This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/03/2019 at 04:04:07 (UTC).

JAMIE ARNETT VS JUAN JOSE BOJORGE ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/03/2017 JAMIE ARNETT filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against JUAN JOSE BOJORGE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2074

  • Filing Date:

    11/03/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

ARNETT JAMIE

Defendants and Respondents

BOJORGE JUAN JOSE

DOES 1 TO 15

JARQUIN TRUCKING

JARQUIN MARVIN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BATES DEVRE D. ESQ.

ROSS STEVEN D. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

4/19/2019: Minute Order

CoverSheet

11/3/2017: CoverSheet

Summons

11/3/2017: Summons

Complaint

11/3/2017: Complaint

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/03/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2017
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2017
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Jamie Arnett (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC682074    Hearing Date: June 29, 2020    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

JAMIE ARNETT,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JUAN JOSE BOJORGE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) )

.: BC682074

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND MONETARY SANCTIONS

Dept. 27

8:30 a.m.

June 29, 2020

On November 3, 2017, plaintiff Jamie Arnett (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Juan Jose Bojorge Jarquin Trucking, and Marvin Jarquin dba Jarquin Trucking (collectively, “Defendants”) arising from a November 4, 2015 motor vehicle accident.  On December 4, 2019, Defendants served Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), and Request for Statement of Damages on Plaintiff.  No responses were received.  On July 19, Defendants sent Plaintiff a letter requesting responses.  Defendants did not receive a response and filed these motions on August 2, 2019.  

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)   A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)  Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

When a complaint is filed in an action to recover damages for personal injury or wrongful death, the defendant may at any time request a statement setting forth the nature and amount of damages being sought. (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.11(b).)  The request shall be served upon the plaintiff, who shall serve a responsive statement as to the damages within 15 days. Id.) A defendant may petition a Court to order Plaintiff to serve a responsive statement of damages. Id.

Plaintiff does not oppose this Motion and it is undisputed that Plaintiff failed to serve discovery responses.  However, Defendants only filed one discovery motion seeking to compel responses to three sets of discovery.  Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED on the condition that Defendants pay two additional filing fees before the hearing date; Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.  

The Court also orders Plaintiff to serve a responsive statement of damages within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. 

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)  Defendants’ request for sanctions is GRANTED and the Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $380.00, consisting of 3 hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate of $200.00 and $180.00 in filing fees.  

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  

Dated this 29th day of June 2020

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer BATES DEVRE D. ESQ.