This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/13/2022 at 18:20:18 (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, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DENNIS J. LANDIN, JOEL L. LOFTON, STEPHEN M. MOLONEY, WILLIAM A. CROWFOOT, THERESA M. TRABER, CHRISTOPHER K. LUI and DANIEL M. CROWLEY. 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

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DENNIS J. LANDIN

JOEL L. LOFTON

STEPHEN M. MOLONEY

WILLIAM A. CROWFOOT

THERESA M. TRABER

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

STANG MICHAEL

Defendants

ACCESS SERVICES

GLOBAL PARATRANSIT INC

PAPALIITELE ITAGIA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

HOVDEN DEL D. ESQ.

MCGEE LERER AND ASSOCIATES

MCGEE DANIEL MATTHEW

OGRIN KENNETH DEAN

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

CARLSON JEFFERY J. ESQ.

LENKOV JEFFREY M.

ZIMMER JEANNE LOUISE

LENKOV JEFFREY

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

5/26/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

2/15/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 02/15/2022

2/15/2022: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 02/15/2022

Notice of Settlement

2/15/2022: Notice of Settlement

Notice of Ruling

2/15/2022: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

1/24/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO ADVANCE AND SPECIALLY SET THE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

12/28/2021: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO ADVANCE AND SPECIALLY SET THE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO ADVANCE AND SPEC...)

12/29/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO ADVANCE AND SPEC...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO ADVA...)

1/3/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO ADVA...)

Motion for Protective Order

12/17/2021: Motion for Protective Order

[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

9/10/2021: [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

Notice - NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

8/24/2021: Notice - NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

Substitution of Attorney

8/25/2021: Substitution of Attorney

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

5/25/2021: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

1/5/2021: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Proof of Personal Service

1/7/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Declaration - DECLARATION DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT ITAGIA PAPALIITELE; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $765.00 AGAIN

1/15/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT ITAGIA PAPALIITELE; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $765.00 AGAIN

Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT ITAGIA PAPALIITELE; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $765.00 AGAINST

1/15/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT ITAGIA PAPALIITELE; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $765.00 AGAINST

97 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/24/2022
  • Hearing08/24/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/08/2022
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 28; Hearing on Motion for Protective Order - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/26/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/26/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement))); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/01/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/16/2022
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 28; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/15/2022
  • Docketat 09:56 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Court Order

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/15/2022
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 28; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Responses) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/15/2022
  • DocketNotice of Settlement; Filed by Michael Stang (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/15/2022
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Michael Stang (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
182 More Docket Entries
  • 11/17/2017
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Access Services (Defendant); Global Paratransit, Inc (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/05/2017
  • DocketDEFENDANTS ACCESS SERVICES AND GLOBAL PARATRANSIT INC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/05/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Access Services (Defendant); Global Paratransit, Inc (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/17/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/17/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Michael Stang (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/17/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/17/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Michael Stang (Plaintiff)

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

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/19/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/19/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Michael Stang (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****8448    Hearing Date: January 29, 2021    Dept: 28

Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition and Request for Monetary Sanctions

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, and Does 1 to 50 alleging negligence based on Defendants’ failure to properly align Plaintiff’s wheelchair on the exit ramp of a van, causing him to fall. 

On July 24, 2019, Plaintiff substituted Itagia Papaliitel (“Defendant”) for Doe 1.

On January 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel Defendant to appear for a deposition.  

Trial is scheduled for May 14, 2021.  

PARTIES’ REQUEST

Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Defendant Papaliitel to appear for deposition and for sanctions in the amount of $1,655.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action.  The person deposed may be a natural person, an organization such as a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, or a governmental agency.  (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2025.010.)  

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 states if a party to the action fails to appear for deposition after service of a deposition notice and the party has not served a valid objection to that deposition notice, the party that noticed the deposition may move for an order to compel the deponent to attend and testify at deposition.  (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2025.450, subd. (a).)  

DISCUSSION

As pointed out in the opposition and reply, the deposition went forward on January 21, 2021. Accordingly, the motion is MOOT.

Although it appears that Defendant’s counsel made efforts to coordinate a deposition date with Defendant and Plaintiff’s counsel, the efforts were insufficient. On December 9, 2020, Plaintiff provided available dates in response to defense counsel’s e-mail. Plaintiff requested available dates from Defendant, however, no response was received. On December 15, 2020, defense counsel called Plaintiff’s counsel, but could not follow up or send an email prior to the motion being filed on January 5, 2021 because of other business and the holidays. In light of the foregoing, it appears Defendant’s and counsel’s conduct necessitated the instant motion. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant did not act with substantial justification and there are no other circumstances making the imposition of the sanctions unjust. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $485 ($200 x 2 hours, plus $70 in filing fees and $15 in remote appearance fees). 

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED. 

Defendant Papaliitele and counsel of record are ordered to pay Plaintiff $485 within 30 days of this order.  

Plaintiff to give notice.  

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.  



Case Number: ****8448    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. 



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where GLOBAL PARATRANSIT INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where ACCESS SERVICES is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer ZIMMER JEANNE L.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer CARLSON JEFFERY JOHN