Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/04/2021 at 23:40:11 (UTC).

MARK DAVID UBALDI FANTASIA VS LISA AILEEN PALOMBO

Case Summary

On 01/10/2018 MARK DAVID UBALDI FANTASIA filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against LISA AILEEN PALOMBO. 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, DANIEL M. CROWLEY and STEPHEN M. MOLONEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9708

  • Filing Date:

    01/10/2018

  • 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

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

STEPHEN M. MOLONEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Cross Defendant

FANTASIA MARK DAVID UBALDI

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

PALOMBO LISA AILEEN

DOES 1 TO 100

PALOMBO LISA AILEEN CROSS-COMPLAINANT

Not Classified By Court

GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

DEAN J. LEVIN ESQ.

LEVIN DEAN JAY

JUSTICE MICHAEL LEE

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

MARSHALL BROOKS P. ESQ.

MARSHALL BROOKS PATERSON

MARSHALL BROOKS P.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

MARSHALL BROOKS PATERSON

MARSHALL BROOKS P.

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

JUSTICE MICHAEL LEE

VELASTEGUI MARVIN PATRICIO

KIM JACKLYN J.

 

Court Documents

Answer - Answer to Cross-Complaint

12/20/2018: Answer - Answer to Cross-Complaint

NOTICE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT-CIVIL

5/4/2018: NOTICE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT-CIVIL

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/22/2021
  • Hearing11/22/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Consolidate

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2021
  • Hearing06/24/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2021
  • DocketReply (PLAINTIFF GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY?S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASE NO. 20STCV19209 WITH RELATED CASE NO. BC689708 AND CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DEADLINES); Filed by GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY (Non-Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2021
  • DocketDeclaration (DECLARATION OF MARK BOLIN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY?S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASE NO. 20STCV19209 WITH RELATED CASE NO. BC689708 AND CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DEADLINES); Filed by GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY (Non-Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2021
  • DocketOpposition (Plaintiff Mark Fantasia's Opposition to Motion to Consolidate cases; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Michael L. Justice); Filed by Mark David Ubaldi Fantasia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2021
  • Docketat 1:25 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Non-Appearance Case Review - Notice o Related Cases) of 04/19/2021); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review - Notice o Related Cases)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
83 More Docket Entries
  • 06/22/2018
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by Lisa Aileen Palombo (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Lisa Aileen Palombo (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2018
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by Lisa Aileen Palombo (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2018
  • DocketCROSS-COMPLAINT PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2018
  • DocketANSWER OF LISA AILEEN PALOMBO TO THE UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF MARK DAVID UBALDI FANTASIA

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2018
  • DocketNOTICE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT-CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2018
  • DocketNotice and Acknowledgment of Receipt; Filed by Mark David Ubaldi Fantasia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Mark David Ubaldi Fantasia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC689708    Hearing Date: February 11, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Deem Matters in Request for Admissions (Set One) as True

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On January 10, 2018, Plaintiff Mark David Ubaldi Fantasia filed a complaint against Defendant Lisa Aileen Palombo alleging general and motor vehicle negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on May 1, 2017.

On June 22, 2018, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Lisa Aileen Palombo filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Mark David Ubaldi Fantasia seeking indemnity and apportionment.

On September 11, 2019, the Court dismissed Does 1 through 100 from Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Mark David Ubaldi Fantasia’s complaint.

January 3, 2020, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Mark David Ubaldi Fantasia filed a motion to deem the matter in Request for Admissions (Set One) as true against Defendant/Cross-Complainant Lisa Aileen Palombo pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b).

Trial is set for May 6, 2020.

PARTIES REQUESTS

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Mark David Ubaldi Fantasia (“Moving Party”) asks the Court to deem the matters in Request for Admissions (Set One) as true against Defendant/Cross-Complainant Lisa Aileen Palombo because she failed to serve timely responses.

Moving Party also asks the Court to impose $3,648 in monetary sanctions against Defendant/Cross-Complainant Lisa Aileen Palombo and her counsel of record for abusing the discovery process.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), a “party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010).”  The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

DISCUSSION

On October 31, 2019, Moving Party served Request for Admissions (Set One) on Defendant/Cross-Complainant Lisa Aileen Palombo by U.S. mail.  (Justice Decl., ¶ 2, 9, Exh. 1.)  Moving Party has not received a response from Defendant/Cross-Complainant Lisa Aileen Palombo as of the signing of Michael L. Justice’s declaration on March 21, 2017.  (Justice Decl., 3.)

The Court finds the motion is properly granted.  Moving Party served Request for Admissions (Set One) on Defendant/Cross-Complainant Lisa Aileen PalomboDefendant/Cross-Complainant Lisa Aileen Palombo did not serve a timely response.  There are no facts alleged showing Defendant/Cross-Complainant Lisa Aileen Palombo acted with a substantial justification or sanctions would otherwise be unjust.

Moving Party’s request for $3,648 in sanctions for this straight-forward motion is unreasonable.  Rather, the Court finds $350 is a reasonable amount of sanctions to be imposed against Defendant/Cross-Complainant Lisa Aileen Palombo and her counsel of record for their abuse of the discovery process.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

Moving Party’s Requests for Admission (Set One) served on Defendant/Cross-Complainant Lisa Aileen Palombo are deemed to be admitted against Defendant/Cross-Complainant Lisa Aileen Palombo.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Lisa Aileen Palombo and her counsel of record are ordered to pay Moving Party $350 within 30 days of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MARSHALL BROOKS P. ESQ.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MARSHALL BROOKS PATERSON