This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/09/2019 at 05:20:32 (UTC).

MARISSA KNIGHT VS SUESAN MALDONADO ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/08/2017 MARISSA KNIGHT filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against SUESAN MALDONADO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6139

  • Filing Date:

    12/08/2017

  • 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 Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

KNIGHT MARISSA

Defendants and Respondents

DELATORRE ELMA

MALDONADO SUESAN

DOES 1 TO 50

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

GIBALEVICH DANIEL A. ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

WEISSMAN DAVID MAX

 

Court Documents

DEMAND FOR JURY

3/21/2018: DEMAND FOR JURY

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

3/21/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Unknown

3/21/2018: Unknown

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

2/27/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

1/3/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

1/3/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

SUMMONS

12/8/2017: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

12/8/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/24/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2019
  • Stipulation and Order ([proposed order] and stipulation to continue trial, fsc [and related motion/discovery dates] personal injury courts only); Filed by Suesan Maldonado (Defendant); Elma Delatorre (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2019
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Suesan Maldonado (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2018
  • Receipt; Filed by Suesan Maldonado (Defendant); Elma Delatorre (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2018
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Suesan Maldonado (Defendant); Elma Delatorre (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2018
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2018
  • DEMAND FOR JURY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2018
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Suesan Maldonado (Defendant); Elma Delatorre (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Marissa Knight (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Marissa Knight (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Marissa Knight (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC686139    Hearing Date: December 03, 2019    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MARISSA KNIGHT,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

SUESAN MALDONADO, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC686139

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

December 3, 2019

1. Background Facts

Plaintiff, Marissa Knight filed this action against Defendants, Suesan Maldonado and Elma DeLaTorre for damages arising out of an automobile accident.

2. Motion to Compel Deposition

Plaintiff originally noticed Defendant, Maldonado’s deposition for 8/12/19. On 8/09/19, Defense Counsel indicated Maldonado would not appear, and said she would contact Defendant that day to get availability. On 9/05/19, Plaintiff wrote to Defendant asking for dates. Defendant responded dates would be obtained. On 9/12/19, still not having dates, Plaintiff noticed Defendant’s deposition for 10/29/19. Plaintiff made numerous attempts to confirm the deposition, none of which were returned. On 10/28/19, at 3:50 p.m., Defendant indicated there was “nobody to cover” the deposition the next day and they would not appear. Plaintiff stated this was not reasonable under the circumstances and insisted Defendant appear. Defendant did not appear, and Plaintiff took a notice of non-appearance.

Plaintiff now moves to compel the deposition. Defendant opposes the motion, contending (a) Defense Counsel cannot locate Defendant, and (b) Plaintiff did not seek available dates or meet and confer in selecting the dates for deposition. Defendant argues sanctions should not be imposed and, if they are, the amount should be reduced.

Defense Counsel fails to show that this inability to locate Defendant was ever communicated to Plaintiff. If Counsel wished to reschedule the deposition to locate Defendant, Counsel needed to communicate this to Plaintiff. Instead, Counsel repeatedly stated that dates would be obtained. Counsel also stated that the reason for the nonappearance was unavailability of COUNSEL, not of CLIENT. Thus, Defendant failed to show any good cause to avoid deposition and/or avoid sanctions was communicated to Plaintiff.

To the extent Defendant argues Plaintiff unilaterally set the deposition and/or did not meet and confer, the argument is patently not well-taken. The argument ignores the detailed meet and confer attempts discussed in the moving papers. Notably, Defense Counsel does not declare there was no attempt to meet and confer; this contention is made only in the points and authorities.

The motion to compel is granted. Defendant is ordered to sit for deposition. Trial is scheduled for 1/24/20. Defendant must sit for deposition within thirty days. Counsel are ordered to meet and confer to select an available date, time, and location for the deposition. If Defendant does not meaningfully participate in the meet and confer efforts, Plaintiff may set the deposition on Plaintiff’s terms, with ten days’ notice to Defendant (extended per Code if notice by other than personal service).

Sanctions are appropriate per CCP §2025.450(g). Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $3188.30. The Court reduces Plaintiff’s attorney’s billing rate from $400/hour to $200/hour, which is more in keeping with rates charged in the personal injury hub courts. The Court awards two hours to prepare the motion, one hour to prepare the reply, and three hours to appear at the hearing, all at $200/hour, or $1200 in attorneys’ fees. The Court also awards the $326.65 court reporter fee and $61.65 motion filing fee, for a total of $388.30 in costs.

Sanctions are sought and imposed against Defendant and her attorney of record, jointly and severally. They are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through her attorney of record, in the amount of $1588.30, within twenty days.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.