MARIA CLAUDIA HERNANDEZ vs LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

justified. (Id.) (See Ponte v County of Calaveras (2017) 14 CA5th 551, 560 [finding that no reasonable attorney would have thought the plaintiff's claims were legally tenable; therefore, a CCP Sec. 1038(a) award of costs to the defendant that prevailed on summary judgment was appropriate.]) Here, Coyle's negligence and negligence per se causes of action against City require compliance with the Government Tort Claims Act, as City is a public entity. Accordingly, section 1038 is applicable to this action.

City has filed a motion for summary judgment against Coyle. City contends that "During the course of this litigation, Defendants have discovered evidence that informs them that Plaintiff was 100% at fault; and therefore, Defendants bring this Cross-Complaint." (Cross-Complaint, P. 8). City states in its Motion for Summary Judgment that Coyle's total fault "is based on (1) the clear evidence of damage to the vehicles, showing exactly which vehicle crashed into the other; (2) Plaintiff's own testimony during her deposition; and (3) Plaintiff's medical record." (Defs.'

MSJ, p. 1). Therefore, City has sufficiently demonstrated at the demurrer stage that Coyle may have lacked either good faith or reasonable cause in bringing and maintaining the action, and thus City is entitled to attorney's fees. Accordingly, the motion to strike the prayer for attorney's fees is DENIED.

vs LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Case No.

This personal injury case was filed on December 24, 2024. Defendant LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY applies ex parte to continue trial, currently scheduled for September 22, 2026 to May 27, 2027 on the grounds that neither Plaintiff's deposition nor Defendant's deposition has been completed. In addition, the Defendant may need to conduct an IME and the parties may wish to explore mediation. The Court is concerned that the parties have not acted with due diligence. The case is now one year and 8 months old, and it appears only the initial set of discovery has been completed. Before the Court calls the ex parte hearing, the parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding deposition dates. Once the parties have stipulated to dates, the Court will consider the request to continue trial. Moving party to give notice. | Home -->)" -->