This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/02/2019 at 07:28:38 (UTC).

JAMIE NAJERA VS OLIVER O TOMAS ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/18/2017 JAMIE NAJERA filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against OLIVER O TOMAS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARC D. GROSS, RICHARD J. BURDGE JR. and JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8224

  • Filing Date:

    04/18/2017

  • 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 Judges

MARC D. GROSS

RICHARD J. BURDGE JR.

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

NAJERA JAMIE

Defendants and Respondents

ADAMS QUINCY

CORDIER DEBBIE M.

DOES 1 TO 10

LYFT INC

TOMAS OLIVER O

Other

ALDER C. MICHAEL ESQ.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BRIEN DAVID R. ESQ.

OSTERTAG JENNIFER MICHAEL

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

CHERMELA JASON R. ESQ.

KORFF EVE H. ESQ.

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

METLITZKY WARREN

FORGEY DONALD GLENN

CHAPLIN CHRISTOPHER DAVID

RICHMOND ELLEN D.

 

Court Documents

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT) (CONDITIONAL)) OF 10/01/2019

10/1/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT) (CONDITIONAL)) OF 10/01/2019

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT) OF 05/02/2019

5/2/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT) OF 05/02/2019

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

2/14/2018: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

Substitution of Attorney -

10/11/2018: Substitution of Attorney -

Minute Order -

2/14/2018: Minute Order -

MINUTE ORDER

3/19/2018: MINUTE ORDER

NOTICE OF ORDER DEEMING CASES BC658224 AND BC662825 RELATED

3/23/2018: NOTICE OF ORDER DEEMING CASES BC658224 AND BC662825 RELATED

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

4/18/2017: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

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

4/18/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

4/24/2017: NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

5/16/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

5/26/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

CROSS-COMPLANT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, COMPARATIVE INDEMNITY AND EQUITABLE INDEMNITY

6/29/2017: CROSS-COMPLANT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, COMPARATIVE INDEMNITY AND EQUITABLE INDEMNITY

DEFENDANT QUINCY ADAMS ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

7/3/2017: DEFENDANT QUINCY ADAMS ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

JURY DEMAND OF DEFENDANT LYFT, INC.

7/3/2017: JURY DEMAND OF DEFENDANT LYFT, INC.

NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES BY DEFENDANT LYFT, INC.

7/3/2017: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES BY DEFENDANT LYFT, INC.

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

7/3/2017: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

7/3/2017: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

32 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/14/2020
  • Hearing01/14/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 3 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) ((Conditional)) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2019
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) (Conditional)) of 10/01/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) (Conditional))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Seal (Petition for Settlement)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Seal (Petition for Settlement) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Petition to Confirm Minor's Compromise - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2019
  • Docketat 3:06 PM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
73 More Docket Entries
  • 06/29/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Oliver O Tomas (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2017
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Jamie Najera (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jamie Najera (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2017
  • DocketAPPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2017
  • DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Jamie Najera (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC658224    Hearing Date: March 12, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

JAMIE NAJERA,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

LYFT, INC., et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC658224

[TENTATIVE] ORDER

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

March 12, 2020

  1. Background Facts

    Plaintiff, Jamie Najera, an incompetent adult by and through his GAL, Bertha Gomez, filed this action against Defendants, Oliver O. Tomas, Quincy Adams, Debbie M. Cordier, and Lyft, Inc. for damages arising out of an automobile accident. Plaintiff sustained a traumatic brain injury as a result of the accident. Plaintiff, by and through his GAL and attorney of record, has agreed to settle all claims with Tomas and Lyft.

  2. Motion to Seal

    The parties agreed that the settlement is confidential, and Defendant seeks an order sealing the petition and order approving the petition. Defendant contends the settlement, if revealed, could lead to improper conclusions, on the part of the public, concerning the amount of Lyft’s insurance policy and/or Lyft’s relationship with its drivers.

    The motion presents a novel procedural issue, because Petitioner did NOT lodge the petition under seal. Defendant filed a motion to seal records the same day that Petitioner filed the petition, which is currently in the public record. CRC 2.551(b) governs motions to seal records when the party who wishes to have the record sealed is also the party lodging the record. 2.551(c) governs motions to seal records when the party filing the documents is neutral to whether they are sealed, and the other party wishes to have them sealed. 2.551(c) applies here, as Petitioner appears to be neutral concerning whether the records are sealed, and Defendant wants the records sealed. Per 2.551(c), Petitioner was required to lodge the records under seal and then the Court was required to wait ten days to see if Defendant moved to seal before unsealing the records and placing them in the public record.

    The Court finds the motion to seal establishes good cause to seal at least a portion of the petition to approve the compromise, as the parties’ settlement is confidential in nature. A confidential settlement agreement may support sealing of court records. In Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283, the court considered the issue of whether a confidential settlement agreement can be redacted at length. The court concluded, “We agree with defendant that its contractual obligation not to disclose can constitute an overriding interest within the meaning of rule 243.1(d).” The court went on, however, to note that the parties’ interests can typically be protected by redacting, as opposed to fully sealing, the subject documents.

    CRC 2.550(d) makes clear that records cannot be sealed without appropriate findings. It provides:

    The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish:

    (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;

     

    (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record;

     

    (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed;

     

    (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and

     

    (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.

    In this case, Defendant seeks an order sealing the entirety of the petition and order on the petition. The parties did not make the necessary showing to seal the entire petition, as opposed to making necessary redactions only. The motion to file the petition under seal is therefore denied. The ruling is without prejudice to Defendant’s right to make a motion to redact portions of the petition. Defendant must file any such motion within ten days after today’s hearing.

  3. Petition to Approve Compromise

    The Court will not set forth the terms of the settlement in this public order, as doing so would violate the purpose of the requested sealing order. The Court notes that ¶¶12 and 18(f) of the petition are not filled out, and are necessary to a resolution of the merits of the petition. The petition is therefore denied without prejudice.

  4. Creation of Special Needs Trust

    Petitioner seeks to use the settlement funds to create a special needs trust. The probate attorney has reviewed the request, and the Court will discuss the probate notes with Counsel and Petitioner at the hearing on the petition. Petitioner must incorporate the probate attorney’s notes into any future petition to approve the settlement.

    Dated this 12th day of March, 2020

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court