This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/26/2021 at 14:16:24 (UTC).

VICENTE VIDAL VS WILLIAM DOYLE

Case Summary

On 03/01/2018 VICENTE VIDAL filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against WILLIAM DOYLE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA A. SEIGLE, WILLIAM A. CROWFOOT and EDWARD B. MORETON. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6592

  • Filing Date:

    03/01/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LAURA A. SEIGLE

WILLIAM A. CROWFOOT

EDWARD B. MORETON

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

VIDAL VICENTE

Respondents and Defendants

DOES 1 TO 30

DOYLE WILLIAM

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

MARKARIAN CHRISTOPHER V. ESQ.

MESAROS CHRISTOPHER P.

MESAROS CHRISTOPHE PAUL

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

WARD KATHLEEN. ESQ

WARD KATHLEEN M. ESQ.

CODY MICHAEL J.

HAWKINS MARC WILLIAM

ATANOUS CLEIDIN Z.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (-HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVER...)

12/8/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (-HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVER...)

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT'S SECOND SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

10/21/2021: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT'S SECOND SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF VICENTE VIDALS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

10/21/2021: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF VICENTE VIDALS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL TRIAL RELATED DATES

10/21/2021: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL TRIAL RELATED DATES

Notice of Ruling

10/25/2021: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL TRI...)

10/25/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL TRI...)

Substitution of Attorney

10/29/2021: Substitution of Attorney

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF ERIC E. FORSTROM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO COMPEL

11/24/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF ERIC E. FORSTROM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO COMPEL

Notice - DEFENDANT WILLIAM DOYLES NOTICE OF NON-RECEIPT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF VICENTE VIDALS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS SECOND SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTION

12/1/2021: Notice - DEFENDANT WILLIAM DOYLES NOTICE OF NON-RECEIPT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF VICENTE VIDALS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS SECOND SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTION

Notice - DEFENDANT WILLIAM DOYLES NOTICE OF NON-RECEIPT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF VICENTE VIDALS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST

12/1/2021: Notice - DEFENDANT WILLIAM DOYLES NOTICE OF NON-RECEIPT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF VICENTE VIDALS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST

Notice of Ruling

12/9/2021: Notice of Ruling

Substitution of Attorney

9/21/2021: Substitution of Attorney

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE JANE HONG-ELSEY, CSR#11975

3/8/2021: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE JANE HONG-ELSEY, CSR#11975

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER RE: N MOTION TO VACATE ORDER ISSUE...) OF 03/09/2021

3/9/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER RE: N MOTION TO VACATE ORDER ISSUE...) OF 03/09/2021

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER RE: N MOTION TO VACATE ORDER ISSUE...)

3/9/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER RE: N MOTION TO VACATE ORDER ISSUE...)

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

3/9/2021: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

3/9/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Notice of Ruling

3/17/2021: Notice of Ruling

47 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/14/2022
  • Hearing04/14/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2022
  • Hearing04/01/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by William Doyle (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 27, William A. Crowfoot, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Deposition of Plaintiff) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 27, William A. Crowfoot, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 27, William A. Crowfoot, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 27, William A. Crowfoot, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (-Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discover...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2021
  • DocketDEFENDANT WILLIAM DOYLES NOTICE OF NON-RECEIPT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF VICENTE VIDALS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS SECOND SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL IN THE SUM OF 1,; Filed by William Doyle (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2021
  • DocketDEFENDANT WILLIAM DOYLES NOTICE OF NON-RECEIPT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF VICENTE VIDALS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL IN T; Filed by William Doyle (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
74 More Docket Entries
  • 06/20/2018
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2018
  • DocketDEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2018
  • DocketANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT OF VICENTE VIDAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by William Doyle (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2018
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by William Doyle (Defendant)

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Vicente Vidal (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Vicente Vidal (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Vicente Vidal (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: BC696592 Hearing Date: December 8, 2021 Dept: 27

\r\n\r\n

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF\r\nCALIFORNIA

\r\n\r\n

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL\r\nDISTRICT

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n

VICENTE VIDAL,

\r\n

Plaintiff(s),

\r\n

vs.

\r\n

\r\n

WILLIAM\r\n DOYLE, et al.,

\r\n

\r\n

Defendant(s).

\r\n
\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)\r\n )

\r\n
\r\n

CASE NO.: BC696592

\r\n

\r\n

[TENTATIVE]\r\n ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO WRITTEN\r\n DISCOVERY; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

\r\n

\r\n

Dept.\r\n 27

\r\n

1:30\r\n p.m.

\r\n

December\r\n 8, 2021

\r\n
\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On March 1, 2018, plaintiff Vicente\r\nVidal (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant William Doyle (“Defendant”)\r\narising from an October 18, 2016 motor vehicle collision. On June 3, 2021, Defendant served Special\r\nInterrogatories (Set Two) and Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two) on\r\nPlaintiff. An extension was granted but\r\nno responses were received. On October\r\n11, 2021, defense counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel a letter requesting the\r\noverdue responses. Plaintiff did not\r\nrespond to the letter or serve discovery responses.

\r\n\r\n

Where a party fails to serve timely\r\nresponses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling\r\nresponses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§\r\n2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare\r\nConsulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th\r\n390, 403.) A party that fails to serve\r\ntimely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on\r\nprivilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300,\r\nsubd. (a).) Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel\r\nresponses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has\r\nno meet and confer obligations. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s counsel, Eric A. Forstrom,\r\nsubmits a declaration in opposition to these motions. Counsel declares that he is working with\r\nPlaintiff to finalize and serve verified responses prior to the hearing on this\r\nmotion and requests that sanctions not be imposed. However, absent evidence that the responses\r\nwere actually served and not merely in the middle of production in the hopes of\r\neventually being served, these motions are GRANTED.

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified\r\nresponses without objections to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (Set Two)\r\nand Requests for Production of Documents (Set Two) within 20 days of the date\r\nof this order.

\r\n\r\n

The Code of Civil Procedure provides\r\nthat the court shall impose a monetary sanction against the party who\r\nunsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with\r\nsubstantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300,\r\nsubd. (c).) The Court finds evidence of neither\r\nas defense counsel only states that “staff turnover” has caused the failure to\r\nserve timely responses.

\r\n\r\n

Defendant’s request for monetary\r\nsanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Plaintiff and counsel of record,\r\njointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $470 for 2 hours at defense\r\ncounsel’s hourly rate of $175.00 and $120.00 in filing fees, to be paid within 20\r\ndays of the date of this Order.

\r\n\r\n

Moving party to give notice.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Parties who intend to submit on this\r\ntentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating\r\nintention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided\r\non the court website at www.lacourt.org. \r\nPlease be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to\r\nappear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the\r\nhearing and argue the matter. Unless you\r\nreceive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume\r\nthat others might appear at the hearing to argue.

\r\n\r\n'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer MARKARIAN CHRISTOPHER VREJ

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MESAROS CHRISTOPHER PAUL