This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/09/2019 at 01:22:23 (UTC).

ROCIO CASTANEDA VS GILBERT GONZALEZ

Case Summary

On 06/08/2018 ROCIO CASTANEDA filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against GILBERT GONZALEZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9444

  • Filing Date:

    06/08/2018

  • 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 Judge

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

CASTANEDA ROCIO

Defendants and Respondents

GONZALEZ GILBERT

DOES 1 TO 25

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

LAW OFFICES OF KAMYAR R. SHAYAN

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

SPRIGGS SCOTT B. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF ROCIO CASTANEDA; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

9/20/2019: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF ROCIO CASTANEDA; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF ROCIO CASTANEDA

10/15/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF ROCIO CASTANEDA

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

10/18/2019: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF, ROCIO CA...)

10/28/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF, ROCIO CA...)

Notice of Ruling

10/30/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF; REQUEST...)

11/20/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF; REQUEST...)

Answer - GILBERT GONZALEZ

7/12/2018: Answer - GILBERT GONZALEZ

Notice of Deposit - Jury -

7/12/2018: Notice of Deposit - Jury -

NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

9/28/2018: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

9/28/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

6/18/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

SUMMONS -

6/8/2018: SUMMONS -

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. NEGLIGENCE.

6/8/2018: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. NEGLIGENCE.

1 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/08/2021
  • Hearing06/08/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2020
  • Hearing05/27/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2020
  • Hearing05/11/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition (of Plaintiff; Request for Monetary Sanctions) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Defendant's Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff; Request...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Gilbert Gonzalez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Deposition of Plaintiff, Rocio Castaneda; Request for Monetary Sanctions) - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff, Rocio Ca...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2019
  • Docket[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Rocio Castaneda (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
4 More Docket Entries
  • 09/28/2018
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2018
  • DocketAnswer GILBERT GONZALEZ

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2018
  • DocketNotice of Deposit

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2018
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Gilbert Gonzalez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Gilbert Gonzalez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Rocio Castaneda (Plaintiff); Gilbert Gonzalez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. NEGLIGENCE.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Rocio Castaneda (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC709444    Hearing Date: November 20, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion to Compel Deposition; Request for Sanctions

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

BACKGROUND

On June 8, 2018, Plaintiff Rocio Castaneda (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Gilbert Gonzales and DOES 1 to 25, asserting a cause of action for negligence. Plaintiff alleged Defendants, on or about June 6, 2017, negligently maintained, repaired, controlled, entrusted, managed, supervised, drove, and/or operated their motor vehicles so as to cause their vehicles to collide with Plaintiff and/or the vehicle carrying Plaintiff, resulting in injuries and damages.

On July 12, 2018, Defendant Gilbert Gonzales (“Defendant”) filed an answer to the complaint.

Trial is set for May 27, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff’s deposition. Defendant also requests an award of sanctions in the amount of $960.00.

LEGAL STANDARD

C.C.P. §2025.450(a) provides, as follows: “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”

C.C.P. §2025.450(b) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(b)

***

(2) Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Gilbert Gonzales (“Defendant”) moves for an order compelling Plaintiff Rocio Castaneda’s (“Plaintiff”) deposition. Defendant also requests an award of sanctions in the amount of $960.00.

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff submitted evidence suggesting Defendant did not meet and confer in good faith before filing the instant motion. (Declaration of Shayan ¶¶3-8; Exhibits A-D.) (See C.C.P. §2025.450(b)(2).)

Defendant’s motion to compel appears to be moot. Plaintiff provided dates for his deposition – November 7th, 13th, 21st – 22nd, and December 4th - 6th and 10th – 13th. (Opposition, pg. 3.) (Declaration of Shayan ¶11; Exhibit B.)

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff provided several dates (in November and December) for his deposition. The parties shall meet and confer regarding a mutually agreeable date for Plaintiff’s deposition, and Defendant shall thereafter give notice of the deposition. Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied. Defendant did not, in the notice of motion, “identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought,” in violation of C.C.P. §2023.040. Moreover, sanctions are not warranted in light of the ruling on the motion and the evidence suggesting lack of a good faith meet and confer. (See C.C.P. §2025.450(g)(1).)

The motion to compel is DENIED.

Defendant is to give notice of the Court’s ruling.

Case Number: BC709444    Hearing Date: October 28, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion to Compel Deposition; Request for Sanctions

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

BACKGROUND

On June 8, 2018, Plaintiff Rocio Castaneda (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Gilbert Gonzales and DOES 1 to 25, asserting a cause of action for negligence. Plaintiff alleged Defendants, on or about June 6, 2017, negligently maintained, repaired, controlled, entrusted, managed, supervised, drove, and/or operated their motor vehicles so as to cause their vehicles to collide with Plaintiff and/or the vehicle carrying Plaintiff, resulting in injuries and damages.

On July 12, 2018, Defendant Gilbert Gonzales (“Defendant”) filed an answer to the complaint.

Trial is set for May 27, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff’s deposition. Defendant also requests an award of sanctions in the amount of $960.00.

LEGAL STANDARD

C.C.P. §2025.450(a) provides, as follows: “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”

C.C.P. §2025.450(b) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(b)

***

(2) Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Gilbert Gonzales (“Defendant”) moves for an order compelling Plaintiff Rocio Castaneda’s (“Plaintiff”) deposition. Defendant also requests an award of sanctions in the amount of $960.00.

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff submitted evidence suggesting Defendant did not meet and confer in good faith before filing the instant motion. (Declaration of Shayan ¶¶3-8; Exhibits A-D.) (See C.C.P. §2025.450(b)(2).)

Defendant’s motion to compel appears to be moot. Plaintiff provided dates for his deposition – November 7th, 13th, 21st – 22nd, and December 4th - 6th and 10th – 13th. (Opposition, pg. 3.) (Declaration of Shayan ¶11; Exhibit B.)

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff provided several dates (in November and December) for his deposition. The parties shall meet and confer regarding a mutually agreeable date for Plaintiff’s deposition, and Defendant shall thereafter give notice of the deposition. Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied. Defendant did not, in the notice of motion, “identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought,” in violation of C.C.P. §2023.040. Moreover, sanctions are not warranted in light of the ruling on the motion and the evidence suggesting lack of a good faith meet and confer. (See C.C.P. §2025.450(g)(1).)

The motion to compel is DENIED.

Defendant is to give notice of the Court’s ruling.