This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/18/2019 at 01:33:14 (UTC).

NATHANIEL JAMES ET AL VS MAIMON HADDAD ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/03/2018 NATHANIEL JAMES filed a Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle lawsuit against MAIMON HADDAD. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1178

  • Filing Date:

    04/03/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

JAMES LAURIE

JAMES NATHANIEL

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

TERRELL INGRID

DOES 1 TO 50

ALVAREZ DE FELICE GLORIA MARIA

FELICE MARCOS DAVID

HADAD MAIMOM

Defendants, Respondents, Cross Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

ALVAREZ DE FELICE GLORIA MARIA

FELICE MARCOS DAVID

HADAD MAIMOM

ALVAREZ DE FELICE MARIA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

DRAITSER MAX

Other Attorneys

OPFELL CHRISTOPHER K. ESQ.

COLE ONICA V

OPFELL CHRISTOPHER KAJ

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service

6/8/2018: Proof of Service

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

7/24/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

8/28/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR TOTAL EQUITABLE INDEMNITY, COMPARATIVE EQUITABLE INDEMNITY AND APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT

8/28/2018: CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR TOTAL EQUITABLE INDEMNITY, COMPARATIVE EQUITABLE INDEMNITY AND APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT

SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

8/28/2018: SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

Summons

4/11/2018: Summons

Complaint

4/3/2018: Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet

4/3/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Answer

9/20/2018: Answer

Summons

9/20/2018: Summons

Cross-Complaint

9/20/2018: Cross-Complaint

Motion to Compel

2/26/2019: Motion to Compel

Motion to Compel

2/26/2019: Motion to Compel

Answer

3/19/2019: Answer

Answer

3/29/2019: Answer

Motion to Compel

4/25/2019: Motion to Compel

Minute Order

5/31/2019: Minute Order

Motion for Terminating Sanctions

7/3/2019: Motion for Terminating Sanctions

40 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/03/2019
  • Motion for Terminating Sanctions; Filed by Ingrid Terrell (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2019
  • Motion for Terminating Sanctions; Filed by Maimom Hadad (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Ingrid Terrell (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (Demand for Production - Laurie James) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (Form Interrogatories - Laurie James) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (Form Interrogatories - Nathaniel James) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (Demand for Production - Nathaniel James) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (Special Interrogatories - Nathaniel James) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
56 More Docket Entries
  • 08/28/2018
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Ingrid Terrell (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2018
  • Amended Proof of Service; Filed by Nathaniel James (Plaintiff); Laurie James (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Nathaniel James (Plaintiff); Laurie James (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2018
  • Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Nathaniel James (Plaintiff); Laurie James (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2018
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet /Addendum

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2018
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Nathaniel James (Plaintiff); Laurie James (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC701178    Hearing Date: December 10, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL

On April 3, 2018, plaintiffs Nathaniel and Laurie James (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendant Maimom Hadad (“Defendant”). On September 5, 2018, Defendant propounded written discovery on Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs did not respond. On March 27, 2019 the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel responses and ordered Plaintiffs to provide responses and pay monetary sanctions of $1,760.00 within 20 days. Plaintiffs did not do so. Defendant filed a motion for terminating sanctions on July 19, 2019. Plaintiffs did not oppose the motion and did not appear at the hearing. Accordingly, on July 19, 2019, the Court granted the motion and dismissed the case against Defendant.

Plaintiffs now move to set aside the dismissal on grounds of attorney fault. “The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) Application for this relief shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken. (Ibid.) “[T]he court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment, or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against his or her client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” (Ibid.)

This motion to set aside dismissal was timely filed within six months of dismissal. Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a declaration stating he is at fault for not responding to discovery and failing to comply with the March 27, 2019 order. Plaintiffs have now provided discovery responses. Defendant argues he will be prejudiced because trial is in two days.

The Court does not have discretion to deny the motion to set aside the dismissal based on Plaintiff’s counsel’s admission of fault. Accordingly, the Motion to set aside the July 19, 2019 dismissal is GRANTED and the action against Defendant is reinstated. The parties are to meet and confer about the trial date. If they cannot reach an agreement to continue the trial date, and if a party requests a continuance of the trial date, that party should make an ex parte application.

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. The Court will be dark on December 10, 2019. A party requesting argument should contact Dept. 4B for an alternate hearing date.

Case Number: BC701178    Hearing Date: October 31, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

On April 3, 2019, plaintiffs Nathaniel James and Laurie James (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Maimon Hadad, Gloria Maria Alvarez De Felice, Marcos David Felice, and Ingred Terrel. Defendants Gloria Maria Alvarez De Felice and Marcos David Felice (“Defendants”) move for terminating sanctions against Plaintiffs.

On November 21, 2018, Defendant served form interrogatories to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs did not provide responses. On August 1, 2019, the Court issued an order compelling Plaintiffs’ responses to the form interrogatories within twenty days and issuing an award of sanctions. When Plaintiffs had not serve verified responses, Defendants filed these motions for terminating sanctions on August 28, 2019.

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.)

Plaintiffs filed an opposition. Plaintiffs’ attorney attests that he personally served the discovery responses on September 26, 2019 and enclosed a check for the sanctions with the responses. The Court cannot find that Plaintiffs willfully disobeyed the Court’s order. Accordingly, Defendants’ motions for terminating sanctions are DENIED.

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 as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.