This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/21/2019 at 03:11:11 (UTC).

MIGUEL ANGEL MACIAS VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Case Summary

On 11/07/2017 MIGUEL ANGEL MACIAS filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GLORIA WHITE-BROWN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9776

  • Filing Date:

    11/07/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Pomona Courthouse South

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

GLORIA WHITE-BROWN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

MACIA MIGUEL ANGEL

MACIAS MIGUEL ANGEL

Defendants

DET TOY ID 220789

KIRBY DEBORENE

DET. GOMEZ ID 437697

NAFISSI DEPUTY ID 41871

DEPUTY INIGUEZ ID 441883

SAAVEDRA SANTINO

WALNUT SHERRIFFS DEPT.

CAMACHO HERMAN

BUCKNER DAVID

CASAS PATRICIA

DURAN DANIEL B.

GARCIA CHRIS

ESTER KIM

CO. OF LOS ANGELES

DET D. COLEMAN ID 428345

DEPT. SANCHEZ

DEPUTY LIMPANKON ID 409037

DET. PEREZ ID 259438

3 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

TOURTELOT ROBERT HAROLD

Defendant Attorney

GUTERRES TOMAS ANTONIO

 

Court Documents

Civil Case Cover Sheet

11/7/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Unknown

11/13/2017: Unknown

Unknown

11/13/2017: Unknown

Unknown

11/13/2017: Unknown

Unknown

11/13/2017: Unknown

Unknown

11/13/2017: Unknown

Unknown

11/13/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

2/28/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

3/14/2018: Unknown

Other -

3/14/2018: Other -

Substitution of Attorney

5/7/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Minute Order

5/10/2018: Minute Order

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

7/31/2018: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

Minute Order

8/16/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

8/20/2018: Notice of Ruling

Other -

10/9/2018: Other -

Case Management Statement

2/1/2019: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

2/14/2019: Minute Order

44 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/23/2019
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by County of Los Angeles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by County of Los Angeles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department J, Gloria White-Brown, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department J, Gloria White-Brown, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service; Tri...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by County of Los Angeles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (Stipulation and Order of Dismissal); Filed by County of Los Angeles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department J, Gloria White-Brown, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department J, Gloria White-Brown, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service; Tri...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
54 More Docket Entries
  • 11/13/2017
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Miguel Angel Macias (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2017
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Miguel Angel Macias (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2017
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Miguel Angel Macias (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2017
  • Amendment to Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Miguel Angel Macias (Plaintiff); MIGUEL ANGEL MACIA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2017
  • Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2017
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2017
  • Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Miguel Angel Macias (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Miguel Angel Macias (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: KC069776    Hearing Date: November 19, 2020    Dept: J

HEARING DATE: Thursday, November 19, 2020

NOTICE: NOT OK[1]

RE: Macias v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (KC069776)

______________________________________________________________________________

Defendant County of Los Angeles’ MOTION FOR AN ORDER RECLASSIFYING CASE TO LIMITED JURISDICTION

Responding Party: None (unopposed, as of 11/16/20, 8:34 a.m..; due 11/5/20)

Tentative Ruling

The hearing on Defendant County of Los Angeles’ Motion for an Order Reclassifying Case to Limited Jurisdiction is CONTINUED TO January 7, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.

 

Background

Plaintiff Miguel Angel Macias Jr. (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: County Sheriff’s detectives seized Plaintiff’s personal property, business inventory and working capital from his residence, two warehouses and several financial institutions pursuant to an investigation. Plaintiff was prosecuted and thereafter acquitted. County either lost Plaintiff’s goods, or handled them in such a manner that many were damages, destroyed or otherwise unsaleable.

On November 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed 17 “Amendment[s] to Complaint,” wherein Chris Garcia (“Garcia”) was named in lieu of Doe 1, Herman Camacho (“Camacho”) was named in lieu of Doe 2, Daniel B Duran was named in lieu of Doe 3, Deborene Kirby was named in lieu of Doe 4, Santino Saavedra (“Saavedra”) was named in lieu of Doe 5, Angela Becerra was named in lieu of Doe 6, Patricia Casa was named in lieu of Doe 7, Det. D. Coleman (“Coleman”) was named in lieu of Doe 8, Det. Gomez (“Gomez”) was named in lieu of Doe 9, Deputy Iniguez was named in lieu of Doe 10, Kim Esther was named in lieu of Doe 11, David Buckner was named in lieu of Doe 12, Deputy Limpankon was named in lieu of Doe 13, Nafissi Deputy was named in lieu of Doe 14, Det. Toy was named in lieu of Doe 15, Det. Perez was named in lieu of Doe 16 and Det. Sanchez was named in lieu of Doe 17.

On March 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed 3 “Amendment[s] to Complaint,” wherein Officer Burns was named in lieu of Doe 18, Officer Martinez was named in lieu of Doe 19 and Officer Moore was named in lieu of Doe 20.

On August 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants County of Los Angeles (“County”), Garcia, Camacho, Saavedra, Coleman, Gomez and Does 21-50 for:

  1. Negligence

  2. Conversion

  3. Claim and Delivery

  4. Violation of Health & Safety Code § 11469

  5. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

  6. Declaratory Relief

On March 19, 2019, a “Stipulation and Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice of Individual Defendants Christopher Garcia, Herman Camacho, Santino Saavedra, D. Coleman and Gomez” was filed.

The Final Status Conference is set for May 10, 2021. Trial is set for May 18, 2021.

Legal Standard

A defendant or cross-defendant may file a motion to reclassify “within the time allowed for that party to respond to the initial pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (a).) If a party files a motion to reclassify after this time frame then the moving party must “show[] good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (b).) In any event, the court may reclassify a case on its own motion at any time. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (a).)

A matter may be reclassified as a limited civil action “when (i) the absence of jurisdiction is apparent before trial from the complaint, petition, or related documents, or (ii) during the course of pretrial litigation, it becomes clear that the matter will ‘necessarily’ result in a verdict below the superior court jurisdictional amount, and the court affords the parties an opportunity contest transfer.” (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262.) “[T]he test [is] whether ‘lack of jurisdiction is clear” or whether a $25,000 verdict is “’virtually unattainable.’” (Id. at 269.)“This standard involves an evaluation of the amount fairly in controversy, not an adjudication of the merits of the claim, and . . . requires a ‘high level of certainty that [the] damage award will not exceed $25,000.’” (Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 276, quoting Walker, supra, 53 Cal.3d at 269 [emphasis in original].)

Discussion

County moves the court for order reclassifying this action as a limited jurisdiction.

The court will continue the hearing to January 7, 2021 at 10:00 a.m., on the basis that moving party failed to provide sufficient notice. The motion was filed (and served electronically) on October 26, 2020 and set for hearing on November 19, 2020. Code of Civil Procedure § 1005, subdivision (b) provides that “all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing . . .” Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6, subdivision (a)(4)(B) provides that “[a]ny period of notice, or any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period of on a date certain after the service of the document, which time period of date is prescribed by statute of rule of court, shall be extended after service by electronic means by two court days . . .” (Emphasis added.) November 11, 2020 was a court holiday; as such, it is excluded from the notice calculation. Moving party failed to provide 18 court days’ notice.

Moving party is instructed to provide notice of the new hearing date to Plaintiff forthwith and to file a proof of service regarding same no later than 9 court days prior to the continued hearing date.


[1] The motion was filed (and served electronically) on October 26, 2020 and set for hearing on November 19, 2020. Code of Civil Procedure § 1005, subdivision (b) provides that “all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing . . .” Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6, subdivision (a)(4)(B) provides that “[a]ny period of notice, or any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period of on a date certain after the service of the document, which time period of date is prescribed by statute of rule of court, shall be extended after service by electronic means by two court days . . .” (Emphasis added.) November 11, 2020 was a court holiday; as such, it is excluded from the notice calculation. Moving party failed to provide 18 court days’ notice.

Case Number: KC069776    Hearing Date: October 07, 2020    Dept: J

HEARING DATE: Wednesday, October 7, 2020

NOTICE: OK

RE: Macias v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (KC069776)

______________________________________________________________________________

Defendant County of Los Angeles’ MOTION FOR AN ORDER DEEMING REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SET ONE TO PLAINTIFF ADMITTED

Responding Party: None (unopposed, as of 9/25/20, 7:54 a.m.; due 9/24/20)

Tentative Ruling

Defendant County of Los Angeles’ Motion for an Order Deeming Request for Admissions Set One to Plaintiff Admitted is GRANTED. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280, subd. (b), the court orders that the truth of the matters specified in the Requests for Admissions, Set One, propounded by Defendant County of Los Angeles to Plaintiff be deemed admitted. Sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $525.00, payable within 30 days of the date of the hearing.

 

Background

Plaintiff Miguel Angel Macias Jr. (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: County Sheriff’s detectives seized Plaintiff’s personal property, business inventory and working capital from his residence, two warehouses and several financial institutions pursuant to an investigation. Plaintiff was prosecuted and thereafter acquitted. County either lost Plaintiff’s goods , or handled them in such a manner that many were damages, destroyed or otherwise unsaleable.

On November 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed 17 “Amendment[s] to Complaint,” wherein Chris Garcia (“Garcia”) was named in lieu of Doe 1, Herman Camacho (“Camacho”) was named in lieu of Doe 2, Daniel B Duran was named in lieu of Doe 3, Deborene Kirby was named in lieu of Doe 4, Santino Saavedra (“Saavedra”) was named in lieu of Doe 5, Angela Becerra was named in lieu of Doe 6, Patricia Casa was named in lieu of Doe 7, Det. D. Coleman (“Coleman”) was named in lieu of Doe 8, Det. Gomez (“Gomez”) was named in lieu of Doe 9, Deputy Iniguez was named in lieu of Doe 10, Kim Esther was named in lieu of Doe 11, David Buckner was named in lieu of Doe 12, Deputy Limpankon was named in lieu of Doe 13, Nafissi Deputy was named in lieu of Doe 14, Det. Toy was named in lieu of Doe 15, Det. Perez was named in lieu of Doe 16 and Det. Sanchez was named in lieu of Doe 17.

On March 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed 3 “Amendment[s] to Complaint,” wherein Officer Burns was named in lieu of Doe 18, Officer Martinez was named in lieu of Doe 19 and Officer Moore was named in lieu of Doe 20.

On August 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants County of Los Angeles (“County”), Garcia, Camacho, Saavedra, Coleman, Gomez and Does 21-50 for:

  1. Negligence

  2. Conversion

  3. Claim and Delivery

  4. Violation of Health & Safety Code § 11469

  5. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

  6. Declaratory Relief

On March 19, 2019, a “Stipulation and Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice of Individual Defendants Christopher Garcia, Herman Camacho, Santino Saavedra, D. Coleman and Gomez” was filed.

The Final Status Conference is set for May 10, 2021. Trial is set for May 18, 2021.

Legal Standard

A response to requests for admission is due 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., §

2033.250, subd. (a).) If a party to whom the requests for admission are directed fails to serve a

timely response, the requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any

documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to

whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the

motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with

Section 2033.220. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) It is mandatory that the court

impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely

response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd.

(c).)

Again, if tardy responses are served before the hearing on the motion, “[s]ubdivision (c) of section 2033.280 requires the court to evaluate whether the ‘proposed response to the requests for admission’ substantially complies with section 2033.220. This suggests that the court evaluate qualitatively the proposed response to RFAs in toto to determine whether it substantially complies with the code. It does not permit the court to segregate each individual RFA response for the purpose of finding that portions of the document are code-compliant (and will therefore be accepted), while concluding that other portions are noncompliant (and will thus be rejected). Furthermore. . . there is an effective statutory vehicle by which a propounding party may seek a court order compelling a responding party to cure individual RFA responses deemed not to be in compliance with section 2033.220--namely, a motion to compel further responses under section 2033.290. . .” (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 779-780.)

Discussion

County moves the court for order deeming all matters specified in County’s Request for

Admissions, Set One, propounded to Plaintiff admitted and conclusively established for all

purposes in this action. County also seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,750.00 against Plaintiff

and his counsel of record, jointly and severally.

County’s counsel Chandler Parker (“Parker”) represents as follows: On June 25, 2020, County

mail-served its Request for Admissions, Set One, on Plaintiff. (Parker Decl., ¶¶3-4, Exh. 1.)

County also served a notice of Plaintiff’s deposition along with the subject discovery in the same

parcel of mail. (Id., ¶5.) Responses thereto were due on July 30, 2020. (Id., ¶4.) During the week

of July 17, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel Robert H. Tourtelot (“Tourtelot”) contacted Parker by

telephone to acknowledge receipt of the deposition notice and requested that Parker reschedule

the deposition to a later date. (Id., ¶6.) Since Plaintiff’s deposition notice was included in the

same parcel of mail as the RFAs, Tourtelot necessarily received the subject discovery; however,

Tourtelot did not request an extension to provide responses. (Id.) On August 21, 2020, Parker

sent a courtesy notice to Tourtelot, advising Tourtelot that Plaintiff’s responses were overdue and

requesting that verified responses, without objections, be received by August 31, 2020. (Id., ¶8,

Exh. 2.) On or about August 25, 2020, Tourtelot contacted Parker and promised to provide

Parker with responses to the subject discovery by the August 31, 2020 deadline. (Id., ¶10.) No

responses have been received, as of the September 4, 2020 date of Parker’s declaration, nor has

Tourtelot contacted Parker to request additional time. (Id., ¶11.)

The motion is GRANTED. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280, subd. (b), the court orders that the truth of the matters specified in the Requests for Admissions, Set One, propounded by County to Plaintiff be deemed admitted.

Sanctions

County seeks $1,750.00 in sanctions (calculated as follows: 1.5 hours preparing motion, plus 1.5 hours reviewing opposition and preparing reply, plus 2 hours attending hearing at $350.00/hour). Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $525.00 (i.e., 1.5 hours at $300.00/hour). Sanctions are payable within 30 days of the date of the hearing.