MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT (Motion #7) - Notice of D&I to C Lewis Group May 28, 2021 (2024)

Case

Veronica Moya Lau v. Wollman Park Partners, Llc

Jul 31, 2024 |Torts - Other Negligence (Premises Liability) |Torts - Other Negligence (Premises Liability) |156972/2024

Case

Girl F. Negron v. The City Of New York, New York City Department Of Transportation, New York City Department Of Parks And Recreation, Mervco Realty Corp., Triangle Optical Co.

Jul 31, 2024 |Torts - Other Negligence (TRIP & FALL) |Torts - Other Negligence (TRIP & FALL) |156973/2024

Case

May 22, 2024 |Torts - Asbestos |Torts - Asbestos |190147/2024

Case

Diston Salina v. The City Of New York, The New York City Police Department, Raymond Layden POLICE OFFICER

Aug 02, 2024 |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |157079/2024

Case

Michael Chitaman v. Jose Vasquez And, Nad Auto Repair Corp.,

Aug 02, 2024 |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |157051/2024

Case

Sondra Sokoloff v. The City Of New York, The New York City Department Of Transportation, The New York City Department Of Sanitation, The New York City Department Of Environmental Protection

Aug 02, 2024 |Torts - Other (Trip and Fall) |Torts - Other (Trip and Fall) |157058/2024

Case

Craig Lewis v. City Of New York, Jose Tavarez, John Or Jane Doe 1-10

Aug 02, 2024 |Torts - Other (FALSE ARREST) |Torts - Other (FALSE ARREST) |157077/2024

Case

Jessica Mikhailevich as Administratrix of the Estate of ILYA MIKHAILEVICH, Deceased, Elena Digiovanni Mikhailevich v. Nc 3100 Ocean A Ve Llc LLC d/b/a NETCOST MARKET

Aug 02, 2024 |Torts - Other Negligence (General) |Torts - Other Negligence (General) |157127/2024

Case

Elizabeth Tracy, Jerald Tracy v. Mark Francescone, The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New York, The New York And Presbyterian Hospital, Tara Allmen, Tara I. Allmen, M.D., P.C.,

Jul 31, 2024 |Torts - Medical, Dental, or Podiatrist Malpractice |Torts - Medical, Dental, or Podiatrist Malpractice |805213/2024

Ruling

PAULA BOYLE VS. HOWARD GOOD ET AL

Aug 07, 2024 |CGC23604243

Matter on the Discovery Calendar for Wednesday, Aug-07-2024, Line 1, 2-PLAINTIFF PAULA BOYLE'S Renewed And Amended Motion To Compel Further Responses To Ccp Section 2025.220(A)(4) Request For Production Of Documents At Person Most Qualified Deposition From Defendant 1880 Jackson Street Association With Request For Sanctions. Off calendar. Notice of Settlement of Entire Action filed Jul-26-2024. (D525)

Ruling

MARIO MEDINA ESPINOZA VS ADT LLC, ET AL.

Aug 05, 2024 |23STCV05484

Case Number: 23STCV05484 Hearing Date: August 5, 2024 Dept: 28 Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On March 13, 2023, Plaintiff Mario Medina Espinoza (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendants ADT LLC (ADT), William Fernandez, and Does 1-20 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. On July 2, 2024, ADT filed an answer. On July 3, 2024, ADT filed a motion to continue the trial and all trial-related dates. The motion was set for hearing on August 5, 2024. Plaintiff did not file an opposition. Trial is currently scheduled for September 9, 2024. PARTYS REQUESTS ADT asks the Court to continue the trial to September 9, 2025, and to continue all trial-related dates. LEGAL STANDARD A. Motion to continue trial California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 provides: (a) Trial dates are firm To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain. (b) Motion or application A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered. (c) Grounds for continuance Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circ*mstances that may indicate good cause include: (1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circ*mstances; (2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circ*mstances; (3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circ*mstances; (4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; (5) The addition of a new party if: (A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or (B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case; (6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial. (d) Other factors to be considered In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circ*mstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include: (1) The proximity of the trial date; (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; (3) The length of the continuance requested; (4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; (6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; (7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; (10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and (11) Any other fact or circ*mstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.) B. Motion to continue or reopen discovery Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020 provides: (a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action. (b) Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020.) Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 provides: (a) On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (b) In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery. (2) The diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier. (3) Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party. (4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action. (c) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to extend or to reopen discovery, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circ*mstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050.) DISCUSSION ATD asks the Court to continue the trial and related dates for one year because Plaintiff served the complaint on ADT on June 7, 2024 and Plaintiffs counsel has agreed to the continuance. The Court finds good cause to continue the trial. In addition, having considered the factors listed in Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, subdivision (b), the Court extends the time to conduct discovery and related dates. CONCLUSION The Court GRANTS Defendant ADT LLCs motion to continue the trial and related dates. The Court continues the trial to September 9, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The Final Status Conference is August 26, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. Discovery and related dates will be based on the new trial date. Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

Ruling

MICHEAL THOMAS, ET AL. VS RAFAEL RAMOS ROBLES, ET AL.

Case Number: 22STCV24812 Hearing Date: August 5, 2024 Dept: 29 Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, filed by Plaintiffs Counsel Michael P. Green, Esq. of Joseph Farzam Law Firm. Tentative The Court will call this matter. Background On August 2, 2022, Micheal Thomas and Chase Thomas (collectively Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against Rafael Ramos Robles, the City of Los Angeles, and Does 1 through 50 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an accident occurring on November 8, 2021. Chase Thomas is a minor (DOB 8/4/12), and the application of Micheal Thomas to serve as his guardian ad litem (GAL) for Chase was granted on August 15, 2022. On October 18, 2022, City of Los Angeles filed its answer and a cross-complaint against Roes 1 through 10. On January 24, 2023, Plaintiffs former representation was relieved as counsel. On June 12, 2024, Michael P. Green, Esq. of Joseph Farzam Law Firm (Counsel) filed this motion to be relieved as counsel for Micheal Thomas. No opposition has been filed. This motion was continued from July 17 to August 5. Legal Standard The court may order that an attorney be changed or substituted at any time before or after judgment or final determination upon request by either client or attorney and after notice from one to the other. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 284(b).) An attorney is permitted to withdraw where conflicts between the attorney and client make it unreasonable to continue the representation. (See Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct 3-700(C)(1).) The determination whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1133.) An application to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Counsel Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a)), MC-052 (Declaration) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.136(c)), and MC-053 (Proposed Order) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e)). Further, the requisite forms must be served on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) The court may delay effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).) Discussion Counsel has filed the Notice, Declaration, and Order to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs, and served the papers on all parties in this matter. The procedural requirements for the motion are satisfied. Counsel contends good cause exists to be relieved as there has been a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship, and, further, counsel states that the client has orally discharged him as counsel. This would, under ordinary circ*mstances, constitute good cause for the motion. The Court will call this matter, however, as the Court needs further information with regard to several issues. First, counsel represents both Micheal and Chase Thomas. The motion, however, seeks an order to be relieved as counsel for Micheal only. Is this intentional or an oversight? If the latter, the hearing may need to be continued so that proper notice can be provided to the client(s). (The Court understands that Micheal is GAL for Chase, but still there is no notice to the client that counsel is seeking an order to be relieved as to his representation of Chase.) Second, if counsel seeks to be relieved as counsel for Chase, a further substantial issue arises. Micheal can represent himself, but he cannot (as GAL or otherwise) represent Chase, a minor. A non-attorney appointed as guardian ad litem cannot act in pro per as doing so would constitute the unauthorized practice of law (Bus. & Professions Code § 6125; see J.W. v. Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 958, 965.) New counsel will need to be retained for Chase, or all causes of action brought on behalf of Chase claims will need to be dismissed without prejudice. Third, trial is scheduled for August 12, and the Court is concerned with the potential prejudice to Micheal if counsel is relieved just one week before trial. The Court will call this matter. Conclusion The Court will call this matter.

Ruling

HEARDEN, et al. vs. WINDSOR REDDING CARE CENTER, LLC, et al.

Aug 06, 2024 |CVPO21-0198083

LLC, ET AL.Case Number: CVPO21-0198083Tentative Ruling on Motions to Compel Depositions: Plaintiffs seek an order compelling thedepositions of various Defendants PMQ related to insurance. Plaintiff also seek sanctions totaling$3,960. Separate motions have been filed against the following Defendants:  Windsor Redding Care Center, LLC  Brius Management Co.  Brius LLC  S&F Management Company  Boardwalk West Financial Services, LLC  Eretz River Valley Properties, LLC  Jeffrey Staffing, LLC  River Valey Healthcare & Wellness Center  Rockport Administrative Services, LLC  Rockport Healthcare Support Services, LLC  Windsor Norcal 13 Holdings, LLCMerits of Motion: A “party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that isrelevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motionmade in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonablycalculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim ordefense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may beobtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, aswell as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document,electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” CCP § 2017.020. Acivil litigant’s right to discovery is broad. Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.“[I]n accordance with the liberal policies underlying the discovery procedures, doubts as torelevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co.v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 173.Here, Plaintiffs have propounded eleven separate deposition subpoenas to individual Defendantsseeking to depose their PMQ related to issues of insurance. Defendants oppose the depositions onthe grounds that Plaintiffs are only entitled to insurance information expressly permitted by CCP§ 2017.210 which states: “A party may obtain discovery of the existence and contents of any agreement under which any insurance carrier may be liable to satisfy in whole or in part a judgment that may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment. This discovery may include the identity of the carrier and the nature and limits of the coverage. A party may also obtain discovery as to whether that insurance carrier is disputing the agreement’s coverage of the claim involved in the action, but not as to the nature and substance of that dispute. Information concerning the insurance agreement is not by reason of disclosure admissible in evidence at trial.”Undoubtedly, Section 2017.210 permits Plaintiffs to obtain some of the information that is subjectto the depositions notices; specifically, the existence and applicable terms of insurance policiesand indemnity agreements which may apply to the current action. Plaintiffs’ position is that thescope of the subpoenas is also relevant to the issues of alter ego and joint venture liability. Thealter ego test encompasses a number of factors including the use of the corporate entity to procureservices for another entity. Greenspan v. LADT (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 486, 512-13. Further, acourt must examine all circ*mstances to determine if the alter ego theory applies. Id. at 513. Areview of the specific topics of the deposition and request for production of documents shows thatPlaintiffs position establishes good cause. The information sought could in any number of waysprovide admissible evidence or to the discovery of information which is reasonably calculated tolead to admissible evidence related to alter ego or joint venture liability. For example, it couldprovide information that one Defendant was procuring insurance services for another. Based onthe foregoing, the Court finds good cause to compel the depositions. In reaching this conclusion,the Court notes that discovery should be liberally permitted, and any doubts must be resolved infavor of permitting the discovery. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co, supra 2 Cal.3d at 173. The Court is notmaking a finding at this time that any of the testimony or documents obtained would be admissibleat trial. A determination of that nature will be made by the trial court at the time of trial or pursuantto a motion in limine.Sanctions: The imposition of sanctions is mandatory against the party that unsuccessful makes oropposes a motion unless they acted with substantial justification. CCP § 2025.450(g)(1).Defendants’ objections to the very broad scope of the discovery were not unwarranted. The Courtfinds that Defendants acted in good faith and that their actions were substantially justified. Therequest for sanctions is denied.The motions are GRANTED. The request for sanctions is DENIED. No proposed orders werelodged with the Court as required by Local Rule 5.17(D). Plaintiffs shall prepare the order(s).lodged with the Court as required by Local Rule 5.17(D). Plaintiffs shall prepare the order(s).J.D. VS. THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF

Ruling

LIEBERMAN VS. THE CITY OF REDDING, ET AL.

Aug 05, 2024 |CVPM21-0197061

LIEBERMAN VS. THE CITY OF REDDING, ET AL.Case Number: CVPM21-0197061Tentative Ruling on Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel: Dustin Z. Moavin of Dordick Law Corporation movesto be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Howard Lieberman. CRC Rule 3.1362 provides the requirements for amotion to be relieved as counsel. In particular, CRC 3.1362 requires the use of specific mandatory JudicialCouncil forms for the Notice and Motion (MC-051) and Supporting Declaration (MC-052). Both forms and theproposed Order (MC-053) must be served on the client and all parties who have appeared in the case at either thecurrent address or the last known address that has been confirmed within thirty days. CRC 3.1362(d). A Proofof Service was filed on July 22, 2024 indicating that Plaintiff was personally served with each of the requireddocuments on July 5, 2024. Counsel for Defendants was timely served by electronic mail.A declaration must be filed that states in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of theattorney-client relationship why a motion under CCP § 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under CCP §284(1). Plaintiff’s counsel has presented evidence that there has been a breakdown of the attorney-clientrelationship. The Court finds that Counsel has complied with all requirements of CRC 3.1362.The motion is GRANTED. A proposed order was lodged with the Court and will be executed. Dordick LawCorporation will be relieved upon the filing of the Notice of Entry of Order. The Court notes that this matter isset for jury trial on October 1, 2024. The matter will be on calendar on Tuesday, September 3, 2024, at 9:00a.m. in Department 63 for review regarding status of counsel.

Ruling

CAMILA LOPEZ MAGALLANES VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRI

Aug 09, 2024 |BC684669

Case Number: BC684669 Hearing Date: August 9, 2024 Dept: 55 Tentative on Plaintiffs Remaining Outstanding Motions in Limine At the 11/18/2022, the Court ruled on several motions in limine filed by the parties. The Court also deferred ruling on several of the motions in limine. The Court now tentatively rules as follows on Plaintiffs motions other than MIL No. 23 to Exclude any Evidence and Argument that this is a Medical Malpractice Action, which the Court will discuss with the parties at the FSC. The Court will issue a tentative ruling on Defendants remaining motions in limine at a later date. Plaintiffs MIL No. 5 to Exclude Concealed and Untimely Disclosed Sub Rosa is denied. The motion does not identify what specific evidence the moving party seeks to exclude and does not contain any supporting evidence that any such evidence even exists. Plaintiffs MIL No. 6 to Exclude Speculative Evidence, Testimony, and/or References that Plaintiffs Fall Resulted from Anything Other than Tripping on a Crack on the Playground is denied. Plaintiffs MIL No. 9 to Exclude Evidence, Witnesses, and Contentions not Disclosed in Discovery is denied. The motion fails to identify what specific evidence the moving party seeks to exclude, and thus the Court cannot make a meaningful order. Plaintiffs MIL No. 10 to Exclude Testimony and/or Reference to Statements Allegedly Made by Plaintiffs Parents at Hospital and Gossip is denied. Plaintiffs MIL No. 11 to Exclude Affirmative Defenses not Asserted in Defendants Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint is denied. This is not a motion in limine because it does not seek exclusion or limitation of any evidence. Rather, the moving party seeks to preclude the Defendant from raising arguments, but this is an improper use of a motion in limine. Plaintiffs MIL No. 13 to Exclude any Reference by Defendant and its Experts to Defendants Limited Funds as an Excuse for its Negligence is granted. Defendant has not explained what relevance its financial status has with respect to establishing liability or Plaintiffs claims for damages. Plaintiffs MIL No. 14 to Exclude any Reference by Defendant and Its Experts to Plaintiffs Past Economic Damages Including Medical Expenses is denied. Plaintiffs MIL No. 16 to Exclude any Reference to, or Suggest that Plaintiff Experienced Head Trauma Before or After the Subject Incident is denied. Plaintiffs MIL No. 21 to Exclude all Hearsay Testimony Regarding Plaintiffs Injury Incident is denied. Plaintiffs MIL No. 24 Regarding Scientific, Technical, Medical, and/or Professional Textbooks, Articles, and/or Reference is denied. Plaintiffs MIL No. 26 to Exclude Defendants Experts from Rendering any Improper Opinions Regarding Plaintiff Being Motivated by Secondary Gain is moot because Dr. Goldberg is no longer a testifying expert witness in this case. Plaintiffs MIL No. 28 to Exclude Defendants Responses Amended After the Discovery Cut-Off is denied.

Ruling

MICHAEL ADAM CADENA VS SHARON IBARA, ET AL.

Aug 07, 2024 |23AHCV02140

Case Number: 23AHCV02140 Hearing Date: August 7, 2024 Dept: 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT MICHAEL ADAM CADENA, Plaintiff(s), vs. SHARON IBARA, et al., Defendant(s). ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 23AHCV02140 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PLAINTIFF TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION (SET ONE) Dept. 3 8:30 a.m. August 7, 2024 On September 14, 2023, plaintiff Michael Adam Cadena (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Sharon Ibara and Randy Ibara (collectively, Defendants) arising from a motor vehicle vs. pedestrian accident that occurred on October 12, 2022. On November 8, 2023, Defendants served Requests for Identification and Production of Writings and Things (Set One) Plaintiff. Despite granting several extensions, no responses were received and Defendants filed this motion on April 16, 2024. Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) In opposition, Plaintiff submits a declaration from counsel stating that the discovery responses have been provided and that the delay was due to Plaintiffs failure to communicate with counsel. As responses have already been served, the motion is DENIED as moot. Sanctions may be awarded under in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (C.R.C. 3.1348.) Defendants request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Plaintiff in the reduced amount of $330 for 1 hour at defense counsels hourly rate of $270.00 and $60.00 in filing fees, to be paid within 20 days of the date of this Order. Moving party to give notice. Dated this 7th day of August 2024 William A. Crowfoot Judge of the Superior Court Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Ruling

JENNIFER MERRICK EQUIHUA VS RADHA DEVANI

Aug 08, 2024 |23NWCV01205

Case Number: 23NWCV01205 Hearing Date: August 8, 2024 Dept: C EQUIHUA v. DEVANI CASE NO.: 23NWCV01205 HEARING: 08/08/24 #4 I. Defendants unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Responses to Form Interrogatories (set one) is GRANTED. II. Defendants unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Responses to Special Interrogatories (set one) is GRANTED. III. Defendants unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Responses to Demand for Production of Documents (set one) is GRANTED. Moving Party to give Notice. No Oppositions filed as of August 6, 2024. If a party to whom interrogatories and document demands are directed fails to respond at all, the propounding partys remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers thereto. (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) All that needs to be shown is that the discovery was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. The moving party is not required to show a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the matter informally before filing this motion. A motion to compel initial discovery responses need not show good cause, meeting and conferring, or timely filing, and need not be accompanied by a separate statement. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) The failure to timely respond also waives all objections. Here, Defendant has shown that Special Interrogatories (set one), Form Interrogatories (set one) and Request for Production of Documents (set one) were properly served onto Plaintiff on September 13, 2023. The deadlines to respond have expired, and no responses of any kind have been provided. These Motions were filed December 7, 2023 almost three months after service of the discovery. As of August 6, 2024, no Oppositions have been filed to the subject Motions. The unopposed Motions to Compel are GRANTED, and Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide verified responses and documents, without objection by no later than 30 days from date of the Courts issuance of this Order. This date may be extended by stipulation of the parties. If any objections are asserted, it will be tantamount to no response at all and will be deemed a violation of this Courts order. Reasonable sanctions are GRANTED in the total amount of $580.00. Plaintiff and their counsel of record are jointly and severally ORDERED to pay Defendant and their counsel of record sanctions in the total amount of $580.00, payable within 30 days from the date of the Courts issuance of this Order.

Document

Jordan Davis v. The City Of New York, The New York City Fire Department, The City Of New York Fire Department Bureau Of Emergency Medical Services, Jazmine Alicea (Operator)

Aug 02, 2024 |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |157064/2024

Document

Damaris Santos v. Extell West 57th Street Llc

Aug 02, 2024 |Torts - Other (Premises) |Torts - Other (Premises) |157047/2024

Document

Jul 31, 2024 |Torts - Asbestos |Torts - Asbestos |190199/2024

Document

Selina Drayton v. 158 West 125th Street Llc, Solil Management, Llc, The City Of New York

Jul 31, 2024 |Torts - Other (Premises) |Torts - Other (Premises) |156961/2024

Document

Jul 31, 2024 |Torts - Other (Declaratory Judgment) |Torts - Other (Declaratory Judgment) |156960/2024

Document

May 22, 2024 |Torts - Asbestos |Torts - Asbestos |190147/2024

Document

Abid Qureshi v. Jane St. Hospitality Llc, Rimowa, Inc., The Mercer I L.L.C., Richard Born, The City Of New York, The New York City Department Of Transportation

Jul 29, 2024 |Torts - Other (Trip & Fall) |Torts - Other (Trip & Fall) |156878/2024

Document

Jerzy Ejsmont v. Sherman B. Kerner, Emma G. Kerner

Apr 27, 2022 |James G. Clynes |Torts - Motor Vehicle |Torts - Motor Vehicle |153614/2022