This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/14/2019 at 01:44:05 (UTC).

PAUL SOUVANNOVONG VS JUAN ESPARZA ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/22/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by PAUL SOUVANNOVONG against JUAN ESPARZA in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7329

  • Filing Date:

    05/22/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

SOUVANNAVONG PAUL

Respondents and Defendants

LEZAMA JOSE

PACHECO HERIBERTO

ESPARZA JUAN

DOES 1-50

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal

8/20/2019: Request for Dismissal

Certificate of Mailing for

8/14/2019: Certificate of Mailing for

Notice

8/14/2019: Notice

Motion re:

5/23/2019: Motion re:

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

5/10/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Notice of Ruling

5/13/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order

5/10/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

5/2/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Motion

2/13/2019: Notice of Motion

Notice of Motion

2/13/2019: Notice of Motion

Notice of Motion

2/13/2019: Notice of Motion

Notice of Motion

2/13/2019: Notice of Motion

Other -

10/19/2018: Other -

Answer

12/13/2018: Answer

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

10/3/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

8/9/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

7/25/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

SUMMONS

5/22/2018: SUMMONS

18 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/04/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (for relief) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2019
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Paul Souvannavong (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2019
  • Docketat 10:15 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2019
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order re Notice of Settlement of Entire Case) of 08/14/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2019
  • DocketNotice (notice of settlement of entire case); Filed by Paul Souvannavong (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order re Notice of Settlement of Entire Case)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • DocketMotion re: (relief); Filed by Jose Lezama (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Paul Souvannavong (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (Form Interrogatories) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (Request for Production) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
32 More Docket Entries
  • 08/09/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Paul Souvannavong (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Heriberto Pacheco (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2018
  • DocketANSWER-PERSONAL INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Paul Souvannavong (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Paul Souvannavong (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC707329    Hearing Date: March 04, 2020    Dept: 27

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND MONETARY SANCTIONS

On September 9, 2019, plaintiffs Heather Biesemeier and Chase Lotito (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendant Francis Hartshorn (“Defendant”) arising from a September 9, 2017 car accident. On November 20, 2019, Defendant served Plaintiffs with form interrogatories and demands for inspection and production of documents. On January 6, 2020, defense counsel sent a letter reminding Plaintiffs about the responses and giving additional time to respond. Plaintiff did not serve responses. Defendant moves to compel responses to the discovery requests and for monetary sanctions.

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)

Plaintiffs filed no oppositions to these motions and failed to serve responses to Defendant’s discovery. Accordingly, the motions to compel are GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, to Defendant’s form interrogatories and demands for inspection and production of documents within twenty (20) days of the date of this order.

Monetary Sanctions

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Heather Biesemeier and her counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $407.50, to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this order. Sanctions are also imposed against Chase Lotito and his counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $407.50, to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this order.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: BC707329    Hearing Date: February 19, 2020    Dept: 27

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DEEM ADMITTED

On May 22, 2018, Plaintiff Patricia Picazo (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC (“Defendant”) for negligence and premises liability arising from a December 13, 2016 slip and fall. On October 16, 2019, Defendant served Request for Admissions on Defendant. Defense counsel mailed a letter on December 2, 2019 requesting verified responses without objections within ten days. Defendant did not receive responses. Defendant moves for an order deeming the requests for admissions admitted.

Where a party fails to timely respond to a request for admission, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants them relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (a)(1)-(2).) The court shall grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff filed no opposition to this Motion for an order deeming admitted requests for admissions and did not serve timely responses. It does not appear Plaintiff served substantially compliant responses prior to the hearing on this Motion. Accordingly, the motion to deem admitted requests for admissions is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.