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.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH
VONS GROCERY STORE
DOES 1 TO 50
JANITORIAL EQUIPMENT SERVICES INC. DBA
DENLOW DAVE (DOE 1)
DENLOW DAVE DOE 1
VONS COMPANIES INC. THE
BROCK CAMERON Y. ESQ.
BOOTH JASON M. ESQ.
STONE GREGORY E. ESQ.
STONE GREGORY E. ESQ.
7/17/2018: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY
8/31/2018: PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO SEPARATE STATEMENTS
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
12/27/2018: Motion in Limine
1/9/2019: Motion in Limine
1/9/2019: Motion in Limine
1/23/2019: Stipulation and Order
2/22/2019: Ex Parte Application
5/14/2019: Motion in Limine
5/15/2019: Witness List
5/20/2019: Minute Order
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
6/29/2018: DEFENDANTICROSS-COMPLAINANT THE VONS COMPANIES, INC.'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
3/15/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
5/22/2017: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Witness List; Filed by Shokoh Mehrsaz (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Statement of the Case; Filed by Shokoh Mehrsaz (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Motion in Limine (No 5); Filed by Shokoh Mehrsaz (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Ruling; Filed by Shokoh Mehrsaz (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's MotionRead MoreRead Less
at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's MotionRead MoreRead Less
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 MotionRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference; Hearing on Ex Parte Application To C...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by Vons Companies Inc., The (Cross-Complainant)Read MoreRead Less
Cross-Complaint; Filed by Vons Companies Inc., The (Cross-Complainant)Read MoreRead Less
DEFENDANT THE VONS COMPANIES, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALRead MoreRead Less
CROSS-COMPLAINT OF THE VONS COMPANIES, INC. FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF; EXPRESS AND IMPLIED INDEMNITY; CONTRIBUTION AND APPORTIONMENTRead MoreRead Less
Summons on Cross ComplaintRead MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Shokoh Mehrsaz (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Shokoh Mehrsaz (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC652771 Hearing Date: August 10, 2020 Dept: 32
vons grocery store,
Case No.: BC652771
Hearing Date: August 10, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
Defendant’s motion to re-open discovery
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.
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
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases