Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/07/2021 at 07:51:13 (UTC).

NITA LOGGINS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/12/2018 NITA LOGGINS filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CITY OF LOS ANGELES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CHRISTOPHER K. LUI and DANIEL M. CROWLEY. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7589

  • Filing Date:

    03/12/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

LOGGINS NITA

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

SALAZAR FREDY E.

LOS ANGELES CITY OF

DOES 1 TO 50

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Cross Defendant

ROES 1 TO 20

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

NOURMAND JOSEPH

HAYES BRADLEY G

HAYES BRADLEY G.

MALCZYNSKI MATTHEW PHILIP

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

WILLIS KIMBERLY R. DEPUTY CITY ATTY

SKINNER MARIA H.

SKINNER MARIA

 

Court Documents

Order - Dismissal

12/9/2020: Order - Dismissal

Notice - NOTICE NTC OF SCHED HRG

6/26/2020: Notice - NOTICE NTC OF SCHED HRG

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (MOTION OF BRADLEY G. HAYES, THE HAYES LAW FIRM, APC TO BE REL...)

3/16/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (MOTION OF BRADLEY G. HAYES, THE HAYES LAW FIRM, APC TO BE REL...)

Proof of Service - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

3/18/2020: Proof of Service - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

3/18/2020: Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION

2/28/2020: Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION

Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

2/13/2020: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

2/13/2020: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Association of Attorney

2/4/2020: Association of Attorney

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)

12/9/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)

Substitution of Attorney

9/24/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)

9/11/2019: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)

Proof of Service (Sister State Judgment)

4/2/2019: Proof of Service (Sister State Judgment)

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

5/23/2019: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF FSC AND TRIAL DATES

5/28/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF FSC AND TRIAL DATES

SUMMONS -

8/9/2018: SUMMONS -

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

6/25/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

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

3/12/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

39 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/03/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Jury Trial - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Jury Trial; Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Jury Trial; Final Status Conference) of 03/03/2021); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2021
  • DocketOrder - Dismissal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Final Status Conference) of 02/17/2021); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Fredy E. Salazar (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
64 More Docket Entries
  • 06/25/2018
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2018
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by City of Los Angeles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Nita Loggins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by City of Los Angeles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2018
  • DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Nita Loggins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC697589    Hearing Date: December 09, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. opposing papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

On March 12, 2018, Plaintiff Nita Loggins (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles and Fredy E. Salazar (“Defendant Salazar”). The complaint alleges premises liability and negligence for a trip-and-fall that occurred on August 29, 2017.

On August 8, 2018, Defendant/Cross-Defendant City of Los Angeles filed a cross-complaint against Roes 1 through 20 seeking indemnity, apportionment, and declaratory relief.

On July 2, 2020, The Court granted Defendant Salazar’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition.

On September 30, 2020, Defendant Salazar filed a motion for terminating sanctions pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030.

Trial is set for March 3, 2021.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant Salazar asks the Court to grant terminating sanctions against Plaintiff for failing to comply with the Court’s July 2, 2020 order.

Defendant Salazar also asks the Court to impose $363.75 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff for her abuse of the discovery process.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party fails to comply with a court order compelling attendance at a deposition, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450, subd. (h).) California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 provides that, “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method . . . , the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose . . . [monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating] sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process . . . .” California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 provides that “[m]issues of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: . . . (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery. . . .

“The trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse ‘after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.’” Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390 (quoting Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246). “Generally, ‘[a] decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.’” Los Defensores, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390 (citation omitted).)

“Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders.”  (Los¿Defensores, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390 (citing¿Lang, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1244-1246 (discussing cases));¿see, e.g.,¿Collisson¿& Kaplan v.¿Hartunian¿(1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1617-1622 (terminating sanctions imposed after defendants failed to comply with one court order to produce discovery);¿Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange¿(1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 491, disapproved on other grounds in¿Garcia v. McCutchen¿(1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 478, n. 4 (terminating sanctions imposed against plaintiff for failing to comply with a discovery order and for violating various discovery statutes).)

A court may not issue a terminating sanction for failure to pay a monetary discovery sanction. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 610, 615.) Rather, a monetary sanction order is enforceable as a money judgment under the Enforcement of Judgments Law, California Code of Civil Procedure sections 680.010, et seq. (Id. at p. 615.)

DISCUSSION

On July 2, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to appear at a deposition on July 24, 2020.  (Flannery Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. A.)  Plaintiff failed to appear at her July 24, 2020 deposition.  (Flannery Decl., 9.)

The Court finds the motion is properly granted.  The Court ordered Plaintiff to appear at a deposition on July 24, 2020.  Plaintiff failed to appear at her July 24, 2020 deposition.  Defendant Salazar’s request for monetary sanctions is not necessary because terminating sanctions adequately addresses Plaintiff’s failure to obey the July 2, 2020 order.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

Defendant Salazar is DISMISSED from Plaintiff’s complaint.

Defendant Salazar is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Defendant Salazar 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: BC697589    Hearing Date: July 02, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Compel Deposition

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. opposing papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

On March 12, 2018, Plaintiff Nita Loggins (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles and Fredy E. Salazar.  The complaint alleges premises liability and negligence for a trip-and-fall that occurred on August 29, 2017.

On August 8, 2018, Defendant/Cross-Defendant City of Los Angeles filed a cross-complaint against Roes 1 through 20 seeking indemnity, apportionment, and declaratory relief.

On February 28, 2020, Defendant Fredy E. Salazar filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450.

Trial is set for August 3, 2020.

PARTYS REQUESTS

Defendant Fredy E. Salazar (“Moving Defendant”) asks the Court to compel Plaintiff’s appearance and testimony at a deposition because Plaintiff has refused to appear for her deposition.

Moving Defendant also asks the Court to impose $443.15 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff for her abuse of the discovery process.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (a) provides: “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . , without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document . . . described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document . . . described in the deposition notice.”

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (b) provides: “A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following:

  1. The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

  1. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.250, subdivision (a) states: “[u]nless the court orders otherwise under Section 2025.260, the deposition of a natural person, whether or not a party to the action, shall be taken at a place that is, at the option of the party giving notice of the deposition, either within 75 miles of the deponent’s residence, or within the county where the action is pending and within 150 miles of the deponent’s residence.”

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (c) provides: “(1) If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

DISCUSSION

The Court initially notes that opposing papers had be filed and personally served on June 19, 2020, at the latest, to conform with the mandates of California Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.  No opposing papers were timely filed and served.  The Court exercises its discretion in refusing to consider any late opposition pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1300, subdivision (d).

On May 7, 2019; July 30, 2019; September 23, 2019; January 20, 2020; and February 3, 2020, Plaintiff was served with notices of taking Plaintiff’s deposition by U.S mail for the respective deposition dates of May 7, 2019; July 30, 2020; September 23, 2020; February 7, 2020; and February 11, 2020.  (Skinner Decl., ¶4-5, 7, Exh. A-D, F.)  The first three depositions were cancelled at Plaintiff’s request. Skinner Decl., ¶ 4.)  Plaintiff objected to the fourth deposition notice on the ground that the deposition date was unilaterally set and Plaintiff’s counsel was unavailable.  (Skinner Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. E.)

The Court finds the motion is properly granted.  Plaintiff’s deposition date has been sought for over a year.  Plaintiff reneged her agreement to be deposed on February 11, 2020.  Plaintiff has not yet appeared for her deposition.  Accordingly the motion is properly granted.

Sanctions are properly imposed against PlaintiffThere is no evidence showing Plaintiff acted with a substantial justification or that there are other circumstances that show an imposition of sanctions would be unjust.

Plaintiff’s request for $443.15 in sanctions for this unopposed and straight-forward motion is unreasonable.  Rather, the Court finds $350 in sanctions to be properly imposed against Plaintiff.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is ordered to appear for a deposition pursuant to the terms within the notice served on Defendant Lara on February 7, 2020 within 20 days of this ruling.

Plaintiff is ordered to pay Moving Defendant $350 within 30 days of this ruling.

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

Case Number: BC697589    Hearing Date: March 16, 2020    Dept: 28

The court considered the moving papers. 

BACKGROUND

On March 12, 2018, Plaintiff Nita Loggins (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”) and Fredy E. Salazar (“Salazar”) (collectively “Defendants”), asserting causes of action for premises liability and general negligence.

On April 20, 2018, City filed an answer to the complaint. City also filed a cross-complaint against Roes 1 to 20, asserting causes of action for apportionment of fault, indemnification, and declaratory relief. 

On April 16, 2019, Salazar filed an answer to the complaint.

On September 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Substitution of Attorney, substituting Bradley G. Hayes as her attorney in this action.

REQUESTS

Bradley G. Hayes, of The Hayes Law Firm, APC (“Counsel”), moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff in this action. 

LEGAL STANDARD

C.C.P. §284 provides, as follows:

The attorney in an action or special proceeding may be changed at any time before or after judgment of final determination, as follows:

1.¿Upon the consent of both client and attorney, filed with the clerk, or entered upon the minutes;

2.¿Upon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.

DISCUSSION

Counsel moves to be relieved as the attorney for Plaintiff in this action. 

Counsel did not file a proof of service showing Plaintiff was timely and properly served with the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (MC-051), Declaration (MC-052), and Proposed Order (MC-053). (See CRC 3.1362(d).)

Assuming proper and timely service, Counsel is entitled to an order relieving him as the attorney for Plaintiff. Counsel filed forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053. Counsel also provided a proper reason for the withdrawal a total breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. (Declaration of Hayes, pg. 1.) Additionally, Plaintiff will not suffer prejudice if the motion is granted.  Trial is set for August 3, 2020.

Based on the foregoing, the motion to be relieved as counsel is granted provided Counsel establishes Plaintiff was timely and properly served with MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053. 

CONCLUSION

The motion to be relieved as counsel is granted provided Counsel establishes Plaintiff was timely and properly served with the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (MC-051), Declaration (MC-052), and Proposed Order (MC-053). 

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer WILLIS KIMBERLY R. DEPUTY CITY ATTY