This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/28/2019 at 00:25:00 (UTC).

LEILA MIYAMOTO-WORKMAN ET AL VS SERVICES GROUP OF AMERICA IN

Case Summary

On 10/31/2017 LEILA MIYAMOTO-WORKMAN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against SERVICES GROUP OF AMERICA IN. 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:

    ****1937

  • Filing Date:

    10/31/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

MIYAMOTO JACK

MIYAMOTO-WORKMAN LEILA

Defendants

ALMAZAN DANIEL

FOOD SERVICES OF AMERICA INC.

SERVICES GROUP OF AMERICA INC

SYSTEMS SERVICES OF AMERICA INC - DOE 1

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

M.R. PARKER LAW PC

ROWLEY NICHOLAS C. ESQ.

KAWAI JOHN A. ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

FOX DANA ALDEN

SCHONBUCH MICHAEL NEIL

 

Court Documents

Motion in Limine

4/9/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

4/9/2019: Motion in Limine

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

4/9/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Motion in Limine

4/9/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

4/9/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

4/9/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

4/9/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

4/9/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

4/9/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

4/9/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

4/9/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

4/9/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

4/9/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

4/9/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

4/9/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

4/9/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

4/9/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

4/9/2019: Motion in Limine

46 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/30/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Daniel Almazan (Defendant); Systems Services of America, Inc - DOE 1 (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (For an order compelling plaintiff's independent medical examination (Neuro-ophthalmology) and for an order continuing trial date) - Held - Motion Granted

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • DocketOpposition (OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9); Filed by Daniel Almazan (Defendant); Systems Services of America, Inc - DOE 1 (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • DocketOpposition (OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7); Filed by Daniel Almazan (Defendant); Systems Services of America, Inc - DOE 1 (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • DocketEx Parte Application (For an order compelling plaintiff's independent medical examination (Neuro-ophthalmology) and for an order continuing trial date); Filed by Daniel Almazan (Defendant); Systems Services of America, Inc - DOE 1 (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference; Hearing on Ex Parte Application For ...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • DocketPlaintiffs' opposition and non-opposition to defendants' ex parte application for an order compelling plaintiffs' independent medical examination (neuro-ophthalmologogy) and for an order continuing trial date; Filed by Leila Miyamoto-Workman (Plaintiff); Jack Miyamoto (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • DocketOpposition (OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4); Filed by Daniel Almazan (Defendant); Systems Services of America, Inc - DOE 1 (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
56 More Docket Entries
  • 01/29/2018
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Leila Miyamoto-Workman (Plaintiff); Jack Miyamoto (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • DocketSummons Issued; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/27/2017
  • DocketEX PARTE APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/27/2017
  • DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/31/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/31/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Leila Miyamoto-Workman (Plaintiff); Jack Miyamoto (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****1937    Hearing Date: December 16, 2019    Dept: 5

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

leila miyamoto-workman, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

systems services of america, inc., et al.

Defendants.

Case No.: ****1937

Hearing Date: December 16, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

defendants’ Motion to compel production of vehicle for inspection

Defendants Systems Services of America, Inc. and Daniel Almazan (“Defendants”) move to compel third party Armin Rivera (“Rivera”) to produce his vehicle, a 2008 Toyota Sienna with California license plate number 6RLJ016 and VIN 5TDZK23CX8579443 for inspection. This motion originally was noticed for hearing on November 14, 2019. However, Defendants did not demonstrate that they personally served this motion on Rivera, or that Rivera agreed to accept service via overnight delivery, as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1346. Therefore, the Court continued the hearing on this motion to December 16, 2019. The Court ordered Defendants “to serve Rivera personally with the motion, as well as notice of the date/time/location of the hearing.” (Court’s Order of November 14, 2019.)

Defendants failed to do so. Even though the Court issued this order on November 14, 2019, Defendants did not provide notice until December 9, 2019. This is only five court days before the hearing, which did not afford Mr. Rivera sufficient time to oppose the motion. More important, Defendants did not serve the motion on Mr. Rivera, as ordered by the Court. Nor did Defendants serve the motion or the notice personally on Mr. Rivera, as ordered by the Court and required by Rule 3.1346. Therefore, the Court denies this motion.

Although this ruling is without prejudice, the Court does not intend to continue the trial date to afford Defendants an opportunity to conduct this inspection because Defendants have been dilatory. Defendants repeatedly failed to serve Mr. Rivera personally, as required by Rule 3.1346, even after being expressly ordered to do so by the Court. Therefore, Defendants have created their own problem.

The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.

DATED: December 16, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court



Case Number: ****1937    Hearing Date: November 14, 2019    Dept: 5

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

leila miyamoto-workman, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

systems services of america, inc., et al.

Defendants.

Case No.: ****1937

Hearing Date: November 14, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

defendants’ Motion to compel production of vehicle for inspection

Background

Defendants Systems Services of America, Inc. and Daniel Almazan (“Defendants”) move to compel third party Armin Rivera (“Rivera”) to produce his vehicle, a 2008 Toyota Sienna with California license plate number 6RLJ016 and VIN 5TDZK23CX8579443 for inspection. The hearing on this motion is continued.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure ; 1987.1 provides, “[i]f a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion . . . may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 1987.1.)

DISCUSSION

Defendants personally served Rivera with a subpoena for production of the vehicle on April 25, 2019. Rivera ignored the subpoena. Personal service of the subpoena compels Rivera to produce the vehicle for inspection. (See Code Civ. Proc., ; 2020.220, subds. (b)-(c).) However, Defendants have not demonstrated that they personally served this motion on Rivera, or that Rivera agreed to accept service via overnight delivery, as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1346. Therefore, the Court cannot grant relief.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court continues the hearing on this motion to December 16, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. The Court orders Defendants to serve Rivera personally with the motion, as well as notice of the date/time/location of the hearing. Any opposition by Rivera shall be due within statutory time periods. The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.

DATED: November 12, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where FOOD SERVICES OF AMERICA INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where SERVICE GROUP OF AMERICA, INC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SCHONBUCH MICHAEL NEIL

Latest cases represented by Lawyer FOX DANA ALDEN ESQ.