This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/27/2019 at 03:17:25 (UTC).

THE ESTATE OF PATRISIA ROBLES ET AL VS FERNANDO QUINTERO ET

Case Summary

On 02/15/2017 THE ESTATE OF PATRISIA ROBLES filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against FERNANDO QUINTERO ET. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MAURICE A. LEITER and PATRICIA D. NIETO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0662

  • Filing Date:

    02/15/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MAURICE A. LEITER

PATRICIA D. NIETO

 

Party Details

Petitioners and Plaintiffs

ROBLES YOLANDA

ESTATE OF PATRISIA ROBLES THE

THE ESTATE OF PATRISIA ROBLES

Defendants and Respondents

QUINTERO FERNANDO

LOS ANGELES COUNTY OF

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Minors

LUJAN ERICK

LUJAN ANDREW

Guardian Ad Litem

LUJAN EDDIE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Minor, Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

LINDE DOUGLAS A. ESQ.

LINDE DOUGLAS ADAM ESQ.

GONZALES ERICA ALLEN

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

WESIERSKI & ZUREK LLP

ZUREK RONALD

COLLINS COLLINS MUIR & STEWART LLP

STEWART BRIAN KEITH

 

Court Documents

Complaint

2/15/2017: Complaint

Application

2/17/2017: Application

Application

2/17/2017: Application

Unknown

2/21/2017: Unknown

Summons

3/27/2017: Summons

Unknown

4/10/2017: Unknown

Unknown

4/10/2017: Unknown

Unknown

4/24/2017: Unknown

Unknown

5/2/2017: Unknown

Answer

5/5/2017: Answer

Unknown

5/12/2017: Unknown

Unknown

6/7/2017: Unknown

Unknown

6/20/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

6/20/2017: Minute Order

Notice of Status Conference and Order

6/26/2017: Notice of Status Conference and Order

Unknown

7/18/2017: Unknown

Case Management Statement

7/18/2017: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

7/24/2017: Case Management Statement

91 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/20/2019
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (Defense Costs (CCP 1038))

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (Advancing Hearing Date and Allowing His Motion to Stay to Be Heard on Shortened Notice) - Held - Motion Denied

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference; Hearing on Ex Parte Application Adva...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • DocketEx Parte Application (of Defendant Quintero for Order Advancing Hearing Date and Allowing His Motion to Stay to be Heard on Shortened Notice); Filed by FERNANDO QUINTERO (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (Declaration of Defendant Fernando Quintero in Support of Motion To Stay Civil Action); Filed by FERNANDO QUINTERO (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • DocketMotion for Stay of Proceedings; Filed by FERNANDO QUINTERO (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by FERNANDO QUINTERO (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
145 More Docket Entries
  • 02/21/2017
  • DocketDECLARATION OF SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST YOLANDA ROBLES PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 377.32

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/17/2017
  • DocketApplication-Miscellaneous (FOR ERICK LUJAN GUARDIAN AD LITEM(FAXED) ); Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/17/2017
  • DocketAPPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN ETC.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/17/2017
  • DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/17/2017
  • DocketApplication-Miscellaneous (FOR ANDREW LUJAN GUARDIAN AD LITEM ); Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/17/2017
  • DocketAPPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN ETC.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/17/2017
  • DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/15/2017
  • DocketPLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/15/2017
  • DocketComplaint

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/15/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Estate of Patrisia Robles, The (Plaintiff); THE ESTATE OF PATRISIA ROBLES (Plaintiff); YOLANDA ROBLES (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: ****0662 Hearing Date: August 10, 2021 Dept: A

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT

CHARLES K. OLANIYI,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

AJIM BAKSH dba BAKSH CONSTRUCTION, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: 20CMCV00027

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES SET TWO FROM PLAINTIFF AND FOR SANCTIONS

Dept. A

DATE: 8/5/21

TIME: 9:30 A.M.

I. Background

The operative Fourth Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on 5/24/21 alleges that Defendant, Ajim Baksh dba Baksh Construction (“Baksh”) built a 2-unit income property located at 1829-1831 E. 97th Street in Los Angeles in November 2017 subsequently purchased by Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Baksh issued a Warranty of Completion of Construction to Plaintiff on 11/6/17 which obligated Baksh to remedy all defects discovered within one year from 11/6/17.

On 4/20/28, 6/25/18, and 6/27/18, Plaintiff notified Baksh of major defects in the construction. Baksh allegedly refused to repair the defects in breach of its construction warranty.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, David Sarinana (“David”) and Sarinana, Inc. dba Century 21 a Better Service Realty (“Century 21”) employed Limon who represented Plaintiff in the purchase of the property at issue from owner Maria Castellon (“Castellon”) pursuant to a written agreement dated 10/20/17. Plaintiff alleges that David and Century 21 failed to disclose known facts affecting the value and desirability of the property in breach of their agreement with Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Castellon represented that she was the owner of the property contrary to permit applications and publicly recorded records. Castellon allegedly failed to disclose construction defects on the property. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action:

1. Breach of Warranty of Completion of Construction against Baksh

2. Breach of Written Contract for Sale of Real Property against David Sarinana and Sarinana, Inc. dba Century 21

3. Fraud against all Defendants

4. Violation of Civil Code ; 1102, et seq. against Defendant, Castellon

II. Motion by Defendant Baksh to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two (Interrogatory 17.1), from Plaintiff and for Monetary Sanctions

a. Motion filed 7/2/21

Defendant Baksh argues that he served Form Interrogatories, Set Two, along with a Requests for Admission, Set Two on Plaintiff on 4/4/21. Plaintiff served responses on 5/13/21. Despite efforts to meet and confer, Defendant contends that Plaintiff refuses to supplement the responses, asserting that they are complete.

In response to Requests for Admission 20, 21, 22, and 27, Plaintiff did not assert an unqualified admission. As such, Plaintiff was required to respond to Form Interrogatory 17.1 by providing facts on which Plaintiff based his response. Plaintiff did not provide a complete response to support his denial of Requests for Admission 20. Plaintiff did not provide any information to support his denial to Requests 21, 22, and 27. The parties have participated in an informal discovery conference with the court, but Plaintiff still refuses to provide proper responses.

b. Opposition filed 7/23/21

Plaintiff argues that he provided responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, 17.1 to the best of his ability based on the information provided in the Requests for Admission served by Defendant. Plaintiff states he met and conferred with defense counsel to clarify which unit was at issue in the Requests. This issue was resolved, yet Defendant filed this motion. Plaintiff states that he provided responses to Defendant by email on 5/31/21, but Defendant refused to accept it.

c. Reply filed 7/28/21

The court explained to Plaintiff during the IDC that Request 20 contemplates any written notice provided by Plaintiff, which Plaintiff did not address in his response. Plaintiff’s only response has been to maintain that his responses were made to the best of his ability.

III. Discussion

The court has discretion to compel a party to provide further responses to interrogatories where the responses are evasive or incomplete or an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. Code Civ. Proc., ; 2030.300 (a). Defendant has complied with the statutory requirement to meet and confer with Plaintiff prior to filing the motion. Code Civ. Proc., ;2030.300(b); Declaration of Jack Mantych, ¶ 5. The court’s file reflects that the parties also participated in an IDC with the court on 7/23/21 without resolution.

In response to interrogatories, Plaintiff is obligated to provide complete and straightforward responses. Code Civ. Proc., ; 2030.220(a). At issue are Plaintiff’s responses to Requests for Admission 20, 21, 22, and 27, which Plaintiff denied. Declaration of Mantych, Ex. 3. With respect to Request 20, which involves written notice of allegedly defective conditions at the property, Plaintiff did not provide information regarding that written notice, although Plaintiff stated he did not keep the document. Id. Ex. 4., 2:18-22.

Plaintiff did not respond at all with respect to Requests 21, 22, or 27. Id. pages 2 and 3. While Plaintiff sent an email attempting to comply with Defendant’s request for responses, the email is not Code-compliant. The responses are not verified and are incomplete. Form Interrogatory 17.1 includes subparts (a) through (d). Plaintiff did not fully address each subpart and provided no response regarding his denials of Requests 21, 22, and 27. Accordingly, the GRANTS Defendant’s motion.

The court imposes sanctions of $525.00 as calculated below. Plaintiff has not shown substantial justification for failing to respond fully. Code Civ. Proc., ;; 2033.280(c) and 2033.300(d). The statutes require the parties to meet and confer prior to making the motion. Therefore, the sanction request does not include time spent for that purpose. Defendant does not request reimbursement for the filing fee.

Rate Hours

Prepare motion

$175

1

$ 175.00

Reply and appear

$175

2

$ 350.00

Total

$ 525.00

IV. Conclusion

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two is GRANTED. Within 30 days, Plaintiff is ordered to provide further verified and complete responses to Form Interrogatory 17.1 and all of its subparts with respect to Requests for Admission 20, 21, 22, and 27 and to pay sanctions to Defendant totaling $525.00.

Court Clerk to give notice.

Dated: August 4, 2021

Hon. Thomas Long

Judge of the Superior Court'


b'

Case Number: ****0662 Hearing Date: July 13, 2021 Dept: A

****0662 The Estate of Patrisia Robles, et al v. Fernando Quintero, County of Los Angeles and County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department

Tuesday, July 13, 2021

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Two Petitions for Approval of Compromise for Minor (Erick Lujan and Andrew Lujan)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

TENTATIVE

The Court excuses the personal appearances of the minor claimants. Counsel and the Guardian ad Litem may appear by telephone or video conference call. Assuming the supplemental declaration required below satisfies the court, the court will require the participation of the minors to approve the petition.

The Court has reviewed the Two Petitions for Approval of Compromise filed on behalf of minor claimants, Erick Lujan and Andrew Lujan. The petitions are incomplete.

The petitions state that Petitioner is represented by an attorney but does not have an agreement for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to both petitions. Petition, ¶ 17.a.(2). Additionally, Counsel represents all Plaintiffs, the two claimants and The Estate of Patrisia Robles. Petition, Attachment 17e. The petition does not disclose any settlement proceeds obtained on behalf of the Estate if any or explained how the global settlement was apportioned between all three Plaintiffs. See Petition, paragraph 11.(1).

Counsel is ordered to file a supplemental declaration to clarify the total amount of the settlement, how it has been apportioned, and whether or not counsel will be reimbursed for fees and costs from the Estate’s portion of the settlement.

The Court continues the hearing to ________________________________________. Counsel is ordered to file the supplemental declaration five court days before the continued hearing date.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Analysis

The First Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs are the heirs of decedent, Patrisia Robles. On 12/4/15, Decedent was a passenger in a van driven by Defendant, Fernando Quintero, who was allegedly driving while under the influence of alcohol. Defendant crashed the vehicle into a fixed object and rolled, causing fatal injuries to Plaintiffs’ decedent. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Quintero was employed by Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and was driving while in the course and scope of employment. Plaintiffs allege claims for negligence, vicarious liability,

Orders appointing Guardian ad Litem approved.

Allocation:

Erick Lujan

$50,000.00

Eddie Lujan

$50,000.00

Total settlement

$100,000.00

No medical report submitted. This is a wrongful death action.

MEDICAL EXPENSES None incurred by the claimants.

COSTS None requested by Counsel

ATTORNEY’S FEES: None requested by Counsel.

Petitioner proposes to deposit the funds for each claimant in a blocked account which is permitted by L.A. County Super. Ct. R 4.115(b)(2).

'


Case Number: ****0662    Hearing Date: July 30, 2020    Dept: A

# 16. The Estate of Patrisia Robles, et al. v. Fernando Quintero, et al.

Case No.: ****0662

Matter on calendar for: Motion for Order for Release of Autopsy Photographs

Tentative ruling:

  1. Background

This is a wrongful death action. Defendant Fernando Quintero was an off-duty Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy involved in an auto accident at 2 a.m. that lead to the death of decedent Patrisia Robles. Plaintiffs The Estate of Patrisia Robles, through its successor-in-interest Yolanda Robles, Erick and Andrew Lujan, minors, through their guardian ad litem Eddie Lujan, allege Quintero was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the incident. The County of Los Angeles was dismissed from the action.

Defendant Quintero now moves for a Court order compelling the Los Angeles County Coroner to release photographs of decedent. The motion is unopposed.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion.

  1. Standard

    Code of Civil Procedure ; 129 prevents the dissemination of any post-mortem photographs taken by a coroner unless, in pertinent part, a party obtains a court order and the party notifies the county’s district attorney of the request for court order at least five days before the order is signed. (C.C.P., ; 129(a)(2).) The party must show good cause for the release of the images. (Ibid.) The decedent’s legal heirs or representative may also authorize the photographs’ release.

  2. Analysis

    The deposition of the coroner revealed the existence of photographs taken at the scene of the incident and at the coroner’s office. (Decl. Zurek, ¶ 3.)

    Defendant argues there is good cause for the release of photographs because the injuries sustained may show whether decedent was driving the vehicle at the time of the incident and whether she survived the collision. The defense’s forensic pathologist believes the photographs are essential to their evaluation. (Decl. Zurek, ¶ 4.)

    The Court finds that defendant has shown good cause for the release of the photographs. The Court notes that defendant timely served this motion on the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. Defendant is to submit a proposed protective order to the Court that adequately prevents the disclosure of the photographs to anyone other than defense counsel and the defense’s medical expert witnesses.

  3. Ruling

    The motion is granted. Defendant Quintero to provide the Court with a proposed protective order that adequately protects decedent’s privacy by limiting disclosure to defense counsel and defense counsel’s medical expert witnesses.

    Next dates:

    Notice:



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer Erica A. Gonzales