This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/11/2021 at 00:30:01 (UTC).

JOSE C. VILLA VS MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

Case Summary

On 03/08/2018 JOSE C VILLA filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against MARTIN LUTHER KING JR COMMUNITY HOSPITAL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JON R. TAKASUGI, HOLLY E. KENDIG and THOMAS D. LONG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7276

  • Filing Date:

    03/08/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

JON R. TAKASUGI

HOLLY E. KENDIG

THOMAS D. LONG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

VILLA JOSE C.

Defendants and Respondents

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

DOES 1 TO 30

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

SANCHEZ MICHAEL A.

Defendant Attorneys

DIAMOND & DRAGOJEVIC LLP

DIAMOND SCOTT RORY

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling

3/10/2021: Notice of Ruling

Motion for Terminating Sanctions

10/16/2020: Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE

10/23/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND COURT TRIAL) OF 04/23/2020

4/23/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND COURT TRIAL) OF 04/23/2020

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT, MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. COMMUNITY HOSPITALS FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE); REQUEST FOR M

1/13/2020: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT, MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. COMMUNITY HOSPITALS FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE); REQUEST FOR M

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING DATE FOR DEFENDANT, MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. COMMUNITY HOSPITALS MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) AND SPEC

2/4/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING DATE FOR DEFENDANT, MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. COMMUNITY HOSPITALS MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) AND SPEC

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL; ORDER TO SHOW CA...)

10/31/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL; ORDER TO SHOW CA...)

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

10/10/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

10/3/2019: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Proof of Service by Mail

10/3/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement)

8/21/2019: Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement)

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

6/20/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

7/19/2018: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

7/19/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

7/19/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

CoverSheet -

3/8/2018: CoverSheet -

Summons -

3/8/2018: Summons -

Complaint -

3/8/2018: Complaint -

18 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/10/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 3, Holly E. Kendig, Presiding; (OSC RE Dismissal) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Continuance of Trial Setting Conference); Filed by Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2020
  • DocketMotion for Terminating Sanctions; Filed by Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
28 More Docket Entries
  • 07/19/2018
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2018
  • DocketDEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2018
  • DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2018
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jose C. Villa (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Jose C. Villa (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Jose C. Villa (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC697276    Hearing Date: March 9, 2021    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

JOSE C. VILLA,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC697276

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

March 9, 2021

  1. Background

    Plaintiff, Jose C. Villa (“plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant, Martin Luther King Jr Community Hospital (“Defendant”) for premises liability.

  2. Motion for Terminating Sanctions

    Defendant moves for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint because of Plaintiff’s misuse of the discovery process by failing to serve responses to initial discovery and failing to comply with the court’s 2/25/20 order pertaining to Defendant’s motion to compel initial responses to the subject discovery. Defendant further requests monetary sanctions of $707.50 against Plaintiff.

    Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030 gives the court the discretion to impose sanctions against anyone engaging in a misuse of the discovery process. A court may impose terminating sanctions by striking pleadings of the party engaged in misuse of discovery or entering default judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(d).) A violation of a discovery order is sufficient for the imposition of terminating sanctions. (Collison & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1620.) Terminating sanctions are appropriate when a party persists in disobeying the court's orders. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 795-796.)

    A terminating sanction is a "drastic measure which should be employed with caution." (Deyo, 84 Cal.App.3d at 793.) "A decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction." (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-280.) While the court has discretion to impose terminating sanctions, these sanctions "should be appropriate to the dereliction and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery." (Deyo, 84 Cal.App.3d at 793.) "[A] court is empowered to apply the ultimate sanction against a litigant who persists in the outright refusal to comply with his discovery obligations." (Ibid.) Discovery sanctions are not to be imposed for punishment, but instead are used to encourage fair disclosure of discovery to prevent unfairness resulting for the lack of information. (See Midwife v. Bernal (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 57, 64 [superseded on other grounds as stated in Kohan v. Cohan (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 967, 971].)

    Here, Defendant submits evidence showing Plaintiff has failed to comply with the discovery requests, and Plaintiff failed to comply with the previously imposed monetary sanctions. Moreover, a brief review of the prior motion reveals that the discovery at issue goes to the crux of Plaintiff’s claim, and therefore an issue or evidentiary sanction would be tantamount to a terminating sanction. Further, Plaintiff does not oppose this motion and appears to have abandoned the case.

    Based on the foregoing, terminating sanctions are imposed at this time.

    Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. However, the Court finds imposition of terminating sanctions sufficient to meet the ends of justice at this time and does not find imposition of additional monetary sanctions necessary.

    Defendant is ordered to give notice.

    Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@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 remotely.

    Dated this 9th day of March, 2021

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC697276    Hearing Date: February 25, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

JOSE C. VILLA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. COMMUNITY HOSPITAL and DOES 1 to 30,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC697276

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED

MOTION TO COMPEL

SS Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

February 25, 2020

Defendant Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories is Granted.  Plaintiff Jose Villa is ordered to serve verified responses to the outstanding discovery, without objections, within fifteen days.  Defendant’s request for sanctions is granted in the amount of $337.50.  Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the amount of $337.50, within twenty days.

Defendant propounded form interrogatories and special interrogatories on Plaintiff on July 19, 2019. (Diamond Decl. ¶ 3, Exhs. B, C.) After Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was granted on October 31, 2019, Defendant wrote a letter directly to Plaintiff regarding the outstanding discovery requests. (Id. at ¶ 4, Exh. D.) As of January 13, 2020, Plaintiff has not served responses. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Defendant therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions.

Defendant’s motion to compel is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to form interrogatories and special interrogatories, without objections, within fifteen days. CCP §2030.290(a),(b)

Sanctions are mandatory. CCP §§2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).  Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $925.00. The Court finds 1 hour to prepare this motion to compel is reasonably sufficient to compensate Defendant. The Court awards 0.5 hour to appear at the hearing on the motion. The Court therefore awards a total of 1.5 hours of attorney time at $185.00/hour (See Diamond Decl. ¶ 5 [stating hourly rate is $185].), or $277.50 in attorneys’ fees. The Court also awards one filing fees of $60 in costs.  Sanctions are sought against and awarded against Plaintiff.

Dated this 25th day of February, 2020

Hon. Jon Takasugi

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at SSCDEPT31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.orgIf 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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

JOSE C. VILLA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. COMMUNITY HOSPITAL and DOES 1 to 30,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC697276

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED

MOTION TO DEEM RFA ADMITTED

SS Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

February 25, 2020

Defendant Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted is Granted.  Defendant’s RFA, Set One, is deemed admitted against Plaintiff Jose Villa.  Defendant’s request for sanctions is granted in the amount of $337.50.  Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the amount of $337.50, within twenty days.

Defendant served requests for admission, set one, on Plaintiff on November 20, 2019. (Diamond Decl. ¶ 3, Exhs. B.) As of January 13, 2020, Plaintiff has not served responses. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Defendant therefore seeks an order deeming the requests for admissions admitted against Plaintiff and requiring Plaintiff to pay sanctions.

Defendant’s motion to deem requests for admissions admitted is granted. Defendant’s request for admissions, set one, is deemed admitted against Plaintiff. CCP §2033.280(b)

Sanctions are mandatory. CCP §§2033.280(c) Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $925.00. The Court finds 1 hour to prepare this motion is reasonably sufficient to compensate Defendant. The Court awards 0.5 hour to appear at the hearing on the motion. The Court therefore awards a total of 1.5 hours of attorney time at $185.00/hour (See Diamond Decl. ¶ 5 [stating hourly rate is $185].), or $277.50 in attorneys’ fees. The Court also awards one filing fee of $60 in costs. Sanctions are sought against and awarded against Plaintiff.

Dated this 25th day of February, 2020

Hon. Jon Takasugi

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at SSCDEPT31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.orgIf 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.

Case Number: BC697276    Hearing Date: October 31, 2019    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

JOSE C. VILLA,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. HOSPITAL, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC697276

[TENTATIVE] ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

October 31, 2019

Plaintiff’s attorney of record, Michael A. Sanchez, seeks to be relieved as counsel, contending there has been an irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship such that further representation is not possible. Counsel declares he served the moving papers on his client via mail at a confirmed address. Counsel has filed proof of service on his client and on all other parties who have appeared in the action.

The Court’s only concern with the motion is the fact that there is an OSC re: dismissal (settlement) on calendar contemporaneously with the motion to be relieved. The Court will rule on the OSC BEFORE it rules on the motion. Plaintiff’s attorney must appear at the hearing and be prepared, in camera if necessary, to explain the status of the settlement so the Court can determine how to rule on the OSC.

Assuming the motion is granted, the ruling will be effective upon filing proof of service of the final order.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where VILLA JOSE is a litigant

Latest cases where MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. COMMUNITY HOSPITAL is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer DIAMOND SCOTT RORY