This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/25/2020 at 08:57:13 (UTC).

MARILYN ORCUTT ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/01/2018 MARILYN ORCUTT filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Chatsworth 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:

    ****8462

  • Filing Date:

    06/01/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Chatsworth Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Guardian Ad Litems

ORCUTT BRIAN

ORCUTT MARILYN

Defendants and Respondents

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

LOS ANGELES COUNTY OF

BARKON DMITRY

DOES 1-50

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Minors and Not Classified By Court

ORCUTT AVERY

ORCUTT RAEGAN

ORCUTT BRYNN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Minor Attorneys

WHEELER ALEXANDER R.

WHEELER ALEXANDER RUSSELL

Plaintiff and Defendant Attorneys

WHEELER ALEXANDER RUSSELL

GRAGAS ADRIAN

STEWART BRIAN K.

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

GRAGAS ADRIAN

 

Court Documents

Notice - NOTICE OF TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE

9/23/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE

Notice of Trial Setting Conference and Attached Orders Thereon

9/16/2020: Notice of Trial Setting Conference and Attached Orders Thereon

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO POST UNDERTAKING

8/31/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO POST UNDERTAKING

Reply - REPLY ON THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES MOTION TO POST AN UNDERTAKING

9/4/2020: Reply - REPLY ON THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES MOTION TO POST AN UNDERTAKING

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS TO POST AN U...) OF 09/14/2020

9/14/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS TO POST AN U...) OF 09/14/2020

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER: ORDER TRANSFERRING COMPLICATED PERSONAL INJURY (...) OF 09/14/2020

9/14/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER: ORDER TRANSFERRING COMPLICATED PERSONAL INJURY (...) OF 09/14/2020

Motion re: - MOTION RE: FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS TO POST AND UNDERTAKING AS OUT OF STATE PLAINTIFFS

5/4/2020: Motion re: - MOTION RE: FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS TO POST AND UNDERTAKING AS OUT OF STATE PLAINTIFFS

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 05/05/2020

5/5/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 05/05/2020

Notice of Ruling

5/11/2020: Notice of Ruling

Order - ORDER PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO CONTINUE TRIAL, THE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND ALL TRIAL RELATED DATES

3/26/2020: Order - ORDER PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO CONTINUE TRIAL, THE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND ALL TRIAL RELATED DATES

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

10/7/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Proof of Personal Service -

9/4/2018: Proof of Personal Service -

Answer

10/26/2018: Answer

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

8/24/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

6/5/2018: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

6/5/2018: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

SUMMONS -

6/22/2018: SUMMONS -

Proof of Personal Service -

7/20/2018: Proof of Personal Service -

20 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/23/2021
  • Hearing07/23/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2021
  • Hearing07/09/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2020
  • Hearing11/03/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department F47 at 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/23/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/23/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Trial Setting Conference); Filed by Marilyn Orcutt (Plaintiff); Brian Orcutt (Plaintiff); Raegan Orcutt (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Court's Transfer of Case); Filed by Marilyn Orcutt (Plaintiff); Brian Orcutt (Plaintiff); Raegan Orcutt (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2020
  • DocketNotice of Trial Setting Conference and Attached Orders Thereon; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by County Of Los Angeles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2020
  • Docketat 4:35 PM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
35 More Docket Entries
  • 06/22/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2018
  • DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2018
  • DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2018
  • DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2018
  • DocketAPPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2018
  • DocketAPPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2018
  • DocketAPPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT 1. NEGLIGENCE 2. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Marilyn Orcutt (Plaintiff); Brian Orcutt (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC708462    Hearing Date: September 14, 2020    Dept: 32

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

marilyn Orcutt, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

county of los angeles, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: bc708462

Hearing Date: September 14, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Defendant’S motion to require plaintiff to post bond

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Marilyn Orcutt (“Marilyn”), Brian Orcutt, Raegan Orcutt, Brynn Orcutt, and Avery Orcutt (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant County of Los Angeles (“Defendant”), among others, following an automobile collision with Dmitry Barkon, a deputy sheriff. Plaintiffs reside in Idaho, and Defendant moves to require Plaintiffs to post an undertaking. The motion is denied.

LEGAL STANDARD

“When the plaintiff in an action or special proceeding resides out of the state, or is a foreign corporation, the defendant may at any time apply to the court by noticed motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to file an undertaking.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1030, subd. (a).) The plaintiff is not required to file an undertaking unless “there is a reasonable possibility that the moving defendant will obtain judgment in the action or special proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1030, subd. (b).) The defendant is not required to show that there is no possibility that the plaintiff can prevail at trial, but rather must demonstrate only that it is reasonably possible that the defendant will prevail. (Baltayan v. Estate of Getemyan (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1427, 1432-1433.) The defendant must also submit an affidavit stating the nature and amount of costs and attorney’s fees the defendant has incurred, and expects to incur throughout the remainder of the proceedings. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1030, subd. (b).)

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that it is not liable because Deputy Barkon was responding to an emergency situation and acted with the required “due care.” (See Brummett v. County of Sacramento (1978) 21 Cal.3d 880, 886.) Defendant relies on testimony that Deputy Barkon entered the intersection slowly with his lights and sirens activated. During his deposition, Deputy Barkon testified that he was “coming right up to” the intersection where the accident occurred when he activated his lights and siren. (Declaration of Jacob M. Ramirez, Exh. A, p. 57.) Barkon testified that he was travelling approximately five miles per hour through the intersection, but began to accelerate near the median of the intersection. (Id., Exh. A, pp. 59, 70.) Similarly, Daniel Botton testified that he saw Barkon’s vehicle slow to “a crawl” prior to entering the intersection. (Id., Exh. B, p. 27.) However, none of this testimony addresses the collision itself. In other words, the Court cannot conclude based upon this testimony that Deputy Barkon acted with due care once he entered the intersection and started accelerating. Indeed, if Deputy Barkon accelerated through the intersection without checking to ensure that all vehicles had stopped, he did not, in fact, act with “due care.”

Defendant also relies on statements other witnesses provided to Deputy Andrew Taylor, who responded to the accident, which are contained within his accident report. (See Defendant’s Motion, pp.5-6.) These statements are inadmissible based upon the hearsay rule. Moreover, vehicle reports are inadmissible at trial. (Veh. Code § 20013.) Regardless, during his deposition, Deputy Taylor testified that Deputy Barkon had a duty to “make sure that each lane of traffic [was] clear before he crosse[d] through it,” and that he had failed to do so. (Declaration of Jonathan Douglass, Exh. A, p.29.) Deputy Taylor testified that he found Officer Barkon was primarily responsible for this accident:

Q: Is the reason that you found that Officer Barkon was the primary collision factor in this case because he did not successfully clear each lane as he went through this intersection?

A: That’s correct. . . .

(Ibid.) Based upon the foregoing, the Court cannot conclude that Defendant has a reasonable possibility of proving that Deputy Barkon acted with the requisite due care. Therefore, the motion is denied.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motion for an undertaking is denied. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: September 14, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court