This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/29/2019 at 00:33:13 (UTC).

NORMA OCHOA VS AMBER NICOLE HUEZO

Case Summary

On 02/10/2017 NORMA OCHOA filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against AMBER NICOLE HUEZO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9559

  • Filing Date:

    02/10/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

ROMERO DALIA

ROMERO SAUL

ROMERO KEVIN

OCHOA NORMA

ROMERO VICTORIA

Defendants and Respondents

HUEZO AMBER NICOLE

DOES 1 TO 100

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

GEOULLA DANIEL D. ESQ.

ABDOLHOSSEINI TINA H.

ALFARO MEYLIN PATRICIA

Defendant Attorney

ANDRADE ALVIN R. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

[PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY

5/22/2018: [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM - CIVIL

6/1/2018: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM - CIVIL

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

6/29/2018: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

Minute Order

11/15/2018: Minute Order

Motion for Leave

3/4/2019: Motion for Leave

Notice of Ruling

4/2/2019: Notice of Ruling

Motion in Limine

5/3/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

5/3/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

5/3/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

5/3/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

5/3/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

5/3/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

5/3/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion for Leave

5/22/2019: Motion for Leave

Opposition

5/22/2019: Opposition

Ex Parte Application

5/23/2019: Ex Parte Application

CoverSheet

2/10/2017: CoverSheet

CoverSheet

2/10/2017: CoverSheet

24 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/23/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to continue trial) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to continue trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial); Filed by Amber Nicole Huezo (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Reply (Plaintiff Norma Ochoa and Saul Romero's Reply to Opposition to Continue Trial; Declaration of Michael B. Geoola); Filed by Norma Ochoa (Plaintiff); Saul Romero (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Opposition (Opposition to Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial; Declaration of Bryan C. Zaverl); Filed by Amber Nicole Huezo (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Motion for Leave (Motion for Leave to Submit Tardy Expert Information); Filed by Norma Ochoa (Plaintiff); Saul Romero (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Motion in Limine (Defendants Motion In Limine No. 2 To Exclude Preclude Prohibit Evidence Of Medical Expenses Other Than The Rate Negotiated By Plaintiffs Insurance Company Declaration Of Bryan C. Zaverl); Filed by Amber Nicole Huezo (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Motion in Limine (Motion in Limine Number 1 for Order Precluding Plaintiffs from Preconditioning the Jury); Filed by Amber Nicole Huezo (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Motion in Limine (Defendants Motion In Limine No. 4 To Exclude Preclude Prohibit Plaintiffs Use Of Or Argument Regarding The Golden Rule Declaration Of Bryan C. Zaverl); Filed by Amber Nicole Huezo (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Motion in Limine (Defendants Motion In Limine No. 5 To Preclude Evidence Of Or Reference To Defendant's Liability Insurance Declaration Of Bryan C. Zaverl); Filed by Amber Nicole Huezo (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
30 More Docket Entries
  • 06/01/2018
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2018
  • NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2018
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM - CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2018
  • [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2018
  • [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2018
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT AMBER NICOLE HUEZO;AND ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Amber Nicole Huezo (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Norma Ochoa (Plaintiff); Saul Romero (Plaintiff); Victoria Romero (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2017
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC649559    Hearing Date: March 10, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

NORMA OCHOA, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

AMBER HUEZO, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC649559

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

March 10, 2020

Plaintiffs’ attorney seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff, Saul Romero only (Counsel does not seek to be relieved as counsel for the remaining plaintiffs, who have settled), contending there has been a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. Counsel declares he confirmed Plaintiff’s address. The Court previously denied a similar motion to be relieved because there was no proof of service of the proposed order on the motion, and also because the trial date was set unreasonably close to the hearing date on the motion to be relieved.

Counsel has now filed proof of service of all moving papers on Romero and Defendant. Counsel also had the trial date continued to 5/13/20. In light of the lack of opposition, the motion to be relieved is granted. Relief is effective upon filing proof of service of the final order granting the motion on Plaintiff, Romero.

Counsel is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.

Dated this 10th day of March, 2020

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC649559    Hearing Date: February 10, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

NORMA OCHOA, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

AMBER HUEZO, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC649559

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

February 10, 2020

Plaintiffs’ attorney previously moved to be relieved as counsel for each of the two plaintiffs, Norma Ochoa and Saul Romero. The Court denied the motions for two reasons. First, the Court found that Counsel failed to file proof of service of the proposed orders on Plaintiffs, as required by CRC 3.1362(d) and (3). Second, the Court noted that trial was scheduled for 2/19/20, less than six weeks after the hearing on the motions.

On 1/16/20, Counsel filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff, Saul Romero only. The motion is denied. Once again, Counsel failed to submit a proposed order on the motion with proof of service of same. Additionally, Counsel failed to file the mandatory judicial council form declaration on Form MC-052. Absent these documents, the Court cannot grant the relief sought.

Counsel is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.

Case Number: BC649559    Hearing Date: January 09, 2020    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

NORMA OCHOA, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

AMBER HUEZO, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC649559

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

January 9, 2020

Plaintiffs’ attorney seeks to be relieved as counsel, contending there has been a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.  Counsel declares he confirmed Plaintiffs’ address.  The motion is denied for two reasons.  First, Counsel failed to file proof of service of the proposed orders on Plaintiffs, as required by CRC 3.1362(d) and (3). 

Second, trial is scheduled for 2/19/20, less than six weeks after the hearing on the motions.  Unlike their clients, attorneys do not have an absolute right to withdraw from representation at any time with or without cause. Even where grounds for termination exist, attorneys seeking to withdraw must comply with the procedures set forth in California Rule of Professional Conduct (CRPC) 3-700 and are subject to discipline for failure to do so.  Where withdrawal is not mandatory, an attorney normally must continue representation on the matter undertaken. The fact the client or matter proves unpleasant or unprofitable does not excuse attorney performance. The rules have been liberally construed to protect clients.  See Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192, 197; Chaleff v. Superior Court (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 721; Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.

Counsel is ordered to give notice. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.