This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/23/2020 at 21:08:59 (UTC).

WILBERT SAUNDERS VS TONY JOEY CRUZ JR ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/17/2017 WILBERT SAUNDERS filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against TONY JOEY CRUZ JR. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9873

  • Filing Date:

    10/17/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

SAUNDERS WILBERT

GONZALEZ RAY JR.

GONZALEZ RAY JR. BC696953

Defendants and Respondents

CRUZ TONY JOEY JR

DOES 1 TO 100

GONZALEZ ALICIA

CRUZ TONY

SAUNDERS WILBERT MURITIA

CRUZ BC696953 TONY

SAUNDERS BC696953 WILBERT MURITIA

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

SAUNDERS WILBERT MURITIA

SAUNDERS BC696953 WILBERT MURITIA

Defendants and Cross Defendants

CRUZ TONY

CRUZ BC696953 TONY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

KASHANI JONATHAN M.

BORDIN-WOSK JOSHUA ESQ.

BORDIN-WOSK JOSHUA D

SNYDER BC696953 KENNETH L.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

NEILL BRIAN P. ESQ.

NEILL BRIAN PATRICK

RUWE W. EDWIN

SULLIVAN PAUL

 

Court Documents

Motion for Trial Preference

10/26/2020: Motion for Trial Preference

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT TONY CRUZ, JR., TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE

11/6/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT TONY CRUZ, JR., TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE

11/12/2020: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 002 TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM OFFERING OPINION TESTIMONY REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S INJURIES AND MEDICAL CAUSATION

9/12/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 002 TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM OFFERING OPINION TESTIMONY REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S INJURIES AND MEDICAL CAUSATION

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

9/17/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

10/2/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING THE TRIAL DATE AND RESETTING ALL RELATED CUTOFF DATES BASED ON THE NEW TRIAL DATE

11/8/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING THE TRIAL DATE AND RESETTING ALL RELATED CUTOFF DATES BASED ON THE NEW TRIAL DATE

Request for Dismissal

12/9/2019: Request for Dismissal

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIA...)

12/20/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIA...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PLAIN...)

2/18/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PLAIN...)

Motion re: - MOTION RE: MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE

7/8/2020: Motion re: - MOTION RE: MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER ADVANCING HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF'S PENDING MOTION

7/10/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER ADVANCING HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF'S PENDING MOTION

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE; TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE) OF 07/31/2020

7/31/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE; TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE) OF 07/31/2020

Association of Attorney -

4/26/2018: Association of Attorney -

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NO. ONE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEY O

6/13/2018: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NO. ONE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEY O

Notice of Related Case

4/17/2019: Notice of Related Case

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

11/6/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

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

10/17/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

63 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/04/2021
  • Hearing03/04/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2021
  • Hearing02/18/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2020
  • Hearing12/04/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Conference - Motion Setting

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2020
  • Hearing12/04/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Expert Discovery Deadlines

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference) of 11/20/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2020
  • DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by WILBERT SAUNDERS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2020
  • DocketReply (In Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Trial Preference); Filed by WILBERT SAUNDERS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
118 More Docket Entries
  • 12/11/2017
  • DocketDEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by TONY JOEY CRUZ, JR (Defendant); ALICIA GONZALEZ (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by WILBERT SAUNDERS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by WILBERT SAUNDERS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by WILBERT SAUNDERS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2017
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for an Order Consolidating the Two Cases Arising from the Same Auto Collision Incident, or in the Alternative, A Continuance of Trial and all Related Dates so Plaintiff may Bring a Noticed Motion)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC679873    Hearing Date: November 20, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

wilbert saunders,

Plaintiff,

v.

tony joey cruz, jr.,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC679873

Hearing Date: November 20, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion for Trial PREFERENCE

Plaintiff Wilbert Saunders (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Tony Joey Cruz, Jr. (“Defendant”) following a motor vehicle collision. Plaintiff moves the Court for an order granting trial preference per Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (a), which Defendant opposes. Per Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (a), “A party to a civil action who is over 70 years of age may petition the court for a preference, which the court shall grant if the court makes both of the following findings: [¶] (1) The party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole. [¶] (2) The health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party's interest in the litigation.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (a).) If the court grants the motion for trial preference, the court must set the matter for trial not more than 120 days from the date of the hearing on the motion for preference. (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (f).) The Court finds good cause to grant this motion to grant preference, given Plaintiff’s age and health conditions, based upon the declarations of Marc Cohen, M.D. and Devin K. Binder, M.D. The Court also notes that this case has been pending since October 17, 2017—over three years—affording Defendant ample time to prepare for trial.

Defendant argues that the motion is moot because the trial is set for March 18, 2021. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff still would be entitled to preference to ensure that this trial date is not continued indefinitely based upon any motion by Defendant (or the Court’s own motion). Moreover, the Court cannot set a preference case for trial a mere three days before the deadline, so Plaintiff’s motion effectively seeks to advance the trial date.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

This case must proceed to trial on or before Monday, March 22, 2021. Therefore, the Court sets the following dates:

Final Status Conference: February 18, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.

Trial: March 4, 2021, at 8:30 a.m.

The discovery and motions cut-off shall be based on the new trial date. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: November 20, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC679873    Hearing Date: September 18, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

wilbert saunders,

Plaintiff,

v.

tony joey cruz, jr.,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC679873 (consolidated with

BC696953)

Hearing Date: September 18, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to compel plaintiff’s deposition

Plaintiff Wilbert Saunders (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Tony Joey Cruz, Jr. (“Defendant”), among others, following a motor vehicle collision. Plaintiff previously moved for preference under Code of Civil Procedure section 36(a), which the Court denied without prejudice. Now, Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to appear for a second deposition, which Plaintiff opposes.

A party may seek leave to take a second deposition for good cause, per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.610(b). Defendant first deposed Plaintiff on October 8, 2018, and argues that Plaintiff has had two additional surgeries. However, during his initial deposition, Plaintiff testified that he planned to undergo these surgeries:

Q: I see from Dr. Gravori’s notes that he’s recommending that you have surgery in your neck and your back. Have you actually scheduled the surgery?

A: I’m hoping we get it done by early November.

Q: And you’re going to start with the beck surgery as Dr. Gravori recommends, and then the lumbar surgery later?

A: Yes.

Q: Are you going to have Dr. Gravori do both surgeries?

A: Of course.

(Declaration of Daniel Ghyczy, Exh. #2, p.79.)

The Court finds no good cause to order a second live deposition. There was no unfair surprise, as Defendant’s counsel clearly had access to Dr. Gravori’s notes and was aware of the upcoming surgeries. It also is clear that Defendant’s counsel was aware at the time of the deposition that Plaintiff had not yet undergone those surgeries. Yet, Defendant’s counsel went forward with the deposition rather than wait until after the surgeries. Defendant’s counsel argues that he could not have done so based upon the original trial date of April 17, 2019. If Defendant’s counsel wished to ask Plaintiff questions following his upcoming surgeries, he could have sought to continue the trial date in order to allow a complete record before trial.

Also, Defendant has had ample opportunity to conduct discovery in this case. Indeed, the case is approximately three years old, and the Court ordered a second physical examination following Plaintiff’s surgeries. Finally, the proposed topics of inquiry do not necessitate a live deposition. Defendant can inquire about “the scope and effects of the injuries” following the surgeries by way of written deposition.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition is granted in part and denied in part. The Court denies the motion with respect to a live deposition. The Court grants the motion insofar as Defendant seeks a written deposition. Defendant may ask ten (10) questions of Plaintiff in the form of a written deposition. The Court denies each party’s request for sanctions. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: September 18, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court