Plaintiff's Motion for Order Deeming Requests for Admission to Diamond Truck Sales Admitted and for Monetary Sanctions
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:
CV-25-002490 - ROMERO, ROGER vs SCROGGINS, JAMES EDWARD JR - Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication by Defendants Flowtek Plumbing, Inc. and James Edward Scroggins Jr - GRANTED.
The Court finds that Defendants, as the moving parties, have met the initial burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment on Plaintiff's claim herein, on the grounds that Plaintiff is limited to the worker's compensation system to address his alleged injuries in this instance. The burden then shifts to Plaintiff to submit admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of a material factual dispute preventing judgment for Defendant as a matter of law. Plaintiff has failed to meet this burden in that he has failed to submit admissible evidence creating a material factual dispute on the issue of whether Plaintiff was injured while in the course and scope of his employment, thus limiting his opportunities for redress to the worker's compensation system.
Therefore, the Court finds that the undisputed facts dictate a conclusion that the subject accident occurred within the parameters of the incidental benefit exception. (See, e.g. Hinojosa v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 150; Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Department of Transportation (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 87; Lazar v. Thermal Equipment Corp. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 458.)
Defendants' objections to Plaintiff's evidence are SUSTAINED on the grounds stated. In addition, Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice is DENIED.
CV-25-007838 - ALVARAZ, CRISTAL vs DIAMOND TRUCK SALES - Plaintiff's Motion for Order Deeming Requests for Admission to Diamond Truck Sales Admitted and for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED, and unopposed.
The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(a).) Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Plaintiff's request. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(c); St. Mary's v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4 th 762, 777-778.). The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The Court further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 2033.280(c), 2023.010, 2030.030 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $410 are awarded against Defendant Diamond Truck Sales and its counsel, Gulomjon Azimov, payable to Plaintiff's counsel.
CV-24-003550 - MARCHIANDO, LORI vs RULER, REONA VAN - Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint - GRANTED.
Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated grounds for the proposed amendment. The Court has broad discretion in this area and there is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 473(a)(1), 576.) Plaintiff shall submit the Second Amended Complaint for filing within 10 days. Plaintiff shall submit a revised form of order consistent with the Court's ruling herein.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:
CV-24-006691 - PROTO PARTNERSHIP vs AVALOS, ARNOLDO - Defendant's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - GRANTED
The Court finds Defendants' counsel, Jakrun S. Sodhi's motion to be relieved as counsel of record complies with the procedural requirements of rule 3.1362, including use of the required Judicial Council forms and submission of a supporting declaration. The Court further finds that proof of service and notice to the clients were sufficient under the circumstances. Counsel has demonstrated reasonable diligence in attempting to notify Defendants, including service at last known addresses and multiple additional efforts to contact them when direct communication failed.
The Court also finds good cause for withdrawal. Counsel has shown a complete breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, including Defendants' failure to respond to repeated communications and failure to cooperate in preparing the case for trial. These circumstances make continued representation unreasonably difficult.