This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/03/2019 at 02:03:57 (UTC).

SYLVIA RAMIREZ VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/26/2018 SYLVIA RAMIREZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CITY OF LOS ANGELES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5970

  • Filing Date:

    02/26/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

RAMIREZ SYLVIA

Respondents, Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

CULVER CITY

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

TRIANGLE CENTER LLC

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

TOMKINSON ERICH J.

Defendant Attorneys

SCHERER JEANNE

WALTER LAWRENCE A. LAW OFFICES OF

MCCUNE DANA JOHN ESQ

GAMS LANCE S. DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY

Other Attorneys

VALADEZ VALERIE ROSE

FEUER MICHAEL NELSON

 

Court Documents

DEFENDANT CITY OF CULVER CITY'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

5/10/2018: DEFENDANT CITY OF CULVER CITY'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

CROSS-COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT, TRIANGLE CENTER, LLC

5/15/2018: CROSS-COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT, TRIANGLE CENTER, LLC

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF TRIANGLE CENTER, LLC

5/15/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF TRIANGLE CENTER, LLC

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

5/15/2018: DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

CIVIL DEPOSIT

5/15/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA

5/16/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ANSWER OF THE DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

5/31/2018: ANSWER OF THE DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Summons on Cross Complaint

5/31/2018: Summons on Cross Complaint

CROSS COMPLAINT - PERS. INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONG DEATH (2 PAGES)

5/31/2018: CROSS COMPLAINT - PERS. INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONG DEATH (2 PAGES)

DEFENDANT CITY OF SANTA MONICA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

6/4/2018: DEFENDANT CITY OF SANTA MONICA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

6/5/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

7/6/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

9/11/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

Answer

11/9/2018: Answer

Request for Dismissal

12/21/2018: Request for Dismissal

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/24/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/24/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/24/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

12 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/21/2018
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by Sylvia Ramirez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2018
  • Cross-Defendant City of Los Angeles' Answer to The Cross-Complainant Triangle Center, LLC's Cross-Complaint; Demand For Jury Trial; Filed by City of Los Angeles (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2018
  • REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2018
  • Partial Dismissal (w/o Prejudice); Filed by Sylvia Ramirez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2018
  • Partial Dismissal (w/o Prejudice); Filed by Sylvia Ramirez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2018
  • REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2018
  • Partial Dismissal (w/o Prejudice); Filed by Sylvia Ramirez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2018
  • REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2018
  • Answer; Filed by City of Santa Monica (DISM) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2018
  • DEFENDANT CITY OF SANTA MONICA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
24 More Docket Entries
  • 04/24/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Sylvia Ramirez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Sylvia Ramirez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Sylvia Ramirez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Sylvia Ramirez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Sylvia Ramirez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2018
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet /Addendum

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Sylvia Ramirez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2018
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC695970    Hearing Date: February 24, 2021    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

SYLVIA RAMIREZ,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC695970

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

February 24, 2021

 

  1. Background

    Plaintiff, Sylvia Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants, City of Los Angeles, Triangle Center, LLC (“Triangle” or “Defendant”), et al. for damages arising from Plaintiff’s trip and fall on a sidewalk.

    On or about 8/25/20, Plaintiff served Triangle with Plaintiff’s special interrogatories, set five, which contained special interrogatories Nos. 68-102.

    Triangle now moves for a protective order as to special interrogatories, set five, contending the discovery is excessive, unnecessary, and burdensome. Triangle contends this is a straightforward trip and fall case, and Plaintiff fails to justify the excessive number of special interrogatories. Triangle argues Plaintiff’s declaration for additional discovery provides no facts or legal basis for the discovery. Further, Triangle asserts Plaintiff’s definitions in her numerous discovery are inconsistent, which are intended to have Triangle respond in ways that can be interpreted in different manners.

    In opposition, Plaintiff contends the discovery is not unnecessarily cumulative, as the definitions have been broken up into different sections in response to Triangle’s objections, and all special interrogatories propounded pertain to different categories. Plaintiff contends the requests were necessary to clarify the location for which information was being sought, as it was Triangle’s evasiveness with prior discovery that necessitated the subject requests. In addition, Plaintiff argues the subject discovery was served in good faith to discover relevant information. Lastly, Plaintiff asserts that Triangle’s motion is untimely.

    As of 2/18/21, the court has not received any reply to the opposition.

  2. Motion for Protective Order

    CCP §2030.030 limits the number of interrogatories that can be propounded to 35. CCP § 2030.040 permits a party to propound more than 35 special interrogatories with a declaration of necessity. CCP § 2030.040(a) states: Section 2030.050 may propound a greater number of specially prepared interrogatories to another party if this greater number is warranted because of any of the following:

    (1) The complexity or the quantity of the existing and potential issues in the particular case.

    (2) The financial burden on a party entailed in conducting the discovery by oral deposition.

    (3) The expedience of using this method of discovery to provide to the responding party the opportunity to conduct an inquiry, investigation, or search of files or records to supply the information sought.

    CCP § 2030.090(b)(2) permits a party receiving interrogatories in excess of 35 to move for a protective order limiting the interrogatories to 35. A motion for protective order can be used to challenge a “declaration of necessity,” which is required to justify more than 35 interrogatories (under CCP § 2030.050. (See CCP § 2030.090(b)(2).) The motion for protective order must be accompanied by a declaration showing the moving party made a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the issues outside of court. (CCP § 2030.090(a).) Where more than 35 specially prepared interrogatories have been served with a “declaration of necessity,” and the responding party seeks a protective order, the burden is on the propounding party to prove the number of questions is justified. (CCP § 2030.040(b).)

    The motion for protective order effectively controverts the propounding party's “declaration of necessity” and places the burden on the propounding party to justify more than 35 questions: “If the responding party seeks a protective order on the ground that the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted, the propounding party shall have the burden of justifying the number of these interrogatories.” (CCP § 2030.040(b).) Such order may be granted on the ground “(t)hat, contrary to the representations made (in the declaration of necessity) … the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted.” (CCP § 2030.090(b)(2); see People v. Sarpas (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1552-53.)

    In this case, as to Plaintiff argument that Triangle’s motion was not brought promptly, Plaintiff does not otherwise dispute the motion was filed before the responses to special interrogatories, set five, were due. Thus, Triangle’s motion is timely.

    Plaintiff asserts it has served five sets of special interrogatories on Triangle for a total of 102 special interrogatories. Plaintiff avers the special interrogatories each pertain to specific areas of Triangle’s premises, and the parties have exchanged meet and confer correspondence concerning the definitions in the discovery requests. Moreover, Plaintiff asserts Triangle failed to provide responses to prior special interrogatories because the definition of “Premises” was confusing, so the additional discovery is necessary to clarify the location for Triangle. Furthermore, Plaintiff asserts the information requested in special interrogatories, set five, is not available from other sources, and Triangle has not provided any other source that Plaintiff can use to identify all parties hired to install landscaping or why Triangle chose tor remodel the landscaping, which created the alleged dangerous condition.

    Plaintiff, thus, establishes the subject discovery is necessary to ascertain ownership and control of the area where the incident occurred, in part based on Triangle’s objections to Plaintiff’s definitions of premises used in previous discovery. (See Opp. Exhs. B-C.)

    Based on the foregoing, Triangle’s motion for a protective order is denied.

    CCP §2030.090(d) mandates imposition of sanctions in favor of the party who prevails on this motion unless the opposing party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances render imposition of sanctions unjust.

    Here, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $1,500 against Defendant Triangle. However, Plaintiff does not describe any conduct by Triangle warranting sanctions against it directly. Rather, it appears the objections and motion for protective order were made by Triangle’s counsel. However, Plaintiff does not seek sanctions against Triangle’s attorney of record. Therefore, the court finds sanctions against Triangle unjust under the circumstances.

    Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice.

    Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.orgIf the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

     

    Dated this 24th day of February, 2021

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Triangle Center, LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where CULVER CITY is a litigant

Latest cases where CITY OF SANTA MONICA is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer VALADEZ VALERIE ROSE