DEFENDANTS SIMON MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES (TEXAS), L.L.C.’S AND HG SHOPPING CENTERS, L.P.’S DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES June 12, 2006 (2024)

DEFENDANTS SIMON MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES (TEXAS), L.L.C.’S AND HG SHOPPING CENTERS, L.P.’S DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES June 12, 2006 (1)

DEFENDANTS SIMON MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES (TEXAS), L.L.C.’S AND HG SHOPPING CENTERS, L.P.’S DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES June 12, 2006 (2)

  • DEFENDANTS SIMON MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES (TEXAS), L.L.C.’S AND HG SHOPPING CENTERS, L.P.’S DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES June 12, 2006 (3)
  • DEFENDANTS SIMON MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES (TEXAS), L.L.C.’S AND HG SHOPPING CENTERS, L.P.’S DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES June 12, 2006 (4)
  • DEFENDANTS SIMON MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES (TEXAS), L.L.C.’S AND HG SHOPPING CENTERS, L.P.’S DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES June 12, 2006 (5)
  • DEFENDANTS SIMON MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES (TEXAS), L.L.C.’S AND HG SHOPPING CENTERS, L.P.’S DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES June 12, 2006 (6)
  • DEFENDANTS SIMON MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES (TEXAS), L.L.C.’S AND HG SHOPPING CENTERS, L.P.’S DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES June 12, 2006 (7)
  • DEFENDANTS SIMON MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES (TEXAS), L.L.C.’S AND HG SHOPPING CENTERS, L.P.’S DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES June 12, 2006 (8)
  • DEFENDANTS SIMON MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES (TEXAS), L.L.C.’S AND HG SHOPPING CENTERS, L.P.’S DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES June 12, 2006 (9)
  • DEFENDANTS SIMON MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES (TEXAS), L.L.C.’S AND HG SHOPPING CENTERS, L.P.’S DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES June 12, 2006 (10)
 

Preview

an Pi CAUSE NO. 2005-09238 we Ny eg 232. “eySTEPHANIE RENEE SPRADLIN F/K/A INTHE DISTRICT CéSTEPHANIE JORDAN NURICK, O98 Ahn gly 7 Plaintiff,VS. 334™ JUDICIAL DISTRICTSTANDARD PARKING CORPORATION:SIMON MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES(TEXAS), L.L.C; FEDERAL APDINCORPORATED; HG SHOPPINGCENTERS,L.P. D/B/A “THE GALLERIA”:AND IPC INTERNATIONALCORPORATION, Defendants HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANTS SIMON MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES XAS), L.L.C.'S AND HG SHOPPING CENTERS, L.P.'S DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSESTO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COME NOW Defendants Simon Management Associates (Texas), L.L.C. and HG -Shopping Centers, L.P. (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Defendants"), defendants in theabove-entitled and numbered cause, and files this, their Designation of Expert Witnesses. I Jonathan Dora, M.D., P.A., FACS, 760 Scurlock Tower, 6560 Fannin, Houston, Texas77030, (713) 790-0024. Dr. Dora may testify regarding his opinions concerning causation of thePlaintiff's injuries, pre-existing conditions, observations regarding her treatment, documentationof her treatment, past treatment, need for future treatment as well as cost of treatment. Dr. Dora is expected to testify that, based on his review of the medical records created byPlaintiff's treating physicians, there was no contemporaneous reporting of any injury or damageDEFENDANTS SIMON MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES (TEXAS), L.L.C.'S AND Page 1 of 5HG SHOPPING CENTERS, L.P.'S DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES RECORDE! 1° isMEM ORANDUM of poor quality This instrument atthe time of imagingto the Plaintiff's breast implant(s) or the capsule(s) encasing the implant(s) as a result of themotorcycle incident in question. Dr. Dora is expected to testify that Plaintiff suffered from preexisting condition(s)involving her breast implants which were the same or substantially the same as the condition(s)which allegedly manifested themselves after the incident in question, particularly with respect tothe migration of the breast implants. The preexisting condition(s) had previously requiredrevision surgeries similar to those that have been attributed to this accident by Plaintiffs treatingphysician. Therefore, based upon the review of the Plaintiff's medical records and reasonablemedical probability, the breast implant revision surgeries performed on April 9, 2004 and July15, 2004 were not caused related to the motorcycle incident in question. Dr. Dora may testify regarding other issues that may arise during the course of discovery,and in rebuttal to the testimony of Plaintiffs treating physicians. A copy of Dr. Dora’scurriculum vitae is attached. The records reviewed by Dr. Dora are as follows: Medical Records from Dr. Abdel K. Fustok; Medical Records from Dr. Michael Buxbaum; Medical Records from Dr. Michael Ciaravino; Medical Records from Bellaire Hospital; Medical Records from First Street Surgical Center; Medical Records from Dr. Edward U. McReynolds; Bellaire Medical Center (including Dr. Manasa Merkel’s records); Pharmacy Records from Sam’s Club; Pharmacy Records from Walgreen’s General Offices, 10. Recorded statement of Albert Nurick; i Customer Incident Report; and 12. Xerox copies of three sets of photographs pertaining to Stephanie Nurick’s alleged injury.DEFENDANTS SIMON MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES (TEXAS), L.L.C.'S AND Page 2 of 5HG SHOPPING CENTERS, L.P.'S DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WIFNESSESI.Bellaire General Emergency and/or its custodian of records, 5314 Dashwood, Houston, Texas77081, (713) 512-1200, Plaintiff's healthcare provider.Austin O. Williams, M.D. and/or his custodian of records, Stat Care of Texas and/or its custodianof records, P.O. Box 1608, Grand Rapids, MI 49501, (800) 968-6866, Plaintiff's healthcareprovider.Manasa Merkel, M.D. and/or his custodian of records, P.O. Box 431669, Houston, Texas 77243,(713) 464-8749, Plaintiff's healthcare provider.Innovative Radiology, PA and/or its custodian of records, P.O. Box 4346, Dept. 486, Houston,Texas 77210, (713) 331-1850, Plaintiff's healthcare provider.Michael Buxbaum, M.D. and/or his custodian of records, 7545 S. Braeswood Blvd., Houston,Texas 77071, (713) 777-3131, Plaintiffs healthcare provider.Abdel K. Fustok, M.D. and/or his custodian of records, 2060 Space Park Dr., Houston, Texas77058, (713) 621-2950, Plaintiff's healthcare provider.First Street Surgical and/or its custodian of records, 411 S. First Street, Bellaire, Texas 77401,(713) 665-1111, Plaintiffs healthcare provider.RPK Anesthesia and/or its custodian of records, 4301 Vista Road, Building A, Pasadena, Texas77504, (713) 378-3050, Plaintiff's healthcare provider.Women’s Health Boutique and/or its custodian of records, 2270 W. Holcombe, Houston, Texas77030, (713) 592-6023, Plaintiff's healthcare provider.LabCorp and/or its custodian of records, 7207 North Gessner, Houston, Texas 77040, (800) 845-6167, Plaintiff's healthcare provider.Sam’s Club and/or its custodian of records, 5310 South Rice Ave., Houston, Texas, (832) 778-9736, Plaintiff's healthcare provider.Walgreens and/or its custodian of records, Braeswood, Houston, Texas, (713) 721-1516,Plaintiff's healthcare provider.Any and all of the Plaintiff's health care providers, who are unknown at this time, that arefamiliar with the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of the Plaintiff, Stephanie Renee SpradlinDEFENDANTS SIMON MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES (TEXAS), L.L.C.'S AND Page3 of 5HG SHOPPING CENTERS, L.P.'S DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSESf/k/a Stephanie Jordan Nurick, the necessity for the treatment and the reasonableness of the costof the treatment as a result of the injuries allegedly sustained in the accident in question. lm Defendants reserve the right to supplement this designation further within the timelimitations imposed by the court and/or any alterations of same by a subsequent court orderand/or agreement of the parties, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Texas Rulesof Civil Evidence. IV. Defendants reserve the right to withdraw the designation of any expert witness and toaver positively that such previous expert will not be cailed as an expert witness at trial, and toredesignate same as a consulting expert who cannot be called by opposing counsel. Vv Defendants further reserve the right to call undesignated expert witnesses in rebuttalwhose identity and testimony cannot reasonably be foreseen until Plaintiff presents his evidenceat trial. VI Defendants designate, and may call to testify as adverse witnesses, the Plaintiff and anyand all expert witnesses designated by Plaintiff. VII. Defendants further designate and may call to testify any expert designated by any Party tothis case including retained or unretained expert witnesses designated by Co-Defendants.DEFENDANTS SIMON MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES (TEXAS), L.L.C.'S AND Page 4 of 5HG SHOPPING CENTERS, L.P.'S DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSESVill. Defendants further reserve all additional rights they may have with regard to any expertwitnesses and testimony under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the Texas Rules of CivilEvidence, case law and rulings by the Judge of this Honorable Court. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF ARTHUR K. SMITH, A Professional Corporation By: K. Smith St Bar No. 18534100 507 Prestige Circle Allen, Texas 75002-3438 Telephone: (469) 519-2500 Facsimile: (469) 519-2555 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS SIMON MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES (TEXAS), L.L.C. AND HG SHOPPING CENTERS, L.P. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On the 7th day of June, 2006, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing pleadingwas delivered via U.S. First Class Mail, to all counsel of record. wh ur K. SmithDEFENDANTS SIMON MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES (TEXAS), L.L.C.'S AND Page Sof 5HG SHOPPING CENTERS, L.P.'S DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSESa, ——~ CURRICULUM VITAE JONATHAN JOSEPH DORA, M.D., PA.OFFICE ADDRESS; 6560 Farmin 760 Scmjock Tower Houston, Texas 77030 (713) 790-0024 : 920 Fromwood, Suite 730 Houston, Texas 77024 (713) 461-5312MARITAL STATUS: MarriedCITIZENSHIP; AmericanDATE OF BIRTH: December 5, 1942BIRTHPLACE: Sramford, ConnecticutPRE-MEDICAL EDUCATION: Yale University Degrees BA Daw of Graduation: June 1964MEDICAL EDUCATION: Baylor College of Medicine Degrees M.D. Date of Graduation; Jane 1963INTERNSHIP: Straight Sargery Internship Methodist Hospital Honston, Texas Ben Taub Hospital Honswn, Texas - 1968 - 1959RESIDENCIES; General SurgeryResidency Baylor College of Medicine Houston, Texas . 1969-1972 Plastic SurgeryResidency Baylor College of Medicine Honston, Texas 1972- 1575LICENSURES: Texas, August JO, 1968 License No.: 4677MILITARY SERVICE: United Somes Air Force (MC) Ynactive Reserve Rank rain 1968TEACHING APPO: a aa SNTS: Clinic... sistant » Professor in Plastic Baylor College of Medicine Tuy 1, 1980 - Presont Acting Chicf of Sutff Plastic si St. Luke's Epi 2] Hospital September 1989 - Janszry 1991 Assoctate Chief of Staff Plastic Surgery Su Luke's Episcopal Hospital Clinical Instructdr in Plastic si Baylor College Gf Medicine 1978 ~ 1979 Assistam {n Plastic Surgery Baylor Collegs of Medicine 1972-1975 MEDICAL SOCIETY MEMBERSHIPS: American College of Surgeons American Sociesy for Aesthetic Piastic Surgery, Inc. American Society of Plastic Inc. - Haris County Medical Society Howson Soclery of Plastic Surgeous - President, 1982 Houston Society of Plastic Surgeons - Treasurer, 1986CERTIFICATIONS: American Board of Plastic Surgery May 9, 1980 FRATERNITIES: Phi Chi t 1964- 1968 AWARDS AND RONORS: Surgery Inter ofthe Year Methodist Hospita] Houston, Texas 1969 : HOSPITAL STAFF MEMBERSHIPS: ACTIVE STAFF Alaris County Hospital District- Ben Tanb General Hospital Heansomh Ttegrased Medical Memorial Hermenn Memorial City Hospital St. Luke's Ppisebpal Hospital Texas Children’s Hospital—_ cou _STAFE Memorial Hermanan Hospital Megnorial Southwest Hospital Methodist Hospital West Houston Mbdical Center Woman's Hospital of Texas |1 PAPERS panserep ! “Lymphedema” Paper given before the Baylor Scientific Sessiém Jamary Z7, 1973 “Dupuytren's Contracture” Paper given bette the Baylor Scientific Session April 14, 1973 “Subcutancous Masecpmy with Paper given before the Baylor Augmentation Mammoplasty” Sciemific Session Noveniber 8, ve “abdominoplasty, Bisrock end Thigh Lift” Paper given before the Baylor Scientific Session Angust 8, 1974 “Medical Office Management” Paper given befote the Baylor Scientific Session June 12, 1975“Meninyomytiocale: Plastic Surgery PB pabfishea on sper gn theY Newolosical Aspects ofoO} PI: 1978 “Reconsquuction of Congenital Absent Paper given befote the Americnn Pestoralis™ Society for Aesthetic Plestic Sorgery, inc. May 8, 1979 “Gioteus Maxine Flap for Hip Paper given sf the Orthopedic Reconstruction” Symposiom Houston, Texas April 24, 1987“Ensen Plastic Surgery” Faper publishedin Plastic and_ Volume 90, No. 1 July 1992-- ~—_. MEETINGS ATTENDED 1Asperioan Sociery for Aesthetic March1 - 7, 1974 Plastic Surgery, Inc. New Orleans, LonisiansAmetican Society of Plastic and October 27 ~ November1, 1974Reconstructive Surgeons, Ine, Houston, TexasAmerican College of Surgeons Houston, TexasPlastic SectionOrthopedic Symposiim Aprit 17~ 19, 1975 Houston, TexasAmerican Society for Surgery of the Hand October 23 - 26,‘lym tadizuspolis, IndiansAmerican Soclery ofPlastic and Februay 7 - 9, 1b79Recontructivs Surgeons, Inc, Los angtles, CaliforniaSpectra-Physics Medical Symposium March2 ~4, 979 Palo Al, CaliforniaTexas Society of Plastic Surgeons May 15~ 18, 1980 ‘Texas Mediral Association Hopston,TreasAmerican Association for Hand September 25 - 28, 1980 Surgery Annoal Meeting New Orleans, LouisianeAmerican Socjety of Plastic and September 28 - October3, 1980Reconswractive Surgeons, ine, New Orleans, Lonisiana Education Foundation Anmual MeetingAmerican Society for Surgery of the Hand Fobroary 22 ~ 25, 1981 Las Vegas, NevadaAtmericain Sociery for Aesthetic Plastic April5 - 10, 1984 Sergery. Inc. Annual Meeting Houston, TexasTexas Society of Plastic Surgeons May 28 - 30, 1981 Meeting, Texas Medical Associstion Daliss, TexasSuction Assisted, April 21-22, 1983 Sponsored by ASPRYEF Los Angeles, CaliforniaAtnerican Socioty of Aesthetic Surgeons 1984 Los Angeles, CaliforniaAmerican Society of Aesthetic Surgeons 1985 Kansas City, Missouriwee -— ——american Bociery 0, . «odie Surgeons Octor +. ~31, 1986 Los Angeles, CaliforniaAmonican Society of Acstbevic Surgeons March 23 - 27, 1987 Los Angeles, Califomia‘Texas Socicty of Plastic Surgeons May [5 ~ 17, 1987 Houston, Texas +American Society of Plastic Surgery Soptember 5 - 8,,)989 Symposium of the Breast Sanm Fo, New Mexico American Society of Plastic md October 21, 1990 Reconstructive Surgeons, Inc, Boston, Sombeast Socicty of Plastic and Jarwary 24 - 27,'1991 Reconstructive Surgeons Symposium of the Breast ' Arerican Society for Aesthetic Aptil 29 ~ May 2, 1991 Plastic Surgery, Inc. New York City, New York American Society of Plastic and September 21 - 26, 1991 Reconstrnctive Surgcons, Inc. Searde, Washington American Society of Plastic and September 20 - 24, 1992 Reconstructive Surgeons, Inc. ‘Washington, De. Ameérican Society of Plastic and September 18 - 23, 1993 Reconsmuctive Surgeons, Inc. New Orleans,Lénisiana American Society for Aesthetic April 15-20, 1994 * Plastic Surgery, Inc, Dalles, Texar 2th Annual Meeting Aumerican Society of Plastic and Soptember25 « 28, 1994 Reconstructive Surgeons, Inc. San Diego, California Medical Risk Management Ocwber 25, 1995 Streetwise Risk Managemeor Houston, Texas’ American Society of Plastic and November9 ~ (3, 1996 Reconstructive Surgeons, Inc. Dallss, Texas 65th Scientific MectingCanrent Conceprs in Cutaneous Laser March 30, 1996, Houston, Texas American Society for Aesthetic May 1-5, 19981 Plastic Surgery, Inc. Los Angeles, Californias Global Summir on Aesthetic Surgery Texas Socisty of Plastic Surgeons Noveanber 3 — 5, 2000 Annilal Scientific Meeting Irving, Texas American Socjety for Aesthetic May 3-9, 2001, Plasdtc Surgery, Ino. Now York City, New York Aameritan Svoicty for Aesthetic May 16~21, 2003 Plastic Sargery, lnc. Boston, Massachnsetts— LAW OFFICES OF ARTHUR K. SMITH (g A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION YH oh thy . 507 PRESTIGE CIRCLE e/] fi ALLEN, TEXAS 75002-3438ARTHUR K. SMITH ‘TELEPHONE (469) 519-2500 2BSony Os yy HgDIRECT (469) sig-asa5 FACSIMILE (469) 519-2555,asmith@aksmithlaw.com June 7, 2006 Charles Bacarisse Via U.S. First Class Mail Clerk of the Court 334" District Court P. O. Box 4651 Houston, Tx 77210 Re: Cause No. 2005-09238; 334™ Judicial District Court in Harris County, Texas Stephanie Jordan Nurick v. Standard Parking Corporation; Simon Management Associates (Texas), L.L.C.; Simon Property Group (Texas) L.P.; Simon Property Group, Inc., d/b/a The Galleria; and Federal APD Incorporated Dear Mr. Bacarisse: In connection with the above-referenced matter, please find the original and one (1) copy of Defendants Simon Management Associates (Texas), L.L.C.’s and HG Shopping Centers, L.P.’s Designation of Expert Witnesses. Please file this document among the papers in this cause, and return the file-stamped copy to me in the self-addressed, stamped envelope which I have provided. By copy of this correspondence, all counsel of record are being provided a copy of said documents. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Should you have any questions, please call. Best regards, Zé: Veery tru ly v yours, Me ur K. Smith AKS:set Enclosure 17405,84/Clerk.Exp.Desg.ltrcc:Steve Waldman Via U.S. First Class MailGrossman & Waldman, L.L.P.1415 Louisiana, Suite 3555Houston, Texas 77002Bart Basden Via U.S. First Class MailJOHANSON & FAIRLESS, L.L.P.1456 First Colony Blvd.Sugarland, Texas 77479George Caflisch Via U.S. First Class MailHOLLOWAY & ROWLEY, P.C.1415 Louisiana, Suite 2550Houston, Texas 77002Howard T. Dulmage Via U.S. First Class MailSheehy, Serpe & Ware2500 Two Houston Center909 Fannin St.Houston, TX 77010-1003Craig Von Sternberg Via U.S. First Class MailWhittington von Stemberg2600 S. Gessner, Suite 600Houston, Texas 77063

Related Contentin Harris County

Case

PEREZ, JULIO CESAR CAMPOS vs. JUAREZ, DENIS

Aug 20, 2024 |JACLANEL M. MCFARLAND |PERSONAL INJ (NON-AUTO) |PERSONAL INJ (NON-AUTO) |202454810

Case

CORTIZ, GRACIELA (AS NEXT FRIEND OF A.R., A MINOR) vs. TARGET CORPORATION

Dec 11, 2023 |RAVI K. SANDILL |Premises |Premises |202385034

Case

ARIF, MUHAMMAD vs. TUBBS, KATINA LECHELLE

Nov 30, 2023 |KYLE CARTER |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202382982

Case

PORTER, REAGEN vs. PRUDE, BRANDON

Aug 21, 2024 |LAUREN REEDER |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202455132

Case

TREJO TORRES, OBED vs. HERNANDEZ, ELVIRA

Aug 22, 2024 |ROBERT K. SCHAFFER |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202455485

Case

MONTEMAYOR, SANDRA LUCIA vs. BREWSTER, RUSSELL

Dec 07, 2023 |TANYA GARRISON |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202384581

Case

LUNA, ARIEL vs. CERDA, MELINDA

Dec 15, 2023 |LAUREN REEDER |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202385935

Case

WILLIAMS, BILLY vs. VELASQUEZ, NITZA GUEVARA

Aug 21, 2024 |ROBERT K. SCHAFFER |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202455145

Ruling

ARIZA VS FRANCO

Aug 14, 2024 |MSC19-02245

MSC19-02245CASE NAME: ARIZA VS FRANCO *HEARING ON MOTION FOR DISCOVERY ORDER DEEMING ADMITTED TRUTH OF FACTS SPECIFIEDIN REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONEFILED BY: ARIZA, UBALDO*TENTATIVE RULING:*The plaintiffs filed this motion to deem admitted certain facts specified in a Request for Admissions,set one. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.The plaintiffs filed this action in October 2019, against defendant Alejandra Franco and others,alleging negligence, fraud, rescission of agreement, invasion of privacy, and declaratory relief. Theplaintiffs contend defendant Franco and others forged their signatures on title documents forproperty in Richmond, California, which plaintiffs did not buy or sell. The plaintiffs allege that theircredit rating has been damaged because of the defendants’ actionsOn March 6, 2024, the plaintiffs served Request for Admissions, Set one, on the defendant. Plaintiff’scounsel sent a meet and confer letter on April 30, 2024. Defendant Franco never responded to theRequest for Admissions or to the meet and confer letter. The plaintiffs filed this present motion onMay 9, 2024. No opposition has been filed to the motion.DispositionThe plaintiffs’ motion to deem admissions admitted is granted. The following facts are deemedadmitted: 1) Alejandra Franco is liable to the plaintiffs for negligence; 2) Alejandra Franco is liable tothe plaintiffs for negligence per se; 3) Alejandra Franco is liable to the plaintiffs for fraud as alleged inthe complaint; 4) Alejandra Franco is liable to the plaintiffs for invasion of privacy as alleged in thecomplaint; 5) Alejandra Franco is liable to the plaintiffs for declaratory relief as alleged in thecomplaint; 6) Alejandra Franco admits that the plaintiffs are entitled to rescission of agreement forfraud as alleged in the complaint; and 7) Alejandra Franco admits the plaintiffs are entitled torescission of agreement for mistake as alleged in the complaint.Counsel for the plaintiffs is entitled to fees and costs associated with bringing this motion pursuant toCode of Civil Procedure section 2023.030. Therefore, the defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiffs’counsel $850 by August 30, 2024.

Ruling

RICKEY BALL, AN INDIVIDUAL VS MARIA DE LOURDES MEDRANO BERNARDINO, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Aug 21, 2024 |Renee C. Reyna |21STCV46360

Case Number: 21STCV46360 Hearing Date: August 21, 2024 Dept: 29 Ball v. Bernardino 21STCV46360 Defendants Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One) Defendants Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Special Interrogatories (Set One) Defendants Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Request for Production (Set One) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, filed by Plaintiffs Counsel Elina Shakhbazyan of Downtown LA Law Group. Tentative The motions are granted. Background On December 20, 2021, Rickey Ball (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Maria De Lourdes Medrano Bernadino, Francisco Estrada Perez (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 to 50 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an accident occurring on January 5, 2020. On September 6, 2023, Defendants filed an answer. There are four motions set for hearing on August 21. On June 13, 2024, Defendants filed three motions to compel Plaintiffs responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production (Set One). Plaintiff filed a combined opposition on July 9, 2024. No reply was filed. The hearings on these motions were initially scheduled for July 22 and were continued to August 21. On June 14, 2024, Elina Shakhbazyan of Downtown LA Law Group (Counsel) filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff. No opposition has been filed. The hearing on this motion was initially scheduled for July 18 and was continued to August 21. Legal Standard Motions to Compel A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd.(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel initial responses, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).) In addition, a party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) When a party moves to compel initial responses to interrogatories, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes [the motion], unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) A party must respond to requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd.(a).) If a party to whom requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (Id., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel initial responses, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).) In addition, a party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) When a party moves to compel initial responses to requests for production, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes [the motion], unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) In Chapter 7 of the Civil Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivision (d), defines [m]isuses of the discovery process to include [f]ailing to respond to or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. Where a party or attorney has engaged in misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose a monetary sanction in the amount of the reasonable expenses, including attorneys fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.020, subd. (a).) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel The court may order that an attorney be changed or substituted at any time before or after judgment or final determination upon request by either client or attorney and after notice from one to the other. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 284(b).) An attorney is permitted to withdraw where conflicts between the attorney and client make it unreasonable to continue the representation. (See Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct 3-700(C)(1).) The determination whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw as counsel lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. (Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1133.) An application to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Counsel Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a)), MC-052 (Declaration) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.136(c)), and MC-053 (Proposed Order) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e)). Further, the requisite forms must be served on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) The court may delay effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).) Discussion Motions to Compel On September 6, 2023, Defendants served Plaintiff with discovery including Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production. (Goodwin Decls., ¶ 2 & Exhs. A.) Plaintiff has not responded. (Id., ¶ 5.) Defendants need not show anything more. The motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to the Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and the Request for Production are GRANTED. Defendants do not seek sanctions. Motion to be Relieved as Counsel Counsel has filed the Notice, Declaration, and Order to be relieved as counsel. On the Declaration, Counsel states there has been a breakdown in of the attorney-client relationship. Counsel served Plaintiff by mail and electronic mail at Plaintiffs last known email address. Counsel further attempted to confirm the Plaintiffs current address by mailing the motion papers to the last known address with return receipt requested, called Plaintiffs last known telephone number, sent Plaintiff contact letters, left voicemails and ran a TLO search. The Order includes all future hearing dates. The Court finds Counsel has established good cause to be relieved due to the breakdown of the attorney-client relationship. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Conclusion The Court GRANTS the Motions to Compel Plaintiff Rickey Ball to Respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One). The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve code compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, to Defendants Form Interrogatories within 21 days of notice of this order. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve code compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, to Defendants Special Interrogatories within 21 days of notice of this order. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve code compliant, written, verified responses, without objection, to Defendants Requests for Production within 21 days of notice of this order. The motion to be relieved as counsel is GRANTED. The order is effective upon the filing with the Court of proof of service showing service of the signed order on Plaintiff. Defendants are ORDERED to give notice as to the motions to compel. Plaintiff's Counsel is ORDERED to give notice as to the motion to be relieved.

Ruling

Alexander Family Trust vs. Simao, et al.

Aug 22, 2024 |23CV-0203196

ALEXANDER FAMILY TRUST VS. SIMAO, ET AL.Case Number: 23CV-0203196This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of settlement and trial setting. The previoustrial dates were vacated by the Court’s June 6, 2024 Order. Plaintiff’s claims against Safeco werebifurcated March 15, 2024, and trial of Plaintiffs claims against Safeco were to follow resolutionof the claims against the other Defendants. Case management statements have been filed, but it isunclear which parties, if any, have reached a settlement. At the last hearing on June 17, 2024,Counsel indicated that all parties except for Safeco had settled. However, notices of settlementand dismissals are not on file for any party. Additionally, Jacqueline Simao’s Cross-Complaint,filed November 13, 2023, against Allen & Roth and Lowe’s Home Improvement has not beenserved.The Court designates this matter a Plan II case and intends to set the matter for trial no later thanMarch 11, 2025. Defendants have posted jury fees, but Plaintiff has not. Plaintiff is granted 10days leave to post jury fees. A failure to post jury fees in that time will be deemed a waiver of theright to a jury. The parties are ordered to appear to provide the Court with status ofsettlement as to Defendants Simao, Rayfifield and 2584 Reservoir Lane, and to discussavailable trial dates as to Defendant Safeco.

Ruling

BRIAN BEAN VS FM RESTAURANTS EL TORITO OPCO LLC, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Aug 21, 2024 |6/18/2022 |23SMCV05675

Case Number: 23SMCV05675 Hearing Date: August 21, 2024 Dept: I The demurrer relies on a declaration to make its point. Testimonial declarations are not proper for the court to consider in demurrer. Nor is there a plausible or cogent argument suggesting that a testimonial declaration is subject to judicial notice. The demurrer is OVERRULED. Defendant has 5 court days to answer. The short period is advertent.

Ruling

FCS057573 - PEREZ, HEIDI JUDITH VS BOOKER, WESLEY (DMS)

Aug 20, 2024 |FCS057573

FCS057573Motions for ContemptTENTATIVE RULING:Petitioner’s “motions” for contempt are denied.No affidavit of the facts constituting any contempt has been presented to thecourt. The filing of a sufficient affidavit is a jurisdictional prerequisite to acontempt proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1211(a); Koehler v. Superior Court(2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1169; Oil Workers Int’l Union v. Superior Court(1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 512, 541.) Page 1 of 1

Ruling

RACHEL TABB VS MATTHEW TYLER RAY, ET AL.

Aug 19, 2024 |Renee C. Reyna |23STCV05733

Case Number: 23STCV05733 Hearing Date: August 19, 2024 Dept: 29 Tabb v. Ray 23STCV05733 Motion to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiff Rachel Tabb and Produce Documents filed by Defendants Matthew Tyler Ray and Counsel Productions LLC. Motion to Compel Compliance with Request for Production filed by Defendant Counsel Productions LLC. Tentative The motion to compel Plaintiff to appear for deposition and produce documents is denied without prejudice. The motion to compel compliance is granted. The request for sanctions is denied. Background On March 15, 2023, Rachel Tabb (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants Matthew Tyler Ray (Ray), Counsel Productions LLC (Counsel), and Does 1 through 10, for negligence arising out of an automobile accident on March 24, 2022, at or near the intersection of North Cahuenga Boulevard and Ivar Avenue in Los Angeles. Ray and Counsel filed their answer on June 6. 2023. On June 12, 2024, Counsel filed the two motions that are set for hearing on August 19: (1) Counsels motion to compel Plaintiff to appear for deposition and product documents and (2) Counsels motion to compel Plaintiff to comply with her representation in verified responses to document requests that she would produce documents. No opposition has been filed. On July 16, 2024, Defendants filed replies. The hearings on these motions were initially set for July 23 and were continued by the Court to August 19. Legal Standard Motion to Compel Deposition Any party may obtain discovery & by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.210 through 2025.280 provide the requirements for (among other things) what must be included in a deposition notice, when and where depositions may be taken, and how and when the notice must be served. The service of a deposition notice & is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying. (Id., § 2025.280, subd. (a).) Section 2025.230 provides: If the deponent named is not a natural person, the deposition notice shall describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. In that event, the deponent shall designate and produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to those matters to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the deponent. Section 2025.410, subdivision (a), requires any party to serve a written objection at least three days before the deposition if the party contends that a deposition notice does not comply with the provisions of sections 2025.210 through 2025.280. Section 2025.450, subdivision (a), provides: If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for¿inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponents attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. Any such motion to compel must show good cause for the production of documents and, when a deponent has failed to appear, the motion must be accompanied by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. (Id., subd. (b).) Motion to Compel Compliance with Request for Production In response to a document request, the responding party must set forth (1) a statement of compliance; (2) a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply; or (3) an objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210, subd. (a).) If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling & thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that partys statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a).) [T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel compliance with a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (b).) Discussion Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Deposition On March 12, 2024, Counsel first noticed Plaintiffs deposition for May 2, 2024. (Blair Decl., ¶ 6.) The parties met and conferred, and postponed the deposition. (Id., ¶ 8.) On April 30, 2024, Counsel served the second notice of deposition for May 31, 2024; Plaintiffs counsel informed Counsel that he would be away that date. (Id. ̧¶¶ 11, 13.) On May 16, 2024, the parties agreed to set Plaintiffs deposition for June 19; Counsel served the third notice of deposition on May 29, 2024. (Id., ¶¶ 14, 16.) Before the scheduled deposition date, Counsel filed this motion. After the motion was filed, on June 17, Plaintiff served untimely objections to the deposition notice. (Reply Blair Decl., ¶ 4 & Exh. G.) Nonetheless, Plaintiff did appear for the deposition and Plaintiff did produce some documents, while failing to produce others. (Id., ¶¶ 2, 5, 6-9 & Exhs H-I.) Counsels motion is denied without prejudice. The deposition has occurred. Counsel now contends that Plaintiffs document production was improperly incomplete, and Counsel seeks an order compelling a further production, but Counsel has not given Plaintiff (or the Court) adequate notice as to the relief Counsel seeks including which document requests, Counsel contends, should be the subject of the order for further production. Motion to Compel Compliance with Request for Production Counsel filed this motion seeking an order compelling Plaintiff to comply with her statement of compliance. On September 21, 2023, Counsel propounded discovery, including document requests, to Plaintiff. Plaintiff served responses on November 27, 2023. (Blair Decl., ¶¶ 6, 8 & Exhs. A-B.) In Plaintiffs responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1-4, and 6-17, Plaintiff represented that she would comply with the requests (in whole or in part). (Id., Exh. B.) At least as of the time the motion was filed, however, Plaintiff had failed to produce documents as promised in her statement of complaint. (Id., ¶¶ 10, 18, & 23.) Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. Accordingly, the motion is granted. The request for sanctions is denied. In the notice of motion and motion, Counsel does not state the amount of sanctions sought, as is required. Conclusion The Court DENIES, without prejudice, the motion of Counsel Productions LLC to compel Plaintiff to attend her deposition and to produce documents. The Court GRANTS the motion of Counsel Productions LLC to compel compliance. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Rachel Tabb to comply with her statement of compliance and produce the documents that she represented that she would produce in response to Requests for Production Nos. 1-4, and 6-17 within 15 days of notice of this order. The Court DENIES the request of Counsel Productions LLC for sanctions. Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.

Ruling

Aug 19, 2024 |23CV-0202671

FORRESTER VS. M&M MEYERS ENTERPRISES, INC, ET AL.Case Number: 23CV-0202671This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of default judgment. The Court notes thatPlaintiff attempted to file a Request for Court Judgement. It was rejected by the Clerk because theDoe Defendants have not yet been dismissed. This matter is continued to Monday, September16, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 64 for review regarding status of default judgment. Noappearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

Ruling

VALENZUELA vs MENJIVAR

Aug 20, 2024 |CVSW2310366

MOTION TO COMPEL BY MARIACVSW2310366 VALENZUELA VS MENJIVARMENJIVARTentative Ruling: GRANT. Mr. Torres is to make himself available for a deposition within 30days of this order. DENY sanctions because the circumstances are unjust given that the court hasmade itself available for an informal discovery conference. If Mr. Torres fails to appear a secondtime, then the moving party should request an IDC. If after further intervention Mr. Torres refusesto cooperate, then the court will likely award full sanctions (to include attorney’s fees and costs).

Document

BEIZAEE, BITA vs. HACHMEISTER, ANDREW

Dec 04, 2023 |LAUREN REEDER |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202383403

Document

CASTEEL, EBONY vs. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Dec 06, 2023 |TANYA GARRISON |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202384174

Document

HICKS, AMBER (INDIVIDUALLY ANF OF T B) (A MINOR) vs. BACON, MARCUS D

Dec 04, 2023 |CORY SEPOLIO |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202383497

Document

MERAZ, ESTELA MELERO vs. LOPEZ, WILSON JEHOVANY FLORES

Dec 06, 2023 |KRISTEN BRAUCHLE HAWKINS |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202384142

Document

FUENTES, JUAN vs. GEICO COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Oct 26, 2023 |C. ELLIOTT THORNTON |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202374831

Document

MANZO, ALEXANDER vs. IWUEZE, EMMANUEL CHINAKA

Oct 26, 2023 |BEAU MILLER |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202374665

Document

NELSON, ROBERT vs. ELEVA APARTMENTS

Oct 25, 2023 |KYLE CARTER |PERSONAL INJ (NON-AUTO) |PERSONAL INJ (NON-AUTO) |202374573

Document

MADERA, SEAN vs. JARRAH, MUHAMMAD AMMAN

Dec 04, 2023 |LATOSHA LEWIS PAYNE |TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE |TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE |202383675

DEFENDANTS SIMON MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES (TEXAS), L.L.C.’S AND HG SHOPPING CENTERS, L.P.’S DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES June 12, 2006 (2024)
Top Articles
Latest Posts
Recommended Articles
Article information

Author: Rev. Porsche Oberbrunner

Last Updated:

Views: 6411

Rating: 4.2 / 5 (73 voted)

Reviews: 80% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Rev. Porsche Oberbrunner

Birthday: 1994-06-25

Address: Suite 153 582 Lubowitz Walks, Port Alfredoborough, IN 72879-2838

Phone: +128413562823324

Job: IT Strategist

Hobby: Video gaming, Basketball, Web surfing, Book restoration, Jogging, Shooting, Fishing

Introduction: My name is Rev. Porsche Oberbrunner, I am a zany, graceful, talented, witty, determined, shiny, enchanting person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.