This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/20/2020 at 07:36:56 (UTC).

LAUREN JOSEPHSON VS CASA HERMOSA APARTMENTS ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/27/2018 LAUREN JOSEPHSON filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CASA HERMOSA APARTMENTS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JON R. TAKASUGI, HOLLY E. KENDIG and THOMAS D. LONG. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9861

  • Filing Date:

    03/27/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • 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

JON R. TAKASUGI

HOLLY E. KENDIG

THOMAS D. LONG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

JOSEPHSON LAUREN

Defendants and Respondents

COELER TRUST

CASA HERMOSA APARTMENTS

P.A.C. PROPERTIES

DOES 1 TO 100

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

GEOULLA DANIEL D. ESQ.

GEOULLA DANIEL DANNY ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

LOWARY MARK

LOWARY MARK ERIC

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal

9/10/2020: Request for Dismissal

Notice of Settlement - NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASE

8/4/2020: Notice of Settlement - NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASE

Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement)

8/4/2020: Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement)

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS

6/15/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION - OTHER FOR RELIEF FROM WAIVER OF OBJECTION...)

6/26/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION - OTHER FOR RELIEF FROM WAIVER OF OBJECTION...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER TO ADD COURT REPORTER TO MINUTE ORDER OF ...)

6/26/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER TO ADD COURT REPORTER TO MINUTE ORDER OF ...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF MOTION PURSUANT TO EMERGENCY OR...)

4/22/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF MOTION PURSUANT TO EMERGENCY OR...)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF MOTION PURSUANT TO EMERGENCY OR...) OF 04/22/2020

4/22/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF MOTION PURSUANT TO EMERGENCY OR...) OF 04/22/2020

Notice - NOTICE DEFENDANTS, CASA HERMOSA APARTMENTS, COELER TRUST, & P.A.C. PROPERTIES NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS TO SET ONE OF PLAINTIFF LAUREN JOSEPH

4/23/2020: Notice - NOTICE DEFENDANTS, CASA HERMOSA APARTMENTS, COELER TRUST, & P.A.C. PROPERTIES NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS TO SET ONE OF PLAINTIFF LAUREN JOSEPH

Notice - NOTICE DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF LAUREN JOSEPHSON AND INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,7

4/23/2020: Notice - NOTICE DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF LAUREN JOSEPHSON AND INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,7

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION AND INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION IN CALIFORNIA

3/20/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION AND INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION IN CALIFORNIA

Exhibit List

3/20/2020: Exhibit List

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF LAUREN JOSEPHSON AND INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOU

3/4/2020: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF LAUREN JOSEPHSON AND INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOU

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF NANCI VESOTA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION AND INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF

3/4/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF NANCI VESOTA IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION AND INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF

Notice - NOTICE DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF ERRATA RE MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF LAUREN JOSEPHSON AND INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,7

3/10/2020: Notice - NOTICE DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF ERRATA RE MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF LAUREN JOSEPHSON AND INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,7

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL;

1/28/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL;

Answer

7/16/2019: Answer

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

7/16/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

19 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/10/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Lauren Josephson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2020
  • DocketNotice of Settlement (of Entire Case); Filed by Lauren Josephson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2020
  • Docketat 11:42 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Nunc Pro Tunc Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (for Relief from Waiver of Objections to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories,Request for Admissions and Request for Production of Documents) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
35 More Docket Entries
  • 09/09/2019
  • DocketStipulation and Order ([PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL. FAC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT)); Filed by Casa Hermosa Apartments (Defendant); Coeler Trust (Defendant); P.A.C. Properties (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Casa Hermosa Apartments (Defendant); Coeler Trust (Defendant); P.A.C. Properties (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2019
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Casa Hermosa Apartments (Defendant); Coeler Trust (Defendant); P.A.C. Properties (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Lauren Josephson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2018
  • DocketORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2018
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2018
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2018
  • DocketRequest-Waive Court Fees

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC699861    Hearing Date: June 26, 2020    Dept: 31

2

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

LAUREN JOSEPHSON,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

CASA HERMOSA APARTMENTS, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC699861

[TENTATIVE] ORDER

Dept. 31

8:30 a.m.

June 26, 2020

  1. Background Facts

    Plaintiff, Lauren Josephson filed this action against Defendant, Casa Hermosa Apartments, Coeler Trust, and P.A.C. Properties for damages arising out of a slip and fall.

  2. Motion to Compel Deposition and IME

    Defendants filed this motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and IME on 3/04/20, shortly before the statewide emergency declaration in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The crux of the issue on the motion is whether Plaintiff’s deposition and/or IME should be conducted in Nevada or California. It is undisputed that Plaintiff resides in Nevada, and that the slip and fall that forms the basis of this litigation occurred in Los Angeles.

    Notably, Plaintiff timely filed opposition to the motion on 3/20/20. Any reply to the opposition was due on or before 6/19/20. Defendants have not, to date, filed any reply to the opposition. The Court notes that Defendants DID file a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion for relief from waiver of objections, which tends to show Defendants intentionally chose not to file a reply in connection with this motion.

  1. Deposition

    To the extent this motion seeks to compel Plaintiff to travel to Los Angeles to attend her deposition, the motion is improper in light of the Judicial Council’s Emergency Rule #11(a), which permits any party or non-party deponent, at her election, to have a deposition conducted remotely. The motionto compel the deposition in California is denied. The Court strongly encourages the parties to conduct depositions remotely for public safety.

  2. IME

    The issue relating to the IME is more complicated than the issue relating to the deposition. There is no emergency order relating to IMEs. It also seems likely that an IME cannot be conducted via remote means. That said, the Court is unwilling to order Plaintiff to travel out of state for an IME in light of the ongoing pandemic. The motion to compel the IME in California is denied without prejudice to being renewed as and when conditions relating to the pandemic sufficiently abate.

  3. Sanctions

    No sanctions are imposed in connection with this motion. Issues relating to appearance at deposition and IME have been rendered complicated in light of the ongoing pandemic. The Court will not sanction the parties or attorneys in this case and, again, asks Counsel to resolve these issues without court intervention if at all possible.

  1. Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections

    Plaintiff served form interrogatories, special interrogatories, RPDs, and RFAs on Defendants on 11/14/19. Defendants failed to timely respond. Plaintiff served a notice of waiver of objections on Defendants on 3/05/20. Defendants served responses, with objections, on 3/19/20, approximately three months late. Defendants contend the failure to timely respond was a result of a calendaring error in the office. Defendants seek an order relieving them from the waiver of objections that results from failing to timely respond.

    The parties filed timely motion, opposition, and reply papers; the Court has considered all of the papers in connection with this ruling.

    The motion is governed by CCP §§ 2030.290, 20310.330, and 2033.280, all of which contain substantially similar language. The sections permit the Court to grant a party’s motion for relief from the waiver of objections if the party shows that (a) it has served a response that is in substantial compliance with the discovery act, and (b) its failure to timely respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

    The threshold issue on this motion is whether the responses Defendants served on 3/19/20 were “in substantial compliance with the Code,” as required for relief. Defendants contend they are, but Plaintiff contends they are not. Neither party cites authority concerning the interpretation of this requirement. Plaintiff seems to argue the responses have to be perfect in order to be in substantial compliance with the Code, as Plaintiff contends Defendants have conceded some responses are deficient, and therefore they cannot be in substantial compliance with the Code. The Court finds “substantial compliance with the Code” falls somewhere in-between objections-only responses and perfect responses.

    The Court has reviewed Defendants’ responses, which are attached to their moving papers as Exhibits F, G, and H. The Court finds the responses are in substantial compliance with the Code.

    The second issue is whether Defendants’ excuse for their failure to timely respond constitutes excusable neglect. Plaintiff cites City of Fresno v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1459, 1466 (mis-cited in the opposition papers as (1988) Cal.App.3d 1426) to support her position that failure to calendar a due date for responses does not constitute excusable neglect. In the Fresno case, the attorney for the city failed to timely respond, and took the position that press of business coupled with a misunderstanding of the statutory due date caused him not to timely respond. The trial court found this neglect was not excusable, and the court of appeals agreed.

    The Court finds Defense Counsel’s declaration in this case is different from the position taken in City of Fresno. Defense Counsel herein declares that the failure to respond was the result of a calendaring error. While unfortunate, this is the type of excusable human error that occurs in life. The Court notes that Plaintiff, rather than asking about the responses or mentioning anything at all, served a Notice of Waiver of objections as her first attempt at communication concerning the tardy responses. The Court also notes that Defendants, upon receipt of this notice, promptly served responses.

    The Court notes that the parties discuss prejudice. The Code does not mention prejudice. In any event, the Court finds there is no prejudice if Defendants are permitted to assert objections they could have served if they had timely responded. Notably, the trial date in this case has been vacated, and there is a trial setting conference on calendar contemporaneously with the hearing on these motions.

  2. Conclusion

    The motion to compel the deposition in California is denied. The motion to compel the IME in California is denied without prejudice. Defendants’ motion for relief from waiver of objections is granted. No sanctions are imposed. To the extent the parties have ongoing issues concerning the responses, the Court strongly encourages them to work the issues out without further law and motion practice. If the parties are unable to do so, they must schedule an Informal Discovery Conference prior to the hearing on any necessary MTCF.

    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 26th day of June, 2020

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court