Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/27/2021 at 00:55:31 (UTC).

KATHERINE ATCHISON VS ANDRE LENNOX ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/22/2017 KATHERINE ATCHISON filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ANDRE LENNOX. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARC D. GROSS, 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:

    ****4507

  • Filing Date:

    11/22/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MARC D. GROSS

JON R. TAKASUGI

HOLLY E. KENDIG

THOMAS D. LONG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

ATCHISON KATHERINE

Defendants and Respondents

LENNOX ANDRE

DOES 1 TO 100

LENNOX MONIQUE J.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

GEOULLA DANIEL D. ESQ.

GEOULLA DANIEL DANNY ESQ.

ROBERTS MATTHEW BENJAMIN

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

ROTH HEATHER ESQ.

ROTH HEATHER MICHELE ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE THAT HEARING ON MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PERSON MOST QUALIFIED, VANGUARD INTERVENTIONAL PAIN SPECIALISTS TO COMPLY WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUC

5/3/2021: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE THAT HEARING ON MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PERSON MOST QUALIFIED, VANGUARD INTERVENTIONAL PAIN SPECIALISTS TO COMPLY WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUC

Separate Statement

5/7/2021: Separate Statement

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL SITE INSPECTION

5/7/2021: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL SITE INSPECTION

Notice of Ruling

11/24/2020: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE DARK COURT AND RESCHEDULING MOTION HEARINGS.)

2/2/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE DARK COURT AND RESCHEDULING MOTION HEARINGS.)

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

3/4/2021: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER SETTING THE DEPOSITION COMPENSATION OF PLAINTIFF'S NON-RETAINED EXPERT DR. EDUARDO ANGUIZOLA, M.D.; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND A

10/21/2020: Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER SETTING THE DEPOSITION COMPENSATION OF PLAINTIFF'S NON-RETAINED EXPERT DR. EDUARDO ANGUIZOLA, M.D.; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND A

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 - INSURANCE

1/21/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 - INSURANCE

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 - REPTILE

1/21/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 - REPTILE

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

1/22/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Declaration - DECLARATION OF HEATHER ROTH

1/22/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF HEATHER ROTH

Notice of Rejection - Miscellaneous Judgments

1/15/2020: Notice of Rejection - Miscellaneous Judgments

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

9/23/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Order - ORDER RE EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

9/10/2019: Order - ORDER RE EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL TRIAL BASED DATES

9/10/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL TRIAL BASED DATES

Reply - Reply to Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Ruling

1/16/2019: Reply - Reply to Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Ruling

Opposition - Opposition OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DECEMBER 10, 2018 RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION

1/9/2019: Opposition - Opposition OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DECEMBER 10, 2018 RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS; ETC.;

8/17/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS; ETC.;

61 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/09/2021
  • Hearing08/09/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Motion to Compel Site Inspection

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2021
  • Hearing07/26/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2021
  • Hearing07/12/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2021
  • DocketDeclaration (Of Katrina Padua in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Permitting Plaintiff to Conduct Inspection of Defendant's Premises); Filed by KATHERINE ATCHISON (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2021
  • DocketSeparate Statement; Filed by KATHERINE ATCHISON (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2021
  • DocketMotion to Compel (FOR AN ORDER PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO ENTER UPON LAND AND CONDUCT INSPECTION OF DEFENDANT'S PREMISES; PLAINTIFF MOVES THIS COURT FOR MONET ARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT ANDRE LENNOX AND HIS COUNSEL IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,800.00); Filed by KATHERINE ATCHISON (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2021
  • DocketNotice (Notice that Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Person Most Qualified, Vanguard Interventional Pain Specialists to Comply with Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things Has Been Taken Off Calendar); Filed by ANDRE LENNOX (Defendant); MONIQUE J. LENNOX (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/28/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2021
  • DocketNotice (Notice that Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Person Most Qualified, Vanguard Interventional Pain Specialists to Comply with Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things and Request for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses); Filed by ANDRE LENNOX (Defendant); MONIQUE J. LENNOX (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
95 More Docket Entries
  • 08/17/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS; ETC.;

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS; AND ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2018
  • DocketMotion for an Order; Filed by ANDRE LENNOX (Defendant); MONIQUE J. LENNOX (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2018
  • DocketMotion for an Order; Filed by ANDRE LENNOX (Defendant); MONIQUE J. LENNOX (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2018
  • DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS ANDRE LENNOX; MONIQUE J. LENNOX; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by ANDRE LENNOX (Defendant); MONIQUE J. LENNOX (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by KATHERINE ATCHISON (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2017
  • DocketORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC684507    Hearing Date: March 11, 2021    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

KATHERINE ATCHISON,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

ANDRE LENNOX, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC684507

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR AN ORDER SETTING COMPENSATION OF DR. EDUARDO ANGUIZOLA, M.D.

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

March 11, 2021

 

  1. Background

    Plaintiff, Katherine Atchison (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants, Andre Lennox and Monique J. Lennox (collectively, “Defendants”) for injuries Plaintiff sustained after failing into a drained swimming pool on Defendants’ premises.

    On 10/21/20, Defendants filed the instant motion for an order setting compensation of Plaintiff’s non-retained expert Dr. Eduardo Anguizola, M.D. to sit for deposition. As of 3/5/21, no opposition has been received to the motion.

  2. Legal Standard

    A party seeking to depose an expert witness shall pay the expert’s reasonable and customary hourly or daily fee for any time spent. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2034.430, subd. (b).) If the party seeking to the take the deposition of an expert witness deems the hourly or daily fee of that expert to be unreasonable, that party may move for an order setting the compensation rate and notice of the motion shall be given to the expert. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2034.470, subd. (a).) The notice shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2034.470, subd. (b).)

    In any attempt at informal resolution, either the party or expert shall provide the other with: (1) proof of the ordinary and customary fee actually charged and received by that expert for similar services provided; (2) the total number of times the presently demanded fee has ever been charged and received by that expert; and (3) the frequency and regularity with which the presently demanded fee has been charged and received by that expert within the preceding two-year period. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2034.470, subds. (b)(1)-(3).)

    The expert or party designating the expert shall provide, and the court shall base its determination of the reasonableness of the demanded fee on, proof of the ordinary and customary fee actually charged and received by that expert for similar services, in addition to any other facts or evidence. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2034.470, subd. (c).)

    The court’s determination of a reasonable fee shall be based on both (1) the total number of times the presently demanded fee has ever been charged and received by that expert; and (2) the frequency and regularity with which the presently demanded fee has been charged and received by that expert within the preceding two-year period. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2034.470, subds. (d)(1)-(2).) “The court may also consider the ordinary and customary fees charged by similar experts for similar services within the relevant community and any other factors the court deems necessary and appropriate to make its determination.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2034.470, subd. (e).) Upon determination that the fee demanded is unreasonable, the court shall set the fee of the expert providing testimony. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2034.470, subd. (f).)

  3. Discussion

Defendants provide them met and conferred with Plaintiff’s non-retained expert Dr. Anguizola but was unable to resolve the matter. Defendants have served the moving papers on Plaintiff’s attorney and also on the expert. Any opposition to the motion was due on or before 2/26/21. The Court has not received any opposition to the motion.

In the absence of an opposition, Plaintiffs’ treating expert has clearly not shown justification for his stated fee of $300 for the first 15 minutes and $1,200/hour thereafter. The Court finds Defendants’ suggested $800/hour fee is reasonable and Defendants made the necessary showing, per the Code, to establish $800/hour is an appropriate fee in this case.

The motion to set the fee at $800/hour is therefore granted.

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 11th day of March, 2021

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC684507    Hearing Date: February 25, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

KATHERINE ATCHISON,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

ANDRE LENNOX, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC684507

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

February 25, 2020

Plaintiff’s attorney of record, Amir S. Salehi, Esq. (“Counsel”), seeks to be relieved as counsel, stating that he and Plaintiff Katherine Atchison (“Plaintiff”) have irreconcilable differences and a complete breakdown in attorney-client relations.  Counsel states that it previously provided information about the attorney-client relationship to the Court in camera at the January 17, 2020 hearing regarding the same motion.  At that time, the Court denied the motion on grounds that the hearing was unreasonably close to the original final status conference and trial dates set in February. Since then, the Court has granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue the final status conference to June 11, 2020, and the trial to June 25, 2020.

In compliance with CRC Rule 3.1362, Counsel properly filed forms MC-051 - Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, MC-052 – Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, and MC-053 – Proposed Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.  Counsel has also filed proof of service of the forms on his client and the interested parties in the matter.  Counsel has confirmed that Plaintiff’s address is current within the past 30 days by email.

The motion is unopposed and granted; the ruling is effective upon filing proof of service of the final order.  As trial is currently set for June 25, 2020, the Court finds that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by a granting of this motion.

Counsel is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@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. 

Case Number: BC684507    Hearing Date: January 17, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

KATHERINE ATCHISON,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

ANDRE LENNOX, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC684507

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

January 17, 2020

Plaintiff’s attorney of record, Amir S. Salehi moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff, Katherine Atchison. Counsel contends there has been a breakdown in communication that prohibits further representation. Counsel declares he served the moving papers on Client at an address confirmed by e-mail.

The motion is denied because it is set to be heard unreasonably close to the trial date. The trial date in the case is 2/25/20, and the FSC is scheduled for 2/07/20, only three weeks after the hearing on this motion.

Unlike their clients, attorneys do not have an absolute right to withdraw from representation at any time with or without cause. Even where grounds for termination exist, attorneys seeking to withdraw must comply with the procedures set forth in California Rule of Professional Conduct (CRPC) 3-700 and are subject to discipline for failure to do so. Where withdrawal is not mandatory, an attorney normally must continue representation on the matter undertaken. The fact the client or matter proves unpleasant or unprofitable does not excuse attorney performance. The rules have been liberally construed to protect clients. See Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192, 197; Chaleff v. Superior Court (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 721; Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.

An attorney, either with the client's consent or the court's approval, may withdraw from a case when withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the client's interests. A lawyer violates his or her ethical mandate by abandoning a client (Pineda v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 753, 758 759), or by withdrawing at a critical point and thereby prejudicing the client’s case. CRPC 3 700(A)(2); Vann, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d at p. 197.

Counsel is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@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 ROTH HEATHER M.