Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/27/2021 at 07:36:28 (UTC).

LETIAH STONE ET AL VS RUBEN PEREZ MELENA ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/11/2017 LETIAH STONE filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against RUBEN PEREZ MELENA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH and MICHAEL E. WHITAKER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1974

  • Filing Date:

    08/11/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

MICHAEL E. WHITAKER

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

JIMMERSON MARLENE

STONE LETIAH

Defendants and Respondents

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

MELENA RUBEN PEREZ

DOES 1-30

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

DIDONATO PETER R. ESQ.

DIDONATO PETER RUSSELL ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

GATES O'DOHERTY GONTER & GUY LLP

MUENCH RICHARD ARTHUR

 

Court Documents

Status Report

12/23/2020: Status Report

Brief - BRIEF DEFENDANTS OFFER OF PROOF AND REQUEST THAT THE COURT DECLINE TO RECLASSIFY THIS CASE AS LONG CAUSE AND DENY PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO BIFURCATE LIABILITY AND DAMAGES

12/23/2020: Brief - BRIEF DEFENDANTS OFFER OF PROOF AND REQUEST THAT THE COURT DECLINE TO RECLASSIFY THIS CASE AS LONG CAUSE AND DENY PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO BIFURCATE LIABILITY AND DAMAGES

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL

12/3/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL

Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL FOR LIABILITY AND DAMAGES PURSUANT TO CCP 598 AND 1048; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

12/8/2020: Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL FOR LIABILITY AND DAMAGES PURSUANT TO CCP 598 AND 1048; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER: ORDER EXCLDUING TIME FOR PURPOSES OF CODE OF CIV...)

12/16/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER: ORDER EXCLDUING TIME FOR PURPOSES OF CODE OF CIV...)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER: ORDER EXCLDUING TIME FOR PURPOSES OF CODE OF CIV...) OF 12/16/2020

12/16/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER: ORDER EXCLDUING TIME FOR PURPOSES OF CODE OF CIV...) OF 12/16/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO BIFURCATE)

12/16/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO BIFURCATE)

Motion to Bifurcate

7/14/2020: Motion to Bifurcate

[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

7/17/2020: [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

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE, DISCOVERY CUT-OFF AND EXPERT DESIGNATION

1/30/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE, DISCOVERY CUT-OFF AND EXPERT DESIGNATION

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC, DISCOVERY CUT OFF AND EXPERT DESIGNATION, MEMO OF P & A'S, DECLARATIONS

5/23/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC, DISCOVERY CUT OFF AND EXPERT DESIGNATION, MEMO OF P & A'S, DECLARATIONS

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM NAME

8/28/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM NAME

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANTS COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION AND RUBEN PEREZ MELENA

12/19/2017: ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANTS COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION AND RUBEN PEREZ MELENA

NOTICE OP DEPOSIT OF JURY FEES

12/19/2017: NOTICE OP DEPOSIT OF JURY FEES

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

12/19/2017: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS; NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL; AND NOTICE OF TEMPORARY OFFICE CLOSURE

9/6/2017: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS; NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL; AND NOTICE OF TEMPORARY OFFICE CLOSURE

CoverSheet -

8/11/2017: CoverSheet -

Summons -

8/11/2017: Summons -

13 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/28/2021
  • Hearing05/28/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2021
  • Hearing05/14/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling (Denying Motion to Bifurcate Trial); Filed by Letiah Stone (Plaintiff); Marlene Jimmerson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/30/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 32, Michael E. Whitaker, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Bifurcate - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/30/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 32, Michael E. Whitaker, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Long Cause Determination) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/30/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Bifurcate; Order to Show Cause Re: Long ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/23/2020
  • DocketStatus Report; Filed by Letiah Stone (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/23/2020
  • DocketBrief (DEFENDANTS? OFFER OF PROOF AND REQUEST THAT THE COURT DECLINE TO RECLASSIFY THIS CASE AS LONG CAUSE AND DENY PLAINTIFF?S MOTION TO BIFURCATE LIABILITY AND DAMAGES); Filed by Ruben Perez Melena (Defendant); Costco Wholesale Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Michael E. Whitaker, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Bifurcate - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2020
  • Docketat 4:32 PM in Department 32, Michael E. Whitaker, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
30 More Docket Entries
  • 12/19/2017
  • DocketMiscellaneous-Other; Filed by Ruben Perez Melena (Defendant); Costco Wholesale Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2017
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Ruben Perez Melena (Defendant); Costco Wholesale Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2017
  • DocketANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANTS COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION AND RUBEN PEREZ MELENA

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Letiah Stone (Plaintiff); Marlene Jimmerson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2017
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint Informal Discovery Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS; NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL; AND NOTICE OF TEMPORARY OFFICE CLOSURE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2017
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Letiah Stone (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Letiah Stone (Plaintiff); Marlene Jimmerson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Letiah Stone (Plaintiff); Marlene Jimmerson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2017
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC671974    Hearing Date: December 30, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

letiah stone, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ruben perez melena, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC671974

Hearing Date: December 16, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to bifurcate

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Letiah Stone and Marlene Jimmerson (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action following a motor vehicle collision with Ruben Perez Melena, who allegedly was driving in the course and scope of his employment with Costco Wholesale Corporation. Plaintiffs allege that Melena rear-ended Stone, who was driving. Jimmerson was a passenger in Stone’s vehicle. Now, Plaintiffs move to bifurcate the trial of this case into two phases—liability and damages—and to delay depositions of experts until after the liability phase. Defendants oppose the motion. The motion is denied.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 598, “The court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby . . . make an order . . . that the trial of any issue or any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part thereof in the case[.]”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 598.) The Court has discretion in such matters.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs argue that bifurcation is necessary because Defendants Ruben Perez Melena and Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Defendants”) designated 193 non-retained experts in this action. The Court lacked sufficient information to rule on this motion, so it continued the hearing and ordered Defendants to provide an offer of proof on each of its non-retained experts. In response, Defendants filed an offer of proof stating that they intend to call only four non-retained experts. In light of Defendants’ representation, there is no basis to bifurcate this case or re-classify the trial as a long-cause case.

Plaintiffs intend to call 20 non-retained experts. This does not constitute good cause to grant the motion. To the extent there is a burden, Plaintiffs can solve the problem by reducing their number of non-retained experts. Even reaching the merits of Plaintiffs’ motion, there is no good cause. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that trial of liability separately from damages would result in efficiencies. Instead, it is likely that it would result in duplication of effort.   It is logical and efficient for Plaintiffs to present evidence on how and why Defendants are liable for the underlying accident at the same time as Plaintiffs present evidence on the injuries that resulted from the underlying accident. Indeed, the liability phase should be relatively short and straightforward. Therefore, Plaintiffs have not shown good cause for the Court to grant this motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs’ motion for bifurcation is denied. Plaintiffs shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: December 30, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC671974    Hearing Date: December 16, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

letiah stone, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ruben perez melena, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC671974

Hearing Date: December 16, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to bifurcate

The parties should be prepared to address the following issues:

1. Laintiffs Letiah Stone and Marlene Jimmerson (“Plaintiffs”) allege that Ruben Perez Melena rear-ended Stone’s vehicle. Are Defendants stipulating to liability?

2. Plaintiffs’ counsel represents that this case will take approximately 23 days to try. Should this case be re-classified as a long-cause case?

DATED: December 16, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation is a litigant