Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/06/2019 at 01:21:05 (UTC).

JUAN PEREZ VS AZER ERANA ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/17/2017 JUAN PEREZ filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against AZER ERANA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4106

  • Filing Date:

    11/17/2017

  • 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 Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

PEREZ JUAN

Defendants and Respondents

ERANA AZER

ERANA MARY ANN

DOES 1 TO 50

ERANA REYMOND

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

TAMARI BOBBY

MCELROY STEPHEN K.

DOWELL JOSHUA M.

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

BILBREW LARRY P. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER DIRECTING THAT TILE DEPOSITIONS OF MARY ANN ERANA AND REYMOND ERANA NOT BE TAKEN AT ALL OR, ALTERNATIVELY, THAT TI IE DEPOSITIONS BE LIMITED AND FOR

8/9/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER DIRECTING THAT TILE DEPOSITIONS OF MARY ANN ERANA AND REYMOND ERANA NOT BE TAKEN AT ALL OR, ALTERNATIVELY, THAT TI IE DEPOSITIONS BE LIMITED AND FOR

Notice

10/10/2018: Notice

Minute Order

10/24/2018: Minute Order

Association of Attorney

3/29/2019: Association of Attorney

Minute Order

4/11/2019: Minute Order

Unknown

4/11/2019: Unknown

Motion in Limine

4/12/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

4/12/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

4/12/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

4/12/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

4/12/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

4/12/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

4/12/2019: Motion in Limine

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS AZER ERANA, MARY ANN ERANA AND REYMOND ERANA; ETC.

1/4/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS AZER ERANA, MARY ANN ERANA AND REYMOND ERANA; ETC.

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

12/11/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

12/11/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

12/11/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

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

11/17/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

8 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/17/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District) (- FSC: 08-19-19 Trial: 08-29-19); Filed by JUAN PEREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • Motion in Limine (Defendants' motion in limine no. 4 to exclude/preclude/prohibit plaintiff's use of/or argument re the golden rule; declaration of larry p. bilbrew); Filed by AZER ERANA (Defendant); MARY ANN ERANA (Defendant); REYMOND ERANA (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • Motion in Limine (Defendants' motion in limine no. 6 to preclude all parties from showing exhibits by powerpoint or video without obtaining consent of the court and permitting all other parties to view and object; declaration of larry p. bilbrew); Filed by AZER ERANA (Defendant); MARY ANN ERANA (Defendant); REYMOND ERANA (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • Motion in Limine (Defendants' Motion in limine no. 3 for an order prohibiting plaintiff from arguing/imposing an improper standard of care); Filed by AZER ERANA (Defendant); MARY ANN ERANA (Defendant); REYMOND ERANA (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • Motion in Limine (Defendants' motion in limine no. 8 for order prohibiting plaintiff from introducing evidence, testimony or reference to draft made out to plaintiff from state farm mutual automobile insurance company; declarations of Todd Bose and Larry P. Bilbrew); Filed by AZER ERANA (Defendant); MARY ANN ERANA (Defendant); REYMOND ERANA (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • Motion in Limine (Defendants' Motion in limine no. 7 for an order prohibiting plaintiff from introducing evidence of or referring to witnesses or documents not indentified or produced during pre-trial discovery; declaration of larry p. bilbrew); Filed by AZER ERANA (Defendant); MARY ANN ERANA (Defendant); REYMOND ERANA (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • Motion in Limine (Defendants' Motion in Limine no. 2 to Exclude/preclude/prohibit evidence of medical expenses other than the rate negotiated by plaintiff's insurance company; declaration of larry p. bilbrew); Filed by AZER ERANA (Defendant); MARY ANN ERANA (Defendant); REYMOND ERANA (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
13 More Docket Entries
  • 01/04/2018
  • Answer; Filed by AZER ERANA (Defendant); MARY ANN ERANA (Defendant); REYMOND ERANA (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by JUAN PEREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by JUAN PEREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by JUAN PEREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by JUAN PEREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC684106    Hearing Date: September 17, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

Juan Perez,

Plaintiff,

v.

AZER ERANA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC684106

Hearing Date: September 17, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

plaintiff’s motion to set aside dismissal

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Juan Perez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on November 17, 2017, following a motor vehicle collision with Defendants’ vehicle. The Court dismissed the case on the trial date, per Code of Civil Procedure section 581(b)(5). Now, Plaintiff seeks to set aside that dismissal. The Court grants the motion on the condition that Plaintiff pay Defendant’s reasonable attorney’s fees as a result of his conduct.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff allegedly was involved in a motor vehicle collision on August 3, 2016. Then, Plaintiff filed this action on November 17, 2017. The Court set an initial trial date of May 17, 2019. The parties stipulated to continue that trial date to August 29, 2019. Then, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to continue the trial date yet again. The Court granted that application and continued the trial date to October 21, 2019.

The Court held a final status conference on October 7, 2019. Defendant prepared the required trial documents in advance of trial. However, Plaintiff was unprepared for trial, in violation of the Court’s standing order. Pursuant to the parties’ oral stipulation, the Court continued the final status conference to October 17, 2019. Plaintiff then filed yet another ex parte application to continue the trial date, which the Court granted. The Court set the new trial date for January 28, 2020.

On January 9, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to be relieved. The motion was set for hearing on February 13, 2020, so Plaintiff’s counsel filed an ex parte application to shorten time on the pending motion. At the hearing on the ex parte application, which was set for the same date as trial, Plaintiff’s counsel stated that he had lost all communication with his client, who left the area and had not responded to requests for updated contact information. Plaintiff’s counsel represented that nothing would result in Plaintiff appearing for trial. Therefore, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice, per Code of Civil Procedure section 581(b)(5).

LEGAL STANDARD

Per Code of Civil Procedure, section 473, subdivision (b), a court may “relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” The party must seek such relief “within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (Ibid.).) “[W]hen relief under section 473 is available, there is a strong public policy in favor of granting relief and allowing the requesting party his or her day in court.” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 981-982, internal quotations omitted.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s counsel represents that on December 2, 2019, he called Plaintiff and spoke to someone claiming to be a family member. (Declaration of Bobby Tamari, ¶ 9.) The individual stated that Plaintiff had left the area with no plans to return. (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s counsel was unable to locate his client, so he believed that his client had abandoned the case. (Id., ¶ 12.) Plaintiff then heard from his client and learned that his client wishes to pursue this case, and that he does not know the individual who answered his old telephone number. (Id., ¶ 13.) This constitutes good cause to grant the motion.

However, the Court is authorized to grant the motion “upon any terms that may be just.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b).) Plaintiff provides no good cause for his failure to keep in touch with his counsel. Nor does Plaintiff provide any good cause for his failure to appear on the trial date. As a result, Plaintiff required Defendant’s counsel to expend time on this case which was wasted. Specifically, Defendant’s counsel had to prepare individual trial documents, rather than the joint trial documents required by the Court’s standing order. Defendant’s counsel had to appear at several failed status conferences. Finally, Defendant’s counsel had to file oppositions to Plaintiff’s ex parte applications. Therefore, the Court grants this motion on the condition that Plaintiff pay the reasonable attorney’s fees. The Court believes that a reasonable amount would be $3,000, based upon twelve (12) hours of attorney time at $250 per hour.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the dismissal on the condition that Plaintiff pay Defendant’s reasonable attorney’s fees of $3,000 in connection with having to prepare for, and attend, the failed status conferences. Plaintiff shall pay this amount with thirty (30) days by and through counsel. The Court sets an Order to Show Cause re: Payment of Sanctions or Dismissal or, in the alternative, a Trial Setting Conference for October 19, 2020, at 8:30 a.m.

DATED: September 17, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC684106    Hearing Date: September 03, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

Juan Perez,

Plaintiff,

v.

AZER ERANA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC684106

Hearing Date: September 3, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

plaintiff’s motion to set aside dismissal

NOTICE

Department #32 will be dark for motions.  The parties are ordered to email the Court’s clerk at SSCDept32@lacourt.org to inform the clerk whether they are submitting on the Court’s tentative or whether they are requesting a hearing.  If any party requests a hearing, one will be scheduled.  If the parties do not email the Court’s clerk before the hearing time to request a hearing, they will waive the right to be heard and shall submit to this tentative order, which shall issue.

TENTATIVE ORDER

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Juan Perez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on November 17, 2017, following a motor vehicle collision with Defendants’ vehicle. The Court dismissed the case on the trial date, per Code of Civil Procedure section 581(b)(5). Now, Plaintiff seeks to set aside that dismissal. The Court grants the motion on the condition that Plaintiff pay Defendant’s reasonable attorney’s fees as a result of his conduct.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff allegedly was involved in a motor vehicle collision on August 3, 2016. Then, Plaintiff filed this action on November 17, 2017. The Court set an initial trial date of May 17, 2019. The parties stipulated to continue that trial date to August 29, 2019. Then, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to continue the trial date yet again. The Court granted that application and continued the trial date to October 21, 2019.

The Court held a final status conference on October 7, 2019. Defendant prepared the required trial documents in advance of trial. However, Plaintiff was unprepared for trial, in violation of the Court’s standing order. Pursuant to the parties’ oral stipulation, the Court continued the final status conference to October 17, 2019. Plaintiff then filed yet another ex parte application to continue the trial date, which the Court granted. The Court set the new trial date for January 28, 2020.

On January 9, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to be relieved. The motion was set for hearing on February 13, 2020, so Plaintiff’s counsel filed an ex parte application to shorten time on the pending motion. At the hearing on the ex parte application, which was set for the same date as trial, Plaintiff’s counsel stated that he had lost all communication with his client, who left the area and had not responded to requests for updated contact information. Plaintiff’s counsel represented that nothing would result in Plaintiff appearing for trial. Therefore, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice, per Code of Civil Procedure section 581(b)(5).

LEGAL STANDARD

Per Code of Civil Procedure, section 473, subdivision (b), a court may “relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” The party must seek such relief “within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (Ibid.).) “[W]hen relief under section 473 is available, there is a strong public policy in favor of granting relief and allowing the requesting party his or her day in court.” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 981-982, internal quotations omitted.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s counsel represents that on December 2, 2019, he called Plaintiff and spoke to someone claiming to be a family member. (Declaration of Bobby Tamari, ¶ 9.) The individual stated that Plaintiff had left the area with no plans to return. (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s counsel was unable to locate his client, so he believed that his client had abandoned the case. (Id., ¶ 12.) Plaintiff then heard from his client and learned that his client wishes to pursue this case, and that he does not know the individual who answered his old telephone number. (Id., ¶ 13.) This constitutes good cause to grant the motion.

However, the Court is authorized to grant the motion “upon any terms that may be just.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b).) Plaintiff provides no good cause for his failure to keep in touch with his counsel. Nor does Plaintiff provide any good cause for his failure to appear on the trial date. As a result, Plaintiff required Defendant’s counsel to expend time on this case which was wasted. Specifically, Defendant’s counsel had to prepare individual trial documents, rather than the joint trial documents required by the Court’s standing order. Defendant’s counsel had to appear at several failed status conferences. Finally, Defendant’s counsel had to file oppositions to Plaintiff’s ex parte applications. Therefore, the Court grants this motion on the condition that Plaintiff pay the reasonable attorney’s fees. The Court believes that a reasonable amount would be $3,000, based upon twelve (12) hours of attorney time at $250 per hour.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the dismissal on the condition that Plaintiff pay Defendant’s reasonable attorney’s fees of $3,000 in connection with having to prepare for, and attend, the failed status conferences. Plaintiff shall pay this amount with thirty (30) days by and through counsel. The Court sets an Order to Show Cause re: Payment of Sanctions or Dismissal or, in the alternative, a Trial Setting Conference for October 19, 2020, at 8:30 a.m.

DATED: September 3, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer TAMARI BOBBY