On 09/22/2017 MATTHEW GRIMALDI filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against MARCO VALLE. 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.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
LAURA A. SEIGLE
DOES 1 TO 30
PAKIZ J. DEREK ESQ.
PAKIZ J DEREK
3/8/2019: Minute Order
9/22/2017: COMPLAINT FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE-PERSONAL INJURY ;ETC
at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Receipt; Filed by MATTHEW GRIMALDI (Plaintiff); YVETTE GRIMALDI (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
CIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE-PERSONAL INJURY ;ETCRead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by MATTHEW GRIMALDI (Plaintiff); YVETTE GRIMALDI (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC676772 Hearing Date: April 26, 2021 Dept: 27
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT MARCO VALLE’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS Plaintiffs Mathew Grimaldi and Yvette Grimaldi filed this action against Marco Valle (“Defendant”), Dora Montilla, and Martha Marquez arising from an October 23, 2015 motor vehicle accident. A proof of service filed on September 10, 2020 reflects that Defendant was served by personal service on September 4, 2020. Defendant moves for an order striking Plaintiff’s complaint and to quash service of summons
A A motion to quash service of summons is predicated on the argument that service was not properly completed. However, the thrust of Defendant’s argument lies in Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410 and 583.420, which permits the court to dismiss an action for delay in prosecution. will construe Defendant’s Motion as a motion to dismiss under those provisions.
Defendant contends the action should be dismissed because Plaintiff did not serve the summons and complaint until nearly three years after the action was commenced. He cites to CRC 3.110(b), which requires the summons and complaint to be served within 60 days, and states that Plaintiff has not filed an application requesting an extension of time to serve him. Defendant also cites to American Western Banker v. Price Waterhouse American Western Banker, the plaintiff failed to serve the summons within two years after commencement of the action and the court dismissed the case upon the defendant’s motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.420(a)(1).
Section 583.420 . Here, Plaintiff did not serve the summons and complaint until nearly three years after the action was commenced. Moreover, the Court notes that it has previously set an OSC re: dismissal for failure to file proof of service for January 25, 2021 and that on January 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed a declaration in which Plaintiff’s counsel, Marc B. Thompson, declared that once Plaintiff’s worker’s compensation case has concluded, Plaintiff’s uninsured motorist claim will be tendered to Plaintiff’s employer’s uninsured motorist insurance carrier, at which point any remaining defendants in this action will be dismissed.
Based on counsel’s representation to the Court and the fact that Plaintiff did not oppose the Motion, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to dismiss the action against him.
Moving party to give notice.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases