This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/22/2022 at 13:12:28 (UTC).

OLEG ALEXANDROV ET AL VS DOES 1 TO 100

Case Summary

On 04/13/2017 OLEG ALEXANDROV filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against DOES 1 TO 100. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are BENNY C. OSORIO, ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE, ELAINE LU, DEBORAH L. CHRISTIAN, FREDERICK C. SHALLER and MALCOLM MACKEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7639

  • Filing Date:

    04/13/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

BENNY C. OSORIO

ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE

ELAINE LU

DEBORAH L. CHRISTIAN

FREDERICK C. SHALLER

MALCOLM MACKEY

 

Party Details

Petitioners and Plaintiffs

ALEXANDROV OLEG

ALEXANDROV MARIANNA

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 100

MANITEX INC. A CORPORATION

MR. CRANE INC. A CORPORATION

GF AIR SERVICE LLC A COMPANY

INQUIPCO A CORPORATION

MANITEX INTERNATIONAL INC. A CORPORATION

INQUIPCO PACIFIC LLC A CORPORATION

DOES 1-100

MANITEX INTERNATIONAL INC

BABECO INC.

THE BUTLER WELDMENTS CORPORATION

THE CRANE GUYS LLC

Cross Plaintiff and Defendant

THE CRANE GUYS LLC

Cross Defendant

ROES 1-100

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorney

JARCHI ROBERT D.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

KRAMER JEFFREY S. ESQ.

NORMAN JAMIE OEHRLE

ARTINGER KELSEY GRACE

ALLARIA MARC V.

CHUNG CHRISTIAN

PANEK LARRY

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

CHUNG CHRISTIAN

 

Court Documents

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND FIVE YEAR STATUE

1/13/2022: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND FIVE YEAR STATUE

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL)

1/13/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL) OF 01/13/2022

1/13/2022: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL) OF 01/13/2022

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL

1/13/2022: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Request for Dismissal

1/7/2022: Request for Dismissal

Judgment

1/4/2022: Judgment

Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT RE DEFENDANT THE CRANE GUYS, LLC

1/5/2022: Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT RE DEFENDANT THE CRANE GUYS, LLC

Exhibit List

12/17/2021: Exhibit List

Separate Statement

12/17/2021: Separate Statement

Motion for Summary Judgment

12/17/2021: Motion for Summary Judgment

Declaration - DECLARATION OF JON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

12/17/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF JON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

11/10/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL JOHN RICOTTA TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS

11/10/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL JOHN RICOTTA TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS

Response - RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' STATEMENT OF DISPUTED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

11/10/2021: Response - RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' STATEMENT OF DISPUTED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING OF CERTIFIED DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF JOHN RICOTTA

11/16/2021: Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING OF CERTIFIED DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF JOHN RICOTTA

Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS;

11/17/2021: Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS;

Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER RE: DEFENDANT THE CRANE GUYS LLCS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

11/19/2021: Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER RE: DEFENDANT THE CRANE GUYS LLCS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION TESTIMONY)

11/24/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION TESTIMONY)

155 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/12/2022
  • Hearing09/12/2022 at 09:00 AM in Department 55 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2022
  • Hearing09/02/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 55 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2022
  • Hearing03/04/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 55 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2022
  • Docketat 10:26 AM in Department 55, Malcolm Mackey, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2022
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Stipulation to Continue Trial) of 01/13/2022); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2022
  • DocketStipulation and Order (Stipulation and Proposed Order to Continue Trial); Filed by BABECO, INC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Stipulation to Continue Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2022
  • DocketStipulation and Order (Stipulation and Proposed Order to Extend Five Year Statue); Filed by BABECO, INC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2022
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by The Crane Guys, LLC (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2022
  • DocketNotice (of Entry of Judgment re Defendant The Crane Guys, LLC); Filed by The Crane Guys, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
224 More Docket Entries
  • 05/10/2017
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2017
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2017-05-10 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2017
  • DocketPLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE DEPOSITION NOTICES AND SUBPOENAS TO ASSIST IN IDENTIFYING PROPER DOE DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO C.C.P. 20225.210(B); ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2017
  • DocketMOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE DEPOSITION NOTICES AND SUBPOENAS TO ASSIST IN IDENTIFYING PROPER DOE DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO C.C.P. 20225.210(B); DECLARATION OF ROBERT D. JARCHI

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2017
  • DocketMotion for Leave; Filed by Marianna Alexandrov (Plaintiff); Oleg Alexandrov (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Marianna Alexandrov (Plaintiff); Oleg Alexandrov (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Marianna Alexandrov (Plaintiff); Oleg Alexandrov (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2017
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: BC657639 Hearing Date: November 24, 2021 Dept: 55

ALEXANDROV\r\nv. DOES BC657639

\r\n\r\n

Hearing Date: 11/24/21,\r\n Dept. 55

\r\n\r\n

#7: MOTION FOR\r\nORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS.

\r\n\r\n

Notice: Okay

\r\n\r\n

Opposition

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MP:\r\n Defendants, GF AIR SERVICES, LLC, MR.\r\nCRANE, INC., INQUIPCO and INQUIPCO PACIFIC.

\r\n\r\n

RP:\r\n Plaintiffs

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Summary

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On 4/13/17, plaintiffs filed a Complaint.

\r\n\r\n

On 12/11/17, plaintiffs filed a First Amended\r\nComplaint, alleging:

\r\n\r\n

This action for negligence and strict liability arises\r\nout of an incident that occurred on December 26, 2015. Oleg Alexandrov was\r\ndriving east on the 10 Freeway approaching Crenshaw Blvd and downtown Los\r\nAngeles. Marianna Alexandrov was sitting in the passenger seat while their two\r\nyoung grandchildren were passengers in the rear seats. Mr. Alexandrov was\r\ndriving a Toyota Ray 4 in the number two lane of travel. Mr. Alexandrov was\r\ndriving within the speed limit, in his lane of travel. Suddenly, a large metal object\r\nfrom the freeway lanes ahead of his vehicle flew onto the hood of his car,\r\nthrough his front windshield, skipped off the dashboard and steering wheel, and\r\nstruck Plaintiff in the skull, causing severe and permanent brain injuries, which\r\nhis wife witnessed.

\r\n\r\n

The claims are:

\r\n\r\n

1. NEGLIGENCE

\r\n\r\n

2. NEGLIGENT\r\nPRODUCTS LIABILITY

\r\n\r\n

3. NEGLIGENT\r\nINFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

\r\n\r\n

4. STRICT\r\nPRODUCTS LIABILITY

\r\n\r\n

5. BREACH\r\nOF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES

\r\n\r\n

6. LOSS\r\nOF CONSORTIUM.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On 5/13/20, Plaintiff filed a partial dismissal\r\nwithout prejudice, as to defendant THE CRANE GUYS, LLC, for the following\r\ncauses of action of the First Amended Complaint: Second cause of action for\r\nNegligent Products Liability, fourth cause of action for Strict Products\r\nLiability, and fifth cause of action for Breach of Express and Implied\r\nWarranties.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MP\r\nPositions

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving parties request the Court to compel Deponent\r\nJohn Ricotta to answer certain questions propounded at his deposition that he\r\nwas instructed not to answer, and to impose $1,817.70 in sanctions against the\r\nwitness and counsel, on bases including the following:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nWhen Mr. Ricotta submitted his Declaration\r\nin opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, any work-product privilege\r\nthat may have attached to his investigation was waived as his investigation was\r\nput into issue. 2,022 Ranch, LLC v.\r\nSuperior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App. 4th 1377, 1390.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nFurthermore, there is no attorney-client\r\nprivilege as Mr. Ricotta is not a “client” of plaintiff’s counsel. At the\r\ndeposition, plaintiff’s counsel indicated that he was representing Mr. Ricotta\r\nat the deposition, however Mr. Ricotta was not allowed to answer questions with\r\nrespect to whether he had signed a retainer agreement, or the scope of the\r\nrepresentation.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

RP\r\nPositions

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Opposing parties request the Court to deny, and to\r\nimpose sanctions, on bases including the following:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nInvestigator Mr. Ricotta was an agent of\r\nPlaintiffs and their counsel, and thus his communications with Plaintiffs’\r\ncounsel are privileged.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nThe attorney-client privilege extends to\r\nan attorney’s confidential communication with a non-attorney agent retained by\r\nthe attorney to assist with the representation. See Evid. Code § 952; Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Superior Court\r\n(2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1263, 1274.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nThe disclosed conversation with\r\nDefendant’s manager Mr. Starkey was not privileged, so its disclosure was never\r\na “waiver.” See Clark v. Superior Court\r\n(1960), 177 Cal. App. 2d 578, 580 (Plaintiff seeking his statement made to\r\nDefendant’s investigator held “not protected by either the attorney-client\r\nprivilege or the work-product rule” since “it is clear that the plaintiff did\r\nnot intend his statements, made to an agent of the defendants' insurance\r\ncompany, to be confidential.”); Holm v.\r\nSuperior Court, 42 Cal. 2d 500, 508 (Plaintiff seeking her statement made to\r\nDefendant’s investigator held not\r\nprotected, since the “communication was not made nor intended to be in\r\nconfidence, and the privilege did not attach.”).

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nAny implied waiver must be construed\r\nnarrowly, so any waiver has been the conversation in the Declaration, which Mr.\r\nRicotta was questioned about and answered in his deposition. Transamerica Title\r\nIns. Co. v. Superior Court (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1047, 1052.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nMr. Ricotta is not a designated expert,\r\nbut rather an investigator hired by Plaintiff’s counsel to assist in the\r\npreparation of Plaintiffs’ case. Thus, any information obtained or product\r\ngenerated remains squarely in the realm of protected work product, particularly\r\nsince Defendants have not even attempted to show prejudice or injustice.\r\nAnalogizing Mr. Ricotta’s investigation to a report made by a qualified,\r\ndesignated expert witness for trial is error.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nThe insignificant disclosure of the\r\nconversation with Mr. Starkey does not reveal any substantive information about\r\nany communication beyond that one phone call to deem the specific content of\r\nthose privileged communications disclosed and the privilege waived. The\r\nDeclaration revealed information about the non-privileged March 30, 2016 phone\r\ncall so that the specific content of that communication was disclosed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Tentative\r\nRuling

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The motion is denied.

\r\n\r\n

The requests for sanctions are denied, the Court\r\nfinding substantial justification for some of the positions of each side.

\r\n\r\n

The investigator’s declaration only briefly reported an\r\nextremely narrow statement from a witness, without involving any investigator report\r\nor broader investigation results, such that no waiver of privilege extends to\r\nthe various deposition questions at issue regarding investigator activities.

\r\n\r\n

The scope of an implied waiver of the attorney-client\r\nprivilege or the work-product doctrine must be “ ‘narrowly defined and the\r\ninformation required to be disclosed must fit strictly within the confines of\r\nthe waiver.’ ” 2,022 Ranch v. Sup.Ct. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1395.

\r\n\r\n

A work product objection concerning a report\r\nof an investigator would cease once used as a witness, as with the\r\nreports of experts. Mize v. Atchison,\r\nT. & S. F. Ry. Co. (1975) 46 Cal. App. 3d 436, 449.

\r\n\r\n

A statutory waiver of the attorney-client may occur if\r\nthe privilege holder disclosed a significant part of the communication. Southern Cal. Gas Co. v. Public Utilities\r\nCom. (1990) 50 Cal.3d 31, 46-49 (citing, e.g., Ev. C. §912).

\r\n\r\n

Whether the attorney-client privilege applies to a\r\ncommunication is a question of fact, if the evidence is in conflict, and is not\r\nto be disturbed on appeal unless no substantial evidence supports the\r\nfinding. Kerner v. Sup. Ct. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 84, 117.

\r\n\r\n

As for the opposing request for sanctions, the\r\ndeposition excerpt attached at the back of the opposition does not necessarily\r\nshow that answers about being represented by counsel, requests to do\r\ninvestigation and being hired to work for counsel, would include privileged\r\ninformation from counsel, or attorney work product.

\r\n\r\n

The “mere disclosure of the fact that a communication\r\nbetween client and attorney had occurred does not amount to\r\ndisclosure of the specific content of that communication, and as such does not\r\nnecessarily constitute a waiver of the privilege.” Mitchell v. Superior Ct. (1984) 37\r\nCal. 3d 591, 602. Cf. Alpha Beta Co. v. Sup. Ct.\r\n(1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 818, 827 \r\n(“declaration established that the information he possessed came…from …\r\ncounsel …, and to the extent that the information came from that source it was\r\nprivileged. The declaration further establishes that the answers were prepared\r\nby Attorney…. Therefore, in the context\r\nof this case and in the form stated, this category of [deposition] question necessarily calls, in part at least, for\r\ninformation based upon … communications with a privileged source and would lead\r\nto the disclosure of privileged information.”).

\r\n\r\n

Generally, monetary sanctions are mandatory as to\r\nparties losing discovery motions, unless courts find substantial justification\r\nor other injustice. E.g., Foothill Properties v. Lyon/Copley\r\nCorona Assocs., L.P. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1557-58. “ ‘[S]ubstantial justification” has been\r\nunderstood to mean that a justification is clearly reasonable because it is\r\nwell-grounded in both law and fact.” Doe\r\nv. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434.

\r\n\r\n

"b'

Case Number: BC657639 Hearing Date: November 10, 2021 Dept: 55

ALEXANDROV\r\nv. DOES BC657639

\r\n\r\n

Hearing Date: 11/10/21, Dept. 55

\r\n\r\n

#9: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

\r\n\r\n

Notice: Okay

\r\n\r\n

Non-Opposition\r\nfiled by plaintiffs 10/27/21.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MP:\r\n Defendant CRANE GUYS, LLC

\r\n\r\n

RP:\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Summary

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On 4/13/17, plaintiffs filed\r\na Complaint.

\r\n\r\n

On 12/11/17, plaintiffs\r\nfiled a First Amended Complaint, alleging:

\r\n\r\n

This action for\r\nnegligence and strict liability arises out of an incident that occurred on\r\nDecember 26, 2015. Oleg Alexandrov was driving east on the 10 Freeway\r\napproaching Crenshaw Blvd and downtown Los Angeles. Marianna Alexandrov was\r\nsitting in the passenger seat while their two young grandchildren were\r\npassengers in the rear seats. Mr. Alexandrov was driving a Toyota Ray 4 in the\r\nnumber two lane of travel. Mr. Alexandrov was driving within the speed limit,\r\nin his lane of travel. Suddenly, a large metal object from the freeway lanes\r\nahead of his vehicle flew onto the hood of his car, through his front\r\nwindshield, skipped off the dashboard and steering wheel, and struck Plaintiff\r\nin the skull, causing severe and permanent brain injuries, which his wife witnessed.

\r\n\r\n

The claims are:

\r\n\r\n

1. \r\nNEGLIGENCE

\r\n\r\n

2. \r\nNEGLIGENT PRODUCTS LIABILITY

\r\n\r\n

3. \r\nNEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

\r\n\r\n

4. \r\nSTRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY

\r\n\r\n

5. \r\nBREACH OF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES

\r\n\r\n

6. \r\nLOSS OF CONSORTIUM.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On 5/13/20, Plaintiff\r\nfiled a partial dismissal without prejudice, as to defendant THE\r\nCRANE GUYS, LLC, for the following causes of action of the First Amended\r\nComplaint: Second cause of action for Negligent Products Liability, fourth\r\ncause of action for Strict Products Liability, and fifth cause of action for\r\nBreach of Express and Implied Warranties.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MP Positions

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party requests the\r\nCourt to grant summary judgment on the First Amended Complaint, on bases\r\nincluding the following:

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nPlaintiffs cannot establish any acts or\r\nomissions by moving Defendant was a substantial factor in causing the alleged\r\nincident.

\r\n\r\n

· \r\nPlaintiffs cannot establish that a duty of\r\ncare was owed and breached by moving Defendant.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Tentative\r\nRuling

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The non-opposed motion is\r\ngranted.

\r\n\r\n

“‘[A]n order will not be\r\ndisturbed on an appeal prosecuted by a consenting party.’" Bowden v.\r\nGreen (1982) 128 Cal. App. 3d 65, 72. \r\n

\r\n\r\n

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where MANITEX INC. A CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases where INQUIPCO A CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases where THE CRANE GUYS LLC is a litigant