This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/15/2020 at 10:17:10 (UTC).

RAUL MORENO VS MIRIAM G CENTERO ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/05/2018 RAUL MORENO filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against MIRIAM G CENTERO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA A. SEIGLE, EDWARD B. MORETON and DANIEL M. CROWLEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0902

  • Filing Date:

    04/05/2018

  • 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 Judges

LAURA A. SEIGLE

EDWARD B. MORETON

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MORENO RAUL

Defendants and Respondents

BELL GARDENS SENIOR CENTER

BELL GARDENS CITY OF

HERRERA MONICA

LOS ANGELES COUNTY OF

CENTENO MIRIAM G.

DOES 1 TO 50

Other

HUMMEL BRIAN G. ESQ.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LALEZARY SHERVIN ESQ.

ROWLEY NICHOLAS C.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

CALENDO PUCKETT SHEEDY LLP

GORDON MICHAEL J. ASSOC. COUNTY COUNSEL

WESIERSKI & ZUREK LLP

HUMMEL BRIAN G. ESQ.

ROSSER DAVID BLAKE

FERRANTE DAVID MICHAEL

GORDON MICHAEL JOHN

HUMMEL BRIAN GEORGE ESQ.

KLEIN CARL CONRAD

 

Court Documents

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

2/5/2020: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE)

1/6/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE)

12/17/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE)

Association of Attorney

9/13/2019: Association of Attorney

Notice of Ruling

9/9/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL)

8/2/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL)

Notice of Deposit - Jury

4/5/2019: Notice of Deposit - Jury

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

5/10/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

5/15/2018: DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT, MONICA HERRERA

9/6/2018: ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT, MONICA HERRERA

Answer - Answer to Second Amended Complaint

11/9/2018: Answer - Answer to Second Amended Complaint

Request for Dismissal

12/11/2018: Request for Dismissal

Request for Dismissal

12/10/2018: Request for Dismissal

Answer - Answer to Second Amended Complaint

11/9/2018: Answer - Answer to Second Amended Complaint

STIPULATION TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

8/15/2018: STIPULATION TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

STIPULATION

6/8/2018: STIPULATION

NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

7/30/2018: NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

4/23/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

68 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/23/2020
  • Hearing11/23/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2020
  • Hearing11/09/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Raul Moreno (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2020
  • Docketat 10:56 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 08/25/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/12/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Raul Moreno (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2020
  • Docketat 3:08 PM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Re: Recusal)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order Re: Recusal) of 08/03/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
102 More Docket Entries
  • 04/23/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Raul Moreno (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Raul Moreno (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Raul Moreno (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Raul Moreno (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC700902    Hearing Date: December 17, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE

On April 5, 2018, plaintiff Raul Moreno filed this action against defendants Miriam G. Centeno, Monica Herrera, Bell Gardens Senior Center, and City of Bell Gardens for injuries relating to an automobile versus pedestrian collision on January 11, 2018. Plaintiff moves for trial preference on the grounds that he is over the age of 70 and has been diagnosed with chronic kidney disease stage 5 and is at risk of organ failure.

A party who is over 70 years old may petition the court for a preference, which the court shall grant if the court makes both of the following findings: (1) the party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole; and (2) the health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party’s interest in the litigation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (a).) An affidavit submitted in support of a motion for preference under subdivision (a) of Section 36 may be signed by the attorney for the party seeking preference based upon information and belief as to the medical diagnosis and prognosis of any party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 36.5.) “The issue under subdivision (a) is not whether an elderly litigant might die before trial or become so disabled that she might as well be absent when trial is called. Provided there is evidence that the party involved is over 70, all subdivision (a) requires is a showing that the party’s “health . . . is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing [her] interest in the litigation. (Italics added.)” (Fox v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 529, 534.) “Subdivision (a) requires the granting of calendar preference to ‘prevent’ prejudice to a stricken litigant’s interests. (Italics added.) The idea that [plaintiff] should be made to wait to file a preference motion until she is clearly in her final days—when attendance at a trial is hardly what she should be doing—makes no sense at all.” (Id. at p. 536.)

“Where a party meets the requisite standard for calendar preference under subdivision (a), preference must be granted. No weighing of interests is involved.” (Fox, supra, 21 Cal.App.5th at p. 535.) Any inconvenience to the court or to other litigants is irrelevant and “[f]ailure to complete discovery or other pretrial matters does not affect the absolute substantive right to trial preference for those litigants who qualify for preference.” (Swaithes v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1082, 1085.)

Plaintiff is 72-years old. (Declaration of John A. Kawai, ¶ 5.) He suffered major injuries in the accident at issue in the action, and was recently diagnosed with Stage 5 end stage chronic kidney disease. Plaintiff established that his health is not expected to improve, and preference is necessary to prevent prejudice to his interest in the litigation. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for trial preference. Trial is advanced from May 6, 2020 to April 8, 2020 and the Final Status Conference is advanced from April 22, 2020 to March 25, 2020.

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 Dec. 17, 2019. A party requesting argument should contact Dept. 4B for an alternate hearing date.

Case Number: BC700902    Hearing Date: November 07, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA

On April 5, 2018, plaintiff Raul Moreno (“Plaintiff’) filed this action against defendants Miriam Centeno and City of Bell Gardens (collectively, “Defendants”) for injuries relating to an automobile versus pedestrian collision occurring on January 11, 2018. On August 19, 2019, Defendants issued a deposition subpoena to the California Department of Motor Vehicle (“DMV”) requesting “[a]ny and all records” pertaining to Plaintiff, and “[a]ll writings . . . which reference or reflect any aspect of [Plaintiff’s] driving record, driving privileges, and/or driving restrictions,” including “all printouts, lists, license status, records of accidents, vehicle history, license suspension or revocation or limitation, or any other aspect of driving.” Plaintiff moves to quash the subpoena on grounds that it violates his right of privacy, seeks irrelevant information, and calls for production of documents beyond the deadline for non-expert discovery.

The court “may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other orders as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).) “‘[F]or discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement’ and ‘[a]dmissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence.’ These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery . . . and (contrary to popular belief) fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases.” (Cruz v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 646, 653, citations omitted.) The Court must “balance the public need against the weight of the privacy right” and only serious invasions of privacy will bar discovery. (Crab Addison, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 958, 966.) There is not an egregious invasion of privacy every time there is a request for private information and courts must “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557.)

The subpoena is not untimely. Trial is currently set for May 6, 2020, and the order continuing the trial date stated that all discovery dates were to be based on the new trial date. Thus, discovery remains open.

Plaintiff argues the subpoena seeks irrelevant records protected by his right to privacy. Plaintiff was a pedestrian at the time of the accident, so his driving record is not at issue.

Defendant argues the Plaintiff placed his medical condition at issue by contending he has injuries of the sort his doctors would need to report to the DMV. Health and Safety Code section 103900 requires a doctor to report the local health officer persons diagnosed as having a case of a disorder characterized by lapses in consciousness. Vehicle Code section 12806 authorizes the DMV to refuse to issue a license to a person who has lapses of consciousness or episodes of marked confusion.

To this limited extent, Plaintiff has placed his medical condition at issue. He has produced medical records regarding his injuries, anti-seizure medication, and dizziness, forgetfulness, poor memory and poor concentration. By producing these records, Plaintiff has substantially lowed her expectation of privacy in this litigation concerning those conditions and injuries. The DMV’s production of documents concerning such conditions and injuries will not reduce Plaintiff’s privacy any further.

However, Defendant’s subpoena asks for records well beyond any records showing whether Plaintiff’s doctors reported medical conditions after the January 11, 2018 accident. The Court therefore GRANTS to motion to quash in part and limits the records request to DMV records dated after January 11, 2018 concerning any reports to the DMV about Plaintiff’s injuries, mental condition or anti-seizure medication.

The Court does not grant sanctions as the subpoena was overbroad and sought some irrelevant documents, but also requested documents that are potentially relevant.

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 as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.