This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/14/2020 at 07:43:52 (UTC).

CITY OF COMMERCE VS RANDOLPH SAUCEDO

Case Summary

On 02/19/2020 CITY OF COMMERCE filed an Other lawsuit against RANDOLPH SAUCEDO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Disposed - Other Disposed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0666

  • Filing Date:

    02/19/2020

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Other Disposed

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Petitioner

CITY OF COMMERCE

Respondent

SAUCEDO RANDOLPH

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorney

LAM RICHARD HAI

 

Court Documents

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Notice of Publication

9/25/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Notice of Publication

Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Publication

9/25/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Publication

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

9/25/2020: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Publication - Proof of Publication

9/25/2020: Proof of Publication - Proof of Publication

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

8/26/2020: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Order for Publication - Order for Publication for Randolph

8/17/2020: Order for Publication - Order for Publication for Randolph

Application (name extension) - Application Application for Publication

8/12/2020: Application (name extension) - Application Application for Publication

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Joshua Swisher in Support of Application

8/12/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Joshua Swisher in Support of Application

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Determine is Dog is Vicious)

6/24/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Determine is Dog is Vicious)

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

3/17/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

2/19/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Petition (name extension) - Petition Petition to Determine is Dog is Vicious

2/19/2020: Petition (name extension) - Petition Petition to Determine is Dog is Vicious

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

2/19/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration Of Joshua Swisher In Support Of Petition To Determine If Dog Is Vicious

2/19/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration Of Joshua Swisher In Support Of Petition To Determine If Dog Is Vicious

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration Of Ana Delgado In Support Of Petition To Determine If Dog Is Vicious

2/19/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration Of Ana Delgado In Support Of Petition To Determine If Dog Is Vicious

Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

2/19/2020: Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

2/19/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Hearing

2/19/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Hearing

8 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/25/2020
  • DocketProof of Publication; Filed by: City of Commerce (Petitioner); As to: Randolph Saucedo (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2020
  • DocketDeclaration Notice of Publication; Filed by: City of Commerce (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2020
  • DocketNotice Notice of Publication; Filed by: City of Commerce (Petitioner); As to: Randolph Saucedo (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: City of Commerce (Petitioner); As to: Randolph Saucedo (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: City of Commerce (Petitioner); As to: Randolph Saucedo (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Application for Publication re: Randolph: Status Date changed from 08/12/2020 to 08/17/2020; Name Extension changed from Application for Publication to for Publication re: Randolph; Result Date: 08/17/2020; As To Parties changed from Randolph Saucedo (Respondent) to Randolph Saucedo (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2020
  • DocketOrder for Publication for Randolph; Signed and Filed by: City of Commerce (Petitioner); As to: Randolph Saucedo (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Order for Publication for Randolph: Filed By: City of Commerce (Petitioner); Result: Granted; Result Date: 08/14/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/12/2020
  • DocketApplication Application for Publication; Filed by: City of Commerce (Petitioner); As to: Randolph Saucedo (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/12/2020
  • DocketDeclaration Declaration of Joshua Swisher in Support of Application; Filed by: City of Commerce (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
5 More Docket Entries
  • 02/20/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2020
  • DocketHearing on Petition Petition to Determine is Dog is Vicious scheduled for 06/24/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2020
  • DocketNotice of Hearing on Petition; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2020
  • DocketDeclaration Declaration Of Ana Delgado In Support Of Petition To Determine If Dog Is Vicious; Filed by: City of Commerce (Petitioner); As to: Randolph Saucedo (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: City of Commerce (Petitioner); As to: Randolph Saucedo (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2020
  • DocketDeclaration Declaration Of Joshua Swisher In Support Of Petition To Determine If Dog Is Vicious; Filed by: City of Commerce (Petitioner); As to: Randolph Saucedo (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2020
  • DocketPetition Petition to Determine is Dog is Vicious; Filed by: City of Commerce (Petitioner); As to: Randolph Saucedo (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2020
  • DocketNotice Notice of Hearing; Filed by: City of Commerce (Petitioner); As to: Randolph Saucedo (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCP00666    Hearing Date: June 23, 2020    Dept: 25

PETITION TO DETERMINE IF DOG IS VICIOUS

(Food & Agric. Code § 31603)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner City of Commerce’s Petition to Determine Dog is Vicious is GRANTED.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of June 18, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of June 18, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On February 19, 2020, Petitioner City of Commerce (“Petitioner”) filed this Petition to Determine if Dog is Vicious (the “Petition”) against Respondent Randolph Saucedo (“Respondent”), who is believed to be homeless. Respondent was personally served with this Petition on March 10, 2020. (3/17/20 Proof of Service.)

  1. Legal Standard

“‘Vicious dog’ means any of the following:

(a) Any dog that, when unprovoked, in an aggressive manner, inflicts severe injury on or kills a human being.

(b) Any dog previously determined to be and currently listed as a potentially dangerous dog that, after its owner or keeper has been notified of this determination, continues the behavior described in Section 31602 or is maintained in violation of Section 31641, 31642, or 31643.”

(Food & Agric. Code, § 31603.)

The Food & Agricultural Code section 31604 defines “severe injury” as “any physical injury to a human being that results in muscle tears or disfiguring lacerations or requires multiple sutures or corrective or cosmetic surgery.”

In addition, Food & Agricultural Code section 31626 provides several circumstances in which a dog may not be declared dangerous or vicious:

“(a) No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was committing a willful trespass or other tort upon premises occupied by the owner or keeper of the dog, or was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog, or was committing or attempting to commit a crime. No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if the dog was protecting or defending a person within the immediate vicinity of the dog from an unjustified attack or assault. No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if an injury or damage was sustained by a domestic animal which at the time the injury or damage was sustained was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog.

(b) No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if the injury or damage to a domestic animal was sustained while the dog was working as a hunting dog, herding dog, or predator control dog on the property of, or under the control of, its owner or keeper, and the damage or injury was to a species or type of domestic animal appropriate to the work of the dog.”

A finding that the dog is potentially dangerous or vicious must be made upon a preponderance of the evidence. (See Food & Agric. Code, § 31621.)

  1. Discussion

Petitioner seeks a Court order deeming Respondent’s tan/yellow Labrador Retriever named “Hotshot” (the “Dog”) “vicious” as defined by Food and Agricultural Code section 31603, subdivision (a). (Pet., ¶¶ 2, 5(a).) Petitioner presents the following evidence:

On October 16, 2019, Juan Diaz (“Diaz”) was exiting a Burger King location in Commerce, CA. (Mot., Swisher Decl., ¶ 8, Exh. D.) The incident report completed by Deputy Parra and supporting declaration by witness Burger King employee, Ana Delgado, demonstrate that the Dog bit Diaz on his right leg, causing him to fall and bleed near his right knee. (Mot., Swisher Decl., ¶ 8, Exh. D; Delgado Decl., ¶¶ 5, 7.) However, as Mr. Diaz did not provide a declaration, the Court cannot determine whether this attack was unprovoked. (See Food & Agric. Code § 31603, subd. (a).) Similarly, the Court cannot find the Dog is vicious based on a June 12, 2018 incident when the Dog attacked Code Enforcement Officer Ralph Vivero (“Vivero”) as he concedes that the Dog bites did not penetrate the skin, and thus did not sustain a “severe injury” as defined by Food & Agricultural Code, section 31604. (Mot., Swisher Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. A; Vivero Decl., ¶ 14.)

On January 7, 2019, while Chantal Sotomayor (“Sotomayor”) was at a Redbox video rental kiosk, the Dog, unprovoked, became aggressive, lunged at Sotomayor, and bit her right ankle causing puncture wounds. (Mot., Swisher Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. B, Sotomayor Decl., ¶¶ 3-6.) Sotomayor drove herself to a nearby hospital, where she received treatment for the bite and a tetanus shot. (Id. at ¶ 12.)

In addition, on October 8, 2019, the Dog, while unprovoked, attacked Victoria Valles (“Valles”). (Mot., Swisher Decl., ¶ 7, Exh. C.) Valles was waiting outside a Starbucks location in Commerce, CA when the Dog suddenly bit Valles’ right calf and pulled her leg back. (Id., Valles Decl., ¶ 3.) This caused Valles to fall, and her head hit and bounced off the ground. (Id.) The bite was severe and bled profusely, in part because it punctured an artery in two places. (Id. at ¶ 15.) As a result, the tissue around the injury became necrotic. (Id. at ¶ 19.)

Based on the evidence presented, the Court finds the Dog caused severe injuries, as defined by Food & Agricultural Code section 31604, to Sotomayor and Valles in an unprovoked manner. None of the exceptions provided by Food & Agricultural Code section 31626 appear to apply to the incidents involving Sotomayor or Valles. Notably, Respondent has not submitted any evidence to demonstrate otherwise.

Therefore, the Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Dog is vicious as defined by Section 31603.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner City of Commerce’s Petition to Determine Dog is Vicious is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.