Related Contentin Bristol County
Case
Brown, Jill K. vs. Paul, Stuart A.
Aug 29, 2024 |Torts |Motor Vehicle Negligence - Personal Injury / Property Damage |2473CV00600
Case
Casale, Ana Maria vs. Jennings, John et al
Aug 23, 2024 |Torts |Motor Vehicle Negligence - Personal Injury / Property Damage |2473CV00583
Case
Burkett, Karla vs. Lewis, Kristine
Aug 28, 2024 |Torts |Motor Vehicle Negligence - Personal Injury / Property Damage |2473CV00596
Case
Lassiter, Jillian vs. CVS Pharmacy, Inc
Aug 26, 2024 |Torts |Other Negligence - Personal Injury / Property Damage |2473CV00589
Case
Costa, Natalie M. et al vs. Jesse P. Rodrigues Individually and as trustee for Rodrigues Irrevocable Trust
Aug 27, 2024 |Torts |Other Tortious Action |2473CV00591
Case
Taunton Municipal Lighting Plant vs. Almeida, Jason M
Aug 27, 2024 |Torts |Motor Vehicle Negligence - Personal Injury / Property Damage |2473CV00592
Case
Alejandra D'Anjou As Parent and Next Friend Carter D'Anjou vs. The Town of Mansfield
Aug 29, 2024 |Torts |Other Negligence - Personal Injury / Property Damage |2473CV00599
Case
Goldrick, Daniel vs. Sweeney, III, Jerome et al
Aug 26, 2024 |Torts |Malpractice - Other |2473CV00586
Case
Bragg, Jacinda vs. Lepage And Sons Roofing, LLC et al
Aug 27, 2024 |Torts |Motor Vehicle Negligence - Personal Injury / Property Damage |2473CV00593
Ruling
JANE HODGES, SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF ESTATE OF ROSE MARY OLLISON, ET AL. VS ZEV BROOKS, ET AL.
Aug 27, 2024 |22NWCV00741
Case Number: 22NWCV00741 Hearing Date: August 27, 2024 Dept: C Jane Hodges, Special Administrator of Estate of Rose Mary Ollison, et al. vs Zev Brooks, et al. Case No.: 22NWCV00741 Hearing Date: August 27, 2024 @ 9:30 a.m. #2 Tentative Ruling Defendants Zev Brooks and the Law Offices of Zev Brookss Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, is GRANTED. Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Counsel, jointly and severally, in the requested amount of $861.65, payable within 60 days. Defendants to give notice. Background This is an action for legal malpractice brought by Plaintiff Jane Hodges (Plaintiff") in her capacity as Trustee and Special Administrator of the estate of her mother, Rose Mary Ollison (Decedent), who died on or about December 20, 2020. Defendants Zev Brooks and the Law Offices of Zev Brooks (Defendants) move for an order compelling responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two. On January 8, 2024, Defendants served Form Interrogatories, Set Two, upon Plaintiffs counsel. (Strid Decl., June 11, 2024, ¶ 2.) No responses were received as of June 11, 2024, the date the motion was filed. (Id., ¶ 4.) As of August 21, 2024, the motion is unopposed. Legal Standard The party upon whom a request for initial responses is propounded is required to respond within 30 days after service of a demand, but the parties are allowed to informally agree to an extension and confirm any such agreement in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.060, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.070, subd. (a) - (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.070, subd. (a) - (b).) If a party fails to timely respond to a request for production or interrogatories, the party to whom the request is directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230, and waives any objection, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) The party who propounded the discovery request may bring a motion to compel and the court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for production of documents or interrogatories, unless the court 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., § 2031.300, subd. (c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) Discussion Defendants initially served Form Interrogatories, Set Two, upon Plaintiff on January 8, 2024. (Strid Decl., ¶ 3.) Defense Counsel contends that multiple attempts were made to obtain the discovery, however no discovery has been produced as of the filing date of the instant motion. (Strid Decl., ¶ 7.) As the motion is unopposed, Plaintiffs are ordered to respond to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, without objection, including objections based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (CCP § 2030.290, subd. (a).) For interrogatories, the failure to respond also waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230. Accordingly, Defendants Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, is GRANTED. Sanctions To the extent authorized by this chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose [sanctions] against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process & (CCP §2023.030.) Failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery and disobeying a court order to provide discovery are both misuses of the discovery process. (CCP §§2023.010 (d) and (g).) Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiffs and Counsel, jointly and severally, in the requested amount of $861.65, payable within 60 days.
Ruling
SANCHEZ SCOMA VS. PIT RIVER CASINO, ET AL.
Aug 29, 2024 |CVCV20-0196121
SANCHEZ SCOMA VS. PIT RIVER CASINO, ET AL.Case Number: CVCV20-0196121This matter is on calendar for review regarding status and trial setting. The Court notes that thedefault judgment against Mike Avelar on July 22, 2024, was improperly entered (no proof ofservice of summons was on file) and the default was therefore vacated. Additionally, the SecondAmended Complaint was filed without leave of Court and was therefore stricken. This matter isnot at issue. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to provide the Court with astatus of pleadings and service.
Ruling
Devin Walker vs MP Xpress
Aug 27, 2024 |21CECG02036
Re: Devin Walker v. MP Xpress Superior Court Case No. 21CECG02036Hearing Date: August 27, 2024 (Dept. 502)Motion: by Defendants to Compel ComplianceTentative Ruling: To deny.Explanation: On August 24, 2023, defendants issued a deposition subpoena for the productionof business records to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs seeking medical recordspertaining to plaintiff. (Manukyan Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.) The date for production specified onthe subpoena was September 26, 2023. No objection to the production was served byplaintiff and no motion to quash the subpoena was filed in response to the subpoena.(Ibid.) No records were produced by non-party deponent in response to the subpoenaby the production deadline based on its assertion a HIPPA Authorization Form be signedby plaintiff in order to release the records. (Id. at ¶ 4.) On November 21, 2023, defendantsissued a non-compliance letter to the deponent advising that a HIPPA authorization Formis not required for the production of records in response to the subpoena at issue.Defendants no seek an order to compel compliance with the August 24, 2023 depositionsubpoena of business records. “[D]iscovery from a nonparty may be obtained only by ‘deposition subpoena.’”(Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 123, 130; Code Civ. Proc. §2025.010, subd. (b).) Failure to produce the specified documents is the subject of amotion to compel. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480, subd. (a); see also Kramer v. SuperiorCourt (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 753, 755, fn. 2.) Any motion to compel compliance with a deposition subpoena must be madewithin 60 days of the completion of the deposition record. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480,subd. (b).) This deadline applies to nonparty deposition subpoenas of business records.(Bd. of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1011, 1030-1031.) Thedeposition record is deemed complete on the date set for production by the lack ofresponse to the subpoena. As discussed in Board of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court: The nonparty discovery statutes establish a one-step process for a nonparty responding to a business records subpoena. Upon receipt of the subpoena, a nonparty must make the production on the date and in the manner specified, unless grounds exist to object or disregard the subpoena. The nonparty’s compliance with the subpoena is clear on the date specified for production. It has either produced documents as requested in the subpoena, or not. On that date, the subpoenaing party has all the information it needs to meet and confer regarding the nonparty’s compliance and, if unsatisfied, prepare a motion to compel. This one-step process minimizes the burden on the nonparty. It may comply (or not) with the subpoena, and it can be confident that its obligations under the subpoena will be swiftly addressed and adjudicated. The one-step process also reflects the reality that the discovery demanded from a nonparty will generally be more limited, and consequently less subject to lengthy dispute, than discovery demanded from a party. (Id. at p. 1033.) Here, the deposition notice set September 26, 2023 as the date to comply. Thepresent motion to compel was filed August 1, 2024. Accordingly, the motion is untimely,and therefore denied. (Board of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court, supra, 59Cal.App.5th at pp. 1034-1035, and fn. 5.) With respect to the signed HIPAA authorization requested by defendants, themedical records sought are relevant to the damages alleged by plaintiff and arediscoverable. In the event plaintiff does not agree to authorize the release of the recordsin the custody of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and allow discovery of hisrelevant past medical history, the court will not allow plaintiff to present evidence ofmedical damages at trial. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Proceduresection 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute orderadopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerkwill constitute notice of the order.Tentative RulingIssued By: KCK on 08/26/24 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)
Ruling
ANGELA TATE VS WOLFGANG PUCK ENTERPRISES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
Aug 27, 2024 |Renee C. Reyna |22STCV23934
Case Number: 22STCV23934 Hearing Date: August 27, 2024 Dept: 29 The hearing is continued for approximately 14 days pending potential transfer.Moving party to give notice.
Ruling
MANUEL DESILVEIRA, ET AL. VS MARISCOS BAHIA, INC., ET AL.
Aug 29, 2024 |23STCV04278
Case Number: 23STCV04278 Hearing Date: August 29, 2024 Dept: 1 23STCV04278 MANUEL DESILVEIRA, et al. vs MARISCOS BAHIA, INC., et al. Defendant Mariscos Bahias Motion for Order to Relate Cases TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Mariscos Bahias Motion for Order to Relate Cases is GRANTED. Department 1 relates 23STCV04278 and 24STCV03147. Both cases are currently pending in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse and no reassignment is required. Counsel for the moving Defendant to give notice. Background of 23STCV04278 DeSilveira v. Mariscos Bahia On February 27, 2023, Plaintiffs Manuel DeSilveira and Gorete DeSilveira filed this action against Mariscos Bahia, Inc. and Rene Miguel Carillo arising out of motor vehicle incident that occurred on February 24, 2022 at Finch Road, 132 feet west of Codoni Avenue, in unincorporated Stanislaus County, California. The complaint asserted claims for motor vehicle negligence and loss of consortium. On September 29, 2023, Plaintiffs added Mariscos Bahia (Phoenix), Inc. as a defendant. On January 25, 2024, the court entered a request for dismissal as to Plaintiff Gorete DeSilveira. On April 2, 2024, Judge Lynne M. Hobbs issued an order finding 23STCV04278 and 24STCV03147 Bledsoe v. Mariscos Bahia were related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300. On April 23, 2024, Judge Hobbs issued an order finding the cases were not related. On April 24, 2024, the court granted the Modesto Irrigation Districts motion for leave to intervene. The complaint in intervention, filed on April 25, 2024, seeks reimbursem*nt for workers compensation benefits paid to Plaintiff. This case is currently pending in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse with trial set for January 27, 2025. Background of 24STCV03147 Bledsoe v. Mariscos Bahia, Inc. On February 7, 2024, Plaintiffs Paul Bledsoe, Justing Smith, Courtney Smith, and Leonard Mitchell filed this action against Mariscos Bahia, Inc., Mariscos Bahia (Phoenix), Inc. and Rene Miguel Carillo arising out of motor vehicle incident that occurred on February 24, 2022 at Finch Road, 132 feet west of Codoni Avenue, in unincorporated Stanislaus County, California. The complaint asserted causes of action for motor vehicle negligence, general negligence, and loss of consortium. This case is currently pending in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse with the next hearing set for September 6, 2024. Motion to Relate Cases Standard In the event that the pertinent judge under California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1) does not relate any of the cases set forth in a Notice of Related Case, Department 1 may relate the matters on noticed motion. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D); LASC Local Rules, rule 3.3(f)(3).) Discussion As an initial matter, the Court notes the relief sought in Defendants motion, to relate 23STCV04278 and 24STCV03147, is largely moot as a practical matter. The effect of relating two cases is to place them both in the same department before the same judicial officer. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(A).) Here, both cases are already pending in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse before Judge Steven A. Ellis. In opposition, Plaintiff DeSilveira argues the motion is procedurally defective citing Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. (Opp. at 1:19-2:5.) However, this statute does not apply here. Defendants motion is expressly authorized by California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1)(D) and LASC Local Rules, rule 3.3(f)(3) and therefore is not constrained by the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. On April 23, 2024, Judge Hobbs issued an order finding the cases were not related. Accordingly, Defendants motion is properly made in Department 1. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D), LASC Local Rule 3.3(f)(3).) Cases are related when they (1) involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims, (2) arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact, (3) involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property, or (4) are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a).) As seen above, the cases do not involve the same parties as the Plaintiffs are different in each case. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(1).) The cases also do not assert property claims and therefore do not involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(3).) However, the cases arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact, (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(2)), and are likely to require a substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(4).) Both cases arise out of the same motor vehicle incident on February 22, 2024 near the intersection of Finch Road and Codoni Avenue, in an unincorporated area of Stanislaus County. Thus, the cases will require the determination of identical questions of law and fact regarding the incident and its cause as well as any potential discovery disputes and pretrial motions. Having a single judicial officer preside over both cases promotes judicial economy. Department 1 finds the cases are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300. The motion is GRANTED.
Ruling
Mahogany Lamay vs Stonehaven Mannor, LLC., A California Limited Liability Company
Aug 26, 2024 |STK-CV-UNPI-2022-0005213
TENTATIVE RULING NOTICE Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing. Any party wishing to contest or argue the tentative ruling must email the court at civilcourtclerks@sjcourts.org. that they intend to appear remotely no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. The Department and Case Number must be in the header of the email. The email must include the Department, Case number, Case Name, Motion, party’s name and email, date and time of the hearing, issues they plan to argue, and that they have informed the opposing party. The party must also notify affected counsel, or unrepresented parties, that they intend to appear, no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. Unless the Court and opposing counsel have been notified, the tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the Court without oral argument. To attend the remote hearing with Judge Kronlund in Dept. 10-D: Call into (209) 992-5590, then follow the prompts and use the Bridge # and Pin # as follows: Bridge # 6940 Pin # 3782 Tentative Ruling Defendant Stonehaven Manor LLC's motion to compel deposition of Plaintiff Mahogany Lamay and for monetary sanctions is Granted. CCP Sections 2025.450, 2023.010. Defense Counsel has made reasonable efforts to meet and confer to secure reasonable deposition dates for Plaintiff Mahogany Lamay's deposition, with no corresponding effort shown by Plaintiff's Counsel. Plaintiff's Counsel's insistence on December 2024 deposition dates falling squarely within the holidays is patently unreasonable and demonstrates a lack of good faith. Court compels Plaintiff Mahogany Lamay to sit for deposition within 30 days of service of notice of the order on this ruling, to be noticed by Defendant Stonehaven Manor LLC. Monetary sanctions of $3,660.50 are imposed against Attorney Jacob O. Partiyeli, based on reasonable attorney's fee rates of $215-$255. Based on Mr. Partiyeli's conduct, the Court has no basis to decline the Defense request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff's Counsel. Barbara A. Kronlund
Ruling
Melissa Lanctot vs Santa Cruz County
Aug 27, 2024 |23CV02111
23CV02111LANCTOT v. SANTA CRUZ COUNTY CROS-DEFENDANT KRISTI ANDERSON’S MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT The motion for good faith settlement is granted. Page 1 of 8 Based on the pleadings, the settlement paid to plaintiff of $100,000 is within thereasonable range of the settling tortfeasor’s proportional share of comparative liability for thealleged damages. (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.) The court finds there is little proportionate fault on the part of settling defendantAnderson. The CHP report notes the collision occurred at approximately 3:15 pm on a clear, dry,sunny day and that the primary crash factor was Damian Lanctot’s violation of Vehicle Code §21460(a) when he was attempting to pass another vehicle (crossing into opposing lane overdouble yellow lines). (Pinelli Declaration, Ex. A.) While County argues that proportionateliability is unclear or disputed, Anderson was not ascribed any fault in the CHP investigation. Further, County’s contention that Lanctot and Anderson do not agree on liability orcausation according to Lanctot’s discovery responses is unsupported by that discovery. Instead,County’s Special Interrogatories did not seek information from Lanctot regarding the CHP report(Shaw Decl. Ex. 3) and Lanctot objected to County’s Requests for Admission regarding the CHPreport, but provided no substantive information indicating she believed Anderson to be at fault(Shaw Decl. Ex. 4).Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal orderincorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating thetentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, inaccordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if theprevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing (unless the tentative issimply to “grant”). Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition ofsanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.
Ruling
O'CAIN, JR. VS SHIELDS NURSING CENTER, INC.
Aug 23, 2024 |MSC22-00021
MSC22-00021CASE NAME: O'CAIN, JR. VS SHIELDS NURSING CENTER, INC.*HEARING ON MOTION FOR DISCOVERY TO COMPEL WILLIAM SHIELDS' RESPONSES TO OTIS L.OCAIN'S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONEFILED BY: O'CAIN, OTIS L.*TENTATIVE RULING:*Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to provide responses to requests for discovery is granted.Considering the Plaintiff’s declaration, the court orders sixty days to comply with this order.Defendant shall serve code-compliant, objection free, verified responses, along with responsivedocuments for the following: Defendant shall serve responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories –Set One, Special Interrogatories – Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents – Set One,.Defendant shall serve code-compliant, objection free, verified responses, along with responsivedocuments, no later than 60 days after service of this order.The court further orders monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure S. 2031.31 0(h)against Defendant in the amount of $4,500 in total ($1,500 per above referenced motion) to be paidby Defendant - William Shields to Plaintiff. Otis O’Cain’s attorney of record within 30 days of entry ofthis order.
Document
Alejandra D'Anjou As Parent and Next Friend Carter D'Anjou vs. The Town of Mansfield
Aug 29, 2024 |Torts |Other Negligence - Personal Injury / Property Damage |2473CV00599
Document
Costa, Natalie M. et al vs. Jesse P. Rodrigues Individually and as trustee for Rodrigues Irrevocable Trust
Aug 27, 2024 |Torts |Other Tortious Action |2473CV00591
Document
Lassiter, Jillian vs. CVS Pharmacy, Inc
Aug 26, 2024 |Torts |Other Negligence - Personal Injury / Property Damage |2473CV00589
Document
Taunton Municipal Lighting Plant vs. Almeida, Jason M
Aug 27, 2024 |Torts |Motor Vehicle Negligence - Personal Injury / Property Damage |2473CV00592
Document
Alejandra D'Anjou As Parent and Next Friend Carter D'Anjou vs. The Town of Mansfield
Aug 29, 2024 |Torts |Other Negligence - Personal Injury / Property Damage |2473CV00599
Document
Lassiter, Jillian vs. CVS Pharmacy, Inc
Aug 26, 2024 |Torts |Other Negligence - Personal Injury / Property Damage |2473CV00589
Document
Alejandra D'Anjou As Parent and Next Friend Carter D'Anjou vs. The Town of Mansfield
Aug 29, 2024 |Torts |Other Negligence - Personal Injury / Property Damage |2473CV00599
Document
Costa, Natalie M. et al vs. Jesse P. Rodrigues Individually and as trustee for Rodrigues Irrevocable Trust
Aug 27, 2024 |Torts |Other Tortious Action |2473CV00591
