This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/05/2019 at 18:43:28 (UTC).

MIGUEL ROJAS HERNANDEZ ET AL VS POTRERO INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/02/2017 MIGUEL ROJAS HERNANDEZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against POTRERO INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LORI ANN FOURNIER, RAUL A. SAHAGUN, MARGARET MILLER BERNAL and MASTER CALENDAR. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9204

  • Filing Date:

    02/02/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Norwalk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LORI ANN FOURNIER

RAUL A. SAHAGUN

MARGARET MILLER BERNAL

MASTER CALENDAR

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

HERNANDEZ MIGUEL ROJAS

ROJAS GUADALUPE

MIGUEL ROJAS HERNANDEZ AN

GEMINI INSURANCE COMPANY

GUADALUPE ROJAS AN

Defendant and Appellant

CALIFORNIA FORCE PATROL INC.

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Defendants

CALIFORNIA FORCE PATROL INC

EL POTRERO CLUB AND RESTAURANT

JOHN DOE 1

JOHN DOE 2

DOES 1 TO 50

POTRERO INC

JOHN DOE 1 AN INDIVIDUAL

CALIFORNIA FORCE PATROL INC.

POTRERO INC. DBA EL POTRERO CLUB AND

GEMINI INSURANCE COMPANY ON BEHALF OF

MIGUEL ROJAS HERNANDEZ AN

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

POTRERO INC. DBA EL POTRERO CLUB AND

Others

PRINDLE AMARO GOETZ HILLYARD ET AL

BERKOVICH GARY LAW OFFICES OF

5 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LIBMAN MICHAEL J.

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL J. LIBMAN APC

BERKOVICH GARY

BERKOVICH GARY ESQ.

LIBMAN MICHAEL JACOB

Defendant, Cross Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

LORBER GREENFIELD POLITO & PENGILLY LLP

PRINDLE AMARO GOETZ HILLYARD ET AL

MIZEN SCOTT STEVEN

CROSSIN PETER HUGH

WOLKIN CURRAN LLP

VEATCH CARLSON

POLITO STEVEN MARK

WOLKIN & TIMPANE LLP

GAFA LAUREN SAMANTHA

LORBER GREENFIELD & POLITO LLP

REINHOLTZ JACK R. ESQ.

PASCOE WILLIAM THOMAS

Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

WEINSTEIN MARK A. ESQ.

PATEL GOPAL SOMABHAI

WEISS KARYNNE GAIL

 

Court Documents

Amended Complaint

7/26/2019: Amended Complaint

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE OF LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; D

12/15/2017: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE OF LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; D

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH EMPLOYMENT RECORDS SUBPOENA

1/10/2018: ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH EMPLOYMENT RECORDS SUBPOENA

INTER VENOR GEMINI INSURANCE COMPANY?S STATEMENT RE: (PROPOSEDI NOTICE OF RULING AFTER INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

2/6/2018: INTER VENOR GEMINI INSURANCE COMPANY?S STATEMENT RE: (PROPOSEDI NOTICE OF RULING AFTER INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

Other -

2/16/2018: Other -

Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter

7/3/2018: Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter

Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103

12/28/2018: Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103

Order

3/6/2019: Order

Minute Order

4/25/2019: Minute Order

Opposition

5/10/2019: Opposition

Declaration

5/28/2019: Declaration

Declaration

5/28/2019: Declaration

Opposition

6/14/2019: Opposition

Certificate of Mailing for

6/17/2019: Certificate of Mailing for

COMPLAINT FOR: 1. ASSAULT AND BATTERY: ETC.

2/2/2017: COMPLAINT FOR: 1. ASSAULT AND BATTERY: ETC.

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

2/15/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

NOTICE OF ERRATA RE STIPULATION TO ALLOW COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION BY GENINI INSURANCE COMPANY ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA FORCE PATROL, INC., A SUSPENDEED CORPORATION

7/28/2017: NOTICE OF ERRATA RE STIPULATION TO ALLOW COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION BY GENINI INSURANCE COMPANY ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA FORCE PATROL, INC., A SUSPENDEED CORPORATION

NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

8/23/2017: NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

268 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/04/2019
  • Hearingat 09:30 AM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2019
  • Hearingat 13:30 PM in Department C at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by Miguel Rojas Hernandez (Plaintiff); Miguel Rojas Hernandez (Plaintiff); Guadalupe Rojas (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2019
  • DocketSummons on First Amended Complaint; Filed by Miguel Rojas Hernandez (Plaintiff); Guadalupe Rojas (Plaintiff); an MIGUEL ROJAS HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2019
  • DocketNotice of Lodging (In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by California Force Patrol); Filed by California Force Patrol, Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2019
  • DocketSeparate Statement (of Defendant California Force Patrol, Inc in support of MSJ); Filed by California Force Patrol, Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (Of William T. Pascoe In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment-Adjudication); Filed by California Force Patrol, Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2019
  • DocketMemorandum of Points & Authorities (in support of Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by California Force Patrol, Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
591 More Docket Entries
  • 02/15/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2017
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2017
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause (REGARDING FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS & COMPLAINT; ); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Miguel Rojas Hernandez (Plaintiff); Guadalupe Rojas (Plaintiff); an MIGUEL ROJAS HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by an MIGUEL ROJAS HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff); an GUADALUPE ROJAS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. ASSAULT AND BATTERY: ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC649204    Hearing Date: January 23, 2020    Dept: SEC

HERNANDEZ v. POTRERO, INC.

CASE NO.: BC649204

HEARING: 01/23/2020

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

#7

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant CALIFORNIA FORCE PATROL, INC’s Motion for Appointment of Discovery Referee is DENIED. CCP §639.

Moving Party to give Notice.

“When the parties do not consent, the court may, upon the written motion of any party, or of its own motion, appoint a referee in the following cases…. (5) When the court in any pending action determines that it is necessary for the court to appoint a referee to hear and determine any and all discovery motions and disputes relevant to discovery in the action and to report findings and make a recommendation thereon.” (CCP §639(a)(5).) Such an appointment is authorized only where necessary, and it is improper to issue a blanket order directing any and all discovery motions to a referee for routine matters. (See Hood v. Superior Court (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 446, 449 fn. 4.) An appointment is justified only where the majority of factors justifying reference, including that multiple issues need to be resolved, multiple motions must be heard simultaneously, the present motion is only one in a continuum of many, and there are numerous and voluminous documents to be reviewed which make the inquiry inordinately time consuming, are present. (See Taggares v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 94.; See also CRC Rule 3.920(c).)

Currently, there are only four discovery hearings scheduled to take place before this Court. This does not appear to satisfy the requirement of multiple, simultaneous, continuous, or complex discovery issues contemplated in appointing a referee. While the Court acknowledges that the litigation in this case appears contentious, that alone is not sufficient to grant a Motion for a Discovery Referee. The motion to appoint a discovery referee is denied.

The Court notes that this is Defendant’s second request for the appointment of a discovery referee.

Case Number: BC649204    Hearing Date: November 21, 2019    Dept: SEC

HERNANDEZ v. POTRERO, INC.
CASE NO.:  BC649204
HEARING:  11/21/19
JUDGE: RAUL A. SAHAGUN
#7
TENTATIVE ORDER 
Defendant CALIFORNIA FORCE PROTECTION, INC.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Second Deposition is GRANTED. 
Moving Party to give notice. 
“(a) Once a party has taken the deposition of any natural person, including that of a party to the action, neither the party who gave, nor any other party who has been served with a deposition notice pursuant to Section 2025.240 may take a subsequent deposition of that deponent. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), for good cause shown, the court may grant leave to take a subsequent deposition….” (emphasis added.) (CCP §2025.610.)  
Here, CFPI argues that there is good cause to grant leave to obtain a second deposition of Plaintiff as the Complaint has been amended twice since Plaintiff’s last deposition, and new facts have been alleged against CFPI. CFPI also argues that a second deposition is necessary because at the time this action was filed, CFPI was suspended and was precluded from partaking in discovery.  Moreover, CFPI indicates that Plaintiff has failed to comply with IDC Order(s) compelling his further answers to deposition questions—whether that is the case is not properly before the Court at this time. 
The Motion to Compel a Second Deposition is granted. The parties are ordered to meet and confer to choose a mutually available date and time for the subsequent deposition, no later than fifteen days from the Court’s issuance of this Order. 
CFPI’s requests for sanctions are denied. A second deposition cannot occur without leave of Court. 

Case Number: BC649204    Hearing Date: October 31, 2019    Dept: SEC

HERNANDEZ v. POTRERO, INC.

CASE NO.:  BC649204

HEARING: 10/31/19

JUDGE: MARGARET M. BERNAL

#2

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiffs MIGUEL ROJAS HERNANDEZ and GUADALUPE ROJAS’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give Notice.

The Proposed Second Amended Complaint, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Michael J. Libman is NOT deemed served and filed as of the hearing date. Plaintiffs MIGUEL ROJAS HERNANDEZ and GUADALUPE ROJAS are ORDERED to SERVE and FILE its Second Amended Complaint within 5 court days of October 31, 2019. Responsive pleadings are to be filed in accordance with the rules of civil procedure.

California recognizes “a general rule of…liberal allowance of amendments…” (Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) It has also long been recognized that “even if the proposed legal theory is a novel one, ‘the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) In light of great liberality employed when ruling on a motion for leave to amend, the court will not normally consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading since grounds for demurrer or motion to strike are premature. Thus, absent prejudice to the opposing party, courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint “at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial.” (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.)

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs should be afforded the opportunity to allege a claim for punitive damages and add additional defendants ROBERT TSAY and SHYR-JIN TSAY. Defendant(s) maintain the right to demur, file a motion to strike, or move for summary judgment. Plaintiffs’ Motion is granted.