Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/23/2019 at 10:33:13 (UTC).

SHOKOH MEHRSAZ VS VONS GROCERY STORE

Case Summary

On 03/06/2017 SHOKOH MEHRSAZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against VONS GROCERY STORE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2771

  • Filing Date:

    03/06/2017

  • 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

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MEHRSAZ SHOKOH

Defendants and Respondents

VONS GROCERY STORE

DOES 1 TO 50

JANITORIAL EQUIPMENT SERVICES INC. DBA

DENLOW DAVE (DOE 1)

DENLOW DAVE DOE 1

Cross Plaintiff

VONS COMPANIES INC. THE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

BROCK CAMERON Y. ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

BOOTH JASON M. ESQ.

STONE GREGORY E. ESQ.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

STONE GREGORY E. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY

7/17/2018: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO SEPARATE STATEMENTS

8/31/2018: PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO SEPARATE STATEMENTS

OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF CRAIG RACKOHN SUBMITTED WITH PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

9/21/2018: OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF CRAIG RACKOHN SUBMITTED WITH PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Order

10/18/2018: Order

Unknown

10/18/2018: Unknown

Motion in Limine

12/27/2018: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

1/9/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

1/9/2019: Motion in Limine

Stipulation and Order

1/23/2019: Stipulation and Order

Ex Parte Application

2/22/2019: Ex Parte Application

Motion in Limine

5/14/2019: Motion in Limine

Witness List

5/15/2019: Witness List

Minute Order

5/20/2019: Minute Order

Unknown

2/13/2018: Unknown

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION OF AMY W. LEWIS IN SUPPORT THEREOF

6/29/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION OF AMY W. LEWIS IN SUPPORT THEREOF

DEFENDANTICROSS-COMPLAINANT THE VONS COMPANIES, INC.'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

6/29/2018: DEFENDANTICROSS-COMPLAINANT THE VONS COMPANIES, INC.'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

3/15/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

5/22/2017: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

33 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/20/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2019
  • Witness List; Filed by Shokoh Mehrsaz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2019
  • Statement of the Case; Filed by Shokoh Mehrsaz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • Motion in Limine (No 5); Filed by Shokoh Mehrsaz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Shokoh Mehrsaz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (To Continue Trial Date) - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference; Hearing on Ex Parte Application To C...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
51 More Docket Entries
  • 05/12/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Vons Companies Inc., The (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2017
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by Vons Companies Inc., The (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2017
  • DEFENDANT THE VONS COMPANIES, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2017
  • CROSS-COMPLAINT OF THE VONS COMPANIES, INC. FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF; EXPRESS AND IMPLIED INDEMNITY; CONTRIBUTION AND APPORTIONMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2017
  • Summons on Cross Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Shokoh Mehrsaz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Shokoh Mehrsaz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC652771    Hearing Date: August 10, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

shokoh mehrsaz,

Plaintiff,

v.

vons grocery store,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC652771

Hearing Date: August 10, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Defendant’s motion to re-open discovery

NOTICE

Department #32 will be dark for motions on August 10, 2020.  The parties are ordered to email the Court’s clerk at SSCDept32@lacourt.org to inform the clerk whether they are submitting on the Court’s tentative or whether they are requesting a hearing.  If any party requests a hearing, one will be scheduled.  If the parties do not email the Court’s clerk before the hearing time to request a hearing, they will waive the right to be heard and shall submit to this tentative order, which shall issue.

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant Vons Grocery Store (“Defendant”) moves to re-open discovery for the purpose of completing expert discovery that was noticed prior to the parties’ settlement agreement, which Plaintiff refused to sign. Plaintiff Shokoh Mehrsaz (“Plaintiff”) opposes the motion. In determining whether to re-open discovery, the Court must consider the necessity of and reasons for the additional discovery, the diligence or lack thereof by the party seeking to reopen discovery in attempting to complete discovery prior to the cutoff, whether permitting the discovery will prevent the case from going forward on the trial date or will otherwise prejudice any party, and any past continuances of the trial date. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)

Defendant relies on a declaration of its counsel, Amy W. Lewis (“Lewis”). Lewis states that Defendant noticed the deposition of Plaintiff’s retained expert, Brad Avrit (“Avrit”), for May 17, 2019. (Declaration of Amy W. Lewis, Exhibit A.) However, the parties were engaged in settlement negotiations, and the parties agreed that Avrit’s deposition would not proceed on that date. The parties then reached a settlement on May 21, 2019. (Declaration of Amy W. Lewis, ¶ 6.) On December 10, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel informed the Court that his client had “buyer’s remorse and no longer wanted to settle her claim.” (Plaintiff’s Opposition, p. 2:1-3.) Defendant re-noticed Avrit’s deposition on December 11, 2019, but Plaintiff has refused to produce Avrit on the basis that discovery is closed. (Declaration of Amy W. Lewis, ¶¶ 9-12.)

Defendant has shown good cause to reopen discovery. Defendant timely noticed the deposition of Avrit, but withdrew the notice based upon the settlement. Defendant has shown good cause to take the deposition, now that Plaintiff has reneged on the settlement agreement. Simply, Plaintiff is responsible for the deposition not having been completed within the expert discovery period and having been re-noticed after the cutoff.

Plaintiff’s counsel argues that Defendant’s counsel opposed reopening discovery at the hearing on December 10, 2019, so she has waived the right to seek to do so now. Plaintiff’s counsel is incorrect and misunderstands what occurred at that hearing. Plaintiff’s counsel wanted to reopen discovery in its entirety, and Defendant’s counsel wanted to reopen discovery on a limited basis. Because there was no stipulation, the Court kept discovery closed and told the parties to meet-and-confer and file motions if necessary. Defendant has now filed a motion to seek the order she requested at that hearing. Therefore, there has been no waiver.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motion to reopen expert discovery to take the deposition of Brad Avrit is granted. The deposition shall occur within thirty (30) days unless the parties stipulate to a different date. The Court sets the following dates:

Final Status Conference: September 9, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.

Trial: September 23, 2021, at 8:30 a.m.

The discovery and motions cut-offs shall remain closed except as noted by this order. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: August 10, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Janitorial Equipment Services, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where THE VONS COMPANIES INC DBA PAVILIONS is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer STONE GREGORY EDWARD