Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/04/2019 at 00:12:18 (UTC).

RICK VANN ET AL VS MAURY GILES

Case Summary

On 02/24/2017 RICK VANN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against MAURY GILES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GEORGINA T. RIZK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1693

  • Filing Date:

    02/24/2017

  • 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 Judge

GEORGINA T. RIZK

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

SOUN LAURA

VANN RICK

Defendants and Respondents

GILES MAURY

DOES 1 TO 20

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

AUKLAND ANDREW ESQ

Defendant Attorney

CHIDI ELIZABETH MKPAYAH

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

8/10/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

10/11/2018: Minute Order

Proof of Personal Service

11/5/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Answer

1/3/2019: Answer

Minute Order

1/8/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

5/30/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

SUMMONS

2/24/2017: SUMMONS

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

2/24/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/30/2019
  • Notice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Maury Giles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2019
  • Minute Order ((Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service Tri...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Maury Giles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2019
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Maury Giles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2018
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Rick Vann (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2018
  • Minute Order ((Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-10-11 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 2; Jury Trial (Jury Trial; Advanced to a Previous Date) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 2; Final Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-08-10 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Rick Vann (Plaintiff); Laura Soun (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC651693    Hearing Date: July 24, 2020    Dept: 29

Vann et al. v. Giles BC651693

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Attendance at Deposition; Request for Sanctions is DENIED without prejudice.

Defendant is entitled to move to compel a party’s appearance at depositions where the party fails to proceed. Cal Code Civ Procedure § 2025.450. Defendant must show good cause and an effort to meet and confer in good faith. Id.

Defendant did not fully meet and confer in good faith. While Plaintiffs did not appear on 3/3/20, the parties thereafter met and conferred and agreed to reschedule the deposition for 3/20/20. Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to appear on that date, and Defendant agreed to send a notice of continuance. Motion, Exhibit B.

However, on 3/18/20, defense counsel sent Plaintiffs’ counsel an email that the 3/20/20 depositions were being continued to 4/10/20 to arrange for a virtual deposition in light of Covid-19. Opposition, Ex. A. According to Plaintiffs' counsel, the 4/10/20 date was unilaterally scheduled, and Plaintiffs' counsel informed defense counsel that Plaintiffs could not attend due to personal obligations. Declaration of Andrew Aukland, paragraph 11.

Plaintiffs offered additional dates for the rescheduling of the depositions, but defense counsel declined and refused to offer alternatives. Opposition, Ex. B. Declaration of Aukland, paragraph 12. Defendant does not explain why he did not respond to Plaintiff’s efforts to continue to meet and confer. There is no evidence that Plaintiffs are willfully refusing to appear.

There was substantial justification for Plaintiffs’ failure to appear on 4/10/20 due to Defendant’s unilateral continuance of the 3/20/20 depositions. Imposition of sanctions against Plaintiffs would be unjust under these circumstances. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(g)(1).

The Court expects the parties to meet and confer to schedule the deposition at a mutually agreeable time.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC651693    Hearing Date: February 06, 2020    Dept: 2

Vann et al. v. Giles

Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions for Failure to Obey Court Orders and for Monetary Sanctions filed on 9/30/19 is DENIED without prejudice.

On 7/31/19, the Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to discovery. Motion, Ex. A. Plaintiffs were ordered to provide verified responses within 30 days and pay sanctions of $1,200 to Defendant. Id. Defendant served a Notice of Ruling on Plaintiffs on 7/31/19. Id. Plaintiffs did not comply with the Court’s order. Declaration of Elizabeth Chidi, ¶ 9.

Defendant now seeks terminating sanctions. The Court is extremely troubled by Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Court’s order. However, “terminating sanctions are to be used sparingly because of the drastic effect of their application.” Department of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell (2017) 18 Cal. App. 5th 154, 191-92.

Sanctions are generally imposed in an incremental approach, with terminating sanctions being the last resort. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell (2017) 18 Cal. App. 5th 154, 191-92. Applying the incremental approach, the Court concludes that further monetary sanctions are warranted at this juncture.

The Court imposes additional monetary sanctions in the amount of $555.00 against Plaintiffs to be paid within 30 days.

Plaintiffs are admonished that they must comply with the Court’s previous orders to provide written, verified responses to avoid further sanctions, up to and including terminating sanctions resulting in the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ case. If Plaintiffs fail to comply within the next 20 days, Defendant may renew the motion for terminating sanctions.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC651693    Hearing Date: December 04, 2019    Dept: 2

BC651693 Vann, et al v. Giles

On the court’s own motion, the hearing on the Motion for Terminating Sanctions set for 12/4/19 is continued to 1/6/2020 at 1:30 p.m. in Department SS-2. The due date for the opposition and reply is based on the original hearing date.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer CHIDI ELIZABETH MKPAYAH