Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2019 at 09:40:44 (UTC).

JOANNA BLOEM VS FRANCISCO ROBLES OLAGUE ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/25/2017 JOANNA BLOEM filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against FRANCISCO ROBLES OLAGUE. 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 Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3794

  • Filing Date:

    08/25/2017

  • 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

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

BLOEM JOANNA

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 THROUGH 20

OLAGUE FRANCISCO ROBLES

SANTA MONICA CITY OF

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

BORDIN MARTORELL LLP

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

NAGAKAWA Y. CHRISTOPHER DEP. ATTY. GEN.

NAGAKAWA Y. CHRISTOPHER DEP. ATT GEN.

 

Court Documents

Ex Parte Application

7/12/2019: Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

7/12/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

7/16/2019: Notice of Ruling

Declaration

7/30/2019: Declaration

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

7/30/2019: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Stipulation and Order

2/7/2019: Stipulation and Order

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

4/15/2019: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE AND FAX

12/27/2017: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE AND FAX

DEFENDANTS CITY OF SANTA MONIC AND FRANCISCO ROBLES OLAGUE'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

10/5/2017: DEFENDANTS CITY OF SANTA MONIC AND FRANCISCO ROBLES OLAGUE'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

9/22/2017: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

SUMMONS

8/25/2017: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE ;ETC

8/25/2017: COMPLAINT FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE ;ETC

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/25/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 5 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; : OSC RE Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 5 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2020
  • Hearingat 10:00 AM in Department 5 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2019
  • Hearingat 13:30 PM in Department 5 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/08/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (Dec in Support of Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel); Filed by Joanna Bloem (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2019
  • DocketMotion to Be Relieved as Counsel; Filed by Bordin Martorell LLP (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Francisco Robles Olague (Defendant); Santa Monica, City of (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (FOR ORDER CONTINUING FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND TRIAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JASON K. AXE) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application FOR ORDER CONTINUING FINAL ST...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
6 More Docket Entries
  • 02/07/2019
  • DocketStipulation and Order (PROPOSED ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES - FSC: 05-15-19 Trial: 05-29-19); Filed by Joanna Bloem (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE AND FAX

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2017
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Santa Monica, City of (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2017
  • DocketDEFENDANTS CITY OF SANTA MONIC AND FRANCISCO ROBLES OLAGUE'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2017
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Joanna Bloem (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Joanna Bloem (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC673794    Hearing Date: July 15, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

JOANNA BLOEM,

Plaintiff,

v.

Francisco Robles Olague, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC673794

Hearing Date: July 15, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

Plaintiff Joanna Bloem (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant City of Santa Monica (“Defendant”), alleging that she was struck by Defendant’s vehicle while walking on a public street. In her complaint, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for “lost wages, lost employee benefits, vacation benefits, medical expenses, mental and emotional distress, and other general and special damages according to proof at trial.” (Complaint at p.12, ¶ 1.) Plaintiff also seeks damages for “actual damages, including but not limited to medical and related expenses.” (Id., at p.12, ¶ 2.)

This action was filed on August 25, 2017, and the Court set an initial trial date of February 25, 2019. The parties stipulated to continue the trial and all related dates to May 28, 2019. Then, the parties stipulated to continue the trial and all related dates to August 20, 2019. Then, the Court granted an ex parte application to continue the trial and all related dates to February 25, 2020. Then, the Court granted an ex parte application to continue the trial and all related dates to July 13, 2020. Due to COVID-19 and the related states of emergency declared by Governor Gavin Newsom and President Donald Trump, the Court vacated the trial date and set a trial setting conference for July 15, 2020.

Now, Defendant moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories #17, #18, #24, #25, #26, #27, #28, #29, #30, and #31. The Court rules as follows:

Special Interrogatory #17 – This special interrogatory relates to Plaintiff’s claim for lost income and/or lost earning capacity. This discovery is relevant, and Plaintiff’s objections have no merit. Therefore, the motion is granted. Plaintiff shall serve a verified response, without objections, within twenty (20) days.

Special Interrogatory #18 – This special interrogatory relates to Plaintiff’s claim for lost income and/or lost earning capacity. This discovery is relevant, and Plaintiff’s objections have no merit. Therefore, the motion is granted. Plaintiff shall serve a verified response, without objections, within twenty (20) days.

Special Interrogatory #24 – This special interrogatory requires Plaintiff to identify the name, address, and telephone number for all health care providers who provided care for any injuries allegedly stemming from the accident. This discovery is relevant, and Plaintiff’s objections have no merit. Therefore, the motion is granted. Plaintiff shall serve a verified response, without objections, within twenty (20) days.

Special Interrogatory #25 – This special interrogatory relates to Plaintiff’s claim for lost income and/or lost earning capacity. This discovery is relevant, and Plaintiff’s objections have no merit. Therefore, the motion is granted. Plaintiff shall serve a verified response, without objections, within twenty (20) days.

Special Interrogatory #26 – This special interrogatory relates to Plaintiff’s claim for lost income and/or lost earning capacity. This discovery is relevant, and Plaintiff’s objections have no merit. Therefore, the motion is granted. Plaintiff shall serve a verified response, without objections, within twenty (20) days.

Special Interrogatory #27 – This special interrogatory relates to Plaintiff’s claim for lost income and/or lost earning capacity. This discovery is relevant, and Plaintiff’s objections have no merit. Therefore, the motion is granted. Plaintiff shall serve a verified response, without objections, within twenty (20) days.

Special Interrogatory #28 – This special interrogatory relates to Plaintiff’s claim for lost income and/or lost earning capacity. This discovery is relevant, and Plaintiff’s objections have no merit. Therefore, the motion is granted. Plaintiff shall serve a verified response, without objections, within twenty (20) days.

Special Interrogatory #29 – This special interrogatory requires Plaintiff to identify the last date upon which she sought treatment from a mental health provider for injuries allegedly stemming from the accident. This discovery is relevant, and Plaintiff’s objections have no merit. Therefore, the motion is granted. Plaintiff shall serve a verified response, without objections, within twenty (20) days.

Special Interrogatories #30 and #31 – These special interrogatories require Plaintiff to state whether she wears prescription glasses or contact lens, and if so, whether she was wearing them on the date of the accident. This discovery is relevant to the issue of liability and contributory negligence, and Plaintiff’s objections have no merit. Therefore, the motion is granted. Plaintiff shall serve a verified response, without objections, within twenty (20) days.

As discussed, the Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s objections. Plaintiff’s argument that the interrogatories are overbroad lacks merit. The interrogatories at issue directly relate to Plaintiff’s claimed damages. Similarly, the interrogatories do not violate Plaintiff’s right to privacy because Plaintiff has put her physical and mental injuries at issue in this action. (See Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 863-864.) Moreover, the special interrogatories are not so detailed as to invade her privacy, requesting only basic information.

The Court is perplexed by Plaintiff’s argument that these interrogatories “expose[] Plaintiff to undue risk of perjury, as each response must be given under oath.” All parties are required to verify their responses, so Plaintiff is not subject to a unique requirement. Plaintiff put her employment status and medical history at issue in this action and therefore must respond to related interrogatories.

The Court does not believe the time frame of the requested discovery is overbroad. Given the nature of Plaintiff’s employment, Defendant is entitled to understand her salary history before the accident in order to determine whether the claim for lost earnings and lost earning capacity has merit. Similarly, Defendant is entitled to explore Plaintiff’s medical history before the accident to determine whether the alleged injuries truly were caused by the accident.

Finally, the Court soundly rejects Plaintiff’s claim that the discovery is premature. When Defendant filed these motions, the case had been pending for approximately two-and-one-half years and was only about five months away from trial. Defendant is entitled to receive discovery sufficiently in advance of trial in order to prepare a defense.

Defendant also moves to compel a response to Form Interrogatory Number 17.1, which requires Plaintiff to state whether her response to the accompanying requests for admission is unqualified. Plaintiff objects. The objections are overruled, and Plaintiff is ordered to serve a verified response, without objections, within twenty (20) days.

Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff totaling $1,625. The Court acknowledges that sanctions against Plaintiff—and Plaintiff’s counsel—are well-deserved in this case, as Plaintiff’s position is wholly without merit and constitutes an abuse of the discovery process. Nevertheless, the Court does not order sanctions for two reasons. First, Defendant did not notice sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel, so the Court cannot order them, notwithstanding that this discovery abuse appears to be attributable to counsel rather than his client. Second, Defendant did not schedule an informal discovery conference before the hearings on these motions. Had Defendant done so, the Court likely could have resolved the discovery issues without the need for litigation. Therefore, sanctions are not appropriate in this case.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court grants Defendant’s motions to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories #17, #18, #24, #25, #26, #27, #28, #29, #30, and #31, as well as Form Interrogatory #17.1. Plaintiff shall serve verified responses, without objections, within twenty (20) days of notice of this order. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: July 15, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where SANTA MONICA CITY OF is a litigant