ORLANDO MONDRAGON VS FOOD 4 LESS CA INC ET AL
Case Summary
On 02/02/2018 ORLANDO MONDRAGON filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against FOOD 4 LESS CA INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details
-
Case Number:
****2811
-
Filing Date:
02/02/2018
-
Case Status:
Pending - Other Pending
-
Court:
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
-
Courthouse:
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
-
County, State:
Los Angeles, California
Party Details
Plaintiff and Petitioner
MONDRAGON ORLANDO
Defendants and Respondents
FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA INCORPORATION
DOES 1 TO 100
CERDA SHARON
Other
BANAFSHEH DANESH & JAVID PC
Attorney/Law Firm Details
Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys
CHOE ANTHONY
BANAFSHEH DANESH & JAVID PC
Defendant and Respondent Attorney
D'ORO FRANK J. ESQ.
Court Documents
5/8/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees
5/23/2019: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person
4/6/2018: ANSWER OF FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. DBA FOOD 4 LESS TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
3/14/2018: APROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
2/23/2018: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL
2/2/2018: SUMMONS
2/2/2018: COMPLAINT FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE: 2. NEGLIGENCE PER SE:
Docket Entries
- 05/23/2019
-
[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Food 4 Less of California Incorporation (Defendant)
- 05/08/2019
-
Notice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Food 4 Less of California Incorporation (Defendant)
- 04/06/2018
-
ANSWER OF FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. DBA FOOD 4 LESS TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
- 04/06/2018
-
Answer; Filed by Food 4 Less of California Incorporation (Defendant)
- 03/14/2018
-
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Orlando Mondragon (Plaintiff)
- 03/14/2018
-
APROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
- 02/23/2018
-
Association of Attorney; Filed by Orlando Mondragon (Plaintiff)
- 02/23/2018
-
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL
- 02/02/2018
-
SUMMONS
- 02/02/2018
-
COMPLAINT FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE: 2. NEGLIGENCE PER SE:
- 02/02/2018
-
Complaint; Filed by Orlando Mondragon (Plaintiff)
- 02/02/2018
-
Summons; Filed by Orlando Mondragon (Plaintiff)
Tentative Rulings
Case Number: BC692811 Hearing Date: November 05, 2019 Dept: 5
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 5
|
orlando mondragon,
Plaintiff, v.
food 4 less of california, inc., et al.,
Defendants.
|
Case No.: BC692811
Hearing Date: November 5, 2019
[TENTATIVE] order RE: defendant’S MOTION TO continue discovery and motion cut-off deadlines
|
Defendant Food 4 Less of California, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves to continue the discovery and motion cut-off dates in this matter. In this case, Plaintiff Orlando Mondragon (“Plaintiff”) claims Defendant’s employee ran over his foot with a forklift, causing the amputation of a toe and other injuries to his foot. The Court continued the trial to March 5, 2020 via Defendant’s ex parte application, but did not continue the discovery and motions cut-off. Based on the former trial date of December 10, 2019, the fact discovery cutoff is November 12, 2019, and the expert discovery cutoff is November 25, 2019. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2016.060, 2024.030.) Now, Defendant seeks to continue the discovery and motions cut-off, which Plaintiff opposes.
In determining whether to re-open discovery, the Court must consider the necessity of and reasons for the additional discovery, the diligence or lack thereof by the party seeking to reopen discovery in attempting to complete discovery prior to the cutoff, whether permitting the discovery will prevent the case from going forward on the trial date or will otherwise prejudice any party, and any past continuances of the trial date. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)
Plaintiff stipulates to continue the discovery cut-off with respect to expert depositions, and to continue the deadline for fact-based discovery with respect to the deposition of witness Sharon Cerda (“Cerda”). (Opposition to Motion to Continue Discovery and Motion Cut-off Deadlines, pp. 5-6.) Plaintiff opposes any further opening of discovery. Defendant’s motion is not a model of clarity, as it is unclear why Defendant is seeking to extend fact discovery. Therefore, the Court grants the motion in part and denies the motion in part. Expert discovery, as well as the deposition of Sharon Cerda, is extended based upon the new trial date. Fact discovery shall remain closed except for the deposition of Sharon Cerda. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.
DATED: November 5. 2019 ___________________________
Stephen I. Goorvitch
Judge of the Superior Court
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases