of (Defendant); Ulysses Aroche (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Habib Veera (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC678730    Hearing Date: January 13, 2021    Dept: 28

Motion to Deem Matters in Request for Admissions (Set Two) as True

Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows. reply papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

On October 6, 2017, Plaintiff Habib Veera (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants City of Manhattan Beach and Ulysses ArocheThis action arises out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on September 12, 2016. 

On August 21, 2020, Defendant City of Manhattan Beach filed a motion to deem the matter in Request for Admissions (Set One) as true against Plaintiff pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b).

Trial is scheduled for November 10, 2021.

PARTIES REQUESTS

Defendant City of Manhattan Beach (the “City”) asks the Court to deem the matters in Request for Admissions (Set Two) as true against Plaintiff because he failed to serve timely responses.

Moving Defendant also asks the Court to impose $558.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff for abusing the discovery process.

PROCEDURAL ISSUE

The Court notes that Plaintiff filed an untimely opposition on January 6, 2021.  “All papers opposing a motion so noticed shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days, and all reply papers at least five court days before the hearing.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)  Nevertheless, the Court will exercise its discretion to consider the opposition. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), a “party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010).”  The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

On March 27, 2020, the City served Request for Admissions (Set Two) on Plaintiff by U.S. mail.  (Alimi Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1.)  Despite attempting to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel, the City has not received a response from Plaintiff as of the time Counsel for the City filed the motion.  (Alimi Decl., ¶ 3-4, Exh. 2.)

In opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel declares that Plaintiff served verified responses to Defendant’s Requests for Admission on January 4, 2021.  (Draitser Decl., ¶ 2.)  Plaintiff’s responses are attached as Exhbit 1 to Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration, and appears to be in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220.  

Accordingly, the motion is denied as moot

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a) states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” The City’s request for $558.00 in sanctions for this straight-forward motion is unreasonable.  Rather, the Court finds $180.00 is a reasonable amount of sanctions to be imposed against Plaintiff for his abuse of the discovery process.

CONCLUSION

The motion is DENIED AS MOOT

Plaintiff is ordered to pay the City $180 within 30 days of this ruling.

Defendant City is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

Case Number: BC678730    Hearing Date: January 12, 2021    Dept: 28

Motion to Deem Matters in Request for Admissions (Set One) as True

Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows. reply papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

On October 6, 2017, Plaintiff Habib Veera (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants City of Manhattan Beach and Ulysses ArocheThis action arises out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on September 12, 2016. 

On August 21, 2020, Defendant City of Manhattan Beach filed a motion to deem the matter in Request for Admissions (Set One) as true against Plaintiff pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b).

Trial is scheduled for November 10, 2021.

PARTIES REQUESTS

Defendant City of Manhattan Beach (the “City”) asks the Court to deem the matters in Request for Admissions (Set One) as true against Plaintiff because he failed to serve timely responses.

Moving Defendant also asks the Court to impose $558.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff for abusing the discovery process.

PROCEDURAL ISSUE

The Court notes that Plaintiff filed an untimely opposition on January 6, 2021.  “All papers opposing a motion so noticed shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days, and all reply papers at least five court days before the hearing.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)  Nevertheless, the Court will exercise its discretion to consider the opposition. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), a “party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010).”  The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

On December 31, 2019, the City served Request for Admissions (Set One) on Plaintiff by U.S. mail, electronic mail, and by facsimile transmission.  (Alimi Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1.)  Despite attempting twice to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel, the City has not received a response from Plaintiff as of the time Counsel for the City filed the motion on August 20, 2020.  (Alimi Decl., ¶ 4-6, Exh. 2.)

In opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel declares that Plaintiff served verified responses to Defendant’s Requests for Admission on January 4, 2021.  (Draitser Decl., ¶ 2.)  Plaintiff’s responses are attached as Exhbit 1 to Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration, and appears to be in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220.  

Accordingly, the motion is denied as moot

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a) states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” The City’s request for $558.00 in sanctions for this straight-forward motion is unreasonable.  Rather, the Court finds $180.00 is a reasonable amount of sanctions to be imposed against Plaintiff for his abuse of the discovery process.

CONCLUSION

The motion is DENIED AS MOOT

Plaintiff is ordered to pay the City $180 within 30 days of this ruling.

Defendant City is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

Case Number: BC678730    Hearing Date: January 11, 2021    Dept: 28

Motion to Deem Matters in Request for Admissions (Set One) as True

Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows. reply papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

On October 6, 2017, Plaintiff Habib Veera (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants City of Manhattan Beach and Ulysses ArocheThis action arises out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on September 12, 2016. 

On August 21, 2020, Defendant City of Manhattan Beach filed a motion to deem the matter in Request for Admissions (Set One) as true against Plaintiff pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b).

Trial is scheduled for November 10, 2021.

PARTIES REQUESTS

Defendant City of Manhattan Beach (the “City”) asks the Court to deem the matters in Request for Admissions (Set One) as true against Plaintiff because he failed to serve timely responses.

Moving Defendant also asks the Court to impose $558.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff for abusing the discovery process.

PROCEDURAL ISSUE

The Court notes that Plaintiff filed an untimely opposition on January 6, 2021.  “All papers opposing a motion so noticed shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days, and all reply papers at least five court days before the hearing.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)  Nevertheless, the Court will exercise its discretion to consider the opposition. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), a “party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010).”  The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

On December 31, 2019, the City served Request for Admissions (Set One) on Plaintiff by U.S. mail, electronic mail, and by facsimile transmission.  (Alimi Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1.)  Despite attempting twice to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel, the City has not received a response from Plaintiff as of the time Counsel for the City filed the motion on August 20, 2020.  (Alimi Decl., ¶ 4-6, Exh. 2.)

In opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel declares that Plaintiff served verified responses to Defendant’s Requests for Admission on January 4, 2021.  (Draitser Decl., ¶ 2.)  Plaintiff’s responses are attached as Exhbit 1 to Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration, and appears to be in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220.  

Accordingly, the motion is denied as moot

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a) states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” The City’s request for $558.00 in sanctions for this straight-forward motion is unreasonable.  Rather, the Court finds $180.00 is a reasonable amount of sanctions to be imposed against Plaintiff for his abuse of the discovery process.

CONCLUSION

The motion is DENIED AS MOOT

Plaintiff is ordered to pay the City $180 within 30 days of this ruling.

Defendant City is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where MANHATTAN BEACH CITY OF is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MCCUNE DANA JOHN ESQ