Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/29/2019 at 12:47:50 (UTC).

KENNETH SCOTT VS MOOREFIELD COSTRUCTION INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/06/2017 KENNETH SCOTT filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against MOOREFIELD COSTRUCTION INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GEORGINA T. RIZK and KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5871

  • Filing Date:

    12/06/2017

  • 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

GEORGINA T. RIZK

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

SCOTT KENNETH

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

TADVIK CORPORATION

BAIDA RONALD J. TRUSTEE OF BAIDA FAMILY

DOES 1 TO 40

MOOREFIELD CONSTRUCTION INC.

BAIDA FAMILY TRUST

HERRON CONSTRUCTION INC.

ADVANCED LANDSCAPE 2000

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Defendants

HERRON CONSTRUCTION INC.

ADVANCED LANDSCAPE 2000 LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

GREENBAUM LAWRENCE E

SIMAN AFSHIN ESQ.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

LARIN MICHAEL J. ESQ.

REDFIELD RYAN P. ESQ.

PALIN CYNTHIA CARUSO ESQ.

Defendant and Cross Defendant Attorneys

REDFIELD RYAN P. ESQ.

PALIN CYNTHIA CARUSO ESQ.

PALIN CYNTHIA

REDFIELD RYAN P.

 

Court Documents

Reply - REPLY REPLY NOTICE OF NO OPPOSITION FILED TO MOOREFIELD CONSTRUCTION, INC.'S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF PHILLIP M. HAYES IN SUPPORT TH

11/15/2019: Reply - REPLY REPLY NOTICE OF NO OPPOSITION FILED TO MOOREFIELD CONSTRUCTION, INC.'S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF PHILLIP M. HAYES IN SUPPORT TH

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF MOOREFIELD CONSTRUCTION, INC.S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

11/22/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF MOOREFIELD CONSTRUCTION, INC.S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND REQUEST FOR S...)

11/22/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND REQUEST FOR S...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVERY...)

11/25/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVERY...)

Notice of Ruling

11/26/2019: Notice of Ruling

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

10/18/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOOREFIELD'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

9/19/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOOREFIELD'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

9/26/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES, PRODUCTION O...)

9/26/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES, PRODUCTION O...)

Demand for Jury Trial

9/26/2019: Demand for Jury Trial

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF MOOREFIELD CONSTRUCTION, INC.S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES, PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

9/11/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF MOOREFIELD CONSTRUCTION, INC.S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES, PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Demand for Jury Trial

6/27/2019: Demand for Jury Trial

Proof of Personal Service

5/29/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service

5/24/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Answer

5/14/2019: Answer

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

5/14/2019: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

Cross-Complaint

5/14/2019: Cross-Complaint

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

7/18/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

24 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/07/2020
  • Hearing12/07/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 2 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2020
  • Hearing02/19/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 2 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2020
  • Hearing02/05/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 2 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by ADVANCED LANDSCAPE 2000, LLC (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Moorefield Construction, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 2, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (Plaintiff's Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 2, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (Plaintiff's Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Sanctions) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 2, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (Plaintiff's Responses To Form and Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents (Set One) and Request for Sanctions) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 2, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions (and Request for Sanctions, Filed by Defendant Moorefield Construction, Inc.) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
31 More Docket Entries
  • 05/15/2019
  • DocketAmended Cross-Complaint 1st; Filed by Moorefield Construction, Inc. (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Moorefield Construction, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Moorefield Construction, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by Moorefield Construction, Inc. (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2018
  • DocketSUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2018
  • DocketAMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2018
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint; Filed by Kenneth Scott (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Kenneth Scott (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR NEGLGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC685871    Hearing Date: March 02, 2021    Dept: 29


Case Number: BC694172    Hearing Date: March 02, 2021    Dept: 29

Manard Pryor, Jr. v. David Kha, et. al.

Motion for an Order Dismissing the Case filed by Defendant David Kha

Defendant David Kha’s Motion for an Order Dismissing Plaintiff's  Complaint against Defendant David Kha is GRANTED.

Legal Standard

CCP section 2023.030 provides that, “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method . . . , the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose . . . [monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating] sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process . . . .” CCP section 2023.010 provides that “[m]issues of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: . . . (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. . . . (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery . . . .”

“The trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse ‘after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.’” (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390 (quoting Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246).) “Generally, ‘[a] decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.’” (Los Defensores, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390 (citation omitted).)

“Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders.” (Id. (citing Lang, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1244-1246); see, e.g., Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1617-1622 (terminating sanctions imposed after defendants failed to comply with one court order to produce discovery); Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 491 (disapproved on other grounds in Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 478, n. 4) (terminating sanctions imposed against plaintiff for failing to comply with a discovery order and for violating various discovery statutes).)

Discussion

On January 7, 2021, the Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel responses and ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses, without objections, to Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Request for Production of Documents within 20 days of notice of the court’s order. (Motion, Anderson Decl., ¶ 5; 1/7/21 Minute Order.) The Court also ordered Plaintiff to pay $423.30 in sanctions. (Motion, Anderson Decl., ¶ 5; 1/7/21 Minute Order.) Defendant served notice of the ruling on Plaintiff by email on January 8, 2021. (Motion, Ex. B; 1/8/21 Notice of Ruling.) To date, Defendant has not received Plaintiff’s responses. (Motion, Anderson Decl., ¶ 6.)

The Court finds Plaintiff has engaged in conduct that is a misuse of discovery by disobeying the Court’s order to serve verified responses, without objections, to discovery requests. Plaintiff was served with a notice of the ruling regarding the Court’s order to serve verified responses. Plaintiff was also served with notice of this motion for a court order dismissing this action for failure to obey the court’s order. Based on this, the Court finds Plaintiff had knowledge of Plaintiff’s discovery obligations, the court order compelling Plaintiff’s compliance, and that Plaintiff’s case was at a risk of being dismissed. Plaintiff has also failed to file an opposition demonstrating that Plaintiff’s noncompliance was not willful. Given Plaintiff’s prior failures to comply with discovery obligations and apparent disinterest in prosecuting this action, the Court finds lesser sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules. Defendant is thus entitled to a court order imposing terminating sanctions against Plaintiff.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for an order dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint Against Defendant David Kha is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Manard Pryor, Jr.’s action against Defendant David Kha is hereby dismissed.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC685871    Hearing Date: January 11, 2021    Dept: 29

Scott v. Moorefield Construction, Inc. et al.

The hearing on the Second Motion by Defendant Moorefield Construction, Inc. for Terminating Sanctions filed on 12/14/2020 is CONTINUED to March 2, 2021.  Defendant did not attach a proof of service showing that Plaintiff was served with the motion. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of the original papers and continued hearing date.

Case Number: BC685871    Hearing Date: August 07, 2020    Dept: 29

Scott v. Moorefield Construction, Inc.

The unopposed Motion by Defendant, Moorefield Construction, Inc., to Compel Discovery Responses, Production of Documents; and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Plaintiff, Kenneth Scott, is ordered to serve verified responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Request for Production of Documents, Set Two without objections and within 20 days of notice of this order. (Code Civ Proc. §2030.290(b); 2031.300(b).)

The request to compel Plaintiff to respond to Requests for Admission, Set One, is DENIED. The statute permits an order to deem the requests admitted, not to compel initial responses. (Code Civ Proc. § 2033.280.)

The Court imposes sanctions totaling $440.00 against Plaintiff Kenneth Scott and his counsel of record Siman Law Offices, jointly and severally. The sanctions are warranted for the failure to timely respond to the form and special interrogatories and request for production of documents which is discovery abuse. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2023.010(d).

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC685871    Hearing Date: November 25, 2019    Dept: 2

Scott v. Moorefield Construction, Inc. et al.

Three Motions by Cross-Defendant, Advanced Landscape 2000, Inc. to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Request for Production of Documents, Set One; Request for Sanctions filed on 10/18/19, are GRANTED.

Plaintiff, Kenneth Scott, is ordered to serve verified responses to the foregoing discovery without objections within 10 days. Cal Code Civ Procedure §2030.290(b); 2031.300(b).

Imposition of sanctions totaling $780 for all three motions against Plaintiff Kenneth Scott is warranted for the failure to timely respond to authorized methods of discovery, which is discovery abuse. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2023.010(d).

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC685871    Hearing Date: November 22, 2019    Dept: 2

Scott v. Moorefield Construction, Inc. et al.

Motion by Defendant Moorefield Construction, Inc. for Terminating Sanctions filed on 10/25/19 is DENIED. The Court orders Plaintiff Kenneth Scott to pay sanctions in the amount of $1560.

On 9/26/19, the court granted Defendant Moorefield Construction, Inc.’s (“Moorefield”) unopposed Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, General and Economic; Request for Production of Documents, and Request for Statement of Damages. Plaintiff was ordered to respond within 10 days. Motion, Ex. A.

Moorefield served notice of the court’s ruling on 9/27/19. Motion Ex. A. The responses were thus due on October 7, 2019. No responses were received. Moorefield thereafter served two letters demanding compliance with the Court’s order, but Plaintiff did not respond to the letters and has not complied with the Court’s order.

Defendant now seeks terminating sanctions. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion.

The Court is extremely troubled by the blatant disregard of its 9/26/2019 order. However, “terminating sanctions are to be used sparingly because of the drastic effect of their application.” Department of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell (2017) 18 Cal. App. 5th 154, 191-92. Sanctions are generally imposed in an incremental approach, with terminating sanctions being the last resort.

Although Plaintiff has not served responses to the form interrogatories propounded by Moorefield, he has served verified responses to form interrogatories propounded by Defendant and Cross Defendant Herron Construction, Inc. Moorefield claims that the responses were incomplete. Nonetheless, at least some of the responses would be the same as the responses to the interrogatories served by Moorefield, and thus Moorefield has obtained some of the information to which it is entitled.

Given that there has not been an outright refusal to comply with all discovery obligations, and mindful of the Court of Appeal’s admonition that sanctions should be imposed in an incremental approach, the Court will provide Plaintiff with one final opportunity to comply with its earlier order.

Plaintiff is ordered to comply in full with the Court’s 9/26/19 order within 10 days of this order. Terminating sanctions are appropriate where there is outright refusal to comply with discovery obligations. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 793. Plaintiff is admonished that the continuing failure to comply with the Court’s order may result in terminating sanctions being imposed.

The failure to comply with the order in a timely manner is discovery abuse for which monetary sanctions are warranted. The Court imposes monetary sanctions in the amount of $1560 against Plaintiff.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Advanced Landscape 2000, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where HERRON CONSTRUCTION INC is a litigant

Latest cases where MOOREFIELD CONSTRUCTION INC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer PALIN CYNTHIA