On 03/09/2017 MINYE KIM filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against YE KIM. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Other.
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
CHRISTOPHER K. LUI
ENTERPRISE RENTA A CAR OF LOS ANGELES
DOES 1 TO 100
ROES 1 THROUGH 100 INCLUSIVE
BUCKLIN STEPHEN L.
SPRIGGS SCOTT B. ESQ.
RAFFALOW RHOADS & BRETOI
12/11/2018: Request for Dismissal
10/15/2018: Stipulation and Order
10/15/2018: Minute Order
4/9/2018: DECLARATION OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE
4/9/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
6/18/2018: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES
6/19/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
7/3/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
7/20/2018: ORDER AND STIPULATLON TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC LAND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT)
8/6/2018: ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
8/6/2018: CROSS COMPLAINT FOR IMPLIED INDEMNITY AND TOTAL INDEMNITY;AND ETC.
8/6/2018: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
3/9/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
3/27/2017: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS
Request for Dismissal; Filed by Ye-Jin Kim (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 5:18 PM in Department 4; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Court Order re Stipulation to Continue Trial)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Stipulation and Order (name extension) (to Continue Trial); Filed by Julisa Cazares (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
AnswerRead MoreRead Less
Answer to Cross-Complaint; Filed by Ye Kim (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
Receipt; Filed by Julisa Cazares (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
Cross-Complaint; Filed by Julisa Cazares (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Julisa Cazares (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
Summons Issued; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESSRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Minye Kim (Legacy Party); Ye-Jin Kim (Plaintiff); Joshua Lee (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
Ord Apptng Guardian Ad Litem; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
Application (name extension); Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEMRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Ye-Jin Kim (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC652914 Hearing Date: February 16, 2021 Dept: 28
Motion to Reopen Discovery
Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows.
On March 9, 2017, Plaintiffs Minye Kim, Ye-Jin Kim, and Joshua Lee (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Ye Kim (“Defendant Kim”), Julisa Cazares, and Enterprise Rent-A-Car of Los Angeles, LLC. Plaintiffs allege general and motor vehicle negligence arising from an automobile collision that occurred on April 22, 2015.
On December 11, 2018, the Court dismissed Defendant Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles, LLC without prejudice.
On September 2, 2020, Defendant Kim filed a motion to reopen discovery pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050.
On January 21, 2021, the Court dismissed Defendant Julisa Cazares with prejudice.
Trial is set for July 16, 2021.
Defendant Kim asks the Court to reopen discovery and continue all discovery cut-off dates to the July 16, 2021 trial date.
California Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 states the following:
(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.
On March 16, 2020, the Court continued trial and the final status conference. However, the Court did not continue the discovery and motion cut-off dates from relating to a prior trial date of April 30, 2020.
Defendant Kim argues discovery must be reopened because Defendant Kim has been unable to take Plaintiffs’ depositions and, if deemed necessary from the depositions, to conduct independent medical examinations. Defendant Kim argues the COVID-19 pandemic prevented Defendant Kim from taking Plaintiffs’ depositions. (Carlson Decl., ¶ 4.) The Court disagrees that Defendant was completely foreclosed from taking these depositions. They could have been conducted remotely.
Defendant Kim argues this motion was brought diligently. The Court disagrees. The Court stated in its March 16, 2020 minute order that discovery and motion cut-off dates were not continued. Defendant Kim had almost a year to bring this motion, but instead waited. It is true, the Court mistakenly dismissed the action on September 9, 2019 and reinstated the action on November 5, 2019. However, this momentary gap does not excuse Defendant Kim’s delay in bringing this motion.
The motion is DENIED.
Defendant Kim is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Defendant Kim is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.
The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.
Case Number: BC652914 Hearing Date: November 05, 2019 Dept: 4A
Motion to Set Aside
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposition was filed.
On March 9, 2017, Plaintiffs Minye Kim, Yi-Jin Kim, and Joshua Lee, by and through his guardian ad litem, Minye Kim (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Yi Kim, Julisa Cazares, and Enterprise Rent-A-Car of Los Angeles, LLC (“Defendants”) alleging motor vehicle and general negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on April 22, 2015.
On July 24, 2018, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Ye Kim filed a cross-complaint against Roes 1-100 seeking total or partial indemnity.
On August 6, 2018, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Julisa Cazares against Defendant/Cross-Complainant/Cross-Defendant Ye Kim seeking implied indemnity, total indemnity, declaratory relief, and apportionment of fault.
On September 30, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d).
An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) is set for December 18, 2019.
Plaintiffs request that the Court set aside the Court order entered on September 6, 2019, vacating trial dates pursuant to a conditional notice of settlement of entire case.
“The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 473, subd. (d).)
In late August or early September 2019, Plaintiffs and Defendant Cazeres negotiated an agreement to settle Plaintiff’s claim against her. (Kadin Decl., ¶ 3.) As part of the settlement, Defendant Cazeres and Plaintiffs agreed that Plaintiffs’ attorney would execute a partial Request for Dismissal of the entire case against Defendant Cazeres only and that the attorneys for Defendant Cazeres would notify the Court that she has been settled out of the case. (Ibid.; Exh. A.) On September 6, 2019, Defendant Cazeres’ attorneys filed a notice of settlement of the entire case. (Ibid.; Exh. B.) Also on September 6, 2019, the Court acted on this notice and advanced and vacated the final status conference an trial date, and apparently dismissed the entire action. (Ibid.) This was not the intention of the parties. (Kadin Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs did not see the notice of settlement prior to its filing and prior to the September 6, 2019 Court order. (Kadin Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.)
The Court finds the motion is properly granted. The notice of settlement of entire case is a conditional settlement. It shows “Motion for Good Faith Settlement” under section showing that the notice of settlement is conditional. This would have reasonably put the Court on notice that the settlement pertained only to one of the three Defendants in this action. This is because a motion for good faith settlement would only be necessary if there was a settlement between the Plaintiffs and one of the Defendants. Exhibit A to Mr. Kadin’s declaration confirms this because it depicts a request for dismissal as to Defendant Cazares only.
This motion is unopposed and the Court has no reason to believe anything other than the facts presented in the moving papers.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.
The Court sets aside the September 9, 2019 order.
The Court sets a trial scheduling conference for December 5, 2019 at 8:30 a.m.
Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases