Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/31/2019 at 03:13:23 (UTC).

SHAHIN JACOBI ET AL VS ANGEL BACCHUS

Case Summary

On 03/22/2017 SHAHIN JACOBI filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ANGEL BACCHUS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5185

  • Filing Date:

    03/22/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Guardian Ad Litem

JACOBI SHAHIN

Defendants and Respondents

BACCHUS ANGEL

DOES 1-100

Minor

JACOBI DANIEL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

ETEHAD SIMON P

Minor Attorney

ETEHAD LAW FRIM APC

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE

8/17/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

8/17/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Minute Order

3/7/2019: Minute Order

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

2/14/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/16/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

5/21/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

SUMMONS

1/5/2018: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. NEGLIGENCE ;ETC

3/22/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. NEGLIGENCE ;ETC

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

4/19/2017: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

4/24/2017: NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL

5/16/2017: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL

NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

5/23/2017: NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

6/23/2017: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

6/28/2017: NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

8/10/2017: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM?CIVIL

3 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (for Failure to File Default/Default Judgment) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Default/Default Judgment)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 7; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/05/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 7; Final Status Conference (Final Status Conference; Off Calendar) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/05/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-09-05 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Shahin Jacobi (Plaintiff); Daniel Jacobi (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2018
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2018
  • REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
11 More Docket Entries
  • 06/23/2017
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2017
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2017
  • NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2017
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2017
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM-CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2017
  • NOTICE OF REJECTION - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2017
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2017
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. NEGLIGENCE ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC655185    Hearing Date: May 4, 2021    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

SHAHIN JACOBI, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

ANGEL BACCHUS, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

BC655185

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DISMISSING CASE; AND FOR ORDER REINSTATING CASE 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

May 4, 2021

On March 22, 2017, plaintiff Shahin Jacobi, as Guardian ad Litem of Daniel Jacobi, a minor, filed this action against defendant Angel Bacchus aka Angel Chan (“Defendant”) arising from injuries sustained at a party held on June 15, 2016.  Plaintiff alleges Defendant owned real property on which she held an after-prom party and charged an entry fee for guests to consume alcoholic beverages.  At the party, Plaintiff was pushed through a plate glass window and sustained injuries.  Plaintiff asserts causes of action for negligence and premises liability against “All Defendants,” alleging she knew the other attendees were minors and below the legal drinking age.  Plaintiff also alleges a cause of action under Business and Professions Code section 25600, et seq.  Plaintiff also alleges causes of action for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against “All Defendants.”   

On April 16, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file any evidence that substitute service on Defendant’s ex-mother-in-law in Missouri was proper service of summons.  Instead, Plaintiff personally served Defendant on August 6, 2020 at a different address in California.

On February 3, 2021, the Court held an OSC where Plaintiff was questioned about the prove-up brief and declaration.  The Court stated that the matter would be taken into submission.  On March 30, 2021, the Court dismissed the case on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed.  Plaintiff now requests the Court set aside the dismissal or to reconsider its order.  Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED and the action is reinstated. 

The Court sets an OSC for June 30, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. regarding Plaintiff’s application for default judgment. 

The Court notes that Does 1-100 were dismissed on January 29, 2020 in a request for dismissal filed on January 10, 2020.  Plaintiff’s latest default package was filed on November 17, 2020 in which he requested a judgment of $760,255.62 consisting of $10,55.62 in special damages and $750,000 in general damages.  

After reviewing Plaintiff’s submitted evidence and prove-up brief, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s request for $750,000 in general damages is excessive given the evidence submitted and instead awards $75,000 in general damages.  If Plaintiff finds this acceptable, Plaintiff may submit a proposed judgment on Form JUD-100 reflecting this amount.  If Plaintiff believes a greater award is warranted, Plaintiff is ordered to submit additional evidence supporting his request at least 10 days before the OSC.  

Moving party to give notice.

4th day of May 2021

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC655185    Hearing Date: February 03, 2021    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

SHAHIN JACOBI, et al.

Plaintiff,

vs.

ANGEL BACCHUS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

.: BC655185

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

)

On March 22, 2017, plaintiff Shahin Jacobi, as Guardian ad Litem of Daniel Jacobi, a minor, filed this action against defendant Angel Bacchus aka Angel Chan (“Defendant”) arising from injuries sustained at a party held on June 15, 2016Plaintiff alleges Defendant owned real property on which she held an after-prom party and charged an entry fee for guests to consume alcoholic beverages.  At the party, Plaintiff was pushed through a plate glass window and sustained injuries.  Plaintiff asserts causes of action for negligence and premises liability against “All Defendants, alleging she knew the other attendees were minors and below the legal drinking age.  Plaintiff also alleges a cause of action under Business and Professions Code section 25600, et seq.  Plaintiff also alleges causes of action for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against “All Defendants.”  

On April 16, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file any evidence that substitute service on Defendant’s ex-mother-in-law in Missouri was proper service of summons.  Instead, Plaintiff personally served Defendant on August 6, 2020 at a different address in California.  

When a defendant has been served and no answer, demurrer, or certain motion has been filed within the time specified in the summons, the clerk shall enter the default of the defendant.¿ (Code of Civ. Proc., § 585,¿subd. (b).)¿ The court shall then render judgment in the plaintiff’s favor, not exceeding the amount stated in the statement of damages, as appears by the evidence to be just.¿ (Ibid.)¿

The Application for Default Judgment is procedurally deficient and DENIED. First, Form CIV-100, Request for Court Judgment, is not filled out correctly as Items 4 and 6 are blank. Second, the Doe defendants have not yet been dismissed.  

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer ETEHAD SIMON P