Preview
Filing # 162545594 E-Filed 12/07/2022 10:37:36 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
19™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 2019CA000015
FREDERIC CHARLES GREER, III and
MELISSA ANNE GREER, as Husband
and Wife, and FREDERIC CHARLES
GREER, III and MELISSA ANNE
GREER, individually,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
MARTIN MEMORIAL MEDICAL
CENTER, INC., D/B/A MARTIN
MEDICAL CENTER, a Florida
Corporation, KUNAL CHAUDHRY, MD,
and CARDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF
STUART, P.A,, a Florida Profit
Corporation,
Defendants.
/
ORDER SPECIALLY SETTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL
TRIAL WEEKS: September 11, 2023 through September 29, 2023 (3-weeks)
TRIAL TIME: 9:30 A.M.
PLACE: Martin County Courthouse
100 East Ocean Boulevard
Courtroom A1-5
Stuart, FL 34994
POSITION: #1
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
This case will be scheduled for trial at the date and time listed above, before Circuit Judge Robert
Pegg.
UNLESS THE CASE IS SETTLED PRIOR TO THE DATE SET FOR TRIAL, COUNSEL
AND PARTIES MUST APPEAR FOR TRIAL. IT IS UNACCEPTABLE TO ANNOUNCE
TO THE COURT THAT COUNSEL IS NOT READY TO PROCEED TO TRIAL. If your
case is called up for trial and you do not appear or are not ready for trial, the case will be
dismissed if you represent the plaintiff, or a default entered if you represent the defense.
r PRESENCE OF COUNSEL
If pro se Plaintiff, or Plaintiff’s counsel fails to appear for trial, then the complaint may be
dismissed by the court. If pro se Defendant, or Defendant’s counsel fails to appear for trial, then
the court may enter a default against Defendant.
I. WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS
A list of the names and addresses of all witnesses to be presented at trial, and a list of all
exhibits to be entered into evidence at trial shall be forwarded to opposing counsel or pro se party
within fifteen (15) days of the date of this order.
Il. COURT REPORTER
All trials must be reported. Counsel for the Plaintiff is responsible for having a court
reporter present. Failure to do so may be grounds for cancellation of the trial, and may be
considered as grounds for sanctions.
IV. CASE DISPOSITIONS
If at any time after the entry of this order, this case is dismissed, or results in a completed
settlement, Counsel must immediately notify Judge Metzger’s Office via email to:
MCJudge3 @circuit19.org to remove the case from the trial docket. (Due to the volume of cases
pending, Counsel should not assume that the submission of a copy of the dismissal or the
settlement paperwork would satisfy this requirement. Counsel must make the notification by
telephone or brief letter). Counsel must expeditiously file all paperwork necessary to close the
case.
Vv. CASE TRACKING
It is counsel’s responsibility to track your case position on the Trial Docket. Please do not
call the Judicial Assistant for updates on the Trial Dockets or Trial Dates - all are posted on the
website for your convenience.
If an attorney or party requires an order extending the life of their trial subpoenas, they may
submit one as needed.
ANY MOTION TO CONTINUE MUST COMPLY WITH FLORIDA RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 1.460, INCLUDING REQUIREMENT OF SIGNATURE BY THE PARTY
REQUESTING CONTINUANCE.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Martin County, Florida this é day of
December, 2022.
Se VO SZigr-
HONORABLE GARY L.. SWEET
Copy provided to all registered parties via the E-Portal
Florida Rules of Judicial Administration Rule 2.540
Notices to Persons with Disabilities
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order
to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the
provision of certain assistance. Please contact ADA Coordinator, 250 NW
Country Club Drive, Suite 217, Port St. Lucie, FL 34986, (772) 807-4370 at
least 7 days before your scheduled court appearance, or immediately upon
receiving this notification if the time before the scheduled appearance is less than
7 days; if you are hearing or voice impaired, call 711.
SPANISH:
Si usted es una persona discapacitada que necesita algin tipo de adecuacién
para poder participar de este procedimiento, usted tiene derecho a que se le
ayude hasta cierto punto y sin costo alguno. Por favor comuniquese con Court
Administration, 250 NW Country Club Drive, Suite 217, Port St. Lucie, Fl. 34986,
(772) 807-4370, al menos 7 dias antes de su fecha de comparecencia 0
inmediatamente después de haber recibido esta notificaci6n si faltan menos de 7
dias para su cita en el tribunal. Si tiene discapacidad auditiva o de habla, llame al
711.
KREYOL:
Si ou se yon moun ki andikape epi ou bezwen nenpdt akomodasyon pou ou ka
patisipe nan pwosé sa-a, ou gen dwa, san ou pa gen pou-ou peye anyen, pou yo ba-
ou yon seri de asistans. Tanpri kontakte Administrasyon Tribunal-la, 250 NW
Country Club Drive, Suite 217, Port St. Lucie FL 34986, (772) 807-4370 omwen 7
jou alavans jou ou gen pou-ou parét nan tribunal-la, ouswa imedyatman kote ou
resevwa notifikasyon- an si ke li mwens ke 7 jou; si ou
Related Content
in Martin County
Ruling
FCS057491 - MILBOURN, JAMES V. COMCAST CORP, et al (DMS)
Jul 18, 2024 |
FCS057491
FCS057491
Motion by Plaintiff to Consolidate
TENTATIVE RULING
As acknowledged in both oppositions filed to this motion, both of which quoted the
statute, C.C.P. §403 authorizes a judge to order a case from another court to be
transferred to that judge’s court for coordination and consolidation for trial.
Once cases are in the same court, that court has discretion under C.C.P. §1048 to
consolidate them, for all purposes, or for limited purposes, either for pre-trial only, or
trial only.
Among the factors the court should consider on a consolidation motion are timeliness
of the motion, whether consolidation would cause juror confusion, and whether
consolidation would cause any party prejudice. Edmon & Karnow (Weil & Brown), Civil
Procedure Before Trial, §12:362, p. 12(I)-70.
While this motion is far from timely, no trial has yet been set in either case, and
therefore no discovery completion deadlines have passed.
Furthermore, if trial is not consolidated, there is a significant risk of inconsistent trier of
fact findings on the common issue of proportionate liability when the same plaintiff is
alleging similar injuries from different motor vehicle accidents occurring three months
apart.
Ruling
STARGARDT vs O'NEILL
Jul 16, 2024 |
CVPS2305945
Demurrer to First Amended Cross-
CVPS2305945 STARGARDT vs O'NEILL
Complaint
Tentative Ruling: Overruled.
Plaintiff/Cross Defendant to file their answer to 1st Amended Cross Complaint within 20 days of this
order becoming final.
Defendant/Cross Complainant to provide notice pursuant to CCP § 1019.5.
Plaintiff Scott Stargardt (“Stargardt”) alleges Defendant Helen O’Neill (“O’Neill”) owns a mobile home
located at 74711 Dillon Road, Space 416 in Desert Hot Springs, which Stargardt rented. Stargardt
alleges there were various problems at the property which O’Neill did not resolve and instead turned
off utilities.
On December 7, 2023, Stargardt filed this action. On May 22, 2024, Stargardt filed his operative First
Amended Complaint alleging ten (10) causes of action: 1) Unfair & Unlawful Business Practices
(Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200); 2) Wrongful interruption of a utility service (Civ. Code, §
789.3); 3) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment (Civ. Code, § 1297); 4) Breach of Warranty of
Habitability Pertaining to Interior Maintenance (Civ. Code, § 1941.1); 5) Breach of Warranty of
Habitability pertaining to Exterior Maintenance (Civ. Code, § 1941.1); 6) Negligence; 7) Intentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress; 8) Nuisance; 9) fraud, deceit, misrepresentation; and 10) unjust
enrichment.
On April 25, 2024, O’Neill filed her operative First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FAXC”) alleging three
(3) causes of action: 1) fraud, deceit and misrepresentation; 2) breach of contract; and 3) elder abuse.
Stargardt now demurs to each cause of action on the ground it fails to state facts sufficient to
constitute a defense and is uncertain. (C.C.P., § 430.10(e), (f).) Stargardt states his motion is timely
and he gave proper notice and met and conferred in good faith. Stargardt argues O’Neill has not
alleged sufficient facts to state any claim and the elder abuse claim is untimely under the two-year
statute of limitations of C.C.P., § 335.1.
No demurrer opposition filed.
Demurrer
In evaluating a demurrer, the court gives the pleading a reasonable interpretation by reading it as a
whole and all of its parts in their context. (Moore v. Regents of University of California (1990) 51
Cal.3d 120, 125). The court assumes the truth of all material facts which have been properly pleaded,
of facts which may be inferred from those expressly pleaded, and of any material facts of which
judicial notice has been requested and may be taken. (Crowley v. Katleman (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 666,
672).
1st Cause of Action – Fraud
The elements of an action for fraud and deceit based on concealment are: (1) the defendant
concealed a material fact; (2) the defendant had a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff; (3) the
defendant intentionally concealed the fact with intent to defraud; (4) the plaintiff was unaware of the
fact and would not have acted had she or he had knowledge of the concealed fact; and (5) the plaintiff
sustained damages as a result of the concealment. (Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF Downtown
Sunnyvale, LLC (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 858, 868.) A defendant does not have to owe the plaintiff a
fiduciary duty in order to be liable for fraudulent concealment. (Warner Const. Corp. v. L.A. (1970) 2
Cal.3d 285, 294.) When a fiduciary duty does not exist, a claim for fraudulent concealment can arise
in three instances: “(1) the defendant makes representations but does not disclose facts which
materially qualify the facts disclosed, or which render his disclosure likely to mislead; (2) the facts are
known or accessible only to defendant, and defendant knowns they are not known to or reasonably
discoverable by the plaintiff; and (3) the defendant actively conceals discovery from the plaintiff.” Id.
Where the defendant has exclusive knowledge, the duty to disclose may arise from a transactional
relationship between the parties. (LiMandri v. Judkins (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 328, 336-337.)
Although fraud claims required a heightened pleading standard, it is not practical to allege facts
showing how, when and by what means something did not happen. (Alfaro v. Community Housing
Improvement System Planning Assn. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384.) However, if the
concealment is based on providing false or incomplete statements, the pleading must at least set forth
the substance of the statements at issue. (Id.) Additionally, the specificity requirement of fraud is
“relaxed when it is apparent from the allegations that the defendant necessarily possesses knowledge
of the facts.” (Quelimane Co. v. Steward Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 27.)
Stargardt contends that this cause of action fails because of lack of specificity. However, O’Neill has
sufficiently alleged Stargardt failed to disclose his dogs were not well-behaved and would attack and
used said information to induce O’Neill to lease her property to him. These allegations are sufficient.
Any other information would be more within Stargardt’s knowledge than O’Neill’s which would allow
for the relaxing of the specificity requirements for fraud. (Quelimane Co., supra, 19 Cal.4th at 27.)
OVERRULED.
2nd Cause of Action – Breach of Contract
“The elements of breach of contract are ‘(1) the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for
nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damages to plaintiff.’” (Kumaraperu v.
Feldsted (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 60, 70 [quoting Careau & Co. v. Sec. Pac. Business Credit, Inc.
(1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1388].) “If the action is based on alleged breach of a written contract,
the terms must be set out verbatim in the body of the complaint or a copy of the written agreement
must be attached and incorporated by reference.” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74
Cal.App.4th 299, 307.) O’Neill has sufficiently alleged the terms of the contract. OVERRULED.
3rd Cause of Action – Elder Abuse
Abuse of an elder or a dependent adult means any of the following: (a) physical abuse, neglect,
financial abuse, abandonment, isolation, abduction, or other treatment with resulting physical harm or
pain or mental suffering. (b) The deprivation by a care custodian of goods or services that are
necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering. (c) Financial Abuse….” (Welf. & Inst. §
15610.07.) Section 15610.30 provides in pertinent part:
(a) “Financial abuse” of an elder or dependent adult occurs when a person or entity does any
of the following:
(1) Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property of an elder or
dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both.
(2) Assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining real or personal property
of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both.
(3) Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains, or assists in taking, secreting,
appropriating, obtaining, or retaining, real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult
by undue influence, as defined in Section 15610.70.
(b) A person or entity shall be deemed to have taken, secreted, appropriated, obtained, or
retained property for a wrongful use if, among other things, the person or entity takes,
secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains the property and the person or entity knew or should
have known that this conduct is likely to be harmful to the elder or dependent adult.
(c) For purposes of this section, a person or entity takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or
retains real or personal property when an elder or dependent adult is deprived of any property
right, including by means of an agreement, donative transfer, or testamentary bequest,
regardless of whether the property is held directly or by a representative of an elder or
dependent adult.
Here, O’Neill has alleged a variety of actions by Stargardt, including that he has rekeyed the home,
installed a wall to prevent access, and refused O’Neill any access. (FAXC,¶ 34.) This is sufficient to
constitute a taking or appropriation of her property depriving her of any property right. OVERRULED.
Ruling
ENRIGHT vs SUTTER BAY HOSPITALS DBA ALTA BATES SUMMIT MEDICAL...
Jul 18, 2024 |
Civil Unlimited (Civil Rights/Discrimination) |
22CV007747
22CV007747: ENRIGHT vs SUTTER BAY HOSPITALS DBA ALTA BATES SUMMIT
MEDICAL CENTER, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.
07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") filed by
ELIZABETH ENRIGHT (Plaintiff) in Department 20
Tentative Ruling - 07/15/2024 Karin Schwartz
The Motion to Compel the Deposition of Daniel Baer is DROPPED because no motion is on file.
Plaintiff filed an ex parte application but did not file a motion. The Court's intention, when it
granted the ex parte on 7/8/24, was to advance the hearing date on an already filed and scheduled
motion. However, it appears that no motion with respect to Daniel Baer had been filed (i.e., only
the ex parte).
Separately, the Court, through a misunderstanding, advanced the hearing date on a separately
pending motion to compel (i.e., CCP 1987 notice) to 7/18/24. However, per the Court's order of
7/12/24, any matters relating to that motion will be heard at the pretrial on 8/2/24. Accordingly,
the Court is continuing the hearing on this motion, which the Court inadvertently advanced to
7/18/24, to the date before the the pretrial, which is an ordinary law and motion day for the
Court.
The Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") filed by ELIZABETH
ENRIGHT (Plaintiff) scheduled for 07/18/2024 is continued to 08/01/2024 at 03:00 PM in
Department 20 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse .
If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the
Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.
HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?
THROUGH ECOURT
Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the
scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps:
1. Log into eCourt Public Portal
2. Case Search
3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search”
4. Select the Case Name
5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab
6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling”
7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting
8. Select “Proceed”
BY EMAIL
Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one
court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations
to counsel to appear remotely.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
22CV007747: ENRIGHT vs SUTTER BAY HOSPITALS DBA ALTA BATES SUMMIT
MEDICAL CENTER, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.
07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") filed by
ELIZABETH ENRIGHT (Plaintiff) in Department 20
BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.
Ruling
Daniel Perez vs. Eleno Arreola
Jul 10, 2024 |
C22-01568
C22-01568
CASE NAME: DANIEL PEREZ VS. ELENO ARREOLA
*HEARING ON MOTION FOR DISCOVERY FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY
FILED BY: PEREZ, DANIEL
*TENTATIVE RULING:*
Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to discovery filed on April 3, 2024, is granted. The request for
sanction is denied as to this motion.
On August 9, 2020, plaintiff Daniel Perez was walking past the defendant’s house with his two Huskies
on leash. A pit bull in the front yard of the residence broke free and attacked the plaintiff and he
sustained injuries. The plaintiff propounded Form and Special Interrogatories on the defendant on
December 27, 2023. No responses to either had been served within the thirty days specified under
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.260, and, indeed, none had been served by the date the motion
was filed.
The plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses is granted. The request for monetary sanctions
is denied as to this motion.
Ruling
Patricia F. vs. Westcare California, Inc.
Jul 18, 2024 |
24CECG00632
Re: Patricia F. v. Westcare California, Inc.
Superior Court Case No. 24CECG00632
Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 (Dept. 503)
Motion: Defendants Westcare California, Inc. and Westcare
Foundation, Inc.’s Demurrer to the Complaint
Tentative Ruling:
To overrule. Demurring defendants shall file their responsive pleadings within ten
(10) days from the date of this order.
Explanation:
A demurrer challenges defects apparent from the face of the complaint and
matters subject to judicial notice. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 30 Cal.3d 311, 318.) A general
demurrer is sustained where the pleading is insufficient to state a cause of action or is
incomplete. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Estate of Moss (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th
521, 535.) In considering a demurrer, the court assumes the truth of the facts properly
plead. (Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. DIst. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 508, 517; Serrano v.
Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.)
Demurring defendants contend plaintiff’s first cause of action for negligence is
insufficiently plead because demurring defendants owed plaintiff no duty under the
auspices of Beauchene v. Synanon Foundation, Inc.(1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 342, 348
(Beauchene). Beauchene involved a convicted person’s “eloping” from a private
rehabilitation institution and subsequent “‘crime spree.’” (Id. at p. 345.) In particular, the
First District considered a negligence claim brought by a victim shot in the arm by the
defendant 13 days after he left the program. (Ibid.)
Beauchene and its progeny have consistently held that private rehabilitation
institutions do not owe a duty to the general public for the injurious acts of escaped
residents because to do so would “detrimental[ly] effect prisoner release and
rehabilitation programs.” (Beauchene, supra, 88 Cal.App.3d at p. 348; accord, Rice v.
Center Point, Inc. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 949, 956; Cardenas v. Eggleston Youth Center
(1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 331, 335-336.) In essence, the same policy underlying absolute
immunity for public entities in relation to escaped prisoners, escaped persons, or persons
resisting arrest (Gov. Code, § 845.8), also applies to private institutions. (Beauchene,
supra, 88 Cal.App.3d at p. 348.)
However, unlike the acts by an escapee in Beauchene, plaintiff here alleges injury
by an adjoining resident who shared a bathroom with plaintiff. (Complaint, ¶ 15.) The
absence of door locks or other security devices between the adjoining rooms allowed
the alleged perpetrator undetected access to plaintiff and an opportunity to commit
the alleged assault. (Id. at ¶¶ 22 - 24.) Demurring defendants rely on Beauchene and its
progeny, yet, offer no authority applying that reasoning to assaults by co-residents.
Plaintiff, on the other hand, notes the settled principle that, in relation to harm committed
by co-prisoners, “there is a special relationship between jailer and prisoner which imposes
a duty of care on the jailer on the prisoner.” (Giraldo v. Department of Corrections &
Rehabilitation (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 231, 252-253.)
Considering plaintiff’s allegation that she was harmed by a co-resident, not an
escapee, demurring defendants’ contention that a duty does not exist does not appear
supported by their asserted authorities. Furthermore, plaintiff’s allegations (which must
be accepted as true) tend to show unrestricted and undetected access between
adjoining residents such that the alleged assault could reasonably be found to be
foreseeable. (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (1976) 17 Cal.3d 425, 434-435
[“The most important of [the] considerations in establishing duty is forseeability.”].)
Therefore, the demurrer is overruled.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure
section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order
adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk
will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: __ jyh on 7/10/24 .
(Judge’s initials) (Date)
Ruling
WILLIAMS vs MODIVCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al.
Jul 18, 2024 |
Civil Unlimited (Motor Vehicle - Personal Inju...) |
23CV034015
23CV034015: WILLIAMS vs MODIVCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al.
07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") filed by
Modivcare Solutions, LLC (Defendant) in Department 17
Tentative Ruling - 07/16/2024 Frank Roesch
The Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion filed by
Modivcare Solutions, LLC on 06/12/2024 is Granted.
Defendant Modivcare Solutions, LLC’s (“Defendant”) Unopposed Motion to Compel Discovery
Responses from Plaintiff Gale Williams (“Plaintiff”) is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§
2030.290, subd. (a); 2031.300, subds. (a); (b).)
Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified code-compliant discovery responses to Form Interrogatories
(Set One) and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) without objections on Defendant
within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order.
As this motion was unopposed, no sanctions are issued.
If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the
Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.
HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?
THROUGH ECOURT
Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the
scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps:
1. Log into eCourt Public Portal
2. Case Search
3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search”
4. Select the Case Name
5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab
6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling”
7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting
8. Select “Proceed”
BY EMAIL
Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one
court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations
to counsel to appear remotely.
BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.
Ruling
SASCHA LYNCH VS GERSON JACTON MORENO
Jul 18, 2024 |
20STCV47990
Case Number:
20STCV47990
Hearing Date:
July 18, 2024
Dept:
68
Dept. 68
Date: 7-18-24
Case 20STCV47990
Trial Date: N/A
REOPEN DISCOVERY
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Sascha Lynch, pro per
RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Defendant, Gerson Moreno
RELIEF REQUESTED
Motion to Reopen Discovery
SUMMARY OF ACTION
On January 2, 2019, plaintiff Sascha Lynch was involved in an automobile collision with defendant Gerson Jacton Moreno (Defendant) on the northbound 110 Freeway in Los Angeles. On December 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint against for motor vehicle negligence.
On January 18, 2024, the court vacated the March 25, 2024, trial date. On February 21, 2024, the court dismissed the case at the request of Plaintiff Sascha Lynch without prejudice. The court also retained jurisdiction to make orders to enforce any and all terms of settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
RULING
: Moot/Off-Calendar.
Request for Judicial Notice: Denied.
Plaintiff Sascha Lynch moves for the court to reopen discovery in order for Plaintiff to verify the accuracy of the responses to discovery from respondent, defendant
Gerson Jacton Moreno aka Gerson Jacton Moreno Garcia.
The entire action was dismissed on February 21, 2024. While the motion was filed after the dismissal, the court finds nothing in the motion supporting a basis for relief given the dismissal of the entire action, or even a threshold argument for an arguable enforcement of the settlement agreement. The court declines to address the extensive arguments in the motion, opposition, and reply given the lack of address of the dismissal itself under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6
The motion is therefore moot and taken off-calendar.
Plaintiff to provide notice.
Ruling
ARACELI SANCHEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL VS ALICIA RIVERA, AN INDIVIDUAL
Jul 16, 2024 |
19STCV34893
Case Number:
19STCV34893
Hearing Date:
July 16, 2024
Dept:
B
Araceli sanchez V. alicia rivera
motion to Compel Discovery (x2)
Date of Hearing:
July 16, 2024
Trial Date:
July 23, 2023
Department:
B
Case No.:
19STCV34893
Moving Party:
Defendant Alicia Rivera
Responding Party:
None
BACKGROUND
On October 1, 2019, Plaintiff, Araceli Sanchez (Plaintiff), filed this action against Defendant, Alicia Rivera (Defendant) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.
Defendant now moves for the Court to compel Plaintiff to provide responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set Five) and Special Interrogatories (Set Three). In connection with each motion, Defendant requests the Court to impose $3,288 in monetary sanction against Plaintiff and/or her counsel of record. Defendant also requests the Court to impose evidentiary and issue sanctions.
Trial is set for July 23, 2024.
[Tentative] Ruling
As a preliminary matter, the court finds that the instant motions are untimely. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2024.020, 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. In this instance, trial is set for July 23, 2024. Therefore, any motion concerning discovery had to have been heard on or before July 8, 2024.
Defendant could have either sought to have the instant motions advanced or permitted to be heard closer to trial pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2024.050, but Defendant chose to do neither. Accordingly, because the instant motions are untimely, the motions are denied.
Moving party to give notice.