This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/09/2022 at 05:05:57 (UTC).

MERLITA MORENO VS MIGUEL PEREZ

Case Summary

On 04/07/2021 MERLITA MORENO filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against MIGUEL PEREZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JILL FEENEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

Case Details

Case Number:
*******3221

Filing Date:
04/07/2021

Case Status:
Pending - Other Pending

Case Type:

Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

Court:
Los Angeles County Superior Courts

Courthouse:
Spring Street Courthouse

County, State:
Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JILL FEENEY

Party Details

Plaintiff

MORENO MERLITA

Defendant

PEREZ MIGUEL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

AUSTIN L. BISHOP

Defendant Attorney

LEE JAMES

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFFS V...)

12/6/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFFS V...)

Motion to Dismiss - MOTION TO DISMISS FOR ORDER DISMISING THE ACTION OF PLAINTIFF MERLITA MORENO IN ITS ENTIRETY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S DISCOVERY ORDER AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING M

11/30/2022: Motion to Dismiss - MOTION TO DISMISS FOR ORDER DISMISING THE ACTION OF PLAINTIFF MERLITA MORENO IN ITS ENTIRETY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S DISCOVERY ORDER AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING M

Notice of Ruling

10/13/2022: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEFENDANT MIGUEL PEREZ'S MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLI...)

10/12/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEFENDANT MIGUEL PEREZ'S MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLI...)

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

9/9/2022: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFFS VERIFIED RESPONSES TO SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES (SET NO. 1) AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY

8/25/2022: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFFS VERIFIED RESPONSES TO SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES (SET NO. 1) AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFFS VERIFIED RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET NO. 2) AND FOR AN ORDER IMP

8/25/2022: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFFS VERIFIED RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET NO. 2) AND FOR AN ORDER IMP

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE, ARGUMENT AND REFERENCE TO DEFENDANT FORCING PLAINTIFF TO GO TO TRIAL OR DELAYING THE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF

8/12/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE, ARGUMENT AND REFERENCE TO DEFENDANT FORCING PLAINTIFF TO GO TO TRIAL OR DELAYING THE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 TO PRECLUDE ALL COUNSEL FROM EXHIBITING FAMILIARITY WITH WITNESSES, PARTIES, OR OTHER COUNSEL AT TRIAL; DECLARATION OF JAMES LEE

8/12/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 TO PRECLUDE ALL COUNSEL FROM EXHIBITING FAMILIARITY WITH WITNESSES, PARTIES, OR OTHER COUNSEL AT TRIAL; DECLARATION OF JAMES LEE

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDEPRECLUDEPROHIBIT EVIDENCE OF MEDICAL EXPENSES OTHER THAN THE RATE NEGOTIATED BY PLAINTIFF'S INSURANCE COMPANY; DECLARAT

8/12/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDEPRECLUDEPROHIBIT EVIDENCE OF MEDICAL EXPENSES OTHER THAN THE RATE NEGOTIATED BY PLAINTIFF'S INSURANCE COMPANY; DECLARAT

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 FOR ORDER PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRECONDITIONING THE JURY; DECLARATION OF JAMES LEE

8/12/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 FOR ORDER PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRECONDITIONING THE JURY; DECLARATION OF JAMES LEE

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 TO PRECLUDE ALL PARTIES FROM SHOWING EXHIBITS BY POWERPOINT OR VIDEO WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING CONSENT OF THE COURT AND PERMITTING

8/12/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 TO PRECLUDE ALL PARTIES FROM SHOWING EXHIBITS BY POWERPOINT OR VIDEO WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING CONSENT OF THE COURT AND PERMITTING

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF OR REFERENCE TO SETTLEMENT OFFERS OR DISCUSSIONS; DECLARATION OF JAMES LEE

8/12/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF OR REFERENCE TO SETTLEMENT OFFERS OR DISCUSSIONS; DECLARATION OF JAMES LEE

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF OR REFERENCE TO DEFENDANT'S LIABILITY INSURANCE; DECLARATION OF JAMES LEE

8/12/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF OR REFERENCE TO DEFENDANT'S LIABILITY INSURANCE; DECLARATION OF JAMES LEE

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDEPRECLUDEPROHIBIT PLAINTIFF'S USE OF OR ARGUMENT REGARDING THE GOLDEN RULE; DECLARATION OF JAMES LEE

8/12/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDEPRECLUDEPROHIBIT PLAINTIFF'S USE OF OR ARGUMENT REGARDING THE GOLDEN RULE; DECLARATION OF JAMES LEE

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 FOR AN ORDER PROHIBITING PLAINTIFF FROM ARGUINGIMPOSING AN IMPROPER STANDARD OF CARE; DECLARATION OF JAMES LEE

8/12/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 FOR AN ORDER PROHIBITING PLAINTIFF FROM ARGUINGIMPOSING AN IMPROPER STANDARD OF CARE; DECLARATION OF JAMES LEE

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [PI GENERAL ORDER], STANDING ORDER RE PI PROCEDURES AND HEARING DATES

4/20/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [PI GENERAL ORDER], STANDING ORDER RE PI PROCEDURES AND HEARING DATES

PI General Order

4/20/2021: PI General Order

12 More Documents Available

View All Documents

Docket Entries

04/03/2024

Hearing04/03/2024 at 08:30 AM in Department 30 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal
[+] Read More [-] Read Less

07/28/2023

Hearing07/28/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 30 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial
[+] Read More [-] Read Less

07/14/2023

Hearing07/14/2023 at 10:00 AM in Department 30 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference
[+] Read More [-] Read Less

12/30/2022

Hearing12/30/2022 at 1:30 PM in Department 30 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
[+] Read More [-] Read Less

12/06/2022

DocketUpdated -- Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFFS VERIFIED RESPONSES TO SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES (SET NO. 1) AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JAMES LEE: Filed By: miguel perez (Defendant); Result: Granted ; Result Date: 12/06/2022 ; As To Parties changed from MERLITA MORENO (Plaintiff) to MERLITA MORENO (Plaintiff)
[+] Read More [-] Read Less

12/06/2022

DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel for Order Compelling Plaintiffs V...)
[+] Read More [-] Read Less

12/06/2022

DocketHearing on Motion to Compel for Order Compelling Plaintiffs Verified Responses to Specially Prepared Interrogatories (Set No. 1) and for an Order Imposing Monetary Sanctions scheduled for 12/06/2022 at 01:30 PM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 30 updated: Result Date to 12/06/2022; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted
[+] Read More [-] Read Less

12/05/2022

DocketUpdated -- Event scheduled for 12/06/2022 at 01:30 PM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 30 Type changed from Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") to Hearing on Motion to Compel (name extension)
[+] Read More [-] Read Less

11/30/2022

DocketMotion to Dismiss; Filed by: miguel perez (Defendant)
[+] Read More [-] Read Less

11/30/2022

DocketUpdated -- Motion to Dismiss FOR ORDER DISMISING THE ACTION OF PLAINTIFF MERLITA MORENO IN ITS ENTIRETY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S DISCOVERY ORDER AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS;: Name Extension: FOR ORDER DISMISING THE ACTION OF PLAINTIFF MERLITA MORENO IN ITS ENTIRETY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S DISCOVERY ORDER AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS; ; As To Parties:
[+] Read More [-] Read Less

24 More Docket Entries

View All Docket Entries

04/20/2021

DocketCertificate of Mailing for [PI General Order], Standing Order re PI Procedures and Hearing Dates; Filed by: Clerk
[+] Read More [-] Read Less

04/20/2021

DocketPI General Order; Filed by: Clerk
[+] Read More [-] Read Less

04/07/2021

DocketFinal Status Conference scheduled for 09/21/2022 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 28
[+] Read More [-] Read Less

04/07/2021

DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/05/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 28
[+] Read More [-] Read Less

04/07/2021

DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal scheduled for 04/03/2024 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 28
[+] Read More [-] Read Less

04/07/2021

DocketComplaint; Filed by: MERLITA MORENO (Plaintiff); As to: miguel perez (Defendant)
[+] Read More [-] Read Less

04/07/2021

DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: MERLITA MORENO (Plaintiff); As to: miguel perez (Defendant)
[+] Read More [-] Read Less

04/07/2021

DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: MERLITA MORENO (Plaintiff); As to: miguel perez (Defendant)
[+] Read More [-] Read Less

04/07/2021

DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
[+] Read More [-] Read Less

04/07/2021

DocketCase assigned to Hon. Daniel M. Crowley in Department 28 Spring Street Courthouse
[+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******3221 Hearing Date: December 6, 2022 Dept: 30

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

December 6, 2022

*******3221

Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) filed by Defendant Miguel Perez

DECISION

The motion is granted.

The request for sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections within 30 days after the date of this order.

Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.

Background

This is an action for negligence and motor vehicle negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in April 2019. Plaintiff Merlita Moreno filed her Complaint against Miguel Perez on April 7, 2021.

On August 25, 2022, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to his Special Interrogatories (“SROGs”), set 1.

Summary

Moving Arguments

Defendant propounded his SROGs, on Plaintiff on June 6, 2022. Although Defendant reminded Plaintiff to serve his responses, Plaintiff has not served any responses to date.

Opposing Arguments

None.

Legal Standard

Compelling Responses to Interrogatories

Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response. (Code Civ. Proc. section 2030.260, subd. (a).)

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc section 2030.290, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that needs be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

Sanctions

A court may not award monetary sanctions under Code Civ. Proc. 2023.010 and 2023.030 standing alone or read together. (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466.) Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents 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., 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c)).) Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to deem requests for admissions admitted if a party to whom the requests for admissions have been directed failed to serve a timely response to the request for admission. (Code Civ. Proc., 2033.280(c).)

Discussion

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s responses to his SROGs.

Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff’s responses to his SROGs. Defendant supports his claims with a declaration from Counsel. Defendant propounded written discovery on Plaintiff on June 6, 2022, with responses due by July 8, 2022. (Lee Decl., 2.) Defendant’s Counsel reminded Plaintiff of the deadline and allowed additional time up to July 22, 2022 for Plaintiff to serve responses. (Id., 4.) To date, Defendant has not received Plaintiff’s responses to his SROGs (Id., 5.) Because Plaintiff has not responded to the discovery requests, the motion is granted.

Discovery sanctions may not be imposed under Section 2023.030, even together with Section 2023.010, absent another provision of the Discovery Act that authorizes the imposition of sanctions. (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466.) Sanctions for with respect to the interrogatories are only authorized against a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel responses. (See Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2030.290(c).). Here, the requests for sanctions is denied because the motion was not opposed.

Case Number: *******3221 Hearing Date: October 12, 2022 Dept: 30

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

October 12, 2022

*******3221

Motion to Compel Responses by Plaintiff to Requests for Production of Documents (Set No.2) filed by Defendant Miguel Perez and Request for Sanctions

DECISION

The motion is granted.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections within 20 days after the date of this order.

Sanctions in the amount of $300.26 are imposed jointly and severally against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel of Record. Sanctions are due within 20 days after the date of this order.

The moving party is ordered to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.

Background

On August 25, 2022, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to his demand for inspection and production of documents, set 2.

Summary

Moving Arguments

Defendant propounded his RPDs, set 2, on Plaintiff on June 6, 2022. Although Defendant reminded Plaintiff to serve his responses, Plaintiff has not served any responses to date.

Opposing Arguments

None.

Legal Standard

Compelling Response to Demand for Production of Documents

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. 2031.300, subd. (a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

Sanctions

Sanctions may be imposed for misuse of discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., 2023.030, subd. (a). ) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., 2023.010, subd. (d).) Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents 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., 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), 2033.280(c).)

Discussion

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s responses to his second set of RPDs.

Defendant is entitled to orders compelling Plaintiff’s responses to his second set of RPDs. Defendant supports his motion with a declaration from Counsel. Defendant propounded his second set of RPDs on Plaintiff on June 6, 2022, with responses due by July 8, 2022. (Lee Decl., 2.) Defendant’s Counsel reminded Plaintiff of the deadline and allowed additional time up to July 22, 2022 for Plaintiff to serve responses. (Id., 4.) To date, Defendant has not received Plaintiff’s responses to his second set of RPDs. (Id., 5.) Because Plaintiff has not responded to the discovery requests, the motion is granted.

With respect to sanctions, the Court finds that Plaintiff misused the discovery responses by failing to timely respond to Defendant’s second set of RPDs. Defendant requests $615.51 in sanctions for 3 hours of attorney time, 1 hour of legal assistant time, and filing fees. However, given the simplicity of this motion and the lack of opposition, the award is adjusted to 1.5 hours of attorney time billed at a rate of $160.17 per hour plus filing fees for a total of $300.26.

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases

Latest cases represented by Lawyer AUSTIN L. BISHOP

Why is this public record being published online?