Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/07/2019 at 03:00:43 (UTC).

ROBERTO SANDOVAL VS RAY SANTOS ALONSO ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/14/2017 ROBERTO SANDOVAL filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against RAY SANTOS ALONSO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8058

  • Filing Date:

    04/14/2017

  • 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

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

SANDOVAL ROBERTO

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 20

ALONSO RAY SANTOS

GARCIA LUIS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

KHAKSHOOY BOB B. ESQ.

KHAKSHOOY BOB BABAK ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

9/28/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

10/15/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

1/11/2019: Minute Order

Unknown

1/11/2019: Unknown

Application

4/8/2019: Application

Minute Order

4/15/2019: Minute Order

SUMMONS

4/14/2017: SUMMONS

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR; 1. MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE 2. NEGLIGENCE PER SE

4/14/2017: PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR; 1. MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE 2. NEGLIGENCE PER SE

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/15/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Why Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's Counsel Should Not Be Sanctioned for Failure to Comply with California Rules of Court Sections 3.110(b) and 3.110(f)) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Why Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's Coun...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2019
  • Application (Application for Publication); Filed by Roberto Sandoval (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Dismissal for Failure to Serve / Prosecute) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Serve / Pros...) of 01/11/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2019
  • Minute Order ((Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Serve / Pros...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2018
  • Minute Order ((Non-Jury Trial;)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-10-15 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 3; Final Status Conference (Final Status Conference; No Appearance) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-09-28 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2017
  • PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR; 1. MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE 2. NEGLIGENCE PER SE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Roberto Sandoval (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC658058    Hearing Date: May 4, 2021    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

ROBERTO SANDOVAL,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

RAY SANTOS ALONSO, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC658058

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL

Dept. 31

8:30 a.m.

May 4, 2021

Defendant, Ray Santos Alonso (“Defendant”) propounded special interrogatories and request for production of documents (“RPDs”), and demand for damages under CCP § 425.11 on Plaintiff, Roberto Sandoval (“Plaintiff”) on 1/9/20.  To date, Plaintiff has not served responses.  Defendant therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions.

Defendant’s motion is unopposed and granted.  Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to special interrogatories and RPDs, sets one, without objections, within ten days.  (CCP §§ 2030.290(a),(b), 2031.300(a),(b).)  In addition, Plaintiff must serve Plaintiff’s statement of damages within 10 days.  (CCP § 425.11(b).) 

Sanctions are mandatory.  (CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).)  Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,077.50 for the motion.  Pertaining to the requests to compel responses to special interrogatories and RPDs in the motion, the court awards Defendant one hour for preparing the form motion to compel and one hour to appear at the hearing all at the requested rate $185 per hour, for a total of $370 in attorney’s fees.  Further, Defendant is awarded the $60 motion filing fee as costs. 

Sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiff who is in pro per.  Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $430, within twenty days.

As a final note, the court realizes that Defendant’s motion to compel special interrogatories, RPDs, and demand for damages is actually three motions combined into one: (a) motion to compel responses to special interrogatories, set one, (b) motion to compel demand for production of documents, set one, and (c) and motion to compel response to demand for damages.  In the future, moving party is ordered to obtain separate hearing reservations and pay separate filing fees.  Combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants.  Moreover, combining motions to avoid payment of separate filing fees deprives the Court of filing fees it is otherwise entitled to collect.

Be that as it may, in the absence of any objection by Plaintiffs and lack of any showing of prejudice, the court will exercise its discretion to hear all nine motions, but the above orders will not become effective until moving party pays an additional $120 in filing fees (2 motions filing fees not paid for x $60 filing fee). 

Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.orgIf the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

 

Dated this 4th day of May, 2021

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC658058    Hearing Date: December 10, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

ROBERTO SANDOVAL,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

RAY SANTOS ALONSO, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC658058

[TENTATIVE] ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Dept. 31

8:30 a.m.

December 10, 2020

 

Plaintiff Roberto Sandoval’s (“Plaintiff”) attorney of record, Law Offices of Bob Khakshooy (“Counsel”), seeks to be relieved as counsel, contending that Counsel has been unable to communicate with Plaintiff, making representation impracticable and impossible. Counsel declares it served the moving papers on his client via mail at the client’s last known address after communicating with Plaintiff’s wife, who has informed Counsel that Plaintiff is no longer in the country. Counsel has filed proof of service on his client and on Defendant.

The court wishes to hear from Counsel concerning the communication with Plaintiff’s wife and service on Plaintiff. Assuming the Court is satisfied with confirmation of Clients’ address, the motion will be granted.

The motion is unopposed and granted; the ruling is effective upon filing proof of service of the final order. The Court notes the trial is not yet scheduled in this matter. Therefore, there will be no prejudice as a result of the granting of this motion.

Counsel is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

 

Dated this 10th day of December, 2020

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer KHAKSHOOY BOB B. ESQ.