This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2019 at 09:41:40 (UTC).

JERRY VERGARA JR ET AL VS CITY OF SANTA MONICA ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/21/2017 JERRY VERGARA JR filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against CITY OF SANTA MONICA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GEORGINA T. RIZK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4705

  • Filing Date:

    11/21/2017

  • 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 Judge

GEORGINA T. RIZK

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

PINA-PORTILLO ARELY

VERGARA JR JERRY

Claimants

ISAACS HOLDINGS INC. "ISAAC HOLDINGS"

GREAT WEST CASUALTY COMPANY

LAND AIR EXPRESS INC. "LAND AIR"

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 20

MALDONADO ALFREDO

SANTA MONICA CITY OF

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BREITER BRIAN J.

PARDON CHANCE JOSEPH ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

KELLY CATHERINE M.

MORGENSTERN ROBERT ALAN ESQ.

SAROUKHANIOFF NINOS PAUL ESQ.

KELLY CATHERINE MARY DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY

 

Court Documents

Notice of Lodging

7/12/2019: Notice of Lodging

Motion to Seal

7/22/2019: Motion to Seal

Objection

7/29/2019: Objection

Opposition

8/2/2019: Opposition

Reply

8/2/2019: Reply

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

8/6/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Separate Statement

8/6/2019: Separate Statement

Notice of Ruling

8/12/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order

2/28/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF WORKER?S COMPENSATIO LIEN PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE

3/8/2018: NOTICE OF WORKER?S COMPENSATIO LIEN PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE

Association of Attorney

10/16/2018: Association of Attorney

Motion to Consolidate

1/10/2019: Motion to Consolidate

Minute Order

2/22/2019: Minute Order

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

12/8/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

12/8/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

DECLAITJON OF DUE DILIGENCE (CCP 415.20)

12/8/2017: DECLAITJON OF DUE DILIGENCE (CCP 415.20)

Summons

11/21/2017: Summons

Complaint

11/21/2017: Complaint

23 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/23/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 2 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 2 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2019
  • Hearingat 10:00 AM in Department 2 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2019
  • Hearingat 10:00 AM in Department 2 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/15/2019
  • Hearingat 13:30 PM in Department 2 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Seal (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/12/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by City of Santa Monica (Defendant); Alfredo Maldonado (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Leave (to Obtain Mental Examination of Plaintiff) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2019
  • DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore ([(Jorge P. Dominguez (CSR 12523)]); Filed by City of Santa Monica (Defendant); Alfredo Maldonado (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Defendants Motion for Leave to Obtain Mental Exami...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2019
  • DocketMotion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Filed by Jerry Vergara Jr (Plaintiff); Arely Pina-Portillo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
37 More Docket Entries
  • 01/18/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by City of Santa Monica (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • DocketDECLAITJON OF DUE DILIGENCE (CCP 415.20)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Jerry Vergara Jr (Plaintiff); Arely Pina-Portillo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Jerry Vergara Jr (Plaintiff); Arely Pina-Portillo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2017
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC684705    Hearing Date: March 11, 2020    Dept: 29

Vergara v. City of Santa Monica et al.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission of David A. Chonin to Appear as Counsel for Plaintiffs is TAKEN OFF CALENDAR. The motion was untimely served by mail on 2/17/20. The motion should have been served by 2/13/2020 to allow for 16 court days of notice increased by five calendar days for service by mail. Cal Rules of Court 9.40(c).

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC684705    Hearing Date: December 05, 2019    Dept: 2

BC684705 c/w BC687063 Vergara v. Pina-Portillo

On the court’s own motion, the hearing on the Motion to Compel City of Santa Monica to Produce Persons Most Qualified set for 12/05/2019 at 10:00 a.m. is continued to 12/11/2019 at 1:30 p.m. in Department SS-2.

Case Number: BC684705    Hearing Date: October 31, 2019    Dept: 2

Scott-Toney v. Baker

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages from Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed on 10/4/19 is DENIED. Defendant is ordered to file an answer within 10 days.

To state a claim for punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294, a plaintiff must allege specific facts showing that the defendant has been guilty of malice, oppression or fraud. Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal. App. 4th 1033, 1042. The basis for punitive damages must be pled with specificity; conclusory allegations devoid of any factual assertions are insufficient. Id.

“Malice” is defined in section 3294(c)(1) in relevant part as “despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” “Oppression” is defined in section 3294(c)(2) as “despicable conduct subjecting a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” The term “despicable” has been defined in the case law as actions that are “base,” “vile,” or “contemptible.” See, e.g., Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal. App. 4th 847, 891. Plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating that “the defendant acted in such an outrageous and reprehensible manner that the jury could infer that he knowingly disregarded the substantial certainty of injury to others." Dawes v. Superior Court, (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 82, 90.

In ruling on a motion to strike, the Court must accept the allegations in the complaint as true. Here, the First Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant was speeding and texting at the same time. First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶ 10. Defendant allegedly did not stop for a red light at the intersection and maintained a high rate of speed while approaching stopped traffic. Id. Defendant had consumed medication that affected her ability to drive in a safe manner. Id., ¶ 11.

The First Amended Complaint further alleges that Defendant was consciously aware that she was driving while using her cell phone. Id. Plaintiff alleges that when Defendant took her medication, she was consciously aware that she was unfit to operate a motor vehicle. Id. Defendant made a conscious decision to drive on the public roadways knowing she would almost certainly cause injury, damage, and potential death to the members of the public. Id.

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant was aware of the probable consequences of her acts and willfully and deliberately failed to avoid the likelihood of serious injury to Plaintiff and others. Id. Defendant realized that her conduct would cause serious injury to others. FAC ¶ 12.

The act of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, or in this case under the influence of medication that Defendant knew made her unfit to drive, may constitute an act of "malice" under section 3294 if performed under circumstances which disclose a conscious disregard of the probable dangerous consequences. Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 897.

The alleged conduct meets the threshold to support a claim for punitive damages. The allegations assert that Defendant was consciously aware that when she took her medication, Defendant knew she was unfit to drive. Defendant was allegedly aware of the consequences of her conduct and was aware that the behavior would likely cause serious injury to others and yet deliberately failed to avoid those consequences. This conduct, coupled with the allegations of speeding and texting while driving, demonstrates the required “conscious disregard” for the rights of others.

The Court concludes that the facts are alleged with sufficient specificity to withstand a motion to strike.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.