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, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ELAINE LU and STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
****2938
03/09/2017
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
ELAINE LU
STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH
VILLAREAL JOEY
FRAGOZA VICTOR
CALIFORNIA INTEMODAL ASSOCIATES
DOES 1 TO 100
ARENAS PAUL B.
MASTROIANNI A. DOUGLAS ESQ.
MASTROIANNI ALBERT DOUGLAS ESQ.
MURAMOTO EDWARD
BIREN MATTHEW B.F.
REINHOLTZ JACK R. ESQ.
3/4/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND RELATED MOTION/ DISCOVERY DEADLINES
12/26/2019: Association of Attorney
12/27/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION REQUESTING 120- DAY CONTINUAN...)
11/20/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL PMK DEPOSITION; ...) OF 11/20/2019
7/1/2019: Notice of Ruling
6/7/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
5/23/2019: Notice of Ruling
5/21/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO FORM INT...)
4/23/2019: Notice of Ruling
3/22/2019: Notice of Ruling
2/4/2019: Motion to Compel - Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S, JOEY VILLAREAL, RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS A
2/6/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED...)
5/2/2018: Substitution of Attorney -
7/31/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION; MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S, JOEY VILLAREAL, RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS;
3/9/2017: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEE DEPOSIT
3/9/2017: COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
3/28/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -
6/9/2017: AFFIDAVIT OF DUE DILIGENCE
Hearing09/09/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial
Hearing08/26/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5; (OSC RE Dismissal) - Not Held - Vacated by Court
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Joey Villareal (Plaintiff)
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Continue Trial, Final Status Conference and Related Motion/ Discovery Deadlines) - Held - Motion Granted
DocketEx Parte Application (to Continue Trial, Final Status Conference and Related Motion/ Discovery Deadlines); Filed by Joey Villareal (Plaintiff)
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial, Final Stat...)); Filed by Clerk
Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 5; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC)
DocketNotice; Filed by Joey Villareal (Plaintiff)
DocketNOTICE OF ERRATA CORRECTING THE CAPTION PAGE OF THE COMPLAINT AND ATTACHING CORRECTED CAPTION PAGE
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Joey Villareal (Plaintiff)
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
DocketReceipt; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner
DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT
DocketSUMMONS
DocketComplaint; Filed by Joey Villareal (Plaintiff)
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
DocketDEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEE DEPOSIT
Case Number: BC652938 Hearing Date: November 20, 2019 Dept: 5
|
joey villareal,
Plaintiff, v.
victor fragoza, et al.,
Defendants. |
Case No.: BC652938
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