This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/17/2020 at 08:43:50 (UTC).

MICHAEL STANG VS ACCESS SERVICES ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/19/2017 MICHAEL STANG filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ACCESS SERVICES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DENNIS J. LANDIN, JOEL L. LOFTON, 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:

    ****8448

  • Filing Date:

    04/19/2017

  • 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 Judges

DENNIS J. LANDIN

JOEL L. LOFTON

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

STEPHEN M. MOLONEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

STANG MICHAEL

Defendants and Respondents

ACCESS SERVICES

GLOBAL PARATRANSIT INC

DOES 1 TO 50

PAPALIITELE ITAGIA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

HOVDEN DEL D. ESQ.

MCGEE LERER AND ASSOCIATES

OGRIN KENNETH DEAN

MCGEE DANIEL MATTHEW

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

CARLSON JEFFERY J. ESQ.

ZIMMER JEANNE LOUISE

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

7/16/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

1/17/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

1/29/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

2/21/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF AM RE EX PARTE NOTICE

2/21/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF AM RE EX PARTE NOTICE

Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

2/27/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER CONTINUING MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY) OF 03/18/2020

3/18/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER CONTINUING MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY) OF 03/18/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)

4/14/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)

Notice - Notice Of Unavailability

11/6/2018: Notice - Notice Of Unavailability

Notice of Ruling

12/26/2018: Notice of Ruling

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF MICHAEL STANG TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND ETC.

2/9/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF MICHAEL STANG TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND ETC.

INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE FORM FOR PERSONAL INJURY COURTS

6/6/2018: INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE FORM FOR PERSONAL INJURY COURTS

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

7/12/2018: DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

7/13/2018: DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

7/13/2018: DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; DECLARATION OF JEANNE L. ZIMMER

7/13/2018: DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; DECLARATION OF JEANNE L. ZIMMER

SUMMONS -

4/19/2017: SUMMONS -

DEFENDANTS ACCESS SERVICES AND GLOBAL PARATRANSIT INC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

6/5/2017: DEFENDANTS ACCESS SERVICES AND GLOBAL PARATRANSIT INC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

68 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/14/2021
  • Hearing05/14/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2021
  • Hearing04/29/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2020
  • Docketat 3:30 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Order (Motion for Order Reopening Discovery) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Order Motion for Order Reopening Discovery)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2020
  • DocketReply (Reply in support of Motion to Reopen Discovery); Filed by Michael Stang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2020
  • DocketNotice (Notice of Errata); Filed by Michael Stang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/28/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
136 More Docket Entries
  • 11/17/2017
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Access Services (Defendant); Global Paratransit, Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2017
  • DocketDEFENDANTS ACCESS SERVICES AND GLOBAL PARATRANSIT INC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Michael Stang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Michael Stang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Michael Stang (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC658448    Hearing Date: June 26, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Reopen Discovery

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On April 19, 2017, Plaintiff Michael Stang (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Access Services, Global Paratransit Inc., and Does 1-50 (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging a cause of action for negligence.  Plaintiff alleges that on October 22, 2016, while in a parking lot, Defendants’ employee failed to properly align Plaintiff’s wheelchair on a van’s exit ramp during the process of transporting Plaintiff off of the van, causing the wheelchair to fall off the ramp with Plaintiff still in it and resulting in Plaintiff sustaining injuries. 

On July 24, 2019, Plaintiff amended the complaint to substitute Defendant Itagia Papaliitele (“Papaliitele”) in place of Doe 1.  On January 24, 2020, the Court entered default as to Defendant Papaliitele

On February 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed the motion to reopen all discovery.  On the same date, Plaintiff also filed an ex parte application for an order shortening the time for Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery, or in the alternative, for an order granting the motion.  On February 28, 2020, the Court called the ex parte application for hearing and denied it on the ground that the Court did not find good cause to grant the request.  

On March 16, 2020, Defendants filed the opposition to Plaintiff’s motion.

On March 18, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery to April 24, 2020.

On April 14, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery to June 26, 2020.

A trial setting conference is scheduled for July 16, 2020. 

PARTY’S REQUEST

Plaintiff moves the Court pursuant to CCP § 2024.050 to reopen all discovery in this matter on the grounds that Defendants previously agreed to continue all trial deadlines to follow the rescheduled trial date pursuant to stipulation, that Defendant Papaliitele’s default is pending and her deposition will be crucial to liability, and that Plaintiff’s future surgery is complicated by a prior stroke and a later heart attack, and will generate further discovery.  In Plaintiff’s reply, Plaintiff agrees to limit his request to reopen discovery to the deposition of Papaliitele. LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 states: “(a) On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set.  This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. 

“(b) In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following:  (1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery.  (2) The diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier.  (3) Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party.  (4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action. 

“(c) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to extend or to reopen discovery, 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.” 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff contends that good cause exists to reopen discovery.  Plaintiff argues that on December 30, 2019, the parties agreed to continue all trial deadlines to follow the “new trial date” pursuant to the parties’ prior stipulation to continue trial.  (Declaration of Daniel M. McGee (“McGee Decl.”), ¶ 2.)  Plaintiff contends that in the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s January 17, 2020 ex parte application to continue the trial date to 4/28/2020, discovery may be continued by stipulation or motion.  (McGee Decl., ¶ 6, Exhibit C.Plaintiff also argues that Defendants’ employee, Defendant Papaliitele, was the driver of the van who allegedly caused Plaintiff’s wheelchair to fall from the van ramp, and that Defendants did not notify Plaintiff as to whether they would answer for Papaliitele in this action.  (McGee Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.)  Plaintiff argues that Papaliitele’s deposition will be crucial concerning liability and damages.  (McGee Decl., ¶ 7.)  Finally, Plaintiff contends that he will undergo surgery later this year, which would result in further discovery and expert work.  (McGee Decl., ¶ 7.)  

In opposition, Defendants contend that Plaintiff failed to comply with the meet and confer requirement pursuant to CCP § 2024.050(a).  Furthermore, Defendants argue that Plaintiff, ever since his current counsel became involved in the matter in July 2018, has not scheduled any depositions or serve other discovery until after the current discovery cut-off had expired and without explanation(Declaration of Jeanne L. Zimmer (“Zimmer Decl.”), ¶ 2-3, 12-13.)  

Furthermore, Defendants argue that they identified Defendant Papaliitele as the van driver in the subject incident via discovery responses served on October 16, 2017.  (Zimmer Decl., ¶ 3.)  Defendants assert that they did not know her whereabouts and that she was not a party to the action until Plaintiff located and served her with the summons and complaint in Utah on November 4, 2019.  (Zimmer Decl., ¶ 4-5.)  Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s counsel did not advise Defendants’ counsel that Defendant Papaliitele had been served until after January 17, 2020, following Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue the trial date, and that Plaintiff filed the request for entry of default as to Papaliitele two days later, before Defendants’ counsel could respond as to whether they would answer for Papaliitele (Zimmer Decl., 5-6; McGee Decl., Exhibit D.)  

Finally, Defendants contend that the stipulation that the parties signed pursuant to the prior motion to continue trial only allowed for discovery to track with the new trial date if it were for purposes of independent medical examination of Plaintiff or expert discovery, and that Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to the stipulation limited discovery by email(Zimmer Decl., ¶9-11, Exhibits 1, 2.)  

In reply, Plaintiff agrees to limit his request to reopen discovery to taking Papaliitele’s deposition. 

The Court finds good cause to reopen discovery to take the deposition of Papaliitele. Papaliitele was only recently (in the current sense of that word, i.e., just pre-COVID) served with the complaint.  Moreover, any trial of this case will not likely occur until the end of 2020, if that soon, so there is no prejudice to any party cause by any delay caused by allowing the deposition.  

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED, but only to allow the deposition of Papaliitele.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Please review the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.