This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/17/2021 at 04:14:00 (UTC).

JOSE JIMENEZ ET AL VS NAYELI JAZMIN SALDANA VERDUZCO ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/07/2018 JOSE JIMENEZ filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against NAYELI JAZMIN SALDANA VERDUZCO. 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, THOMAS D. LONG and CHARLES C. LEE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7261

  • Filing Date:

    03/07/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

JON R. TAKASUGI

HOLLY E. KENDIG

THOMAS D. LONG

CHARLES C. LEE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

CABRERA SERGIO

JIMENEZ JOSE

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Defendants

DOES 1 TO 10 INCLUSIVE

VERDUZCO NAYELI JAZMIN SALDANA

GLAZE AMY LYNN

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff

GLAZE AMY LYNN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

KSACHUKYAN VARDAN ESQ.

MOSS ARI EMANUEL

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

REEVES SHERYL LEE ESQ.

GATES PETER JOHN ESQ.

GATES GONTER GUY PROUDFOOT & MUENCH LLP

GATES PETER J.

Defendant and Cross Defendant Attorney

GATES PETER J.

 

Court Documents

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF SERGIO CABRERAS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES RE SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECO

5/14/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF SERGIO CABRERAS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES RE SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECO

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES)

5/27/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES)

Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

3/24/2021: Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Association of Attorney

1/27/2020: Association of Attorney

Proof of Service Not Plaintiffs / Defendants Claim

2/13/2020: Proof of Service Not Plaintiffs / Defendants Claim

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE HEARING ON MOTION ...)

2/14/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE HEARING ON MOTION ...)

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT; DECLARATION OF PETER J. GATES

2/21/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT; DECLARATION OF PETER J. GATES

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT ...)

3/3/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT ...)

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER 7: TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OR ADVNCE THEORIES OF DEFENSE NOT PREVIOUSLY DISCLOSED

3/5/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER 7: TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OR ADVNCE THEORIES OF DEFENSE NOT PREVIOUSLY DISCLOSED

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER 4: TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF ANY CIVIL CLAIMS AGAINST DR. GREWAL

3/5/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER 4: TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF ANY CIVIL CLAIMS AGAINST DR. GREWAL

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE 4 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF'S UNPAID MEDICAL BILLINGS

3/9/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE 4 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF'S UNPAID MEDICAL BILLINGS

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE 5 FOR ORDER PRECLUDING IRRELEVANT AND PREJUDICIAL QUESTIONING OR TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE EXPERT DR. ROTHMAN

3/9/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE 5 FOR ORDER PRECLUDING IRRELEVANT AND PREJUDICIAL QUESTIONING OR TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE EXPERT DR. ROTHMAN

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

3/10/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATE; DECLARATION OF VINCENT H. BRUNELLO IN SUPPORT

3/16/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATE; DECLARATION OF VINCENT H. BRUNELLO IN SUPPORT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW)

3/23/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW)

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

5/30/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

6/20/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Summons on Cross Complaint -

6/20/2018: Summons on Cross Complaint -

56 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/09/2021
  • Hearing11/09/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2021
  • Hearing10/26/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 31, Charles C. Lee, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2021
  • DocketNotice (Joint Statement); Filed by Sergio Cabrera (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2021
  • Docketat 11:30 AM in Department 31, Charles C. Lee, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling (Re OSC Re Dismissal); Filed by Amy Lynn Glaze (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2021
  • DocketInformal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts; Filed by Nayeli Jazmin Saldana Verduzco (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 31, Charles C. Lee, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
82 More Docket Entries
  • 06/20/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Amy Lynn Glaze (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Nayeli Jazmin Saldana Verduzco (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2018
  • DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jose Jimenez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jose Jimenez (Plaintiff); Sergio Cabrera (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Jose Jimenez (Plaintiff); Sergio Cabrera (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Jose Jimenez (Plaintiff); Sergio Cabrera (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: BC697261 Hearing Date: July 14, 2021 Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

JOSE JIMENEZ, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

NAYELI JAZMIN SALDANA VERDUZCO, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC697261

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

Dept. 31

10:00 a.m.

July 14, 2021

Plaintiff, Sergio Cabrera filed this Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, set one, on May 4, 2021. On June 9, 2021, the parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”). The parties appeared at the IDC, and the court issued the following order: “The Court orders the parties to meet and confer to see if the dispute can be narrowed and to explain any partial resolution to the Court in a joint statement (due seven calendar days prior to the hearing) on the motion or to take the motion off calendar if all issues are resolved.” (Min. Order June 9, 2021.)

As of July 8, 2021, Plaintiff has not taken the motion off-calendar, but no joint statement concerning the discovery has been filed. The Court is hopeful that the parties have resolved their dispute and intend to take the motions to compel off calendar. If the parties have not resolved their dispute, they must appear at the hearing on the motions and be prepared to discuss any remaining outstanding issues.

Plaintiff 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 14th day of July, 2021

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

'

Case Number: BC697261    Hearing Date: May 27, 2021    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

JOSE JIMENEZ, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

NAYELI JAZMIN SALDANA VERDUZCO, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC697261

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: HEARING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER

Dept. 31

10:00 a.m.

May 27, 2021

 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is premature and will be continued to a new date as set forth below.  The parties are ordered to participate in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) as required by the Court’s Standing Order Re: PI Court Procedures, which is available on the LA Superior Court’s website, under the Personal Injury section.

If the above date is not convenient for the parties and/or an IDC cannot be scheduled, for whatever reason, within the necessary time period, Moving Party must use the online reservation system to promptly continue the hearing on the motion to a date at least two weeks after the IDC.  The court is hopeful the hearing on the MTCF will not be necessary.  If the parties are unable to resolve all outstanding issues at the IDC, the parties must submit a joint statement of items in dispute at least two weeks prior to the continued hearing date.  The joint statement must be a single document, with analysis by both parties, addressing each remaining issue.

Plaintiff 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.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.  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 27th day of May, 2021

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC697261    Hearing Date: March 03, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

JOSE JIMENEZ, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

NAYELI JAZMIN SALDANA VERDUZCO, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC697261

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

March 3, 2020

1. Background Facts

Plaintiffs, Jose Jimenez and Sergio Cabrera filed this action against Defendants, Nayeli Jazmin Saldana Verduzco and Amy Lynn Glaze for damages arising out of a three-car accident. Verduzco was turning left when the accident occurred. Traffic traveling in the other direction was stopped and was permitting her to turn. Glaze was proceeding in the bike lane at a high rate of speed, while on a cell phone, and failed to stop. Verduzco struck Glaze, who in turn struck Plaintiffs.

2. Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

a. Parties’ Positions

Plaintiffs have agreed to settle all claims with Glaze for the total amount of $30,000 ($15,000/plaintiff), which is the limit on her insurance policy. Plaintiffs seek an order finding the settlement in good faith. Plaintiffs base their motion on the contention that the settlement is a policy limits settlement, and Glaze has no other assets from which to satisfy a judgment against her.

Verduzco opposes the motion, contending (a) Glaze is primarily at fault for the accident, (b) Plaintiffs’ special damages exceed $200,000 each, and (c) Glaze has not shown that she is insolvent.

Per the Court’s 2/12/20 ex parte order, no reply papers are permitted, and none were filed.

  1. Analysis

Pursuant to Aero-Crete, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 203, 208-209, any amount paid by an insolvent defendant is likely a good faith settlement. Pursuant to Schmid v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1244, 1249, when an insolvent defendant offers his policy limits in settlement, the settlement is necessarily in good faith. Glaze argues her settlement is necessarily in good faith because she has offered her policy limit, and she has no other assets from which to satisfy a judgment against her.

Verduzco correctly notes, in opposition to the motion, that the evidence submitted with the moving papers is insufficient to reach this conclusion. Glaze declares, at ¶5 of her declaration, that the $30,000 settlement represents the only insurance available in connection with the complaint. She declares, at ¶6, “Other than my insurance policy through Infinity, I am unable to pay any money towards settlement of this matter or towards the satisfaction of any judgment that may be obtained by plaintiffs.” This is not even close to the evidence that was submitted in the cases relied upon by Plaintiffs in their moving papers. Those cases included a specific review of the parties’ assets, bank accounts, and income. Glaze has not provided any specific information in any of the above regards. Notably, Verduzco provides evidence, in opposition to the motion, that Glaze is employed as a nurse.

Plaintiffs failed to meet their moving burden to show Glaze is insolvent, and therefore the motion for determination of good faith settlement is denied. The Court notes that the motion does not attempt to make a showing of the Tech-Bilt factors, which showing would be necessary if the motion did not rest entirely on Glaze’s purported financial condition.

Plaintiffs are 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.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer REEVES SHERYL LEE