This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/03/2019 at 04:54:18 (UTC).

TERESA TORRES VS FOOD 4 LESS OF CA INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 09/21/2017 TERESA TORRES filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against FOOD 4 LESS OF CA INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6757

  • Filing Date:

    09/21/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

TORRES TERESA

Defendants and Respondents

FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA INC

FOOD 4 LESS

THE KROGER CO.

DOES 1 TO 25

FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA INC FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA DBA FOOD 4 LESS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

HAKIM SHARONA ESLAMBOLY ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

D'ORO FRANK JOSEPH JR

 

Court Documents

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

9/21/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

SUMMONS

9/21/2017: SUMMONS

Unknown

8/14/2018: Unknown

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

8/14/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

8/14/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Stipulation and Order

3/15/2019: Stipulation and Order

ANSWER OF FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. DBA FOOD 4 LESS TO COMPLAINT; ETC

9/5/2018: ANSWER OF FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. DBA FOOD 4 LESS TO COMPLAINT; ETC

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/21/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/15/2019
  • DocketStipulation and Order (Stipulation of Dismissal between Defendant The Kroger Co. and Plaintiff Teresa Torres; Proposed Order); Filed by FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA INC (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/07/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/17/2019
  • DocketOrder (Proposed Order and Stipulation to Continue trial FSC and related motion/discovery dates personal injury courts only); Filed by FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA INC (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/05/2018
  • DocketANSWER OF FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. DBA FOOD 4 LESS TO COMPLAINT; ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/05/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA INC (Defendant); FOOD 4 LESS, (Legacy Party)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/14/2018
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/14/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by TERESA TORRES (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/14/2018
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by TERESA TORRES (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/14/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by TERESA TORRES (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/14/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/14/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/21/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by TERESA TORRES (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/21/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/21/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****6757    Hearing Date: July 02, 2020    Dept: 28

Motions to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two)

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On September 21, 2017, Plaintiff Teresa Torres filed a complaint against Defendants Food 4 Less of California, Inc. dba Food 4 Less and The Kroger Co.  The complaint alleges premises liability and general negligence arising from a slip and fall incident that occurred on September 28, 2015.

On February 19, 2020, Defendant Food 4 Less of California, Inc. dba Food 4 Less filed a motion to compel verified responses without objections to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290

A trial setting conference is set for July 2, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant Food 4 Less of California, Inc. dba Food 4 Less (“Moving Defendant”) asks the Court to compel Plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) due to her failure to serve timely verified responses.

Moving Defendant also asks the Court to impose $933.30 in sanctions against Plaintiff for her abuse of the discovery process.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2030.290, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2023.010.)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to compel responses to interrogatories against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2030.290, subd. (c).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

DISCUSSION

The Court initially notes that opposing papers had be filed and personally served on June 19, 2020, at the latest, to conform with the mandates of California Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.  No opposing papers were timely filed and served.  The Court exercises its discretion in refusing to consider any late opposition pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1300, subdivision (d).

On October 2, 2019, Moving Defendant personally served Special Interrogatories (Set Two) on Plaintiff.  (Hsieh Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.)  Moving Defendant granted Plaintiff two extensions, making the ultimate deadline for Plaintiff to serve responses by November 27, 2019.  (Hsieh Decl., 4, Exh. B.)  Moving Defendant has not received the outstanding responses as of the time Stephanie H. Hsieh signed her declaration on February 19, 2020.  (Hsieh Decl., ¶ 6.)

The Court finds the motion is properly grantedMoving Defendant properly served written discovery on Plaintiff and Plaintiff failed to serve timely verified responses.  Thus, Plaintiff’s responses are properly compelled.

Sanctions are properly awarded because there is no suggestion that Plaintiff acted with a substantial justification or circumstances otherwise exist such that an imposition of sanctions would be unjust.

Moving Defendant’s request for $933.30 in sanctions for this unopposed and straight-forward is unreasonable.  Rather, the Court finds $350 in monetary sanctions may be properly awarded against Plaintiff for her discovery abuse.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is ordered to served verified responses without objections to Moving Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set Two) within 20 days of this ruling.

Plaintiff is ordered to pay Moving Defendant $350 in monetary sanctions within 30 days of this ruling.

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.



Case Number: ****6757    Hearing Date: November 22, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On September 21, 2017, Plaintiff Teresa Torres filed a complaint against Defendants Food 4 Less of California, Inc. dba Food 4 Less and The Kroger Co. for premises liability and general negligence arising from a slip and fall incident that occurred on September 28, 2015.

On September 25, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel, Law Offices of Sharona Eslamboly Hakim filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel.

On October 31, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on Plaintiff’s counsel motion to be relieved as counsel to allow time for seeking a trial continuance on an ex parte basis.

Trial is now set for June 3, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Plaintiff’s counsel, Law Offices of Sharona Eslamboly Hakim, seeks a court order relieving it as counsel for Plaintiff Teresa Torres in this matter.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Rule of Court, rule 3.1362 (Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel) requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion and declaration on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)).

The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice.  (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

DISCUSSION

Counsel has submitted forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053 in seeking to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Teresa Torres.

Counsel states in the declaration that there has been an irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship to the extent that continued representation is impossible.  Counsel further declares that attorney-client communications have broken down.

Counsel has served the operative notice of motion, motion and declaration on Plaintiff and Defendant by U.S. mail.  Counsel has confirmed Plaintiff’s last known address within the past thirty days by telephone, conversation, and in person at counsel’s office.

The Court finds the motion is properly granted.  The Court has not been presented with any facts showing that Plaintiff would be prejudiced or that the orderly process of justice would be disrupted if the motion is granted.  Trial is more than six months

The motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s counsel, Law Offices of Sharona Eslamboly Hakim, is relieved as counsel for Plaintiff effective upon the filing of the proof of service of Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel–Civil form MC–053.

Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.



Case Number: ****6757    Hearing Date: October 31, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On September 21, 2017, Plaintiff Teresa Torres filed a complaint against Defendants Food 4 Less of California, Inc. dba Food 4 Less and The Kroger Co. for premises liability and general negligence arising from a slip and fall incident that occurred on September 28, 2015.

On September 25, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel, Law Offices of Sharona Eslamboly Hakim filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel.

Trial is set for December 3, 2019.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Plaintiff’s counsel, Law Offices of Sharona Eslamboly Hakim, seeks a court order relieving it as counsel for Plaintiff Teresa Torres in this matter.

LEGAL STANDARD

The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted ;when ;there is no prejudice to the client and it does not disrupt the orderly process ;of justice. ; (See ;Ramirez v. ;Sturdevant ;(1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915; ;People v. Prince ;(1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398.) ; ;

California Rule of Court, ;rule 3.1362 (Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel) requires (1) notice of motion and motion to be directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel—Civil ;form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil ;form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion and declaration on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) the proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil ;form (MC-053)). ; ;

The ;court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted ;provided that ;there is no prejudice to the client and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. ; ;(See ;Ramirez v. ;Sturdevant ;(1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) ; ; ;

DISCUSSION

Counsel has submitted forms MC-051, MC-052, and MC-053 in seeking to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Teresa Torres.

Counsel states in the declaration that there has been an irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship to the extent that continued representation is impossible.  Counsel further declares that attorney-client communications have broken down.

Counsel has served the operative notice of motion, motion and declaration on Plaintiff and Defendant by U.S. mail.  Counsel has confirmed Plaintiff’s last known address within the past thirty days by telephone, conversation, and in person at counsel’s office.

While the Court is inclined to grant the motion, the Court notes that items 3 and 6 of the proposed order (MC-053) are incomplete.

Therefore, the motion is CONTINUED TO November 22, 2019 at 1:30 p.m., unless Counsel brings a completed proposed order (MC-053) to the hearing.

Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where The Kroger Co is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer D'ORO FRANK J. ESQ.