Estate of Raphael Harper et al vs CVS Pharmacy Inc et al

Case Number

24CV00873

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 09/17/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Status Hearing

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiffs Raquel Harper: Self-Represented

For Plaintiff The Estate of Raphael Harper: Unrepresented

For Defendant Longs Drug Stores California, LLC: James J. Yukevich, Raymond H. Hua, Matthew H. Conley, Yukevich Cavanaugh

For Defendant 2973 State Street, LLC: Matthew H. Conley; Craig A. Parton, Kristen M. Blabey, Jeff F. Tchakarov, Price, Postel & Parma LLP

Ruling

This entire matter is DISMISSED with prejudice. Although there is a Request for Dismissal with prejudice of the 2973 State Street LLC cross complaint, marked as Exhibit 2, this Court requests that stand-alone document(s) re: Request(s) for Dismissal With Prejudice, be submitted by Mr. Hua. Mr. Hua to give notice.

Background

Last on the 8/6/25 calendar and the Court ruled:

1. The motion of Longs Drug Stores California, LLC for terminating and monetary sanctions is granted in part and denied in part.

a. Terminating sanctions will not be imposed at this time.

b. Raquel Harper and the Estate of Raphael Harper shall serve verified, code-compliant responses, without objections, to form interrogatories set one, special interrogatories set one, and requests for production of documents set one, propounded by Longs Drug Stores California, no later than August 27, 2025.

c. Monetary sanctions are awarded in the amount of $1,000.00 in favor of Longs Drug Stores California, and against Raquel Harper and the Estate of Raphael Harper, jointly and severally, payable to counsel for Longs Drug Stores California no later than August 29, 2025.

2. The motion of Longs Drug Stores California, LLC for order deeming admitted Longs’ requests for admission, set two, to Raquel Harper, is granted. The requests are deemed admitted. No monetary sanctions are awarded in favor of or against any party with respect to this motion.

3. The motion of Longs Drug Stores California, LLC for order deeming admitted Longs’ requests for admission, set two, to Estate of Raphael Harper, is granted. The requests are deemed admitted. No monetary sanctions are awarded in favor of or against any party with respect to this motion.

4. A Status Conference is set for 10am on 9/17/25.

5. Counsel for Longs Drug Stores California, LLC to give notice.

Declaration of Raymond Hua filed 9/4/25

I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before all Courts of the State of California and a partner with the law firm of Yukevich | Cavanaugh, attorneys of record for Defendants Longs Drug Stores California, LLC (erroneously sued and served herein as CVS Pharmacy, Inc.) (hereinafter, “Longs”), and 2973 State Street LLC (“2973 State Street”) (collectively, “Defendants”), parties to this action, and have personal knowledge of each and all of the facts stated in this declaration.  If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the facts contained herein.

2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Ruling that was served on Plaintiffs Raquel Harper, as successor in interest to decedent Raphael Harper, and the Estate of Raphael Harper (collectively “Plaintiffs”) and Plaintiffs’ former counsel.  As part of the Notice of Ruling is the Court’s August 6, 2025, Order.

3. Pursuant to the Court’s August 6, 2025, Order, Plaintiffs were required to “serve verified, code-compliant responses, without objections, to form interrogatories, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and requests for production, set one,” propounded by Longs.  The Court’s Order required these responses by August 27, 2025.  The deadline has passed, and as of the date of this Declaration, Defendants have not received the Court Ordered discovery responses. 

4. The Court’s August 6, 2025, Order also required Plaintiffs to pay $1,000.00 in favor of Longs, by August 29, 2025.  That deadline also passed without Plaintiffs’ compliance. 

5. As part of the Court’s August 6, 2025, Order, the Court deemed admitted Longs’ requests for admission, set two, propounded to Plaintiffs.  The requests deemed admitted included a request that Plaintiffs (1) “Admit that YOU have no evidence to support your contention that any Defendant is responsible for the injuries sustained by YOU [the Estate] or Raquel Harper”; and (2) “Admit that YOU have no evidence to support your contention that any Defendant was negligent as alleged in YOUR Complaint.”

6. Prior to the Court’s August 6, 2025, Order, the Court had previously granted Longs’ prior motions to compel.  On December 18, 2024, the Court had Ordered Plaintiffs to “provide responses to written discovery, without objection, no later than January 31, 2025.”  No responses were provided by that deadline either.  As part of the Court’s December 18, 2024, Order, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to pay Longs $3,500.00 in sanctions.  Those sanctions have never been paid.

7. Longs’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions was filed on February 25, 2025, and originally set for hearing on April 9, 2025.  The hearing was then continued to June 11, 2025, to allow Plaintiffs time to retain new counsel.  The hearing was again continued to July 16, 2025, and then ultimately, to August 6, 2025.  Both Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ prior counsel were served with the notice of the August 6, 2025, hearing.

8. CVS has now expended thousands of dollars to simply get discovery responses, and in the absence of such responses, to seek dismissal of this matter.  The Court has given Plaintiffs numerous opportunities to address their deficiencies.  Plaintiffs have ignored all opportunities afforded them and have failed to comply with multiple Court Orders.  

9. Defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss this entire matter with prejudice at the status conference on September 17, 2025.  

10. Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be the only remaining matter.  2973 State Street had filed a request for dismissal on August 16, 2024.  The request for dismissal is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.  To the extent, the Court has not yet entered that dismissal, Defendants request that the Court dismiss the Cross Complaint as part of the Court’s dismissal of the entire matter.

The Court’s Conclusions

The requests made are all reasonable and the Court will grant them.