This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/27/2019 at 05:51:51 (UTC).

YOEL YMAR ET AL VS SERGIO IVAN BEYER

Case Summary

On 01/31/2018 YOEL YMAR filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against SERGIO IVAN BEYER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is PATRICIA D. NIETO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2052

  • Filing Date:

    01/31/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

PATRICIA D. NIETO

 

Party Details

Petitioners, Plaintiffs and Defendants

YMAR YOEL

YMAR KAREN

RESLER MIDORI

Respondents, Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

DOES 1 THROUGH 25 INCLUSIVE

YMAR YOEL

BEYER SERGIO IVAN

BOHBOT MARC

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff

BEYER SERGIO IVAN

Other

HARTSUYKER STRATMAN & WILLIAMS-ABREGO

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

WEINSTEIN ZEV Y.

GHARAKHANIAN DAVID JR.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

HARTSUYKER STRATMAN & WILLIAMS-ABREGO

MICHAELSON LINDSAY J.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

4/9/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

3/21/2018: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

CoverSheet

1/31/2018: CoverSheet

Civil Case Cover Sheet

1/31/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons

1/31/2018: Summons

Complaint

1/31/2018: Complaint

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/06/2019
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by Midori Resler (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • Motion to Compel (Plaintiff Karen Ymar Deposition); Filed by Sergio Ivan Beyer (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • Motion to Compel (Plaintiff Yoel Ymar Deposition); Filed by Sergio Ivan Beyer (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2018
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Sergio Ivan Beyer (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2018
  • NOTICE OF RULING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 2; Court Order - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-08-01 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2018
  • Order; Filed by Sergio Ivan Beyer (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2018
  • STIPULATION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS

    Read MoreRead Less
12 More Docket Entries
  • 03/09/2018
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by Sergio Ivan Beyer (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2018
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Sergio Ivan Beyer (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Sergio Ivan Beyer (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Yoel Ymar (Plaintiff); Karen Ymar (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2018
  • Proof of Personal Service Amended

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Midori Resler (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Yoel Ymar (Plaintiff); Karen Ymar (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Yoel Ymar (Plaintiff); Karen Ymar (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC692052    Hearing Date: June 26, 2020    Dept: 29

Ymar v. Beyer

Plaintiffs’ Two Motions to Compel Appearances of Rachelle Remily and Gustavo Beyer at Deposition; Request for Sanctions are DENIED.

The purported witnesses, Ms. Remily and Mr. Beyer, are not parties to the action. Plaintiffs sued only Defendant, Sergio Ivan Beyer. Accordingly, they cannot be compelled to appear for a deposition by notice pursuant to Cal Code Civ Procedure § 2025.450. Unless the deponent is a party, “the process by which a nonparty is required to provide discovery is a deposition subpoena.” Cal Code Civ Procedure § 2020.010(b).

There is no evidence that the witnesses waived the subpoena requirement and agreed to appear voluntarily, nor is there evidence that defense counsel has the authority to represent the witnesses or waive rights on their behalf.

Additionally, neither witness was served with the motion, although Plaintiffs seek an order for their appearance as well as the imposition of sanctions against the witness. Due process requires that a party seeking sanctions give notice and an opportunity to be heard. Caldwell v. Samuels Jewelers (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 970, 976.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where HARTSUYKER STRATMAN & WILLIAMS-ABREGO is a litigant