Sacramento Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this insurance bad faith lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Universal Street was damaged in 2007, shortly after a sale collapsed. There was no rental income of the property at the time. This is information is known to XYZ, that is why they are denying the claim. The Halls have provided documents showing a sale price for the house two months prior the fire. Since the fire, property values have dropped. This places a variable in the equation that is hard for plaintiffs to adequately calculate a hard figure. Plaintiffs are not required to submit expert opinions at this point, and to guess would not be fair.

Plaintiffs are under the belief that defendants are not willing to accept the amount that plaintiffs are requesting to settle this lawsuit for two reasons: One they want to establish that the plaintiffs damages are over $75,000 per recent Request for Admissions, in order that they may return to federal court, now that all state defendants have been dismissed. Two: they want to maintain the litigation while seeking to lock plaintiffs into a fixed figure before discovery is completed. If these motives are true, in fact, XYZ's motion to compel was brought for improper reasons.

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS ARE UNWARRANTED

Discovery sanctions should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery ... but the court may not impose sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of discovery but rather to impose punishment, as quoted in Vallbona v. Springer, 43 Cal.App.4, 51 Cal Rptr. 2d 311.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading " Sacramento Insurance Company Asks Court For Meritless Sanctions Against Injured Homeowners, Part 6 of 6 " »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this insurance bad faith lawsuit and its proceedings.)

XYZ'S ARGUMENT FOR A STATEMENT OF DAMAGES IS WITHOUT MERIT IN THAT THEY ARE ALREADY AWARE OF THE DAMAGES SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFF

Plaintiffs Pleaded Damages to be Shown by Proof at Time of Trial

Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on May 9, 2008. At the time, plaintiffs were under the belief they were entitled to certain damages and to continue plead such in the First Amended Complaint, until proof may be obtained. At the time that the statement of damages were requested, plaintiffs produced a certain figure of for their damages. Plaintiffs had not calculated any other damages and asked clarification as to XYZ's interpretation of the Code and what in particular did they additionally want from plaintiffs. XYZ now states plaintiffs are also seeking attorney fees and emotional distress damages.

Plaintiffs' letters as indicated above included the attorney fees that the Halls have paid. As to the emotional distress damages, this has not been determined at this time and this is the first time that XYZ has clarified this issue.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading " Sacramento Homeowners Seek Emotional Distress Damages From Insurer After Home Was Arsoned, Part 5 of 6 " »

http://www.moseleycollins.com/lawyer-attorney-1245027.htmlThe following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this insurance bad faith lawsuit and its proceedings.)

ARGUMENT

MOTION TO COMPEL IS BROUGHT FOR AN IMPROPER PURPOSE WHEN ALL FAITHFUL EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO COMPLY WITH REQUESTS

Plaintiffs acted in good faith and with reasonable diligence in their responses to XYZ's questions. Plaintiffs are aware of their obligations to investigate if they lack information (Smith v. Circle P. Ranch Co. Inc. (App. 2 Dist. 1978) 150 Cal.Rptr. 828., however, plaintiffs are not able to answer many of the questions that XYZ has propounded. Plaintiffs have asked XYZ essentially what in particular they are seeking, and XYZ responded, it was not up to them to determine this fact. Well, then how can plaintiffs?

Mr. Hall is 84 years old. Though he is cooperative, he is not one to have long discussions and analysis of facts in one setting. It has taken a series of conversations to get additional facts. His allocation of time is short, and he does not provide all that is necessary immediately. He asks for patience and time when things are requested, in order that he can think and look for items. Plaintiffs responses were not willfully meant to evade or avoid answering.

Plaintiffs have produced all documents in their possession as stated above and there is no further responses as of this date to produce. Plaintiffs did serve the Responses to Document Production, contrary to XYZ statements. XYZ also admits receipt of documents, but because they are few in number, they suggest plaintiffs must be withholding other items and are not responsive. No, plaintiffs do not have any. Plaintiffs only want to settle, and whatever it takes to do so, It is not in their best interest to hide documents.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading " Sacramento Insurance Company Stalls Settlement With Couple Who Lost Home, Part 4 of 6 " »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this insurance bad faith lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Special Interrogatories

XYZ served 54 special interrogatories without declaration for plaintiffs to respond. Plaintiffs answered 35 and informed XYZ they should provide a declaration for response to the additional special interrogatories. XYZ provided the declaration and the plaintiffs answered to the best of their ability.

XYZ contends that Mr. Hall's responses to the first 35 special interrogatories and form interrogatories were incomplete and requested further responses without objections. Plaintiffs provided supplemental responses and letter addressing the request. Plaintiffs asked clarification as to what XYZ was seeking. XYZ responded with their letter of January 12, 2009.

Statement of Damages

XYZ sent a statement of damages on November 3, 2008, after plaintiffs had mailed a letter in October 2008 indicating they were willing to settle the case for the cost to repair per the estimate of Clive Lee, water and fire restoration expert, that was submitted to the federal court.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading " Sacramento Husband And Wife Battle Insurance Company After Arson Loss, Part 3 of 6 " »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this insurance bad faith lawsuit and its proceedings.)

XYZ states in their motion there is no issue as to Mrs. Hall's response. However, Mrs. Hall responded to the same questions as did Mr. Hall because they are joint plaintiffs and suffer the same loss and seek the same recovery. If XYZ had no issue as to Mrs. Hall's response, then there is no as to Mr. Halls initial responses and supplemental responses. Ms. Hall provided information to the same form interrogatories that Mr. Hall responded.

Request for Production of Documents

In XYZ's motion on page 2, line 11, they state plaintiffs did not respond at all (as to production of documents, then on line 12-14, state plaintiffs produced some documents (despite not responding to the document requests themselves), their production is obviously deficient. Again, XYZ states on page 3, line 24 to page 4, line 2, there was document production. As stated above plaintiffs faxed their pleaded responses to the production of documents on 12/08/08.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading " Bad Faith By Sacramento Insurance Company Damages Local Family, Part 2 of 6 " »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this insurance bad faith lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiffs William and Susan Hall’s Memorandum of Points in Authority in Opposition to XYZ's Motion to Compel Discovery and Sanctions

INTRODUCTION

XYZ brings a motion to compel further responses and production of documents, and a statement of damages. Plaintiffs have tried diligently to respond to all of XYZ's demands but they are insistent that plaintiffs responses are incomplete. Plaintiffs have responded to the best of their knowledge, yet XYZ refuses to accept the responses. They seem to believe that plaintiffs should respond according to their frame of thoughts or better put, in the way they believe will best serve their interest.

Plaintiffs believe this motion to compel was brought to harass, annoy, and burden plaintiffs and their counsel. As plaintiffs worked steadily to provide the information to XYZ, it appears XYZ was not willing to work toward a resolution, but rather bring the matter before the court for sanction purposes.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On November 3, 2008, the Halls received discovery from XYZ consisting of two sets of Form Interrogatories to Plaintiffs William Hall and Susan Hall respectively; Request for Production of Documents, and Special Interrogatories exceeding 35 in number. William Hall's responses to the form and special interrogatories, and responses to the production of documents were faxed to defendants on December 8, 2008.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading " Insurance Company Denies Coverage To Sacramento Family After House Fire, Part 1 of 6 " »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this elder abuse case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

As to the motion attacking Plaintiff's claim of wilful misconduct, XYZ Care fails in the fundamental purpose of providing Plaintiff of any form of notice as to the issues presented by the motion for summary adjudication. The issue, as set forth ("plaintiffs have no evidence that moving defendant committed any intentional wrongful conduct toward plaintiffs' decedent") is too broadly stated to provide any meaningful notice which would comply with the due process aspect of the separate statement as expressed in Elcome and San Diego Watercrafts, supra. Defendants' initial burden in bringing a motion for summary adjudication is to show that one or more elements of claim cannot be established. Marron, supra.

Accordingly, in compliance with the obligation of the moving party to provide adequate notice, in the notice of motion and Separate Statement, it is incumbent to frame the issues in such a manner that Plaintiffs are informed what element or elements of the claim Defendant asserts the purported undisputed facts prove cannot be established. Otherwise, Plaintiffs (and the court) is left to speculate what element of the claim (i.e., what element of Wilful Misconduct, - duty, breach, knowledge of peril, knowledge of probable injury, failure to avoid peril, causation or damages) is under scrutiny, and for which opposing evidence must be presented.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading " Gross Neglect By Sacramento Nursing Home Staff Leads To Elder Abuse Suit, Part 8 of 8 " »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this elder abuse case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT OF ISSUES IS DEFICIENT AS TO THE CLAIM FOR WILFUL MISCONDUCT AND ACCORDINGLY THE MOTION AS TO THAT CLAIM MUST BE DENIED

In a motion for summary adjudication, the moving party must specifically state in their motion and Separate Statement the specific causes of action, defenses, issues of duty and or claims of damages upon which summary adjudication is sought. Moreover, a defendant bringing a motion for summary adjudication "must ... show one or more elements of a cause of action cannot be established." Marron v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 388, 392. The purpose of the Separate Statement is to inform the opposing party of what issues and undisputed material facts they must address in order to defeat the motion. Elcome v. Chin (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 310, 322.

Where a remedy as drastic as summary judgment is involved, due process requires a party to be fully advised of all the issues to be addressed and be given adequate notice of what facts it must rebut in order to prevail. San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 316.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading " Sacramento Man Suffers Catastrophic Injuries At Nursing Facility, Part 7 of 8 " »