Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/25/2021 at 00:37:47 (UTC).

LEONOR LOPEZ VS THE BICYCLE CASINO INC

Case Summary

On 02/23/2018 LEONOR LOPEZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Product Liability lawsuit against THE BICYCLE CASINO 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 CHRISTOPHER K. LUI and DANIEL M. CROWLEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5264

  • Filing Date:

    02/23/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Product Liability

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

LOPEZ LEONOR

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 100

THE BICYCLE CASINO INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LOPEZ OCTAVIO P. ESQ.

BOCKMAN HENRY W.

Defendant Attorney

AGHAKHANI BRYAN SHANT

 

Court Documents

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DFT'S MIL #1

4/16/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DFT'S MIL #1

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DFT'S MIL #2

4/16/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DFT'S MIL #2

Application - APPLICATION DEFENDANT MOTION IN LIMINE #3

4/19/2021: Application - APPLICATION DEFENDANT MOTION IN LIMINE #3

Trial Brief

4/19/2021: Trial Brief

Statement of the Case

4/19/2021: Statement of the Case

Application - APPLICATION DEFENDANT MOTION IN LIMINE #2

4/19/2021: Application - APPLICATION DEFENDANT MOTION IN LIMINE #2

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DFT'S MIL #3

3/13/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DFT'S MIL #3

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DFT'S MIL #2

3/13/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DFT'S MIL #2

Summary of the Case

3/16/2020: Summary of the Case

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE #3

3/16/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE #3

Motion for Protective Order

10/11/2019: Motion for Protective Order

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

10/3/2019: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE

9/3/2019: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

8/28/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

Substitution of Attorney

7/29/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Motion re: - MOTION RE: MOTION TO RE-OPEN FACT DISC

8/5/2019: Motion re: - MOTION RE: MOTION TO RE-OPEN FACT DISC

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT THE BICYCLE CASINO LP'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CON...)

8/6/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT THE BICYCLE CASINO LP'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CON...)

Answer - ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

6/13/2019: Answer - ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

41 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/14/2021
  • Hearing06/14/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2021
  • Hearing06/01/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2021
  • DocketApplication (DEFENDANT MOTION IN LIMINE #2 TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM CLAIMING SHK INJURED HKR NO. 21 TOOTH (OR ANY TOOTHJ WHEN BITING INTO ICE CREAM DUE TO INSUFFICIENT CAUSATION EVIDENCE;); Filed by Leonor Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2021
  • DocketStatement of the Case; Filed by Leonor Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2021
  • DocketTrial Brief; Filed by Leonor Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2021
  • DocketMotion in Limine (DEFENDANT MOTION IN LIMINE #1 TO PRECLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY FROM NON-DESIGNATED EXPERTS;); Filed by Leonor Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2021
  • DocketJury Instructions; Filed by Leonor Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2021
  • DocketOpposition (PLAINTIFF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MOTION IN LIMINE #1); Filed by Leonor Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
54 More Docket Entries
  • 08/06/2019
  • DocketOpposition (OPPOSITION TO MOTION, REQUEST TO DISMISS); Filed by Leonor Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2019
  • DocketMotion re: (Motion to Re-Open Fact Disc); Filed by The Bicycle Casino, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2019
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Leonor Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2019
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Leonor Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2019
  • DocketAnswer (to Complaint); Filed by The Bicycle Casino, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2019
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Leonor Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2019
  • DocketDisassociation of Attorney; Filed by Octavio Pedro Lopez, Esq. (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2018
  • DocketCOMPLALNT FOR DAMAGES: UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE FOR STRICT LIABILITY, NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF DUTY TO WARN AND BREACH OF WARRANTY ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Leonor Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC695264    Hearing Date: November 07, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion for Protective Order

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On February 23, 2018, Plaintiff Leonor Lopez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant The Bicycle Casino LP (“Defendant”) alleging strict products liability, negligence, a breach of a duty to warn, and a breach of warranty for cracking a tooth when eating an ice cream sundae.

On October 11, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for a protective order pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420.

Trial is set for January 13, 2020.

PARTYS REQUESTS

Defendant asks the Court for a protective order precluding Plaintiff’s son, Hugo Lopez, from attending Plaintiff’s deposition and aiding communications between Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel at the Plaintiff’s deposition.

Plaintiff asks the Court to impose $9,360 in sanctions against Defendant’s counsel to cover the costs of opposing this motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

A party may move for a protective order before, during, or after a deposition.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.420(a).)  The motion must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the matter outside of court. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.420(a).)

The burden is on the moving party to establish “good cause” for whatever relief is requested. Generally, a deponent seeking a protective order will be required to show that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness involved in the discovery procedure clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Emerson Electric Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1110.)

The court “shall” impose monetary sanctions against whichever party loses on the motion for protective order unless it finds that party acted “with substantial justification” or other circumstances render sanctions “unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.420(d).)

DISCUSSION

On September 4, 2019, Defendant served an amended notice of taking Plaintiff’s deposition on September 18, 2019 by U.S. mail.  (Aghakhani Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. 3.)  Plaintiff insisted on his son, Hugo Lopez, being present at Plaintiff’s deposition to facilitate communications between Plaintiff and his counsel.  (Aghakhani Decl., 2, Exh. 2; Bockman Decl.)  Plaintiff only speaks Spanish, Plaintiff’s counsel speaks very little Spanish, and Plaintiff’s son speaks fluent English and Spanish.  (Opposition, p. 4:12-4:17.)

Defendant argues Plaintiff’s opposition was improperly served by email because Defendant has not accepted electronic service.  This argument is flawed.  Generally, a party must serve and accept service of documents electronically where, as here, electronic filing is mandatory.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251, subd. (c)(3); see also Local Rule 3.4, subd. (a).)

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s opposition was untimely served because it was emailed on October 28, 2019, which is eight court-days prior to the November 7, 2019 hearing.  Defendant is correct.  The opposition must have been served at least nine court days prior to the hearing, which is October 25, 2019.  That said, in light of Defendant’s ability to file a reply to the opposition, which reply has been considered by the Court, the Court finds that the late service of the opposition has not prejudiced Defendant and, thus, addresses the merits of the parties’ dispute.  

Court finds the requested protective order is partially proper.  Plaintiff does not dispute Defendant’s claim that Hugo Lopez is not a certified interpreter pursuant to Government Code section 68561.  As such, Hugo Lopez may not facilitate communications between Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel during Plaintiff’s deposition.  This facilitation is the job of the certified interpreter.

Nevertheless, Hugo Lopez’s presence at Plaintiff’s deposition is essential for Plaintiff’s communication with Plaintiff’s counsel during recess of the deposition.  This will provide Hugo Lopez with an adequate context to efficiently and effectively allow Plaintiff and his counsel to communicate with one another.  These communications would be less seamless if Hugo Lopez were to be excluded from the deposition.  This is because a significant portion of the breaks would be spent asking clarifying questions.

Further, Hugo Lopez’s presence at Plaintiff’s deposition would not prejudice any party so long as Hugo Lopez is not permitted to communicate with any party during the deposition.  His presence would be merely to obtain a familiarity with the terminology and subjects of discussion in order to help Plaintiff and his counsel communicate with one another while off the record.

Defendant is correct that a protective order may be appropriate to prevent Hugo Lopez from speaking during Plaintiff’s deposition.  Plaintiff is correct, however, in that Hugo Lopez’s presence at Plaintiff’s deposition is necessary to allow Plaintiff to communicate effectively with Plaintiff’s counsel during breaks in Plaintiff’s deposition.  As such, an imposition of sanctions against either party would be unjust.

The motion is GRANTED in part.

Hugo Lopez may be present at Plaintiff’s deposition and facilitate communications between Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel while off-record.

Hugo Lopez is ordered to not communicate with any person while Plaintiff’s deposition is being conducted.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where THE BICYCLE CASINO A PARTNERSHIP is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer AGHAKHANI BRYAN SHANT