This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/27/2021 at 04:57:22 (UTC).

HOPE MILLER VS INGERSOLL RAND ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/14/2017 HOPE MILLER filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against INGERSOLL RAND. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DANIEL M. CROWLEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3194

  • Filing Date:

    11/14/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

MILLER HOPE

Defendants

WHITESIDE AUSTIN

RAND INGERSOLL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

OUNJIAN ROBERT JOHN ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

DISAIA STEVEN DWIGHT

DISAIA STEVEN D.

 

Court Documents

Notice of Change of Firm Name

10/22/2021: Notice of Change of Firm Name

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO VACATE TRIAL DATE AND SCHEDULE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM OF

10/28/2021: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO VACATE TRIAL DATE AND SCHEDULE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM OF

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO VACATE TRIAL DATE AND SCHE...)

10/29/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO VACATE TRIAL DATE AND SCHE...)

Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION

7/19/2021: Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DATES

6/28/2021: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DATES

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RE...)

6/30/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RE...)

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

6/21/2021: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

1/21/2021: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/14/2020

4/14/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/14/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

4/14/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY

5/8/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

6/11/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

6/29/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

Motion to Continue Trial Date

9/19/2019: Motion to Continue Trial Date

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND PRE-TRIAL DEADLINES ...)

10/28/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND PRE-TRIAL DEADLINES ...)

Commission to Take Deposition Outside California

2/25/2019: Commission to Take Deposition Outside California

Other - - Other - Proof of Service of Summons

10/12/2018: Other - - Other - Proof of Service of Summons

11 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/03/2022
  • Hearing06/03/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/20/2022
  • Hearing05/20/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/02/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/18/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/29/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Vacate Trial Date and Schedule Case Management Conference) - Held - Motion Granted

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/29/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Vacate Trial Date and Sche...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/28/2021
  • DocketPLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO VACATE TRIAL DATE AND SCHEDULE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; Filed by Hope Miller (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/22/2021
  • DocketNotice of Change of Firm Name; Filed by Hope Miller (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/26/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/19/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling (on Plaintiff's Ex parte application); Filed by Hope Miller (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
27 More Docket Entries
  • 02/25/2019
  • DocketCommission to Take Deposition Outside California; Filed by Ingersoll Rand (Defendant); Austin Whiteside (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/17/2018
  • DocketAnswer (by Defendant Austin Whiteside to Complaint for Damages); Filed by Austin Whiteside (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/12/2018
  • DocketOther - (Proof of Service of Summons); Filed by Hope Miller (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/09/2018
  • DocketANSWER BY DEFENDANT INGERSOLL RAND COMPANY TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/09/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Ingersoll Rand (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/22/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Hope Miller (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/22/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/14/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Hope Miller (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/14/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/14/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****3194 Hearing Date: September 7, 2022 Dept: 28

Plaintiff Hope Miller’s Counsel Michael Geragos and Carpenter & Zuckerman’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On November 14, 2017, Plaintiff Hope Miller filed this action against Defendants Ingersoll Rand Company (“IRC”) and Austin Whiteside (“Whiteside”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On April 9, 2018, IRC filed an answer. On October 17, 2018, Whiteside filed an answer.

On July 27, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel, Michael Geragos and Carpenter & Zuckerman, filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel to be heard on September 7, 2022.

Trial is currently scheduled for October 18, 2022.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff’s counsel, Michael Geragos and Carpenter & Zuckerman, requests to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Rule of Court rule 3.1362 (Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel) requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion and declaration on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)).

The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client, and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

DISCUSSION

Counsel submitted a completed MC-051, MC-052 and MC-053 form. Counsel provided a declaration stating that there have been irreconcilable differences between attorney and client, as well as potential ethical violations should counsel continue to represent Plaintiff. Counsel has indicated that Plaintiff was served via mail at two addresses, both of which were confirmed via telephone in the last 30 days. Counsel submitted proof of service on Plaintiff and Defendant. Counsel has complied with all requirements. The Court grants the motion.

CONCLUSION

Counsel for Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED. Counsel for Plaintiff will be relieved upon filing proof of service upon the client of the Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil (Judicial Council form MC-053).

Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

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



Case Number: ****3194 Hearing Date: August 24, 2022 Dept: 28

This is a very old case. The Court would like to speak with counsel.


Case Number: ****3194    Hearing Date: October 28, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion to Continue Trial and Pre-Trial Deadlines

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On November 14, 2017, Plaintiff Hope Miller (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Ingersoll Rand and Austin Whiteside for motor vehicle and general negligence arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on November 16, 2015.

On March 26, 2019, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court ordered the trial continued from May 14, 2019 to November 12, 2019.

On September 19, 2019, Defendants Ingersoll Rand Company and Austin Whiteside (collectively “Defendants”) filed the instant motion to continue trial.

Trial is set for November 12, 2019.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendants request a court order continuing the trial date and all pre-trial deadlines.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (a), “[t]o ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm.  All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.”  Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (b), “[a] party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations.  The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.”

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that “[a]lthough continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.  The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.”  California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (d) sets forth factors that are relevant in determining whether to grant a continuance.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 allows a court to grant leave to complete discovery proceedings.  In doing so, a court shall consider matters relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity of the discovery, (2) the diligence in seeking the discovery or discovery motion, (3) the likelihood of interference with the trial calendar or prejudice to a party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between previous trial dates.  (Code Civ. Proc. ; 2024.050.)

DISCUSSION

Defendants seek to continue the trial date.  Defendants argue there is good cause to continue the trial because discovery has yet to be completed.  Defense counsel declares that, following the filing of this action, he was informed that Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Florence McClure Correctional Facility in Nevada.  (Di Saia Decl., ¶ 2.)  Defense counsel states that in response to written discovery served on Plaintiff, he was informed that Plaintiff was unable to provide certain responsive information and documents as she was unable to access them under the presented circumstances.  (Id.)  Defense counsel states that he contacted Plaintiff’s counsel on September 16, 2019 and confirmed that Plaintiff has now been released from the correctional facility.  (Id., ¶ 3.)  However, because Plaintiff remains on restricted house arrest in Nevada until February 2020, Plaintiff will continue to have limited ability to participate in discovery, to appear for deposition, or to participate in a proper defense medical examination.  (Id.)  

The Court finds good cause to continue the trial and other related dates.

According to defense counsel, Plaintiff’s counsel has stipulated to the requested continuance and proposed continuance date of June 2, 2020.

Therefore, the motion is GRANTED.

The Court orders trial continued from November 12, 2019 to June 2, 2020 October 29, 2019 to May 19, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 4A.  Discovery cut-off (including expert witness exchange) and motion cut-off dates shall be based on the new trial date.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer OUNJIAN, ROBERT J