This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/17/2020 at 15:22:46 (UTC).

MICHELLE R AVERY VS ADAM E NAVARRO

Case Summary

On 05/10/2018 MICHELLE R AVERY filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against ADAM E NAVARRO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are YOLANDA OROZCO, AMY D. HOGUE and LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5625

  • Filing Date:

    05/10/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • 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

YOLANDA OROZCO

AMY D. HOGUE

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

AVERY MICHELLE R.

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 75

NAVARRO ADAM E.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

O'SULLIVAN MICHAEL P. ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

POLL GABRIEL S. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS) OF 12/19/2019

12/19/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS) OF 12/19/2019

Order - ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS

12/19/2019: Order - ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS

Notice of Ruling

11/6/2019: Notice of Ruling

Motion to Dismiss

10/31/2019: Motion to Dismiss

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

10/21/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF RENE CHRUN IN SUPPORT THEREOF; [PROPOSED] ORDER

10/22/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF RENE CHRUN IN SUPPORT THEREOF; [PROPOSED] ORDER

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL)

10/22/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL)

Notice of Ruling

9/23/2019: Notice of Ruling

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF DEFEDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION AND PRO

8/14/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF DEFEDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION AND PRO

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIE

5/2/2019: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIE

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE AND PRODUCTION OF RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS AND

5/2/2019: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE AND PRODUCTION OF RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS AND

Minute Order -

9/7/2018: Minute Order -

FIRST AMENDED DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

9/17/2018: FIRST AMENDED DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL-CIVIL

8/23/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL-CIVIL

ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS, BIXIA LIU AND XI WANG, TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

6/8/2018: ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS, BIXIA LIU AND XI WANG, TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

7/5/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

SUMMONS -

5/10/2018: SUMMONS -

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

5/10/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

15 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/19/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Dismiss - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2019
  • DocketOrder (re: Motion to Dismiss); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2019
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Hearing on Motion to Dismiss) of 12/19/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Dismiss)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Adam E. Navarro (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2019
  • DocketMotion to Dismiss; Filed by Adam E. Navarro (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to continue trial) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2019
  • DocketEx Parte Application (to Continue Trial); Filed by Adam E. Navarro (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
28 More Docket Entries
  • 07/10/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Michelle R. Avery (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2018
  • DocketDEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Adam E. Navarro (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2018
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Adam E. Navarro (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2018
  • DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2018
  • DocketANSWER OF DEFENDANTS, BIXIA LIU AND XI WANG, TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Michelle R. Avery (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC705625    Hearing Date: December 19, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS

On May 10, 2018, plaintiff Michelle Avery filed this action against defendant Adam Navarro for injuries and damages relating to an automobile collision. On July 3, 2018, Defendant served Plaintiff with the first set of form interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Responses were initially due August 7, 2018, but counsel stipulated to a two-week extension. Plaintiff did not serve discovery responses. Defendant moved to compel. Plaintiff did not oppose and did not appear at the hearing. On September 20, 2019, this Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and ordered Plaintiff to serve responses and pay monetary sanctions within 20 days. Defendant served a notice of ruling on September 23, 3019. Plaintiff did not provide responses or pay sanctions. Defendant moves to dismiss this case due to Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s discovery order.

Where a party fails to obey an order compelling answers to discovery, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2023.010, subd. (c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) The Court may impose a terminating sanction against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).) Misuse of the discovery process includes failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery or disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (g).) A terminating sanction may be imposed by an order dismissing part or all of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d)(3).)

The court should consider the totality of the circumstances, including conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful, the determent to the propounding party, and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain discovery. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) If a lesser sanction fails to curb abuse, a greater sanction is warranted. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) However, “the unsuccessful imposition of a lesser sanction is not an absolute prerequisite to the utilization of the ultimate sanction.” (Deyo v. Killbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 787.) Terminating sanctions should not be ordered lightly, but are justified where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and there is evidence that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.)

Before any sanctions may be imposed the court must make an express finding that there has been a willful failure of the party to serve the required answers. (Fairfield v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 113, 118.) Lack of diligence may be deemed willful where the party understood its obligation, had the ability to comply, and failed to comply. (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 787; Fred Howland Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 605, 610-611.) The party who failed to comply with discovery obligations has the burden of showing that the failure was not willful. (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 788; Cornwall v. Santa Monica Dairy Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 250; Evid. Code, §§ 500, 605.)

Plaintiff filed no opposition to this Motion, did not serve responses to discovery, and disobeyed a court order to do so. Defendant served a notice of ruling on Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court concludes Plaintiff knew of her discovery obligations and knew of the order compelling her compliance. Given Plaintiff’s prior failure to comply with discovery obligations and apparent disinterest in prosecuting this action, the Court finds her non-compliance is willful and lesser sanctions would not curb the abuse.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s action is hereby dismissed.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.