This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/16/2023 at 04:34:45 (UTC).

JOSE NOE CASTILLO VS EL POTRERO CLUB, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 02/19/2019 JOSE NOE CASTILLO filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against EL POTRERO CLUB,. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MICHAEL E. WHITAKER and STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******5881

  • Filing Date:

    02/19/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MICHAEL E. WHITAKER

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

CASTILLO JOSE NOE

Cross Defendants and Defendants

OCHIN SECURITY PATROL

POTRERO NIGHTCLUB

CONTRERAS PEDRO

EL POTRERO CLUB

SALAMANCA MARINA A.

EL POTRERO CLUB CUDAHY

POTRERO CLUB

SARAY ANTONIO CHINCHILLA

EL POTRERO NIGHTCLUB

Cross Plaintiff and Defendant

POTRERO CLUB

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

DAVIS VINCENT WALTER

4218 Firestone Blvd

South Gate, CA 90280

Defendant Attorney

PENNINGTON AMY KRISTINE

 

Court Documents

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

1/5/2023: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

1/5/2023: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

12/23/2022: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

12/23/2022: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

12/23/2022: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

12/23/2022: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice of Change of Handling Attorney

12/8/2022: Notice of Change of Handling Attorney

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO ENTER DEFAUL...)

10/14/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO ENTER DEFAUL...)

Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment

10/13/2022: Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

10/13/2022: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment

10/13/2022: Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment

Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment

10/13/2022: Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment

Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment

10/13/2022: Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment

Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment

10/13/2022: Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment

Proof of Service by Mail

10/13/2022: Proof of Service by Mail

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

10/13/2022: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

10/13/2022: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Proof of Service by Mail

10/13/2022: Proof of Service by Mail

104 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/10/2023
  • Hearing07/10/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/26/2023
  • Hearing06/26/2023 at 10:00 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/05/2023
  • DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by: Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/05/2023
  • DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by: Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/23/2022
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by: Potrero, Inc. (Erroneously sued and served as El Potrero Club; Potrero Club; El Potrero Nightclub; El Potrero Club Cudahy; and Potrero Nightclub Erroneously Sued As POTRERO CLUB (Cross-Complainant); As to: OCHIN SECURITY PATROL (Cross-Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/23/2022
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by: Potrero, Inc. (Erroneously sued and served as El Potrero Club; Potrero Club; El Potrero Nightclub; El Potrero Club Cudahy; and Potrero Nightclub Erroneously Sued As POTRERO CLUB (Cross-Complainant); As to: MARINA A. SALAMANCA (Cross-Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/23/2022
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by: Potrero, Inc. (Erroneously sued and served as El Potrero Club; Potrero Club; El Potrero Nightclub; El Potrero Club Cudahy; and Potrero Nightclub Erroneously Sued As POTRERO CLUB (Cross-Complainant); As to: PEDRO CONTRERAS (Cross-Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/23/2022
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by: Potrero, Inc. (Erroneously sued and served as El Potrero Club; Potrero Club; El Potrero Nightclub; El Potrero Club Cudahy; and Potrero Nightclub Erroneously Sued As POTRERO CLUB (Cross-Complainant); As to: ANTONIO CHINCHILLA SARAY (Cross-Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/08/2022
  • DocketNotice of Change of Handling Attorney; Filed by: Potrero, Inc. (Erroneously sued and served as El Potrero Club; Potrero Club; El Potrero Nightclub; El Potrero Club Cudahy; and Potrero Nightclub Erroneously Sued As POTRERO CLUB (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/14/2022
  • DocketFinal Status Conference scheduled for 06/26/2023 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 32

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
190 More Docket Entries
  • 02/26/2019
  • DocketUpdated -- Request to Waive Court Fees: Result Date changed from 02/26/2019 to 02/26/2019

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/22/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Stephen I. Goorvitch in Department 5 Spring Street Courthouse

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/22/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: JOSE NOE CASTILLO (Plaintiff); As to: EL POTRERO CLUB (Defendant); POTRERO CLUB (Defendant); EL POTRERO NIGHTCLUB (Defendant) et al.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/22/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: JOSE NOE CASTILLO (Plaintiff); As to: EL POTRERO CLUB (Defendant); POTRERO CLUB (Defendant); EL POTRERO NIGHTCLUB (Defendant) et al.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/22/2019
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: JOSE NOE CASTILLO (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/22/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/22/2019
  • DocketFinal Status Conference scheduled for 08/07/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 5

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/22/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/21/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 5

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/22/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal scheduled for 02/18/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 5

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/19/2019
  • DocketUpdated -- Request to Waive Court Fees: Status Date changed from 02/22/2019 to 02/19/2019

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******5881 Hearing Date: June 8, 2022 Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE: Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit. The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling. If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged). Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.

TENTATIVE RULING

DEPARTMENT

32

HEARING DATE

June 8, 2022

CASE NUMBER

*******5881

MOTION

Motion for Order Nunc Pro Tunc Correcting Filing Date

MOVING PARTY

Plaintiff Jose Noe Castillo

OPPOSING PARTY

None

MOTION

Plaintiff Jose Noe Castillo moves for an order nunc pro tunc correcting the filing date of Plaintiff’s complaint. The motion is unopposed.

ANALYSIS

The Court has inherent authority to enter retroactive orders. (See Scalice v. Performance Cleaning Systems (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 221, 238-239.) A request for a retroactive order “is to be granted or refused as justice may require in view of the circumstances of a particular case.” (Young v. Gardner-Denver Co. (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 915, 919.)

Here, Plaintiff advances the declaration of Xiomara Varela (“Varela”), who is the custodian of records for Southgate, which works for Plaintiff’s counsel of record. Varela states she e-filed Plaintiff’s complaint and cover sheet in this action through One Legal on February 19, 2019. (Declaration of Xiomara Varela, 3.) Varela states she then received confirmation from One Legal that the Court had received the filing and would reflect the filing date of February 19, 2019. (Declaration of Xiomara Varela, 5; Exhibit A.) Plaintiff thus argues correction of the filing date from February 22, 2019, to February 19, 2019, is proper because Plaintiff timely presented his complaint to the Clerk of the Court for filing during business hours on February 19, 2019, and, consequently, Plaintiff’s action commenced on that date, i.e., within the statute of limitations. (See Carlson v. Department of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal.app.4th 1268, 1270-1274; United Farm Workers of America v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board (1985) 37 Cal.3d 912, 918 [for purposes of the statute of limitations, “filing” means delivery to the clerk during business hours].) Accordingly, the Court grants the motion.

Plaintiff shall give notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of the same.



b'

Case Number: *******5881 Hearing Date: August 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

August 20, 2021

CASE NUMBER

*******5881

MOTION

Motion for Order Nunc Pro Tunc Correcting Filing Date

MOVING PARTY

Plaintiff Jose Noe Castillo

OPPOSING PARTY

None

MOTION

Plaintiff Jose Noe Castillo (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order nunc pro tunc correcting the filing date of Plaintiff’s complaint. Defendants El Potrero Club, Potrero Club, El Potrero Nightclub, El Potrero Club Cudahy, Potrero Nightclub, Ochin Security Patrol, Pedro Contreras, Antonio Chinchilla Saray, and Marina A. Salamanca have not filed an opposition to the motion.

ANALYSIS

The Court has inherent authority to enter retroactive orders. (See Scalice v. Performance Cleaning Systems (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 221, 238-239.) A request for a retroactive order “is to be granted or refused as justice may require in view of the circumstances of a particular case.” (Young v. Gardner-Denver Co. (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 915, 919.)

Here, the Court finds Plaintiff has not submitted sufficient, competent evidence in support of the motion. Plaintiff relies on the Declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, Vincent W. Davis (“Counsel”). Plaintiff has not provided an adequate foundation for Exhibit A to Counsel’s declaration. (Evid. Code, ; 1401.) With respect to the filing of complaint on February 19, 2019, Counsel’s declaration relies on inadmissible hearsay. (Evid. Code, ; 1200, subd. (a).)

Accordingly, the Court denies the motion without prejudice. Plaintiff shall give notice of the Court’s ruling and file proof of service of the same.

'


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where EL POTRERO CLUB is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer DAVIS VINCENT WALTER