This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/28/2022 at 11:43:28 (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, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DAVID J. COWAN, DANIEL M. CROWLEY, SERENA R. MURILLO, MARK E. WINDHAM, GEORGINA T. RIZK, AUDRA MORI, WILLIAM A. CROWFOOT and KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE. 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

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DAVID J. COWAN

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

SERENA R. MURILLO

MARK E. WINDHAM

GEORGINA T. RIZK

AUDRA MORI

WILLIAM A. CROWFOOT

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

PINA-PORTILLO ARELY

GREAT WEST CASUALTY COMPANY

VERGARA JR. JERRY

Claimants and Plaintiffs

ISAACS HOLDINGS INC. "ISAAC HOLDINGS"

GREAT WEST CASUALTY COMPANY

LAND AIR EXPRESS INC. "LAND AIR"

Defendants

MALDONADO ALFREDO

SANTA MONICA CITY OF

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

MALDENADO ALFREDO

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Claimant Attorneys

PARDON CHANCE

FEDERMAN DOUGLAS ERIC ESQ.

CHONIN DAVID A. ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

KELLY CATHERINE MARY DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY

MILLS HEATHER LYNN

WILCOX WENDY LEIGH ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE TRIAL ASSIGNMENT)

10/27/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE TRIAL ASSIGNMENT)

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 14 TO EXCLUDE ANY ARGUMENT, TESTIMONY, AND EVIDENCE REGARDING BIG BLUE BUS DETERMINATION AND ANY BIG BLUE BUS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND AL

10/26/2022: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 14 TO EXCLUDE ANY ARGUMENT, TESTIMONY, AND EVIDENCE REGARDING BIG BLUE BUS DETERMINATION AND ANY BIG BLUE BUS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND AL

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 13 TO EXCLUDE OPINION FROM LAY WITNESSES

10/26/2022: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 13 TO EXCLUDE OPINION FROM LAY WITNESSES

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 TO EXCLUDE OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE TRAFFIC COLLISION REPORT

10/26/2022: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 TO EXCLUDE OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE TRAFFIC COLLISION REPORT

Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF CONFLICT WITH OLIVIA VEDOY DECLARATION OF HEATHER L. MILLS EXHIBITS

10/26/2022: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF CONFLICT WITH OLIVIA VEDOY DECLARATION OF HEATHER L. MILLS EXHIBITS

Clerks Certificate of Service By Electronic Service

10/25/2022: Clerks Certificate of Service By Electronic Service

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE RE TRIAL ASSIGNMENT;)

10/25/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE RE TRIAL ASSIGNMENT;)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBMISSION OF TRIAL MATERIALS)

10/6/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBMISSION OF TRIAL MATERIALS)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBMISSION OF TRIAL MATERIALS)]

10/6/2022: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBMISSION OF TRIAL MATERIALS)]

Jury Instructions - PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

10/5/2022: Jury Instructions - PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)

10/5/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)

Jury Instructions - AMENDED JOINT LIST OF JURY INSTRUCTIONS

10/4/2022: Jury Instructions - AMENDED JOINT LIST OF JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: LONG CAUSE TRIAL DETERMINATION)

9/30/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: LONG CAUSE TRIAL DETERMINATION)

Clerks Certificate of Service By Electronic Service

9/30/2022: Clerks Certificate of Service By Electronic Service

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER EIGHT (8) TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE NOT PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY

9/29/2022: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER EIGHT (8) TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE NOT PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER SEVEN (7) TO REQUIRE 24-HOUR ADVANCE NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF INTENDED WITNESS APPEARANCES

9/29/2022: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER SEVEN (7) TO REQUIRE 24-HOUR ADVANCE NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF INTENDED WITNESS APPEARANCES

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER FIVE (5) TO EXCLUDE OPINION TESTIMONY BY PLAINTIFFS TREATING PHYSICIANS

9/29/2022: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER FIVE (5) TO EXCLUDE OPINION TESTIMONY BY PLAINTIFFS TREATING PHYSICIANS

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER FOUR (4) TO EXCLUDE ALL TESTIMONY, ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE TO MEDICAL CHARGES BILLED OR TO BE BILLED (AS OPPOSED TOP AID OR REASONABLE VA

9/29/2022: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER FOUR (4) TO EXCLUDE ALL TESTIMONY, ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE TO MEDICAL CHARGES BILLED OR TO BE BILLED (AS OPPOSED TOP AID OR REASONABLE VA

178 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/27/2022
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 1, David J. Cowan, Presiding; Status Conference (Re Trial Assignment) - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/27/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Status Conference Re Trial Assignment)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/26/2022
  • DocketReply (IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 TO EXCLUDE OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE TRAFFIC COLLISION REPORT); Filed by SANTA MONICA, CITY OF (Defendant); ALFREDO MALDENADO (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/26/2022
  • DocketReply (IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 13 TO EXCLUDE OPINION FROM LAY WITNESSES); Filed by SANTA MONICA, CITY OF (Defendant); ALFREDO MALDENADO (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/26/2022
  • DocketOpposition (DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF CONFLICT WITH OLIVIA VEDOY DECLARATION OF HEATHER L. MILLS EXHIBITS); Filed by SANTA MONICA, CITY OF (Defendant); ALFREDO MALDENADO (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/26/2022
  • DocketReply (IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 14 TO EXCLUDE ANY ARGUMENT, TESTIMONY, AND EVIDENCE REGARDING BIG BLUE BUS DETERMINATION AND ANY BIG BLUE BUS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND ALL TESTIMONY FROM BIG BLUE BUS EMPLOYEES RE SAME); Filed by SANTA MONICA, CITY OF (Defendant); ALFREDO MALDENADO (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/25/2022
  • Docketat 2:32 PM in Department 1, David J. Cowan, Presiding; Court Order

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/25/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Setting Status Conference Re Trial Assignment;)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/25/2022
  • DocketClerks Certificate of Service By Electronic Service; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/13/2022
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 29; Hearing on Motion for Protective Order

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
247 More Docket Entries
  • 12/18/2017
  • DocketComplaint ((DISM)); Filed by GREAT WEST CASUALTY COMPANY (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • DocketDECLAITJON OF DUE DILIGENCE (CCP 415.20)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/21/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Jerry Vergara, Jr. (Plaintiff); Arely Pina-Portillo (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/21/2017
  • DocketComplaint

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/21/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Jerry Vergara, Jr. (Plaintiff); Arely Pina-Portillo (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****4705    Hearing Date: January 29, 2021    Dept: 29

****4705 Vergara, Jr. et al v. City of Santa Monica, et al.

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena filed on 12/29/20 is DENIED.

Defendant served a subpoena on the California Military Department for certain records related to Plaintiff. The deponent refuses to provide records without an authorization from the Plaintiff for the release of the records or an order of the court compelling compliance with the subpoena. By this motion, Defendants seek an order compelling Plaintiff Jerry Vergara, Jr. to sign authorizations for the release of Army National Guard records, or, in the alternative, an order compelling compliance with the subpoena . Motion, 2:1-5.

To the extent the motion seeks an order compelling the California Military Department to comply with the subpoena, the court DENIES THE MOTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE. There is no evidence before the court that the California Military Department has been served with the motion at all, let alone personally served as required by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1346

To the extent the motion seeks an order complying Plaintiff to sign an authorization for the release of the records, the court DENIES the motion. Defendants have not cited any authority that gives the court discretion to require Plaintiff to sign authorizations for the release of personal records. Defendants cite Code Civ. Proc. ; 1987.1 which permits a requesting party to compel a witness’ compliance with a subpoena. It does not address compelling a Plaintiff to sign authorizations.

The court cannot create new methods of discovery that are not set forth in the Discovery Act. Instead, the court’s powers are limited by the express language of the Act. (See Holm v. Superior Court (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1241, 1248-1249 [“in the area of civil discovery, the judiciary has no power to create or sanction types or methods of discovery not based on a reasonable interpretation of statutory provisions.”]; Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Superior Court (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 840, 849). 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.



Case Number: ****4705    Hearing Date: June 22, 2020    Dept: 29

Plaintiffs’ Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission of David A. Chonin to Appear as Counsel for Plaintiffs is GRANTED. Counsel has complied with the requirements of Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 9.40.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.



Case Number: ****4705    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: ****4705    Hearing Date: December 05, 2019    Dept: 2

****4705 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: ****4705    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.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where ISAAC HOLDINGS INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where GREAT WEST CASUALTY COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases where CITY OF SANTA MONICA is a litigant

Latest cases where SANTA MONICA CITY OF is a litigant