Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/25/2019 at 05:23:56 (UTC).

JOSHUA HAUPTMANN VS JUAN OLIVERA ET AL

Case Summary

On 09/29/2017 JOSHUA HAUPTMANN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against JUAN OLIVERA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA A. SEIGLE and AMY D. HOGUE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7630

  • Filing Date:

    09/29/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LAURA A. SEIGLE

AMY D. HOGUE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

HAUPTMANN JOSHUA

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 25

COCIUBAN DOREL

OLIVERA JUAN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

CARPENTER ZUCKERMAN & ROWLEY LLP

STIEGLER AARON ROBERT

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

GONTER JR. K. ROBERT ESQ

GARDNER ROBERT JOHN

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM NAME

8/24/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM NAME

Request for Judicial Notice

10/26/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

10/26/2018: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Ex Parte Application

2/21/2019: Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

2/21/2019: Minute Order

Opposition

2/21/2019: Opposition

Unknown

2/26/2019: Unknown

Notice

4/19/2019: Notice

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

4/19/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

12/5/2017: DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Unknown

12/5/2017: Unknown

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

12/5/2017: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

12/5/2017: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

11/14/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

10/19/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

SUMMONS

9/29/2017: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

9/29/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

5 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/19/2019
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Carpenter, Zuckerman & Rowley, LLP (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • Notice (OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY); Filed by Joshua Hauptmann (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2019
  • Notice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by Joshua Hauptmann (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for an order to continue the final status conference and trial) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2019
  • Opposition (PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUING THE TRIAL DATE ALL RELATED DATES); Filed by Joshua Hauptmann (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for an order to continue the ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (For an Order to Continue Trial); Filed by Juan Olivera (Defendant); Dorel Cociuban (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 7, Amy D. Hogue, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (to Special Interrogatories) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
10 More Docket Entries
  • 12/05/2017
  • Notice; Filed by Juan Olivera (Defendant); Dorel Cociuban (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2017
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Juan Olivera (Defendant); Dorel Cociuban (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2017
  • Receipt; Filed by Juan Olivera (Defendant); Dorel Cociuban (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Joshua Hauptmann (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Joshua Hauptmann (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Joshua Hauptmann (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC677630    Hearing Date: September 29, 2020    Dept: C

HAUPTMANN v. OLIVERA, et al.

CASE NO.: BC677630

HEARING: 9/29/20

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

[Remote appearances are encouraged and will be given priority.]

#4

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendants Olivera and Cociuban’s motion to compel a second deposition of Plaintiff is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to appear at the second deposition.

Moving Parties to give NOTICE.

Defendants Olivera and Cociuban move to compel a second deposition of Plaintiff pursuant to CCP § 2025.610(b).

For good cause shown, the court may grant leave to take a subsequent deposition. (CCP § 2025.610(b).)

Plaintiff was involved in a subsequent car accident, where he re-injured his neck.

In opposition, Plaintiff objects because Plaintiff may be deposed on similar topics by defense counsel in a separate lawsuit, Hauptmann v. De Leon. The Opposition does not cite any legal authority prohibiting a second deposition on this basis. By filing two separate lawsuits, Plaintiff has opened himself up to the likelihood of multiple depositions.

Good cause having been shown, the court orders Plaintiff to attend a second deposition.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to appear at the second deposition.

Case Number: BC677630    Hearing Date: September 01, 2020    Dept: SEC

HAUPTMANN v. OLIVERA, et al.

CASE NO.: BC677630

HEARING: 9/1/20

[Remote appearances are encouraged and will be given priority.]

CALENDAR MATTER#6

TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Defendants Olivera and Cociuban’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff to provide verified further responses to Defendants’ supplemental interrogatories, set three is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified further responses to discovery within 15 days.

II. Defendants Olivera and Cociuban’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff to provide verified further responses to Defendants’ supplemental request for production of documents, set three is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified further responses to discovery within 15 days.

Moving Parties to give NOTICE.

Defendants Olivera and Cociuban move to compel further responses to supplemental interrogatories and supplemental request for production of documents, set three pursuant to CCP §§ 2030.300 and 2031.310.

CCP §§ 2030.300, 2031.310 allow a party to file a motion compelling further answers to interrogatories, document requests and request for admissions if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP §§ 2030.300(b); 2031.310(b).)

On 12/6/19, Defendants were informed by Plaintiff’s counsel that plaintiff was involved in a subsequent car accident, where he re-injured his neck. (Gardner Decl., Ex. D.) Plaintiff counsel advised that plaintiff was having daily neck pain after the new accident, which required him to take daily pain medications. (Id.) Plaintiff counsel also stated that plaintiff was going to see pain management specialist Sonny Rubin, M.D. to get another spinal injection in his neck. (Id.) Plaintiff was also planning on seeing "Dr. Jung". (Id.)

As a result of this new injury, Defendants propounded supplemental interrogatories and document requests, but Plaintiff served unverified and incomplete responses that do not provide any information regarding Plaintiff’s injuries from the new accident.

Accordingly, the motions are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified further responses to discovery within 15 days.

Case Number: BC677630    Hearing Date: June 30, 2020    Dept: SEC

HAUPTMANN v. OLIVERA, et al.

CASE NO.: BC677630

HEARING: 6/30/20

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

#5

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendants Olivera and Cociuban’s unopposed motion to re-open discovery to allow the court to hear and rule on Defendants’ motions to compel further responses is GRANTED.

Moving Parties to give NOTICE.

Defendants Olivera and Cociuban move to re-open discovery pursuant to CCP § 2024.050.

On motion of any party, the court may allow discovery proceedings to be completed, or a discovery motion to be heard, after the “cut-off” dates above; or, it may reopen discovery after the trial has been continued to a new date. (CCP § 2024.050(a); see Pelton Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1588.) The motion should be accompanied by

declarations covering the factors identified below, plus facts showing “a reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the matter informally. (CCP 2024.050(a).)

In exercising its discretion to grant or deny the motion, the court must take into consideration any relevant matter, including the following: the necessity and reasons for the additional discovery sought; the diligence or lack of diligence by the party seeking discovery, and the reasons why the discovery was not completed or the discovery motion heard earlier; whether permitting the discovery or granting the discovery motion will likely prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar or prejudice any party; and the length of time elapsed between any date previously set and the date presently set for trial. (CCP § 2024.050(b); see Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1351–1352.)

The court finds Defendants have established diligence in seeking discovery. The discovery at issue concerns information relating to Plaintiff’s subsequent car accident where Plaintiff re-injured his neck. Plaintiff’s Supplemental Discovery responses do not reference the new accident and do not contain any new medical records. (Gardner Decl., ¶ 8.) Additionally, Plaintiff failed to make himself available for a second deposition to discuss the new injuries.

The court finds that good cause exists to re-open discovery based on these new facts. Accordingly, discovery will be re-opened to allow the court to hear Defendants’ motions to compel further discovery responses and to order a second session of Plaintiff’s deposition.

Motion is GRANTED.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer GONTER K. ROBERT