Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/31/2021 at 00:38:43 (UTC).

GILBERT MOCOGNI, JR VS MICHAEL PAGNOTTA, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 03/29/2019 GILBERT MOCOGNI, JR filed a Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle lawsuit against MICHAEL PAGNOTTA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3108

  • Filing Date:

    03/29/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

MOCOGNI GILBERT JR

Defendants

SOAS MAGGY

PAGNOTTA MICHAEL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

COSIO ANTHONY

Defendant Attorney

MIYAMOTO RONALD K

 

Court Documents

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

12/4/2020: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Motion for Summary Judgment - Motion for Summary Judgment

12/4/2020: Motion for Summary Judgment - Motion for Summary Judgment

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

2/9/2021: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2/9/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Objection (name extension) - Objection Defendant Pagnotta's Evidentiary Objections

2/16/2021: Objection (name extension) - Objection Defendant Pagnotta's Evidentiary Objections

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

2/16/2021: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

2/23/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

3/1/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Memorandum of Costs (Summary) - Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

3/8/2021: Memorandum of Costs (Summary) - Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

Notice of Settlement - Notice of Settlement

3/24/2021: Notice of Settlement - Notice of Settlement

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial and Related Motion and Discovery Dates; Order

7/9/2020: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial and Related Motion and Discovery Dates; Order

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

7/20/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Answer - Answer

5/31/2019: Answer - Answer

Answer - Answer

5/3/2019: Answer - Answer

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

5/8/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

5/8/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Complaint - Complaint

3/29/2019: Complaint - Complaint

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

3/29/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

9 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/25/2021
  • Hearing05/25/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Notice of Settlement: Status Date changed from 03/24/2021 to 03/24/2021; As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) scheduled for 05/25/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement): Status Date changed from 03/24/2021 to 03/24/2021; As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement); Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 03/29/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 03/24/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/01/2022 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Vacated on 05/03/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2021
  • DocketMemorandum of Costs (Summary); Filed by: Michael Pagnotta (Defendant); As to: Gilbert Mocogni, Jr (Plaintiff); Total Costs: 1628.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Michael Pagnotta (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion for Summary Judgment: Filed By: Michael Pagnotta (Defendant); Result: Granted; Result Date: 02/23/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
15 More Docket Entries
  • 05/08/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Gilbert Mocogni, Jr (Plaintiff); As to: Maggy Soas (Defendant); Service Date: 04/11/2019; Service Cost: 40.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Gilbert Mocogni, Jr (Plaintiff); As to: Michael Pagnotta (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 04/09/2019; Service Cost: 82.12; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Maggy Soas (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/25/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/01/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Gilbert Mocogni, Jr (Plaintiff); As to: Michael Pagnotta (Defendant); Maggy Soas (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Gilbert Mocogni, Jr (Plaintiff); As to: Michael Pagnotta (Defendant); Maggy Soas (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Gilbert Mocogni, Jr (Plaintiff); As to: Michael Pagnotta (Defendant); Maggy Soas (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC03108    Hearing Date: February 23, 2021    Dept: 26


Case Number: 19STLC03508    Hearing Date: February 23, 2021    Dept: 26

The Ranch at Fair Oaks COA v. White, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES;

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2030.300, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff The Ranch at Fair Oaks Community Association’s (1) Motion To Compel Defendant Kimberly White To Further Respond To Amended Form Interrogatories, Set #1 And Request For Sanctions; and (2) Motion To Compel Defendant Timothy White To Further Respond To Amended Form Interrogatories, Set #1 And Request For Sanctions are PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

THE COURT FURTHER ADVANCES THE HEARING ON (1) MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT KIMBERLY WHITE TO FURTHER RESPOND TO AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET #1 AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; AND (2) MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TIMOTHY WHITE TO FURTHER RESPOND TO AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET #1 AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS FROM FEBRUARY 24, 2021 TO THIS DATE AND PLACES THOSE MOTIONS OFF CALENDAR.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff The Ranch at Fair Oaks Community Association (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for failure to pay assessment fees against Defendants Kimberly White (“Defendant Kimberly”) and Timothy White (“Defendant Timothy”) on April 10, 2019. The Court granted defense counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel on July 16, 2020.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motions to Compel Defendants’ Further Responses to Amended Form Interrogatories, Set #1 and Request for Sanctions on August 17, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

Trial in this action was originally set for October 7, 2020. The corresponding cutoffs for discovery and discovery motions, therefore, were September 7, 2020 and September 22, 2020, respectively. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).) Following the Court’s continuance of the trial date to March 9, 2021, the discovery and discovery motion cutoffs were extended to February 7, 2021 and February 22, 2021. The instant Motions, however, are set to be heard after the statutory cutoff for discovery motions.

The Court cannot grant discovery motions after the cutoff date unless the moving party has moved under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 to have the motions heard closer to the trial date. (Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1586-1587.) The Court’s discretion in allowing the motions to be heard closer to the trial date than allowed by Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020 is bounded by the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, which include submission of a meet and confer declaration and the trial court’s consideration of the statutory factors. (Ibid.)

Conclusion

Plaintiff The Ranch at Fair Oaks Community Association’s (1) Motion To Compel Defendant Kimberly White To Further Respond To Amended Form Interrogatories, Set #1 And Request For Sanctions; and (2) Motion To Compel Defendant Timothy White To Further Respond To Amended Form Interrogatories, Set #1 And Request For Sanctions are PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

THE COURT FURTHER ADVANCES THE HEARING ON (1) MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT KIMBERLY WHITE TO FURTHER RESPOND TO AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET #1 AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; AND (2) MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TIMOTHY WHITE TO FURTHER RESPOND TO AMENDED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET #1 AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS FROM FEBRUARY 24, 2021 TO THIS DATE AND PLACES THOSE MOTIONS OFF CALENDAR.

Court clerk to give notice. 

Case Number: 19STLC03108    Hearing Date: February 22, 2021    Dept: 26

Mocogni, Jr. v. Pagnotta, et al.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Michael Pagnotta’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS:

On March 29, 2019, Plaintiff Gilbert Mocogni, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for personal injuries arising out of a dog bite against Defendants Michael Pagnotta (“Defendant Pagnotta”) and Maggy Soas (“Defendant Soas”). On December 4, 2020, Defendant Pagnotta filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff filed an opposition on February 9, 2021 and Defendant Pagnotta replied on February 16, 2021.

Discussion

The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) general negligence; (2) Strict Liability – Vicious Propensities; (3) Strict Liability – Civil Code 3342(a); (4) Violation of Statute/Negligence; (5) Negligence of Owners of Residential Property; and (6) Premises Liability of Owner of Commercial

Property. Plaintiff alleges all but the third cause of action against Defendant Pagnotta. The Complaint alleges that Defendants “were the owners, keepers and harborers of a dog” that bit Plaintiff on April 4, 2017. (Compl., ¶¶GN1-GN9.) Defendants allegedly “failed to exercise reasonable care to control and contain the Dog and prevent the attacking and biting” of Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶GN1-GN9.)

Evidentiary Objections

Defendant Pagnotta’s evidentiary objections are sustained for lack of personal knowledge.

Defendant’s Initial Burden of Proof

A defendant seeking summary judgment must show either (1) that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established; or (2) that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) Plaintiff is under no evidentiary burden to produce rebuttal evidence until Defendants meet their initial moving burden. (Binder v. Aetna Life Insurance Company (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 839-840.) Additionally, in ruling on the Motion, the Court must view the “evidence [citations] and such inferences [citations], in the light most favorable to the opposing party.” (Intrieri v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 72, 81 [citing Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843].)

Defendant Pagnotta argues that he is not liable to Plaintiff under any of the causes of action because he did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care. “It is well established that a landlord does not owe a duty of care to protect a third party from his or her tenant’s dog unless the landlord has actual knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities, and the ability to control or prevent the harm.” (Chee v. Amanda Goldt Property Management (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1369.) Actual knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities can be inferred from circumstantial evidence only the inference is not based on speculation or conjecture. (Uccello v. Laudenslayer (1975) 44 Cal. App. 3d 504, 514 n. 4 [citing Young v. Carlson (1954) 128 Cal.App.2d 743, 747-750].) In other words, the circumstances must show that the landlord “must have known,” not simply “should have known.” (Ibid.)

Defendant Pagnotta presents the following evidence regarding his experience with the subject dog. Plaintiff was bitten by a dog near the premises located at 653-1/2 Grand Avenue, Long Beach, California. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 1; Exh. B (“Mocogni, Jr. Depo., p. 15:9-13.) Defendant Soas was the owner of the dog that bit Plaintiff on April 4, 2017. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 2; Soas Decl., ¶2; Mocogni, Jr. Depo. at p. 49:12-17.) Plaintiff has no evidence that Defendant Pagnotta owned the dog. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 3; Mocogni Jr. Depo., p. 49:12-21.) Starting in May 2013, Defendant Pagnotta, as landlord, leased the subject premises to Defendant Soas, who began residing there at that time. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact Nos. 4-5; Pagnotta Decl., ¶2; Soas Decl. ¶2.) Defendant Soas had the dog that bit Plaintiff living with her during her tenancy at the subject property. (Motion Separate Statement, Fact No. 6; Soas Decl., ¶2.)

Defendant Soas told Defendant Pagnotta she never had a problem with the dog. (Motion Separate Statement, Fact No. 7; Soas Decl., ¶2.) Defendant Pagnotta observed and interacted with the dog on many occasions prior to the biting incident and was never threatened, attacked or bitten by the dog. (Motion Separate Statement, Fact No. 8; Pagnotta Decl., ¶3.) Nor had Defendant Pagnotta observed the dog growl, snarl or attempt to bite anyone in his presence. (Motion Separate Statement, Fact No. 9; Pagnotta Decl., ¶3.) Defendant Pagnotta had never been warned that the dog was dangerous, vicious or unsafe, or that the dog had attacked or bitten anyone. (Motion Separate Statement, Fact Nos. 10-11; Pagnotta Decl., ¶¶3-4.) Defendant Pagnotta has no knowledge that the dog was allegedly vicious or that it had bitten or attacked anyone. (Motion Separate Statement, Fact No. 12; Pagnotta Decl., ¶5.) Defendant Soas similarly had not observed the dog exhibiting dangerous or vicious behavior, nor had been warned of such behavior. (Motion Separate Statement, Fact Nos. 13-15; Soas Decl., ¶¶2-3.)

Plaintiff was never informed that the dog was vicious or dangerous and to his knowledge the dog had never bitten or attacked anyone prior to the incident on April 4, 2017. (Motion Separate Statement, Fact Nos. 17-18; Mocogni, Jr. Depo., pp. 42:19-43:11.) The dog had not done anything to scare Plaintiff prior to the incident and Plaintiff was not afraid of the dog prior to the incident. (Motion Separate Statement, Fact Nos. 20-21; Mocogni, Jr. Depo., p. 45:7-11.) Plaintiff had not complained about the dog to either Defendant or to the other residents of the premises. (Motion Separate Statement, Fact Nos. 17-18; Mocogni, Jr. Depo., pp. 19:2-19, 41:22-42:1.)

This evidence is sufficient to carry Defendant Pagnotta’s initial burden of proof with respect to his lack of actual knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities, such that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate he owed Plaintiff a duty of care. The burden now shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of evidence that creates a triable issue of material fact regarding Defendant Pagnotta’s actual knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities.

Plaintiff’s Burden to Create a Triable Issue of Material Fact

In opposition, Plaintiff disputes that the dog never exhibited dangerous propensities in Defendant Pagnotta’s presence, that Defendant Pagnotta had never been warned the dog was dangerous, vicious, or unsafe, and that Defendant Pagnotta has no knowledge of the dog allegedly being vicious or attacking or biting anyone. The only evidence Plaintiff uses to dispute these facts is his own deposition testimony and declaration regarding Defendant Pagnotta’s conduct during times that the dog was barking at Plaintiff from behind the gate at the premises. (Opp., Separate Statement, Fact Nos. 9, 10, 12; Cosio Decl., Exh. B (“Mocogni Jr. Depo., pp. 49:23-25; 50:1-5; 52:1-3, 53:1-9; Mocogni Jr. Decl., ¶¶5, 8.) The extent of this testimony is that, from a window on the premises, Defendant Pagnotta twice observed the dog barking at Plaintiff and yelled at it to “shut up.” (Opp., Separate Statement, Fact Nos. 9, 10, 12, 15; Mocogni Jr. Depo., pp. 49:23-25; 50:1-5; 52:1-3, 53:1-9; Mocogni Jr. Decl., ¶¶5, 8.) While Plaintiff testified that the dog was showing its teeth while barking, signaling to Plaintiff that it wanted to bite him, there is no evidence that Defendant Pagnotta could see that the dog was showing its teeth. (Opp., Separate Statement, Fact Nos. 9, 10, 12, 15; Mocogni Jr. Depo., pp. 49:23-25; 50:1-5; 52:1-3, 53:1-9; Mocogni Jr. Decl., ¶¶5, 8.) Plaintiff also declares that the dog’s other behavior during his visits was aggressive, including running up and down the driveway, rubbing its nose through the gate, pawing at the ground and growling. (Opp., Separate Statement, Fact No. 15; Mocogni Jr. Decl., ¶¶5.) However, there is no evidence that Defendant Pagnotta observed or was aware of this other behavior by the dog.

Plaintiff’s evidence does not carry his burden of proof to demonstrate that Defendant Pagnotta had actual knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities. Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant Pagnotta was aware that the dog was doing anything other than barking at him, which is an ordinary canine activity that does not suggest the dog was dangerous or vicious. In Yuzon v. Collins (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 149, 164, the Court of Appeals explained: “[E]ven if the dogs had been barking or jumping against the fence behind which they were kept, those are harmless activities ordinarily associated with, and expected from, dogs.” (Id. at p. 267, 176 Cal.Rptr. 473.) Pushing, barking, and jumping at the screen door would not have given Collins actual notice of Kemo's vicious propensities.” (Yuzon v. Collins (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 149 [citing Nava v. McMillan (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 262, 265-266].)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds no triable issues of material fact exist regarding Defendant Pagnotta’s lack of actual knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities such that he had no duty to Plaintiff to protect against harm by the dog.

Conclusion

Defendant Michael Pagnotta’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer MIYAMOTO RONALD K