This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/01/2019 at 04:38:45 (UTC).

PEDRO SERAFIN VS KAI ZHANG

Case Summary

On 12/15/2017 PEDRO SERAFIN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against KAI ZHANG. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6822

  • Filing Date:

    12/15/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

SERAFIN PEDRO

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 10

ZHANG KAI

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

NEHME ANTHONY T. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

3/20/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

SUMMONS

12/15/2017: SUMMONS

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

12/15/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/20/2018
  • REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2018
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by Pedro Serafin (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Pedro Serafin (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC686822    Hearing Date: December 16, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE MAURICIO BONILLA

On February 15, 2019, Plaintiffs Maria and Derek Chandler filed this action against Defendant Trader Joe’s Company (“Defendant”) for negligence and premises liability arising out of a August 20, 2017 accident involving heavy equipment at Defendant’s store. On October 15, 2019, Plaintiff Maria Chandler noticed the deposition for November 13, 2019. On November 5, 2019, Defendant objected, stating counsel and the witness were unavailable on November 13. Plaintiff’s counsel sent several emails to set the deposition date, but defense counsel did not provide a date. Plaintiff filed this motion to compel on November 15, 2019. Defendant did not oppose.

Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).) The party served with a deposition notice waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (a).) In addition to serving this written objection, a party may also move for an order staying the taking of the deposition and quashing the deposition notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (c).) “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party . . . without having served a valid objection . . . 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 notice may move for an order compelling deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production . . . of any document . . . described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

Defendant filed no opposition to this Motion, and, Defendant’s employee failed to appear for his properly- noticed deposition. Therefore, the Motion to compel is GRANTED and Bonilla is ordered to appear within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, or other date to which the parties agree.

Where a motion to compel a party’s appearance and testimony at deposition is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent, unless the court finds the one subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).) The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Defendant and defense counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $96.00, 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 SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative. The Court will be dark on December 16, 2019. A party requesting argument should contact Dept. 4B for an alternate hearing date.