Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/30/2019 at 03:40:20 (UTC).

LUCIANO ORTIZ VS JOE MARTINEZ

Case Summary

On 04/03/2017 LUCIANO ORTIZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against JOE MARTINEZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GEORGINA T. RIZK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6273

  • Filing Date:

    04/03/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • 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

GEORGINA T. RIZK

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

ORTIZ LUCIANO

Defendants and Respondents

MARTINEZ JOE

DOES 1 TO 50

ESTRADA ALONSO

MARTINEZ JOE AKA ALONSO ESTRADA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

JOHNSON JULIUS ESQ.

 

Court Documents

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

9/14/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

Minute Order

9/17/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

12/14/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

12/18/2018: Minute Order

Answer

1/16/2019: Answer

Unknown

3/7/2019: Unknown

Minute Order

3/7/2019: Minute Order

Declaration

4/4/2019: Declaration

Minute Order

4/8/2019: Minute Order

Unknown

5/9/2019: Unknown

Minute Order

5/9/2019: Minute Order

SUMMONS

4/3/2017: SUMMONS

LUCIANO ORTIZ COMPALINT FOR 1. BATTERY;ETC

4/3/2017: LUCIANO ORTIZ COMPALINT FOR 1. BATTERY;ETC

1 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/09/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Trial Readiness Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Trial Readiness Conference) of 05/09/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Trial Readiness Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (for Plaintiff's failure to appear on 03/07/2019) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Trial Readiness Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Trial Readiness Conference; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • Declaration (Declaration of Julius Johnson re: OSC related to Non-Appearance); Filed by Luciano Ortiz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Entry of Default) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference (date) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
5 More Docket Entries
  • 12/14/2018
  • Notice of Rejection - Fax Filing; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 2; Final Status Conference (Final Status Conference; Off Calendar) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-09-17 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2018
  • AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2018
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Luciano Ortiz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2017
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Luciano Ortiz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2017
  • LUCIANO ORTIZ COMPALINT FOR 1. BATTERY;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2007
  • Complaint; Filed by Luciano Ortiz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC656273    Hearing Date: April 12, 2021    Dept: 29

Ortiz  vs.  Martinez

TENTATIVE

Defendant Alonso Estrada’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Legal Standard

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facia showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(2).) “Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Id.) “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi, 159 Cal.App.4th at 467; Code Civ. Proc., §437c(c).)

Discussion

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant requests judicial notice of the following:

  1. Plaintiff’s complaint

  2. Defendant’s First Amended Answer

  3. The Los Angeles County Sheriff Incident Report on March 30, 2015

  4. That March 30, 2017 fell on a Thursday and was not a national, state or court holiday.

    Defendant’s requests are GRANTED.

    Motion for Summary Judgment

    Defendant moves for summary judgment as to each of the causes of action on grounds that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations.

    CCP section 335.1 provides that the statute of limitations for “[a]n action for assault, battery, or injury to, or for the death of, an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another” is two years. (Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1.) Plaintiff’s claims for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence are all governed by the two-year statute of limitations. (Id.; see also Pugliese v. Superior Court (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1450 [assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims are governed by the two-year statute of limitations pursuant to CCP section 335.1].)

    As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the December 16, 2020 court order deeming Defendant’s requests for admission admitted was vacated by the Court on February 8, 2021. The Court thus cannot consider the admissions based on the December 16, 2020 court order as evidence in ruling on this motion.

    Nonetheless, Defendant has submitted sufficient evidence to support his contention that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations. Defendant’s declaration and the declarations of Defendant’s employees all confirm that the subject incident occurred on March 30, 2015, not March 31, 2015 as pled in the complaint. (Estrada Decl., ¶¶ 2-7; Page Decl., ¶¶ 2-6; Moreno Decl., ¶¶ 3-5; Torres Decl., ¶¶ 2-5.) The County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department Incident Report also confirms that the subject incident occurred on March 30, 2015. (Estrada Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 1.) Based on Defendant’s evidence showing that the incident occurred on March 30, 2015, Plaintiff had until March 30, 2017 to bring his claims. Plaintiff did not file his complaint until April 3, 2017. Defendant has thus met his burden of demonstrating Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations.

    As Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating triable issues of material fact exist as to whether his claims are barred by the statute of limitations.

    Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment as to all claims asserted in the complaint.

    Conclusion

    Based on the foregoing, Defendant Alonso Estrada’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

    Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC656273    Hearing Date: December 16, 2020    Dept: 29

Ortiz v. Martinez

Motion by Defendant, Alonso Estrada, for Order Deeming Facts Admitted and Genuineness of Documents Admitted and Request for Sanctions, is GRANTED. The Court deems admitted the Requests for Admission served on Plaintiff on 5/26/20 and 5/27/20.

Defendant served Requests for Admission for Admission of Truth of Facts on 5/26/20 and an Amended Request for Admission of Genuineness of Documents on 5/27/20. Plaintiff did not respond to the RFAs or file an opposition to Defendant’s motion. The court thus deems them admitted. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

The Court imposes sanctions of $260.00 against Plaintiff Luciano Ortiz, and his counsel, Law Offices of Julius Johnson & Associates and Julius Johnson, jointly and severally. Plaintiff’s and counsel’s failure to serve a timely response to Requests for Admission necessitated this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC656273    Hearing Date: July 01, 2020    Dept: 29

Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer by Defendant Alonso Estrada is GRANTED.   Code Civ. Proc. 473.  Defendant is ordered to file is amended answer within 10 days of notice of this order.  Moving party is ordered to give notice.