This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/30/2020 at 09:39:07 (UTC).

LEON NAZARI VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Case Summary

On 09/29/2017 LEON NAZARI filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. 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 Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7754

  • Filing Date:

    09/29/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • 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 Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Guardian Ad Litem

NAZARY OFEL

Defendants and Respondents

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

DOES 1 TO 50

Minor

NAZARI LEON

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

RUBIN MICHAEL PHILIP

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

HUNT JAMES A. ASST. GENERAL COUNSEL

WHEELER DENNIS KENT

Minor Attorney

MICHAEL P. RUBIN & ASSOCIATES INC.

 

Court Documents

Jury Question

1/27/2020: Jury Question

Jury Question

1/27/2020: Jury Question

Statement of the Case

12/23/2019: Statement of the Case

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE

12/30/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS AND COSTS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND ITS ATTORNEY FOR ABUSE OF DISCOVERY

12/31/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS AND COSTS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND ITS ATTORNEY FOR ABUSE OF DISCOVERY

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1

12/31/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4

12/31/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4

Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6) - CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER - PEREMPTORY (170.6) - JUDGE HORN

1/14/2020: Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6) - CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER - PEREMPTORY (170.6) - JUDGE HORN

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)

1/15/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)

Stipulation - No Order - STIPULATION - NO ORDER STIPULATION FOR THE ENTRY OF AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL

10/28/2019: Stipulation - No Order - STIPULATION - NO ORDER STIPULATION FOR THE ENTRY OF AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE AND/OR DAMAGES AND ALL REFERENCE TO ANY EVIDENCE AND/OR DAMAGES NOT PREVIOUSLY OR TIMELY PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY

9/3/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE AND/OR DAMAGES AND ALL REFERENCE TO ANY EVIDENCE AND/OR DAMAGES NOT PREVIOUSLY OR TIMELY PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO RE...)

6/3/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO RE...)

Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts

4/18/2019: Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

4/29/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Opposition - Opposition to Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial

1/9/2019: Opposition - Opposition to Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial

Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial and All Related Dates 6 months

1/9/2019: Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial and All Related Dates 6 months

SUMMONS -

1/12/2018: SUMMONS -

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

1/24/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

87 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/06/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department NE3; Order to Show Cause Re: (Judgment) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Leon Nazari (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2020
  • DocketNotice (LAUSD's Notice of Entry of Judgment); Filed by Los Angeles Unified School District (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2020
  • DocketJudgment ([Proposed] Judgment on Special Verdict); Filed by Los Angeles Unified School District (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2020
  • DocketNotice of Entry of Judgment / Dismissal / Other Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (Declaration of Sabryna Beckles re: LAUSD's [Proposed] Judgment); Filed by Los Angeles Unified School District (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2020
  • DocketStipulation, Receipt and Order re: Release of Civil Exhibits; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department NE3; Jury Trial - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2020
  • DocketJury Question; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
115 More Docket Entries
  • 01/12/2018
  • DocketSummons Issued; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2018
  • DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2018
  • DocketAPPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2017
  • DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2017
  • DocketAPPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM - CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC677754    Hearing Date: January 14, 2020    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

leon nazari,

Plaintiff,

v.

los angeles unified school district,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC677754

Hearing Date: January 14, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion for sanctions

Plaintiff Leon Nazari (“Plaintiff”) moves for sanctions against Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (“Defendant”), alleging abuses of the discovery process. Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 provides that “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery” and “[m]aking or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery” are misuses of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (h).)

Plaintiff raises three issues:

1. Second Site Inspection – Plaintiff alleges that Defendant abused the discovery process by failing to permit Plaintiff to conduct a site inspection of the playground where the accident occurred. However, this was the second site inspection, which Plaintiff sought after the deadline. Regardless of whether Defendant was being “unreasonable,” Defendant had no obligation to permit Plaintiff to conduct a subsequent inspection of the same site, especially after the deadline. (See New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1427-1428.) Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that Defendant failed to submit to an authorized method of discovery, meaning that sanctions are not justified.

2. Opposition to Ex Parte Application – Plaintiff seeks sanctions in connection with Defendant’s opposition to his ex parte application for a second site inspection. This request is denied. As discussed, Defendant had a meritorious opposition to the application. Regardless, at the hearing Defendant stipulated to permit the inspection. Accordingly, the Court cannot conclude that Defendant unsuccessfully opposed that application.

The Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s characterization that the “ex parte application was essentially granted.” To the contrary, the Court had concerns whether it had authority to order a site inspection by way of ex parte application. (See St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. Superior Court (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 82, 85.) Plaintiff is not entitled to sanctions simply because the Court mediated the discovery dispute, leading to a stipulation.

3. Missed Deposition – Finally, Plaintiff seeks sanctions because Defendant’s trial counsel, Mr. Dennis Wheeler, failed to appear for the deposition of Plaintiff’s expert witness, Dr. Jacob Tauber. The deposition was scheduled for December 17, 2019. The day before the deposition, on December 16, 2019, at 9:17 a.m., Plaintiff’s counsel informed Defendant’s counsel via email that Dr. Tauber’s deposition would be taken off-calendar because he was in the hospital with pneumonia. (Declaration of Michael P. Ruben, ¶ 16.) Defendant’s in-house counsel, Ms. Sabryna Beckles, and Mr. Wheeler both confirmed receipt of the email that the deposition would not go forward. (Ibid.) Then, Dr. Tauber recovered sufficiently to go forward with the deposition, and Plaintiff’s counsel alerted Ms. Beckles. (Id., ¶ 17.) At 2:37 p.m., Ms. Beckles’ secretary informed Plaintiff’s counsel that the deposition could go forward as originally scheduled. (Id., ¶ 18.) However, Mr. Wheeler did not appear. According to Ms. Beckles, she advised Mr. Wheeler via email. (Declaration of Sabryna D. Beckles, ¶ 14.) Ms. Beckles called Mr. Wheeler when he did not appear that morning, and he indicated that because Plaintiff’s counsel indicated there was a “sudden hospitalization,” he did not think the deposition would go forward. (Id., ¶ 16.) The Court finds that both parties are responsible for the confusion resulting in Mr. Wheeler’s failure to appear at the deposition. Therefore, an award of sanctions to Plaintiff would be unjust.

4. Defendant’s Request for Sanctions – Defendant requests sanctions for opposing the instant motion. The Court declines to award sanctions to Defendant, finding that both parties are responsible for the discovery disputes at issue, and an award of sanctions to Defendant (just like an award of sanctions to Plaintiff) would be unjust.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is denied. Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: January 14, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court