This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/05/2022 at 02:36:02 (UTC).

JOEY VILLAREAL VS VICTOR FRAGOZA ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/09/2017 JOEY VILLAREAL filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against VICTOR FRAGOZA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH, ELAINE LU, MICHAEL E. WHITAKER and KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2938

  • Filing Date:

    03/09/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

ELAINE LU

MICHAEL E. WHITAKER

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

VILLAREAL JOEY

Defendants

FRAGOZA VICTOR

CALIFORNIA INTEMODAL ASSOCIATES

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

D'ATTARAY MAINAK

MASTROIANNI ALBERT DOUGLAS ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

BERGSTEN ROBERT

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

11/2/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

Request for Dismissal - REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL (NOT ENTERED)

11/1/2022: Request for Dismissal - REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL (NOT ENTERED)

Declaration - DECLARATION IN RESPONSE TO OSC RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL (CORRECTED)

9/9/2022: Declaration - DECLARATION IN RESPONSE TO OSC RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL (CORRECTED)

Declaration - DECLARATION OF MARY M. CAMPO, ESQ., RE: STATUS OF SETTLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR FINAL DISMISSAL

9/8/2022: Declaration - DECLARATION OF MARY M. CAMPO, ESQ., RE: STATUS OF SETTLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR FINAL DISMISSAL

Response - RESPONSE TO OSC RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT)

9/9/2022: Response - RESPONSE TO OSC RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

9/9/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

8/19/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE #2

1/13/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE #2

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE #3

1/13/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE #3

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE #6

1/13/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE #6

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE #4

1/13/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE #4

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE #5

1/13/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE #5

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE #1

1/13/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE #1

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

1/20/2022: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

5/16/2022: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

Opposition - OPPOSITION PARTIAL TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

5/16/2022: Opposition - OPPOSITION PARTIAL TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL)

5/17/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE BASED ON TRIAL COUNSEL'S CONFLICT

6/17/2022: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE BASED ON TRIAL COUNSEL'S CONFLICT

120 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/02/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Michael E. Whitaker, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/02/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement))); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/01/2022
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal ((not entered)); Filed by Joey Villareal (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/09/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Michael E. Whitaker, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/09/2022
  • DocketResponse (to OSC re: Dismissal (Settlement)); Filed by Joey Villareal (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/09/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement))); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/09/2022
  • DocketDeclaration (in Response to OSC re: Settlement and Dismissal (Corrected)); Filed by Joey Villareal (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/08/2022
  • DocketDeclaration (OF MARY M. CAMPO, ESQ., RE: STATUS OF SETTLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR FINAL DISMISSAL); Filed by Victor Fragoza (Defendant); California Intemodal Associates (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/19/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Michael E. Whitaker, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/19/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement))); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
193 More Docket Entries
  • 04/17/2017
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Joey Villareal (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/17/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF ERRATA CORRECTING THE CAPTION PAGE OF THE COMPLAINT AND ATTACHING CORRECTED CAPTION PAGE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/28/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Joey Villareal (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/28/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/10/2017
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/10/2017
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/09/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/09/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/09/2017
  • DocketDEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEE DEPOSIT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/09/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Joey Villareal (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: ****2938 Hearing Date: October 20, 2021 Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE: Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.

TENTATIVE RULING

DEPARTMENT

32

HEARING DATE

October 20, 2021

CASE NUMBER

****2938

MOTIONS

Motions to Compel Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents;

Requests for Monetary Sanctions

MOVING PARTIES:

Defendants Victor Fragoza and California Intermodal Associates

OPPOSING PARTY:

None

MOTIONS

Defendants Victor Fragoza and California Intermodal Associates (collectively, “Defendants”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Joey Villareal (“Plaintiff”) to: (1) Supplemental Request for Production of Documents, set one (“SRPD”) and Supplemental Interrogatories, set one (“SROG”). Defendants request monetary sanctions. Plaintiff has not filed oppositions to the motions.

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (a), “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or the protection for work product[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2030.290, subd. (a).)

Similarly, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (a), “[i]f a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it . . . [t]he party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2031.300, subd. (a).) And the party propounding the discovery request may move for an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., ;; 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b).)

Here, Defendants served the subject discovery requests on Plaintiff on December 7, 2020, electronically. Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by January 11, 2021. As of the filing date of the motions, Defendants have not received responses from Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses to the SRPD and SROG.

Defendants request monetary sanctions in connection with the motions. The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the subject discovery requests to be an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions. (See Code Civ. Proc., ;; 2023.010, subd. (d); 2030.290, subd. (c); 2031.300, subd. (c).) Thus, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, D’Attaray Terrell Injury Lawyers, in the amount of $720, which represents three hours of attorney time to prepare the motions and attend the hearing at $200 per hour, plus the filing fees at $60 per motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motions to compel responses to the SRPD and SROG per Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300, and orders Plaintiff to serve verified responses to the SRPD and SROG without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, D’Attaray Terrell Injury Lawyers, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $720 to Defendants by and through counsel for Defendants, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.

'


Case Number: ****2938    Hearing Date: November 20, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

joey villareal,

Plaintiff,

v.

victor fragoza, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: ****2938

Hearing Date: November 20, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motions to compel depositions

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Joey Villareal (“Plaintiff”) filed this action following a motor vehicle collision with Defendant Victor Fragoza (“Fragoza”), who was driving a vehicle for Defendant California Intermodal Associates (“California Intermodal Associates”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff moves to compel the depositions of Fragoza and the person most qualified to testify on behalf of California Intermodal Associates. Defendants oppose the motions. The motions are denied.

LEGAL STANDARD

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, if a party to the action fails to appear for deposition after service of a deposition notice and the party has not served a valid objection to that deposition notice, the party that noticed the deposition may move for an order to compel the deponent to attend and testify at deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., ;2025.450, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s counsel served deposition notices, and Defendants’ counsel served timely objections. (Declaration of Lauren S. Gafa, Exhs. A-D.) Then, the parties agreed to conduct the depositions on November 14, 2019. (Id., ¶ 10.) On November 7, 2019, Defendants’ counsel asked whether Plaintiff’s counsel intended to move forward with the depositions, and he did not respond. (Id., ¶ 12.) Plaintiff’s counsel also never confirmed a location. (Id., ¶ 11.) Plaintiff’s counsel never confirmed the depositions for November 14, 2019, and never sent out deposition notices. (Id., ¶ 13.) When Defendants’ counsel offered additional dates, Plaintiff’s counsel advised that new counsel would be substituting into the case, so he was unable to schedule anything. (Id., ¶¶ 14-15.) Based upon this record, it is clear there is no basis to grant the motion.

Both sides request sanctions. The Court awards sanctions to neither, as both parties bear responsibility for this dispute. Defendants’ counsel failed to cooperate sufficiently before the motion was filed, and Plaintiff’s counsel failed to cooperate sufficiently after the motion was filed. Therefore, an award of sanctions to either party would be unjust.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motions to compel depositions are denied. The Court denies both parties’ requests for sanctions. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: November 20, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CALIFORNIA INTEMODAL ASSOCIATES is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BERGSTEN ROBERT