This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/20/2020 at 14:06:27 (UTC).

JEFF CASTIN VS NICHOLAS MANGANIELLO

Case Summary

On 02/09/2018 JEFF CASTIN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against NICHOLAS MANGANIELLO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3599

  • Filing Date:

    02/09/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • 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

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

CASTIN JEFF

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 60

MANGANIELLO NICHOLAS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

GILL JASMINDER

GILL JASMINDER S

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

HOUGHTON LOWELL G. ESQ.

HOUGHTON LOWELL GEORGE ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS)

1/7/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS)

Order - Dismissal

1/7/2020: Order - Dismissal

Notice of Ruling

1/9/2020: Notice of Ruling

Notice of Ruling

11/12/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS)

11/6/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS)

Motion for Terminating Sanctions

10/2/2019: Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Notice of Ruling

7/29/2019: Notice of Ruling

Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

7/8/2019: Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

6/26/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

4/4/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

5/24/2019: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Reply - REPLY TO PLIANTIFF OPPOSTION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

5/31/2019: Reply - REPLY TO PLIANTIFF OPPOSTION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVERY...)

6/7/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVERY...)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL) OF 06/17/2019

6/17/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL) OF 06/17/2019

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

3/23/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

DEMAND FOR JURY

3/23/2018: DEMAND FOR JURY

CIVIL DEPOSIT

3/23/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

SUMMONS -

2/9/2018: SUMMONS -

16 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/09/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Nicholas Manganiello (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2020
  • DocketOrder - Dismissal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2019
  • DocketMotion for Terminating Sanctions; Filed by Nicholas Manganiello (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Nicholas Manganiello (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
27 More Docket Entries
  • 03/23/2018
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Nicholas Manganiello (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2018
  • DocketDEMAND FOR JURY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2018
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2018
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Jeff Castin (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2018
  • DocketRequest-Waive Court Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2018
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2018
  • DocketORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC693599    Hearing Date: January 07, 2020    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

JEFF CASTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

NICHOLAS MANGANIELLO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC693599

Hearing Date: January 7, 2020

[Tentative] order RE:

motion for an order FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION

BACKGROUND

On February 9, 2018, Plaintiff Jeff Castin (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Nicholas Manganiello (“Defendant”) following a motor vehicle accident that occurred on February 9, 2016. On June 7, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, ordering Plaintiff to serve verified responses within 60 days of the notice of the order. Notice of the ruling was served by mail on June 10, 2019, meaning that Plaintiff had until August 14, 2019, to comply with the Court’s order. Now, Defendant moves for terminating sanctions.

LEGAL STANDARD

Where a party fails to obey an order compelling answers to discovery, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2023.010, subd. (c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) The Court may impose a terminating sanction against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).) Misuse of the discovery process includes failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery or disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (g).) A terminating sanction may be imposed by an order dismissing part or all of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d)(3).) Before doing so, however, the court should consider the totality of the circumstances, including conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful, the determent to the propounding party, and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain discovery. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) Before any terminating sanctions may be imposed the court must make an express finding that there has been a willful failure of the party to serve the required answers. (Fairfield v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 113, 118.) Lack of diligence may be deemed willful where the party understood its obligation, had the ability to comply, and failed to comply. (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 787; Fred Howland Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 605, 610-611.) The party who failed to comply with discovery obligations has the burden of showing that the failure was not willful. (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 788; Cornwall v. Santa Monica Dairy Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 250; Evid. Code, §§ 500, 605.)

DISCUSSION

Defendant moves for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff for his failure to obey this Court’s prior orders. Plaintiff has not complied with this Court’s order, even after having been afforded ample time to do so after he began representing himself. Plaintiff has not opposed this motion, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that Plaintiff has complied with his discovery obligations. The Court finds that the violation was willful. The Court has considered imposing lesser sanctions but finds that no lesser sanction will compel Plaintiff’s compliance with his discovery obligations. Therefore, the motion is granted.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for an order for terminating sanctions is granted. This case is dismissed with prejudice with respect to Defendant. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: January 7, 2020 ___________________________

Hon. Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC693599    Hearing Date: November 06, 2019    Dept: 5

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

Jeff castin,

Plaintiff,

v.

nicholas manganiello,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC693599

Hearing Date: November 6, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

MOTION for terminating sanctions

Defendant Nicholas Manganiello (“Defendant”) moves to dismiss the complaint of Plaintiff Jeff Castin (“Plaintiff”) as a terminating sanction. The Court has discretion to impose terminating sanction when a party willfully disobeys a discovery order. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (g), 2030.290, subd. (c).) The Court may impose a terminating sanction by striking a party’s pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d)(1).)

In its order of June 7, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to form interrogatories and requests for production of documents that Defendant served on Plaintiff within 60 days of notice of the order. Defendant served Plaintiff with notice of the ruling by mail on June 10, 2019. Plaintiff thus had until August 14, 2019 to serve responses in compliance with this Court’s order. As of the filing date of this motion, Plaintiff has not yet responded.

Nevertheless, the Court cannot grant this motion due to improper service. Defendant served the motion on Plaintiff at 11650 Idaho Avenue, Apartment 3 in Los Angeles, California. Plaintiff’s address of record is 7923 South Jo Lee Lane in Harrison, Idaho. As Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, the Court cannot determine that Plaintiff received actual notice. Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice.

Conclusion and Order

Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions is denied without prejudice due to improper service. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: November 6, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court