This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/31/2020 at 07:23:23 (UTC).

MARLAINA FIGUEROA ET AL VS JUAN J PADILLA-LOZA ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/16/2018 MARLAINA FIGUEROA filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against JUAN J PADILLA-LOZA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE and MARK A. BORENSTEIN. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6612

  • Filing Date:

    05/16/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • 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

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

FIGUEROA SABAS

FIGUEROA MARLAINA

Defendants and Respondents

PADILLA MIGUEL

DOES 1 TO 10 INCLUSIVE

PADILLA-LOZA JUAN J.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

WACKER TED B. ESQ.

WACKER TED B ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

GARCIA ROY ESQ.

HOUGHTON LOWELL GEORGE ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6)

3/3/2020: Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT)

3/25/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT)

Judgment - JUDGMENT AFTER JURY TRIAL

3/25/2020: Judgment - JUDGMENT AFTER JURY TRIAL

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)

3/12/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)

Trial Transfer Order - TRIAL TRANSFER ORDER TO JUDGE HORN, DEPT. I, SANTA MONICA, OTR ON 03/06/20 AT 9:00 A.M.

3/3/2020: Trial Transfer Order - TRIAL TRANSFER ORDER TO JUDGE HORN, DEPT. I, SANTA MONICA, OTR ON 03/06/20 AT 9:00 A.M.

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

2/14/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL AND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATES

1/28/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL AND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATES

Jury Instructions

1/9/2020: Jury Instructions

Witness List

1/9/2020: Witness List

Statement of the Case - AMENDED JOINT STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1/10/2020: Statement of the Case - AMENDED JOINT STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO.1

1/2/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO.1

Notice of Ruling

11/21/2019: Notice of Ruling

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLTF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE PLTF'S FAILED TO MITIGATE THEIR DAMAGES BY NOT TREATING THROUGH INSURANCE [2 OF 4]

10/28/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLTF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE PLTF'S FAILED TO MITIGATE THEIR DAMAGES BY NOT TREATING THROUGH INSURANCE [2 OF 4]

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLTFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE REIMBURSEMENT RATES [4 OF 4]

10/28/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLTFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE REIMBURSEMENT RATES [4 OF 4]

Witness List

10/28/2019: Witness List

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

10/30/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

6/25/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Civil Case Cover Sheet -

5/16/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet -

52 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/09/2020
  • DocketAcknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment; Filed by Marlaina Figueroa (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department I; Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs) of 06/30/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2020
  • DocketReply (to Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Motion to Strike or Tax Costs); Filed by Miguel Padilla (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2020
  • DocketOpposition (Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Tax Defendant's Costs); Filed by Miguel Padilla (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Hearing Date for Motion to Tax Costs); Filed by Miguel Padilla (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2020
  • DocketOpposition (to Defendants' Motion to Strike or Tax Costs; Memorandum of Points and Authorities); Filed by Marlaina Figueroa (Plaintiff); Sabas Figueroa (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2020
  • DocketNotice (Pltf's Notice of Motion and Motion to Tax Costs; Memorandum of Points and Authorities); Filed by Marlaina Figueroa (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2020
  • DocketMotion to Tax Costs; Filed by Juan J. Padilla-Loza (Defendant); Miguel Padilla (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
67 More Docket Entries
  • 06/25/2018
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2018
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Juan J. Padilla-Loza (Defendant); Miguel Padilla (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2018
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2018
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Marlaina Figueroa (Plaintiff); Sabas Figueroa (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Marlaina Figueroa (Plaintiff); Sabas Figueroa (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Marlaina Figueroa (Plaintiff); Sabas Figueroa (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Marlaina Figueroa (Plaintiff); Sabas Figueroa (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC706612    Hearing Date: June 30, 2020    Dept: I

Marlaina Figueroa and Saba Figuerov. Juan Padilla-Loza, et al.

BC706612

This motor vehicle accident case was tried to a from March 9, 2020 through March 12, 2020, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $20,000. Judgment was entered on that verdict on March 25, 2020. The plaintiff and the defendant have filed Costs memoranda, and motions to tax each other’s costs. Marlaina Figueroa filed her Costs Memorandum on April 13, 2020, seeking $25,235.48. Juan Padilla-Loza filed his Costs Memorandum on April 2, 2020 seeking $26,558.10. The central dispute giving rise to these dueling motions is the validity and effect of the defendant’s C.C.P 998 offer served on the plaintiff on October 11, 2019 in which the defendants offered to settle the case for a payment to plaintiff in the amount of $25,051. The plaintiff rejected that offer.

THE C.C.P. 998 OFFER

Plaintiff argues that the defendants’ 998 offer was invalid because it was jointly made on behalf of two defendants and because she was prevented from deposing the defendant driver because he faced criminal charges for hit-and-run and asserted his 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The court disagrees with both arguments. Plaintiff argues that because she asserted different claims against each defendant (hit-and-run against the driver) and (owner liability for letting the driver use the vehicle), a single 998 offer was inappropriate. However, plaintiff ignores that facts that 1.) the claims against the driver and the owner are inextricably bound together by the doctrine of derivative liability and 2.) that the defendants admitted liability and the only claim tried to the jury was their joint liability for damages. [See, Special Verdict filed on March 20, 2020.] Thus, as the Second District Court of Appeals held in Santantonio v. Westinghouse Broadcast Co. (1994( 25 Cal. App.4th 102, 115-16, where the case is tried on a theory of joint and several liability, a single offer on behalf of jointly liable defendants under C.C.P. 998 is appropriate.

As to the claim that plaintiff could not depose the defendant driver, the Court notes that a review of the record indicates that plaintiff made no effort to notice the driver’s deposition and follow up with a motion to compel, or take other steps to secure that defendant’s testimony. In any event, the fact that both defendants stipulated to joint liability moots this argument.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the defendants’ 998 offer was valid.

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMED COSTS

As noted above, plaintiff seeks to recover $25,235.48 in costs. However, all but $885.62 post-date the defendants’ 998 offer. Under the provisions of C.C.P. 998, a plaintiff may recover costs only when their recovery exceeds the 998 made by the defendants. [C.C.P. sec. 998(C)(1). Figueroa argues that the Court should compare her recovery ($20,000) plus her unchallenged costs of $5,896.16 in determining whether her total recovery exceeds the defendants’ offer. However, C.C.P. section 998[c](2)(A) precludes that argument here, because it prohibits the Court from considering post-offer costs in making that determination. When plaintiff’s pre-costs of $885.62 are added to the recovery, it is clear that plaintiff’s total recovery did not exceed the defendants 998 offer. Accordingly, plaintiff is only entitled to recover costs in the amount of $885.62. The Clerk is ordered to amend the judgment and add that amount.

DEFENDANTS’ CLAIMED COSTS

The defendants seek to recover costs totaling $26,558.10. However, defendants include in their Memorandum of Costs a total of $9,770 for costs incurred before the date of their 998 offer. These costs include, $870 for the filing fee for their answer, $150 for jury fees paid prior to the offer, and $8,750 for the services of their expert, Dr. Harounian, incurred before the 998 was served. [See, Worksheet attached to Costs Memorandum at 4.] In their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Costs, defendants acknowledge that they are not seeking the costs for Dr. Harounian’s services before the date of the 998. [See, Opposition at 2.] Since the plaintiff received a net recovery against the defendants, she is the prevailing party. Accordingly, the Court will tax a total of $9,770 from defendants’ claimed costs. The Court orders the Clerk to amend the judgment to award defendants costs in the amount of $16,798.10. This amount should be offset against the plaintiff’s total recovery, leaving a total net judgment in plaintiff’s favor of $4,087.52.

Case Number: BC706612    Hearing Date: March 06, 2020    Dept: I

FIGUEROA v. PADILLA-LOZA

BC706612

TENTATIVE RULINGS ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

The Court has reviewed five MIL’s from the plaintiffs and one by the defendants. The Court’s tentative rulings are as follows:

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 1 – Exclude Evidence Plaintiff Was Referred to Doctors by an Attorney or Reference to Plaintiff Treating on A Lien

The Court will deny this motion. As forcefully explained by the defendants in their opposition, evidence that the plaintiffs’ treating doctors came from attorney referral and the fact that those doctors treated on liens against any recovery in this action are highly relevant to the credibility of any treating doctors who referred by counsel and who treated on liens because they have a direct stake in the outcome of this litigation.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 2 – Exclude Evidence Plaintiffs Failed to Mitigate Their Damages By Not Treating Through insurance

The Court will grant this motion. The Second District Court of Appeal had expressly prohibited such evidence in personal injury cases in Pebley v. Santa Clara Organics (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1266, 1275-77. This Court is bound by that decision.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 3 – Exclude Evidence of Prior or Subsequent unrelated Medical Issues

The Court will deny this motion. Plaintiffs’ counsel never explains what they mean by “unrelated Medical Issues.” However, to the extent that prior medical issues can be shown to have affected the same areas of bodies of the plaintiffs at issue in this case, such evidence is relevant to the plaintiffs’ claims of injury. The defendants will be required to lay the required foundation establishing that any such prior injuries more likely than not contributed to the claimed injuries in this case.

The Court will exclude evidence of any subsequent injuries as defendants have not claimed that there is any such evidence.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 4 – Exclude Evidence of Insurance reimbursement Rates

The Court will deny this motion. As the Court of Appeal noted in Pebley, supra, the defendants are entitled to engage in a “wide-ranging inquiry” into the reasonableness of the medical charges being claimed by the plaintiff. That inquiry expressly permits defendants’ experts to consider insurance reimbursement rates, willingness of medical providers to discount charges and other matters affecting the costs of medical care.

Plaintiffs’ MIL No. 5 – Exclude Photos of Vehicle Damage

Hearing required. The Court notes that this matter was set for trial on February 28, 2020. This motion was filed and served electronically on February 13, 2019. Accordingly, the service did not comply with the requirements of C.C.P. sec. 1005 requiring all motions to be filed and served 16 court days before the hearing. In addition, the Court has received no opposition to this motion.

Defendants MIL No. 1 – Preclude Evidence of Defendants Leaving the Scene Before Exchanging Information with the Plaintiffs

The Court will grant this motion based on the stipulation of the parties recited in the Declaration of Lowell G. Houghton.