Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/15/2019 at 00:01:54 (UTC).

JEANETTE ZACK ET AL VS OLIVIA MENDOZA

Case Summary

On 01/05/2018 JEANETTE ZACK filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against OLIVIA MENDOZA. 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:

    ****8993

  • Filing Date:

    01/05/2018

  • 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

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

ZACK DANIELLE AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST

ZACK JEANETTE

Defendants and Respondents

MENDOZA OLIVIA

DOES 1 TO 25

ALFREDO PACKARD MEZA DOE 1

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

FARAHI JUSTIN PARVIZ ESQ.

FARAHI JUSTIN PARVIZ

Defendant Attorneys

SAUNDERS MATTHEW J.

MORRIS JEFFREY M

 

Court Documents

Legacy Document

9/21/2018: Legacy Document

Answer

9/21/2018: Answer

Association of Attorney

10/5/2018: Association of Attorney

Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

11/1/2018: Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

11/30/2018: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Substitution of Attorney

1/25/2019: Substitution of Attorney

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person

5/22/2019: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person

Certificate of Mailing for

7/12/2019: Certificate of Mailing for

Notice of Settlement

7/12/2019: Notice of Settlement

Minute Order

7/12/2019: Minute Order

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

5/29/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

4/11/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

3/20/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

DECLARATION

2/6/2018: DECLARATION

DECLARATION OF REASOA8LE DILIGENCE

2/6/2018: DECLARATION OF REASOA8LE DILIGENCE

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

2/6/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

SUMMONS

1/5/2018: SUMMONS

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

1/5/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

7 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/12/2019
  • at 2:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Court Order Pursuant to Notice of Settlement;)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order Pursuant to Notice of Settlement;) of 07/12/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2019
  • Notice of Settlement; Filed by Jeanette Zack (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Olivia Mendoza (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Olivia Mendoza (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2018
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Jeanette Zack (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2018
  • Notice of Rejection - Pleadings; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
11 More Docket Entries
  • 03/20/2018
  • REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • DECLARATION OF REASOA8LE DILIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • DECLARATION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • Declaration; Filed by Jeanette Zack (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Jeanette Zack (Plaintiff); Danielle as successor-in-interest Zack (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • Declaration; Filed by Jeanette Zack (Plaintiff); Danielle as successor-in-interest Zack (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Jeanette Zack (Plaintiff); Danielle as successor-in-interest Zack (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2018
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC688993    Hearing Date: February 04, 2021    Dept: 28

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. opposing papers have been filed.

BACKGROUND

On January 5, 2018, Plaintiffs Jeanette Zack and Danielle Zack (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant Oliva Mendoza.  Plaintiffs allege general and motor vehicle negligence in the complaint arising from an automobile collision that occurred on February 11, 2016.

On April 11, 2018, the Court entered default against Defendant Olivia Mendoza.

On May 9, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an amendment to their complaint renaming Doe 1 as Defendant Alfredo Packard Meza.

On September 21, 2018, the Court set aside the April 11, 2018 entry of default against Defendant Olivia Mendoza.

On September 10, 2019, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

On January 16, 2020, the Court set aside the September 10, 2019 dismissal of the complaint.

On June 25, 2020, Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC, counsel for Plaintiffs, filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Danielle Zack pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2).

On June 26, 2020, Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC, counsel for Plaintiffs, filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Jeanette Zack pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2).

On June 26, 2020, the Court scheduled a motion to be relieved as counsel to be heard on November 3, 2020.  Later in the day on the 26th, the Court scheduled both the motions to be relieved as counsel to be heard on November 2, 2020.

On November 2, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on the motions to February 4, 2021 in order to allow counsel for Plaintiffs to file amended moving papers to show proper service of the motions on Plaintiffs. 

An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) is scheduled for March 19, 2021.

PARTIES REQUEST

Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC seek to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs because a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship has arisen.

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. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

DISCUSSION

As stated in the Court’s prior November 2, 2020 ruling on the motions, the Court finds the motions cannot be granted.  In both the motions, Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC represent that the moving papers have been personally served on Plaintiffs.  However, the proofs of service filed with the Court on October 26, 2020 show the moving papers were served on Plaintiffs by U.S. mail.  The motions require that Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC declare that the address served by U.S. mail has been confirmed by a specified method within the thirty days prior to the date when the motions were filed.  Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC have not done so. 

On November 2, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on these motions in the interest of justice to allow Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC to file amended moving papers.

The Court will continue the hearing on these motions once more to March 19, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. to allow Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC to file and serve amended moving papers. If the papers are not compliant by that hearing, the motion will be denied. 

CONCLUSION

The hearings on Justin Farahi’s and Farahi Law Firm, APC’s motions to be relieved as counsel are CONTINUED to March 19, 2021 at 8:30 p.m.

Counsel Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

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

Case Number: BC688993    Hearing Date: November 02, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. opposing papers have been filed.

BACKGROUND

On January 5, 2018, Plaintiffs Jeanette Zack and Danielle Zack (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant Oliva Mendoza.  Plaintiffs allege general and motor vehicle negligence in the complaint arising from an automobile collision that occurred on February 11, 2016.

On April 11, 2018, the Court entered default against Defendant Olivia Mendoza.

On May 9, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an amendment to their complaint renaming Doe 1 as Defendant Alfredo Packard Meza.

On September 21, 2018, the Court set aside the April 11, 2018 entry of default against Defendant Olivia Mendoza.

On September 10, 2019, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

On January 16, 2020, the Court set aside the September 10, 2019 dismissal of the complaint.

On June 25, 2020, Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC, counsel for Plaintiffs, filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Danielle Zack pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2).

On June 26, 2020, Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC, counsel for Plaintiffs, filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Jeanette Zack pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2).

On June 26, 2020, the Court scheduled a motion to be relieved as counsel to be heard on November 3, 2020.  Later in the day on the 26th, the Court scheduled both the motions to be relieved as counsel to be heard on November 2, 2020.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) is scheduled for March 19, 2021.

PARTIES REQUEST

Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC seek to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs because a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship has arisen.

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. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

DISCUSSION

The Court finds the motions cannot be granted.  In both the motions, Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC represent that the moving papers have been personally served on Plaintiffs.  However, the proofs of service filed with the Court on October 26, 2020 show the moving papers were served on Plaintiffs by U.S. mail.  The motions require that Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC declare that the address served by U.S. mail has been confirmed by a specified method within the thirty days prior to the date when the motions were filed.  Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC have not done so.  As such, the Court cannot grant the motions.

The Court finds it in the interest of justice to continue the hearings on these motions in order to allow Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC to file amended moving papers.

CONCLUSION

The hearings on Justin Farahi’s and Farahi Law Firm, APC’s motions to be relieved as counsel are CONTINUED to February 4, 2021 at 1:30 p.m.

Justin Farahi and Farahi Law Firm, APC are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

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

Case Number: BC688993    Hearing Date: January 16, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Set Aside Dismissal

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

BACKGROUND

On January 5, 2018, Plaintiffs Jeanette Zack and Danielle Zack (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant Olivia Mendoza (“Defendant”) alleging motor vehicle and general negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on February 11, 2016.

On May 9, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an amendment to their complaint renaming Doe 1 as Defendant Alfredo Packard Meza.

On September 10, 2019, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

On December 18, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to set aside the November 26, 2019 dismissal pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).

PARTYS REQUEST

Defendant asks the Court to set aside the September 10, 2019 dismissal on the ground that Defendant’s counsel did not have Plaintiffs’ authority to file the request for dismissal.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b) states, in relevant part, “Unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing. . . . However, if the notice is served by mail, the required 16-day period of notice before the hearing shall be increased by five calendar days if the place of mailing and the place of address are within the State of California. . . .

DISCUSSION

The motion was filed on December 18, 2019.  It was served on Plaintiffs on December 18, 2019 by U.S. mail.  Sixteen court-days plus five regular days after December 18, 2019 is January 21, 2020.  As such, insufficient notice of this motion was given to Plaintiffs.

The hearing on Defendant’s motion to set aside is CONTINUED to January 29, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 28 at Spring Street Courthouse located at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012.

Plaintiffs may file an opposition by 11:59 p.m. on January 21, 2020.

Defendant may file a reply by 11:59 p.m. on January 23, 2020.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer MORRIS JEFFREY M

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SAUNDERS MATTHEW J. ESQ.