On 12/05/2019 CHRIS LANGER filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against GEORGE S STERN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
*******1164
12/05/2019
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Spring Street Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
SERENA R. MURILLO
LANGER CHRIS
STERN IN INDIVIDUAL AND REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE UNDER THE TRUST AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN GEORGE S. STERN AND ADELE R. STERN DATED FEBRUARY 27 1985 GEORGE S.
STERN IN DIVIDUAL AND REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE UNDER THE TRUST AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN GEORGE S. STERN AND ADELE R. STERN DATED FEBRUARY 27 1985 ADELE R.
VELASCO MIGUEL ANGEL MARTINEZ
GRACE PHYL
KEREKES STEVEN WILLIAM
1/16/2020: Answer - Answer
1/17/2020: Answer - Answer
12/30/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service
12/30/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service
12/18/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service
12/5/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint
12/5/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
12/5/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
12/5/2019: Complaint - Complaint
12/5/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order
Hearing12/08/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service
Hearing06/03/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial
DocketAnswer; Filed by: George S. Stern in individual and representative capacity as trustee under the Trust Agreement Entered into between George S. Stern and Adele R. Stern dated February 27 1985 (Defendant); Adele R. Stern in dividual and representative capacity as trustee under the Trust Agreement Entered into between George S. Stern and Adele R. Stern dated February 27 1985 (Defendant); As to: Chris Langer (Plaintiff)
DocketAnswer; Filed by: Miguel Angel Martinez Velasco (Defendant)
DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Chris Langer (Plaintiff); As to: George S. Stern in individual and representative capacity as trustee under the Trust Agreement Entered into between George S. Stern and Adele R. Stern dated February 27 1985 (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 12/23/2019; Service Cost: 30.00; Service Cost Waived: No
DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Chris Langer (Plaintiff); As to: Adele R. Stern in dividual and representative capacity as trustee under the Trust Agreement Entered into between George S. Stern and Adele R. Stern dated February 27 1985 (Defendant); Service Date: 12/20/2019; Service Cost: 30.00; Service Cost Waived: No
DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Chris Langer (Plaintiff); As to: Miguel Angel Martinez Velasco (Defendant); Service Date: 12/13/2019; Service Cost Waived: No
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 06/03/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 12/08/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Chris Langer (Plaintiff); As to: George S. Stern in individual and representative capacity as trustee under the Trust Agreement Entered into between George S. Stern and Adele R. Stern dated February 27 1985 (Defendant); Adele R. Stern in dividual and representative capacity as trustee under the Trust Agreement Entered into between George S. Stern and Adele R. Stern dated February 27 1985 (Defendant); Miguel Angel Martinez Velasco (Defendant)
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Chris Langer (Plaintiff); As to: George S. Stern in individual and representative capacity as trustee under the Trust Agreement Entered into between George S. Stern and Adele R. Stern dated February 27 1985 (Defendant); Adele R. Stern in dividual and representative capacity as trustee under the Trust Agreement Entered into between George S. Stern and Adele R. Stern dated February 27 1985 (Defendant); Miguel Angel Martinez Velasco (Defendant)
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Chris Langer (Plaintiff); As to: George S. Stern in individual and representative capacity as trustee under the Trust Agreement Entered into between George S. Stern and Adele R. Stern dated February 27 1985 (Defendant); Adele R. Stern in dividual and representative capacity as trustee under the Trust Agreement Entered into between George S. Stern and Adele R. Stern dated February 27 1985 (Defendant); Miguel Angel Martinez Velasco (Defendant)
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk
Case Number: 19STLC11164 Hearing Date: March 8, 2021 Dept: 26
Langer v. Stern, et al. JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Code Civ. Proc., § 438; Smiley v.
Citibank (1995) 11 Cal.4th 138, 145-146) TENTATIVE RULING: The Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings of Defendant Miguel Angel Martinez Velasco, joined by
Defendants George S. Stern and Adele R. Stern, is DENIED. ANALYSIS: Plaintiff Chris Langer
(“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendants George S. Stern and
Adele R. Stern, individually and in their capacity as trustees under the Trust
Agreement Entered into between George S. Stern and
Adele R. Stern dated February 27, 1985 (“Stern Defendants”) and Miguel Angel
Martinez Velasco (“Defendant Velasco”) on December 5, 2019. On August 11, 2020, Defendant
Velasco filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“the Motion”).
The Stern Defendants filed a Notice of Joinder in the Motion on August 25,
2020. To date, no opposition has been filed. Legal Standard The standard for ruling on a
motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable
to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with
matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. (Bezirdjian
v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322, citing Schabarum v.
California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216.) Matters which are subject to mandatory judicial
notice may be treated as part of the complaint and may be considered without
notice to the parties. Matters which are subject to permissive judicial notice
must be specified in the notice of motion, the supporting points and
authorities, or as the court otherwise permits. (Id.) The motion may not be
supported by extrinsic evidence. (Barker v. Hull (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d
221, 236.) While a statutory motion for
judgment on the pleadings brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
438, et seq. must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, there is no
such requirement for a motion for judgment on the pleadings brought pursuant to
the common law. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 439 (moving party must file declaration
demonstrating an attempt to meet and confer in person or by telephone, at least
five days before the date a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed.) Discussion The
Motion is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of
Civil Procedure section 439. (Motion, Garber Decl., ¶¶2-3; Kerekes Decl.,
¶¶2-3.) Defendants submit a Request for Judicial Notice of (1) the
federal complaint in Langer v. Stern, et al., Federal Case No. 2:19-cv-02151-AB-J
EM, filed on March 22, 2019; (2) the Order dated November 25, 2019, granting summary
judgment on the federal complaint; and (3) the judgment on the federal
complaint, dated December 17, 2019. The Court grants the request pursuant to
Cal. Evidence Code section 452, subdivisions (c) and (d). These documents show that Plaintiff filed a federal court
action against Defendants on March 22, 2019 in which he alleged causes of
action for (1) violation of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990; and (2)
violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. (Motion, RJN, Exh. A. pp. 5:7.) In the
federal action, Plaintiff alleged that he is a paraplegic and uses a wheelchair
for mobility. (Demurrer, RJN, Exh. A, ¶1.) Plaintiff alleged he visited
Defendants’ store at 2616 S. Main Street, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
(“the Store”) in February 2019. (Id. at ¶¶2-7, 12.) Plaintiff alleged
that at the time of his visit, the Store lacked handicap accessible parking
spaces or sales counters in conformity with ADA standards. (Id. at
¶¶15-21.) Plaintiff alleged he was denied full and fair access to the Store as
a result of the parking violations. (Id. at ¶¶17-18.) Plaintiff also
alleged he experienced difficult and discomfort due to these accessibility barriers.
(Id. at ¶19.) Plaintiff sought injunctive relief on the ADA cause of
action and monetary damages on the Unruh cause of action. (Id. at
Prayer.) On November 25, 2019, the federal court issued a ruling on
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Motion, RJN, Exh. B.) The federal
court found that no genuine dispute existed as to whether the Store was now
compliant with the ADA, entitling Defendants to summary judgment on the first
cause of action because Plaintiff lacked standing under the ADA such that his
ADA claim was moot. (Id. at pp. 4:6-7:9.) The federal court also
declined to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction to hear the Unruh state law
claim concurrent with a federal claim. (Id. at pp. 7:10-8:1.) On that
basis, the federal court found it appropriate to dismiss the Unruh claim. (Id.
at p. 7:23-8:1.) Instead, the federal court ruled that “[s]tate court is the
proper forum for Plaintiff to litigate his remaining claim. (Id. at p.
8:1-2.) Pursuant to this ruling, the federal court entered judgment
on December 17, 2019. (Motion, RJN, Exh. C.) Defendants now bring the instant Motion
brought on two grounds: Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 subdivision (c)
and res judicata. The Court will address each in turn. Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 subdivision (c) Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 subdivision (c)
states a party may object to a complaint on the grounds that “[t]here is
another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action.” The
federal action filed by Plaintiff against Defendants on March 22, 2019 and
dismissed on December 17, 2019 included a cause of action for violation of
sections 51-53 of the Unruh Act. (Motion, RJN, Exh. A, p. 7:8-27.) Likewise,
the Complaint in this action is brought pursuant to the same sections of the
Unruh Act for the alleged accessibility barriers Plaintiff encountered at the
Store in February 2019. (Compl., ¶¶12-21.) Although the Complaint in this
action was filed on December 5, 2019, while the federal action was still
technically pending, the federal action has since been dismissed. Indeed, the
federal court’s ruling on November 25, 2019 made it clear that the Unruh Act
claim was no longer viable in that court. Because there is now only one action pending with respect to
the Store’s violation of the Unruh Act in February 2019, the basis for judgment
on the pleadings under subdivision (c) of section 430.10 no longer applies.
Judgment on the pleadings under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10,
subdivision (c) is denied. Res Judicata Res judicata precludes a party from relitigating certain
matters that were resolved in a prior proceeding, if certain circumstances are
met. (Brinton v. Bankers Pension Services, Inc. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th
550, 556.) These circumstances are: (1) a
claim or issue raised in the present action is identical to a claim or issue
litigated in a prior proceeding; (2) the prior proceeding resulted in a final
judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom the doctrine is being
asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior proceeding. (Teitelbaum
Furs, Inc. v. Dominion Ins. Co., Ltd. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 601, 604 [citing Bernhard
v. Bank of America (1942) 19 Cal.2d 807, 813].) There is no question that this action and the federal case
raise identical claims under the Unruh Act and that the parties’ asserting the
doctrine are the same parties in both actions. As to the remaining circumstance
of whether the federal action resulted in a final judgment on the merits of the
Unruh claim, the Court finds it did not. The federal court’s ruling on the
Unruh Act claim was based on the propriety of litigating that claim in federal
court, not on the merits. (Motion, RJN, Exh. B, p. 7:10-28.) It is clear from
the ruling on November 25, 2019 that the federal court made no determination
regarding whether the alleged accessibility barriers were violations of the
Unruh Act and entitled Plaintiff to damages under the same. In fact, the
federal court expressly ruled that “[s]tate court is the proper forum for
Plaintiff to litigate his remaining claim.” (Id. at p. 8:1-2.) Therefore, res judicata also does not provide a basis to
grant Defendants judgment on the pleadings. Conclusion The Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings of Defendant Miguel Angel Martinez Velasco, joined by
Defendants George S. Stern and Adele R. Stern, is DENIED. Court clerk to give notice.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases