This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/14/2019 at 08:44:52 (UTC).

IC VS COMPTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/13/2017 IC filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against COMPTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are HOLLY J. FUJIE and LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5118

  • Filing Date:

    06/13/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

HOLLY J. FUJIE

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Defendants and Respondents

GODINEZ MARCO

DOES 1 TO 100

COMPTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Minor

I.C.

Defendant and Guardian Ad Litem

COMPTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorneys

GALLAGHER TERENCE JOSEPH ESQ.

LEE DANIEL

Minor Attorney

HIRJI ROSA K

Other Attorneys

HIRJI ROSA KARIM

RODRIGUEZ ALEXANDER FAUSTINO

HIRJI ROSA KARIM ESQ.

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

6/13/2018: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

7/6/2018: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

Request for Judicial Notice

11/15/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Motion for Summary Judgment

11/15/2018: Motion for Summary Judgment

Declaration

1/23/2019: Declaration

Objection

1/24/2019: Objection

Response

1/24/2019: Response

Minute Order

1/29/2019: Minute Order

Unknown

2/13/2019: Unknown

Declaration

2/22/2019: Declaration

Minute Order

2/25/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Motion

3/8/2019: Notice of Motion

Unknown

12/27/2017: Unknown

SUMMONS

12/8/2017: SUMMONS

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL

9/28/2017: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

6/13/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Unknown

6/13/2017: Unknown

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE PLEADING AND ORDERS

8/10/2017: EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE PLEADING AND ORDERS

33 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/02/2019
  • Answer (To First Amended Complaint); Filed by Compton Unified School District (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • Amended Complaint (1st); Filed by I. C. (Plaintiff); I. C. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • Complaint (1st); Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend (To Amend Plaintiff's Complaint) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend To Amend Plaintiff's Com...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • Notice (OF NONOPPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEA VE TO AMEND PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT); Filed by Compton Unified School District (Defendant); Marco Godinez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2019
  • Notice of Motion; Filed by I. C. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2019
  • Motion for Leave to Amend (the Plaintiff's Complaint); Filed by I. C. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
54 More Docket Entries
  • 08/10/2017
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2017
  • Ex-Parte Application; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2017
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2017
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM--CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2017
  • NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2017
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2017
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2017
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC665118    Hearing Date: December 19, 2019    Dept: A

# 12. I.C. v. Compton Unified School District, et al.

Case No.: BC665118

Matter on calendar for: Motion to Compel Further

Tentative ruling:

  1. Background

    This is a personal injury action. Plaintiff I.C., a minor through his Guardian ad Litem Silvia Melendez, was engaged in a physical altercation with another student at Plaintiff’s high school when Defendant Marco Godinez, Plaintiff’s art teacher, intervened to stop the fight. The intervention led to Plaintiff suffering fractures to his leg. Defendant Godinez was employed by Defendant Compton Unified School District (“CUSD”).

    The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges negligence.

    Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses to his request for production, set three, and responses to special interrogatories, set three. An opposition and reply have been filed and considered.

    For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion.

  2. Standard

California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310 allows for a party demanding the production of document to move for an order to compel further responses if: (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete, (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, and (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. (C.C.P., § 2031.310(b)(1).)

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221 [addressing a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories]; see also Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

  1. Analysis

    1. Timing

Defendant’s timing argument, that Plaintiff did not bring the motion within the statutory 45-day time frame, is unpersuasive because Plaintiff did file the motion, but the Court took it off-calendar to conduct an informal discovery conference.

    1. Merits

      Plaintiff is seeking information about other fights in which teachers intervened at Dominguez High School. The requests for further production seek information on fights between September 1, 2013 and September 19, 2016, while the special interrogatories seek information between January 2015 and present. Plaintiff argues the related incidents are necessary to establish whether Defendant Godinez acted within the standard of care. Defendants argue the requested information is irrelevant, impermissible, and overly burdensome.

      The Court finds Plaintiff’s argument to be unpersuasive. The FAC’s allegations against Defendant CUSD are based on vicarious liability for Defendant Godinez’s actions. “The respondeat superior doctrine makes an employer liable, irrespective of fault, for an employee’s tortious conduct in the scope of employment. [Citation.]” (Diaz v. Carcamo (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1148, 1154.) Determining if Defendant Godinez used ordinary care “ ‘depends upon the circumstances of each particular case and is to be determined as a fact with refence to the situation and knowledge of the parties.’ [Citation.]” (Hemady v. Long Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 566, 580.) Examining all other fights at the school is an overly broad effort at evaluating Defendant Godinez’s negligence; the case turns on the particular facts of the incident itself. The requested information does not aid in establishing a standard of care as to how a teacher is to intervene between students, and any potential probative value of introducing such additional unqualified or undefined “fighting” scenarios will unnecessarily distract the jury, confuse the issues, and lead to an undue consumption of time.

      Additionally, acquiring this information would be unduly burdensome. The high school usually has around 1,700 students during any given year and the school does not readily track information concerning all student fights. (Decl. Perez, ¶ 4–5.) Setting aside the vague description as to the definition of a fight, the school would be required to manually search each student file numbering in the thousands.

      The motion to compel further is denied. However, the Court finds that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification in bringing the motion to preserve their record and declines to issue a monetary sanction.

  1. Ruling

    The motion to compel further discovery is denied.

    Next dates:

    Notice: