This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/02/2019 at 06:51:45 (UTC).

MARK LENHOFF VS HOME DEPOT USA INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/16/2017 MARK LENHOFF filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against HOME DEPOT USA INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5059

  • Filing Date:

    06/16/2017

  • 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

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

LENHOFF MARK

Defendants and Respondents

KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS SERVICES LLC

HEMPHILL DAN

DOES 1-50

HOME DEPOT USA INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

HARRIS HOWARD ESQ.

HARRIS HOWARD BERNARD ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

RODOLFF BARRY L. ESQ.

RODOLFF BARRY LEWIS ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

10/3/2018: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

Stipulation and Order

3/18/2019: Stipulation and Order

Motion for Order

4/17/2019: Motion for Order

Motion for Order

4/17/2019: Motion for Order

Ex Parte Application

4/18/2019: Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

4/18/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

4/19/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order

5/9/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

5/10/2019: Notice of Ruling

Civil Case Cover Sheet

6/16/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint

6/16/2017: Complaint

Summons

6/16/2017: Summons

CoverSheet

6/16/2017: CoverSheet

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

8/22/2017: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

8/22/2017: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

CIVIL DEPOSIT

8/22/2017: CIVIL DEPOSIT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

9/12/2017: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

9/12/2017: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

6 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/31/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Home Depot USA, Inc. (Defendant); Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC (Defendant); Dan Hemphill (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Continue the Trial Date) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue the Trial Date)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (to Continue the Trial Date); Filed by Home Depot USA, Inc. (Defendant); Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC (Defendant); Dan Hemphill (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • Motion for Order (COMPELLING PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO AND DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO CCP SECTION 2023.030(a); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES); Filed by Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
8 More Docket Entries
  • 09/12/2017
  • Answer; Filed by Home Depot USA, Inc. (Defendant); Dan Hemphill (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • Answer; Filed by Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • Receipt; Filed by Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Mark Lenhoff (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2017
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC665059    Hearing Date: December 30, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND MONETARY SANCTIONS

On October 3, 2018, plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Jovanny Chavez (“Defendant”) relating to a July 18, 2017 automobile accident. On April 30, 2019, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories (Set One) on Defendant. On August 30, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel received unverified responses. Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant’s verified responses to discovery and monetary sanctions. Defense counsel states that he informed Defendant about the outstanding discovery and motion to compel, but he has not received the verifications. He states Defendant does not have a mailing address.

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) It is well-settled that “unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1888) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636; Zorro Inv. Co. v. Great Pacific Securities Corp. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914.)

Defendant failed to serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s requests for discovery. Accordingly, the Motion to compel Defendant’s responses are GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) Defendant presents no evidence explaining why he has not provided verifications. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Defendant in the amount of $360.00 to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: BC665059    Hearing Date: December 27, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT LOERA TRUCKING’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND MONETARY SANCTIONS

On May 16, 2019, Plaintiff Ryan Bergstrom (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Loera Trucking (“Loera”) and Sandor Balmore for injuries from a March 6, 2018 motor vehicle incident. On August 15, Loera served its first sets of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Demand for Production of Documents on Plaintiff. Plaintiff obtained two extensions on responses. Loera denied the request for a third extension. Loera’s counsel then sent a meet and confer letter and requested Plaintiff provide responses by October 31, 2019. On November 11, 2019, defense counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel they would be filing motions to compel, and Plaintiff’s counsel stated a new firm was substituting in. On November 12, 2019, defense counsel called the firm that was supposedly substituting in for Plaintiff’s counsel and left a voicemail. On November 19, 2019, defense counsel called and emailed the prior firm to advise that they had not yet received a substitution of counsel form and that motions to compel were forthcoming if Plaintiff did not provide responses. Plaintiff did not serve responses. Loera filed the motions to compel on November 22, 2019. On December 16, 2019, Plaintiff’s new firm filed a substitution of counsel.

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff opposes these motions on the grounds that his counsel at the time, Heidari Law Group, did not inform him that discovery requests were outstanding and that the motion is moot because his new counsel, The Simon Law Group, has repeatedly offered to provide verified responses. However, Plaintiff does not submit any evidence that he ever served responses. Accordingly, the motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, to Loera’s first set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production of Documents within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff argues sanctions are not warranted because he was not aware of any discovery and his counsel was not informed of the outstanding discovery until November 25, 2019 when his former counsel forwarded the motions to compel. However, Plaintiff retained The Simon Law Group as counsel on September 20, 2019, and his new counsel received Plaintiff’s client file on October 17, 2019. Plaintiff did not file the motions to compel until more than a month later on November 22, 2019. The old and new counsel did not keep defense counsel advised about which firm was responsible for the case and did not timely file a substitution of counsel. Accordingly, Loera’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Plaintiff’s prior and current counsel of record, jointly and severally in the reduced amount of $1,020.00, to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.