On 06/07/2018 USBALDO MUNOZ filed an Other lawsuit against SEAN NICHOLAS FOSTER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARGARET MILLER BERNAL and ANN H. PARK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Los Angeles, California
MARGARET MILLER BERNAL
ANN H. PARK
FOSTER SEAN NICHOLAS
CRHA SHAUN MICHAEL
TAVITE'S TREE SERVICE
SHAUN MICHAEL CRHA AS TRUSTEE OF THE MATTERHORN TRUST
SEAN NICHOLAS FOSTER AS TRUSTEE OF THE MATTERHORN TRUST
SHAUN MICHAEL CRHA TRUSTEE OF THE MATTERHORN TRUST
SEAN NICHOLAS FOSTER TRUSTEE OF THE MATTERHORN TRUST
PETERSON CHARLES LAW OFFICES OF
PETERSON CHARLES F. ESQ.
DANIELS FINE ISRAEL SCHONBUCH & LEBOVITS
HALLISSY ERIN O'NEILL
ZINDER JEFFREY EDWARD
7/14/2020: Notice of Joinder - NOTICE OF JOINDER (NAME EXTENSION) OF DEFENDANTS' SHAUN MICHAEL CRHA AND MATTERHORN TRUST TO DEFENDANT, SEAN NICHOLAS FOSTER'S REPLY TO MOTION TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION
7/6/2020: Notice of Ruling
7/7/2020: Objection - OBJECTION PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
8/28/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1/8/2020: Substitution of Attorney
12/13/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES BY PLAINTIFF JAIME GONZALEZ TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET THREE
12/3/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [REQUEST FOR ACCOMMODATIONS BY PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AND RESPONSE]
8/9/2019: Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application
7/24/2019: Order - ORDER RULING ON MATTER SUBMITTED
7/18/2019: Response - RESPONSE DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATE STATEMENT
7/18/2019: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO SEPARATE STATEMENT
7/8/2019: Request for Judicial Notice - REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
7/8/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
7/8/2019: Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
2/26/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)
6/25/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl
6/25/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl
12/28/2018: Other - - Other - civil deposit for jury fees
Hearing05/03/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing04/19/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by SEAN NICHOLAS FOSTER (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion - Other (To Augment Expert Witness Information) - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion - Other To Augment Expert Witness Information)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketORDER/RULING On 7/21/2020 Hearing Granting Defendant Foster?s Motion To Augment Expert Witness Information; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([ORDER/RULING On 7/21/2020 Hearing Granting Defendant Foster?s Motion To Augment Expert Witness Information]); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketReply (to Opposition to Motion to Augment); Filed by SEAN NICHOLAS FOSTER (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Joinder (Name Extension) (Of Defendants' Shaun Michael CRHA and Matterhorn Trust to Defendant, Sean Nicholas Foster's Reply to Motion to Augment Expert Witness Information); Filed by SHAUN MICHAEL CRHA (Defendant); MATTERHORN TRUST (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Continued - Party's MotionRead MoreRead Less
DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl (AS TO MATTERHORN TRUST ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl (AS TO SHAUN MICHAEL CRHA ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl (AS TO SEAN NICHOLAS FOSTER ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint filed-Summons IssuedRead MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by JAIME GONZALEZ (Plaintiff); USBALDO MUNOZ (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice-Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: VC067199 Hearing Date: July 21, 2020 Dept: SEC
CALENDAR#10MUNOZ, et al. v. FOSTER, et al.
CASE NO.: VC067199
[Remote appearances are encouraged and will be given priority.]
CALENDAR MATTER #10
Defendant Foster’s motion to augment expert witness information is GRANTED.
Moving Party to give NOTICE.
Defendant Foster moves to augment his expert witness designation pursuant to CCP § 2034.610 et seq.
The court shall grant leave to augment or amend an expert witness list or declaration only if all of the following conditions are satisfied: (a) the court has taken into account the extent to which the opposing party has relied on the list of expert witnesses; (b) the court has determined that any party opposing the motion will not be prejudiced in maintaining that party's action or defense on the merits; (c) The court has determined either of the following: (1) The moving party would not in the exercise of reasonable diligence have determined to call that expert witness or have decided to offer the different or additional testimony of that expert witness; or (2) The moving party failed to determine to call that expert witness, or to offer the different or additional testimony of that expert witness as a result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, and the moving party has done both of the following: (A) Sought leave to augment or amend promptly after deciding to call the expert witness or to offer the different or additional testimony. [and] (B) Promptly thereafter served a copy of the proposed expert witness information concerning the expert or the testimony described in Section 2034.260 on all other parties who have appeared in the action. (CCP 2034.620(a)–(c).) Leave to augment or amend is conditioned on the moving party making the expert available immediately for a deposition under Article 3 (commencing with Section 2034.410), and on any other terms as may be just, including, but not limited to, leave to any party opposing the motion to designate additional expert witnesses or to elicit additional opinions from those previously designated, a continuance of the trial for a reasonable period of time, and the awarding of costs and litigation expenses to any party opposing the motion. (CCP 2034.620(d).)
Plaintiffs and Defendant share a common boundary line. The Complaint alleges that Defendant destroyed three 35-50 foot-tall pecan and elm trees wholly located on Plaintiff’s property.
Defendant initially designated Lisa Smith as an expert arborist. At her deposition on 3/17/20, she indicated that a basis for her opinion was the survey of the properties involved. Defendants then notified Plaintiffs that Defendants intended to add two surveyors to their list of expert witnesses, Carlos Amador and Fred Ghalaci.
The court finds that Defendant has established good cause to augment the defense expert witness list. Defendant’s initial expert bases her opinion on the survey of the properties, and as such, the need now arises to augment the list to allow expert surveyors to testify.
In opposition, Plaintiffs contend Defendant was not diligent because they had retained Amador on 12/21/17. However, the need for Amador’s testimony did not arise until Smith indicated that her opinion will be based on a survey.
Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants agreed in January 2019 that they will be proceeding without additional experts. However, at that time, it was unknown to Defendants that their expert required survey information to base her opinion. It was not until 3/17/20 that the issue of augmentation arose.
The court further finds that Defendant demonstrated diligence in seeking augmentation immediately upon discovering the need.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED on the condition that Defendant make the experts available immediately for a deposition. Leave will also be given to Plaintiffs to designate a surveyor if they so choose.