This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/01/2020 at 10:02:50 (UTC).

ROBERT PEREYDA VS LYFT INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/07/2018 ROBERT PEREYDA filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against LYFT INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CHRISTOPHER K. LUI and DANIEL M. CROWLEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3509

  • Filing Date:

    02/07/2018

  • 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

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

PEREYDA ROBERT

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Defendants

GAETA CONNIE

NERSESYAN ARMEN

LYFT INC.

DOES 1 TO 100

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff

NERSESYAN ARMEN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

GEOULLA DANIEL D. ESQ.

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

MCNEIL TROPP & BRAUN LLP

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

HAAS TODD R

POPOVICH JERRY CARL

BRAUN JEFF ITZHAK

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

4/24/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 13 TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT LYFT INC. FROM DENYING THAT DEFENDANT ARMAN NERSESYAN WAS AN EMPLOYEE AT THE TIME OF THE COLLISION:

3/10/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 13 TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT LYFT INC. FROM DENYING THAT DEFENDANT ARMAN NERSESYAN WAS AN EMPLOYEE AT THE TIME OF THE COLLISION:

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE

3/11/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF HEALTH INSURANCE OR MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT RATES TO DISCOUNT PLAINTIFFS FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES; DEC

3/3/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF HEALTH INSURANCE OR MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT RATES TO DISCOUNT PLAINTIFFS FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES; DEC

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO EXCLUDE ANY REFERENCE TO THE DEFENSE MEDICAL EXPERT AS INDEPENDENT; DECLARATION OF MAHSA FARID, ESQ.

3/3/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO EXCLUDE ANY REFERENCE TO THE DEFENSE MEDICAL EXPERT AS INDEPENDENT; DECLARATION OF MAHSA FARID, ESQ.

Jury Instructions

2/26/2020: Jury Instructions

Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT L YFT, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF JERRY C. POPOVICH IN SUPPORT

2/5/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT L YFT, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF JERRY C. POPOVICH IN SUPPORT

Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT L YFT, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF JERRY C. P

2/5/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT L YFT, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF JERRY C. P

Request for Dismissal

1/23/2019: Request for Dismissal

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO PRECLUDE ANY MENTION OF LIABILITY INSURANCE AT THE TIME OF TRIAL; DECLARATION OF KENDALL L. CRAVER

1/6/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO PRECLUDE ANY MENTION OF LIABILITY INSURANCE AT THE TIME OF TRIAL; DECLARATION OF KENDALL L. CRAVER

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO PROHIBIT AGAINST VIOLATING STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION; DECLARATION OF KENDALL L. CRAVER

1/6/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO PROHIBIT AGAINST VIOLATING STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION; DECLARATION OF KENDALL L. CRAVER

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

1/17/2020: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE ANY REFERENCE TO THE DEFENSE MEDICAL EXPERT AS INDEPENDENT; DECLARATION OF MAHSA FARID, ESQ.

1/23/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE ANY REFERENCE TO THE DEFENSE MEDICAL EXPERT AS INDEPENDENT; DECLARATION OF MAHSA FARID, ESQ.

Exhibit List

1/23/2020: Exhibit List

Jury Instructions

1/23/2020: Jury Instructions

Jury Instructions

1/23/2020: Jury Instructions

DEFENDANT LYFI, INC.'S NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

7/31/2018: DEFENDANT LYFI, INC.'S NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

DEFENDANT LYFT, INC'S JURY DEMAND

7/31/2018: DEFENDANT LYFT, INC'S JURY DEMAND

71 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/08/2021
  • Hearing02/08/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2020
  • Hearing12/02/2020 at 10:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2020
  • Docketat 08:35 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 04/24/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2020
  • DocketMotion in Limine (PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10 FOR ORDER PROHIBITING EVIDENCE OF, OR REFERRING TO, WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS NOT IDENTIFIED OR PRODUCED DURING PRE-TRIAL DISCOVERY; DECLARATION OF MAHSA FARID, ESQ.); Filed by Robert Pereyda (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
91 More Docket Entries
  • 07/31/2018
  • DocketDEFENDANT LYFI, INC.'S NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Lyft, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2018
  • DocketDEFENDANT LYFT, INC'S JURY DEMAND

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2018
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Lyft, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2018
  • DocketDEFENDANT LYFT, INC.'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2018
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Lyft, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2018
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Lyft, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Robert Pereyda (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC693509    Hearing Date: February 21, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion: Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set Two); Motion to Deem Matters in Request for Admissions (Set Two) filed by Plaintiff Robert Pereyda

Opposed: Yes

Proposed Ruling: Deny the motions.

Special Issues: None

Law Clerk: Jamison Gilmore, ext. 7101

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One); Motion to Deem Matters in Request for Admissions (Set One) as True

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On January 17, 2020, Plaintiff Robert Pereyda (“Plaintiff”) filed motions to compel Defendant Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) to provide verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set Two) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.

Also on January 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to deem the matters in Request for Admissions (Set Two) as true against Lyft pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280.

Trial is set for March 12, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Lyft to serve verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents (All Set Two) due to Plaintiff’s failure to serve timely responses.

Defendants also ask the Court to impose $480 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record for their abuse of the discovery process.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).)  Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.) salt

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), a “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, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010).”  The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted “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).)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

The motions cannot be granted because they are late.  Plaintiff had until January 21, 2020 to have the motions at bar heard because trial was set for February 5, 2020.  (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.020, subd. (a) (stating discovery motions must be heard no later than fifteen days before trial).)  On January 24, 2020, the Court explicitly continued expert discovery only.  As such, the January 21, 2020 deadline for these motions to be heard remained.  Thus, the motions must be denied because they are untimely.

CONCLUSION

The motions are DENIED.

Plaintiff is Lyft is ordered to give notice of this ruling.