This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2019 at 09:45:58 (UTC).

ROSA LOMELI VS ERECTIONS UNLIMITED, INC.

Case Summary

On 10/13/2017 ROSA LOMELI filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against ERECTIONS UNLIMITED, INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MARGARET MILLER BERNAL. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6639

  • Filing Date:

    10/13/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Norwalk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MARGARET MILLER BERNAL

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

ADAME ADAM AN INDIVIDUAL

LOMELI ROSA AN INDIVDUAL

ADAME ADAM

LOMELI ROSA

Defendants

EXPO DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT INC. A

ERECTIONS UNLIMITED INC. A CALIFORNIA

GUTMAN AVRAHAM AN INDIVIDUAL

E UNLIMITED CONSTRUCTION

TRUMER SHARON AN INDIVIDUAL

TRUMER SHARON

EXPO DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT INC.

ERECTIONS UNLIMITED INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DBA E UNLIMITED CONSTRUCTION

GUTMAN AVRAHAM

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

GUERRERO & CHAN LLP

CHAN FRANKY C

VAN MYRNA

 

Court Documents

Notice

7/3/2019: Notice

Legacy Document

12/1/2017: Legacy Document

Request for Dismissal

3/9/2018: Request for Dismissal

Order

6/29/2018: Order

Minute Order

6/29/2018: Minute Order

Legacy Document

6/29/2018: Legacy Document

Notice of Motion

7/26/2018: Notice of Motion

Proof of Service by Mail

8/9/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

Minute Order

12/18/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

12/19/2018: Minute Order

Order

1/16/2019: Order

Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

1/24/2019: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

1/24/2019: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

1/24/2019: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Proof of Service - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

1/24/2019: Proof of Service - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

1/24/2019: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Notice of Ruling

2/27/2019: Notice of Ruling

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

4/5/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

54 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/13/2020
  • Hearingat 09:30 AM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/04/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2019
  • DocketNotice (after hearing re: Motion to Compel); Filed by Rosa Lomeli (Plaintiff); Adam Adame (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Defendant Avraham Gutman's Further Responses to Form Interrogatories) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2019
  • DocketOrder (hearing of 7/2/19); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; Hear...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Defendant Avraham Gutman's Further Responses to Form Interrogatories) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
73 More Docket Entries
  • 02/28/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Rosa Lomeli (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2017
  • DocketRequest for Correction; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • DocketDefault Entered

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by Rosa Lomeli (Plaintiff); Adam Adame (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by Rosa Lomeli (Plaintiff); Adam Adame (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by Rosa Lomeli (Plaintiff); Adam Adame (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Rosa Lomeli (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Rosa Lomeli (Plaintiff); Adam Adame (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Rosa Lomeli (Plaintiff); Adam Adame (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: VC066639    Hearing Date: November 07, 2019    Dept: SEC

LOMELI v. ERECTIONS UNLIMITED, INC.

CASE NO.: VC066639

HEARING: 11/07/19

JUDGE: RAUL A. SAHAGUN

#7

TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion for Terminating Sanctions as to Defendant AVRAHAM GUTMAN is GRANTED in part. CCP §2023.030.

II. Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion for Terminating Sanctions as to Defendant EXPO DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT, INC. is GRANTED in part. CCP §2023.030.

III. Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion for Terminating Sanctions as to Defendant ERECTIONS UNLIMITED, INC. is GRANTED in part. CCP §2023.030.

IV. Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion for Terminating Sanctions as to Defendant SHARON TRUMER is GRANTED in part. CCP §2023.030.

Moving Party to give Notice.

No Opposition(s) filed as of November 4, 2019. The Court notes that Defendants’ former attorney’s Motion(s) to Withdraw were granted on February 27, 2019. As of November 4, 2019, no Substitution(s) of Counsel have been filed/lodged with the Court.

CCP §2023.010 includes: “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery” and “(g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery.” CCP §2023.030 provides, in part: “To the extent authorized by this chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, may impose the [sanctions] against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process, including monetary and issue and terminating sanctions.” Failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery and disobeying a court order to provide discovery are both misuses of the discovery process.” (CCP §§2023.010 (d) and (g).)

It is a commonly stated axiom that discovery sanctions “should be appropriate to the dereliction and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne

Plaintiffs seek terminating sanctions due to Defendants’ refusal to participate in the discovery process, and failure to abide by this Court’s July 2, 2019 discovery Order(s).

Where no Oppositions have been filed as of November 4, 2019, it is undisputed that Defendants are refusing to participate in the discovery process and have violated this Court’s July 2, 2019 discovery Order by failing to serve further verified responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories (set one) and failing to pay court-ordered sanctions.

The Court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted here. Defendants’ discovery responses were requested many months ago, and the number of outstanding discovery issues are not particularly extensive. Further, the information sought by Plaintiffs are important to the case. Defendants’ failure to comply with Court Orders, and blatant refusal to participate in this litigation, supports the conclusion that lesser sanctions would not be appropriate.

The unopposed motion for terminating sanctions is granted. Defendants’ Answer FILED on December 18, 2018 is STRICKEN. The Court denies monetary sanctions, as terminating sanctions are sufficient redress.