This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/03/2020 at 03:52:25 (UTC).

LARRY GREGORY VS WALGREENS

Case Summary

On 04/02/2018 LARRY GREGORY filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against WALGREENS. 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, KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE and MARK A. BORENSTEIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0309

  • Filing Date:

    04/02/2018

  • 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

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

GREGORY LARRY

Defendants and Respondents

DAGO -MANAGER

DOES 1 TO 25

WALGREENS

SIMON DIEGO R

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

MITCHELL TIMOTHY P. ESQ.

DOLLISON ALLAN LEE ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

LEIBL LOREN SIDNEY

LEIBL LOREN SIDNEY ESQ.

MIRETSKY MICHAEL JOSEPH ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE FOR PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING AN MSC

3/4/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE FOR PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING AN MSC

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL; FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

2/21/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL; FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

2/7/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (- HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION, FILED BY PLAINTIFF, TO CON...)

12/11/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (- HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION, FILED BY PLAINTIFF, TO CON...)

Statement of the Case

12/5/2019: Statement of the Case

Jury Instructions

12/5/2019: Jury Instructions

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

12/6/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT WALGREEN CO.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE AND RE-OPEN DISCOVERY; DECLARATION OF ANDREW SEWELL, ESQ. IN SUPPORT

12/10/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT WALGREEN CO.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE AND RE-OPEN DISCOVERY; DECLARATION OF ANDREW SEWELL, ESQ. IN SUPPORT

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RE-OPEN DISCOVERY;) OF 11/01/2019

11/1/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RE-OPEN DISCOVERY;) OF 11/01/2019

Declaration - DECLARATION OF ALLAN DOLLISON

10/11/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF ALLAN DOLLISON

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE T...)

9/19/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE T...)

Reply - REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RE-OPEN DISCOVERY

9/19/2019: Reply - REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RE-OPEN DISCOVERY

Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT WALGREEN CO.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND REOPEN DISCOVERY; DECLARATION OF ANDREW SEWELL, ESQ.

9/18/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT WALGREEN CO.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND REOPEN DISCOVERY; DECLARATION OF ANDREW SEWELL, ESQ.

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT WALGREEN CO.'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 TO EXCLUDE ALL EXPERT OPINIONS OFFERED ON PLAINTIFF'S BEHALF; [PROPOSED] ORDER

9/9/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT WALGREEN CO.'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 TO EXCLUDE ALL EXPERT OPINIONS OFFERED ON PLAINTIFF'S BEHALF; [PROPOSED] ORDER

Proof of Personal Service -

10/10/2018: Proof of Personal Service -

Other - - Other - Proof of Service of Summons

10/15/2018: Other - - Other - Proof of Service of Summons

Answer

10/29/2018: Answer

Civil Case Cover Sheet - /Addendum

4/2/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet - /Addendum

45 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/02/2021
  • Hearing04/02/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2020
  • Hearing08/26/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2020
  • Docketat 4:10 PM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Re: Vacating the 05/15/2020 Final Status Confere...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order Re: Vacating the 05/15/2020 Final Status Confere...) of 04/02/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Larry Gregory (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
60 More Docket Entries
  • 07/15/2019
  • DocketStipulation and Order (STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER); Filed by Walgreens (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Allan Lee Dollison, Esq. (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • DocketNotice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by Walgreens (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Walgreens (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2018
  • DocketOther - (Proof of Service of Summons); Filed by Larry Gregory (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2018
  • DocketProof Of Service Of Summons; Filed by Larry Gregory (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Larry Gregory (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet /Addendum

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Larry Gregory (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC700309    Hearing Date: November 01, 2019    Dept: 2

Gregory v. Walgreens

Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Discovery, filed on 10/11/19, is GRANTED. Discovery is reopened. The discovery and motion cut-off dates are to be calculated based on the present trial date.

TIMELINESS

Defendant first argues that the Court should not consider the motion because Plaintiff did not give sufficient notice of motion. Defendant is correct that notice was insufficient; Plaintiff was required to file and serve the motion on 10/4/19 to allow for 16 court days of notice plus five calendar days for service by mail. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 1005(b). Plaintiff served the motion on 10/11/19.

However, a party may be deemed to have waived any irregularity in the notice by appearing at the hearing, opposing the motion, not asking for a continuance and not demonstrating any prejudice resulting from the shortened notice. Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal. App. 4th 690. 

The purpose of the notice period is to allow the responding party to file an opposition. If an opposition is filed and no prejudice is shown, then the purpose of the notice requirements is met. The defect is waived. Arambula v. Union Carbide Corp. (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 333, 342-343.

Defendant has not shown any prejudice resulting from the defective notice. Defendant filed an opposition, which the court has considered. Defendant has thus waived any objection on timeliness grounds, and the Court considers the motion on the merits.

MERITS

The court may, in its discretion, grant leave to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2024.050(a).

Among the factors to be considered in granting relief are the diligence or lack of diligence in seeking discovery, the necessity for the discovery, the likelihood that permitting discovery will prevent the case from going to trial, and resulting prejudice to the opposing party, among other things. Cal Code Civ Procedure § 2024.050.

Plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient diligence in conducting discovery. Delays in the discovery process are largely of the Defendant’s making. Plaintiff served written discovery on 3/29/19, but Defendant did not serve verified responses until 8/12/19. Declaration of Alan Dollison, ¶ 5. Defendant did not respond to Request for Production of Documents until 8/28/19. Id.

The court’s file reflects that Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendant’s responses to Request for Production of Documents on 8/28/19. It was not unreasonable for Plaintiff to set depositions after discovery responses were received. Defendant’s 5-month delay in providing verified responses resulted in the delay in setting the necessary depositions.

Defendant states that on 8/12/19 Plaintiff served Notice of Taking Deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable. Opposition, Declaration of Michael Miretsky, ¶ 12. The deposition was scheduled for 8/29/19, before discovery cutoff on 9/2/19. Motion, 5:20. However, Defendant failed to produce its witness, but offered dates in September, indicating a willingness to permit the depositions despite discovery cutoff, which undermines Defendant’s claim of prejudice. Opposition, Ex. C.

Plaintiff will suffer prejudice as he has not been able to complete discovery due to the Defendant’s delay in responding to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. The Court thus finds good cause to reopen discovery so that the necessary depositions may be taken. Discovery is reopened, and the discovery and motion cut-off dates are to be calculated based on the current trial date.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.