arrow left
arrow right
  • STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION VS EVANGELINA URIBE, ET AL. Declaratory Relief Only (General Jurisdiction) document preview
  • STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION VS EVANGELINA URIBE, ET AL. Declaratory Relief Only (General Jurisdiction) document preview
						
                                

Preview

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 07/14/2022 12:42 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by S. Bolden,Deputy Clerk Richard 0. Knapp (Bar No. 144654) 1 rknapp@knapp-spurlock.com Julie R. Beaton (Bar No. 173036) 2 KNAPP & SPURLOCK LLP 3525 Hyland Avenue, Suite 220 3 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: 714-434-9600 4 Facsimile: 714-434-9604 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 6 INSURANCE COMPANY 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE Case No. 20STCV23350 11 INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Assigned for All Purposes to: Judge Rupert A. Byrdsong, Dept. 28 12 Plaintiff, v. 13 [UNLIMITED CIVIL] EVANGELINA URIBE (also known as 14 "EVA URIBE"), an individual; ISRAEL CRUZ, an individual; EDIT SARKISIAN, an NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS' NON- 15 individual; VAZRIK HOVASAPYAN, an COMPLIANCE WITH COURT'S individual; MONIKA VERIEJISHAN, an DISCOVERY ORDER DATED JUNE 16 individual; LARISA TARVERDI, an 28,2022 individual; and DOES 2 through 30, 17 inclusive. Complaint Filed: June 9, 2020 18 Defendants. Trial Date: August 15, 2022 19 20 TO THIS HONORABLE COURT: 21 On June 28, 2022, the Court conducted an Informal Discovery Conference in the 22 above-referenced matter. Julie R. Beaton, Esq. of Knapp & Spurlock, LLP appeared on 23 behalf of Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance. Company ("State Farm 24 Mutual"). Defendant Evangelina Uribe appeared on her own behalf. There was no 25 appearance by or on behalf of Defendant Israel Cruz. 26 Plaintiff State Farm Mutual requested the Informal Discovery Conference due to the 27 failure of Defendants Uribe and Cruz to respond to separate sets of supplemental discovery. 28 1 NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS' .NON-COMPLIANCE WITH COURT'S DISCOVERY ORDER DATED JUNE 28, 2022