This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/14/2019 at 08:30:29 (UTC).

VERONICA FLORES ET AL VS GLOBE UNION INDUSTRIAL CORP ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/31/2017 VERONICA FLORES filed a Personal Injury - Other Product Liability lawsuit against GLOBE UNION INDUSTRIAL CORP. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are BENNY C. OSORIO and STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3442

  • Filing Date:

    05/31/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Product Liability

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

BENNY C. OSORIO

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

FLORES VERONICA

SANCHEZ RAMON

FLORES SERGIO

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 THROUGH 300

GLOBE UNION-USA

DANZE INC.

GLOBE UNION INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION

GLOBE UNION INDUSTRIAL CORP.-TAIWAN

SERVPRO OF DOWNEY

GLOBE UNION SERVICES INC.

HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC. DOE 51

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

ZELIG STEVEN L. ESQ.

ZELIG STEVEN L.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

ESTEN LAWRENCE D. ESQ.

DIXON ROBERT KENNETH

 

Court Documents

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

6/6/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

6/6/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

11/6/2018: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

Unknown

1/2/2019: Unknown

Minute Order

1/2/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

1/11/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Notice of Ruling

1/17/2019: Notice of Ruling

Proof of Service by Mail

1/30/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Unknown

3/20/2019: Unknown

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

4/15/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Minute Order

4/16/2019: Minute Order

Ex Parte Application

4/18/2019: Ex Parte Application

Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

5/2/2019: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

CIVIL DEPOSIT

12/22/2017: CIVIL DEPOSIT

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

11/17/2017: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

SUMMONS

5/31/2017: SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

8/14/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

DEFENDANT DANZE, INC.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

8/15/2017: DEFENDANT DANZE, INC.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

16 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/31/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2019
  • [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District) (- FSC: 08-22-19 Trial: 09-04-19); Filed by Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (DOE 51) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for and Order to Continue Trial and Related Dates) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for and Order to Continue Tri...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (for and Order to Continue Trial and Related Dates); Filed by Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (DOE 51) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application ( To Continue Trial and all Related Dates) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application To Continue Trial and all Re...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (To Continue Trial and all Related Dates); Filed by Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (DOE 51) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2019
  • Declaration (of Parada K. Ornelas in Support of Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial and Related Dates); Filed by Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (DOE 51) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
30 More Docket Entries
  • 12/08/2017
  • Minute order entered: 2017-12-08 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2017
  • REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2017
  • Partial Dismissal (w/o Prejudice); Filed by Veronica Flores (Plaintiff); Sergio Flores (Plaintiff); Ramon Sanchez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/15/2017
  • DEFENDANT DANZE, INC.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/15/2017
  • Answer; Filed by Danze, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2017
  • COMPLAINT COMPENSATORY PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR AND

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Veronica Flores (Plaintiff); Sergio Flores (Plaintiff); Ramon Sanchez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC663442    Hearing Date: January 28, 2020    Dept: SEC

FLORES v. GLOBE UNION INDUSTRIAL CORP., et al.

CASE NO.: BC663442

HEARING: 1/28/20

JUDGE: MARGARET M. BERNAL

#5

TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.’s motion to compel responses and verification to form interrogatories (set one) is MOOT.

II. Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.’s motion to compel responses and verification to special interrogatories (set one) is MOOT.

III. Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.’s motion to compel responses and verification to requests for production of documents (set one) is MOOT.

IV. Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.’s motion to compel responses and verification to request for admissions is MOOT.

Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiffs Veronica Flores, Sergio Flores, and Ramon Sanchez, jointly and severally, in the sum of $2,467.50, payable within 30 days.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. moves for verified responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, document demands, and request for admissions per CCP 2030.290, 2031.300, and 2033.280.

CCP 2030.290(b) and 2031.300(b) allow the propounding party to file a motion to compel responses to interrogatories and document demands if a response has not been received. If responses are untimely, responding party waives objections. (CCP 2030.290(a) and 2031.300(a).) CCP 2033.280(b) and (c) allow the propounding party to file a motion requesting that the truth of any matters specified in the request for admissions be deemed admitted unless the party to whom the requests have been directed has served before the hearing a proposed response that is in substantial compliance.

Prior to the hearing on these motions, Plaintiffs have served verified responses. Therefore, the motions are MOOT.

Sanctions: CCP 2023.010(d), 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c) authorize the court to impose sanctions for failure to respond to discovery without substantial justification. CCP 2033.280 makes the imposition of sanctions mandatory if a party fails to serve a timely response to requests for admission. “The 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.”  (CRC 3.1348(a); .”  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408-409.)

Here, sanctions are appropriate because Plaintiffs failed to serve timely responses to discovery, and imposition of sanctions is mandatory because Plaintiffs failed to timely respond to request for admissions. The court finds Defendant’s total request of $2,467.50 is reasonable under the circumstances. Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiffs Veronica Flores, Sergio Flores, and Ramon Sanchez, jointly and severally, in the sum of $2,467.50, payable within 30 days.