Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/27/2021 at 06:35:52 (UTC).

LUIS MARQUEZ VS RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, AN OHIO CORPORATION

Case Summary

On 08/23/2019 LUIS MARQUEZ filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, AN OHIO CORPORATION. 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 - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******7891

  • Filing Date:

    08/23/2019

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

MARQUEZ LUIS

Defendant

RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY AN OHIO CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

GRACE PHYL

Defendant Attorney

HURLEY GREG

 

Court Documents

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

11/19/2020: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

11/19/2020: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

11/19/2020: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Motion for Summary Judgment - Motion for Summary Judgment

11/19/2020: Motion for Summary Judgment - Motion for Summary Judgment

Motion for Summary Judgment - Motion for Summary Judgment

11/19/2020: Motion for Summary Judgment - Motion for Summary Judgment

Notice (name extension) - Notice Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

11/19/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

Response (name extension) - Response to Defendants Separate Statement of Facts

1/19/2021: Response (name extension) - Response to Defendants Separate Statement of Facts

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration and Exhibits

1/19/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration and Exhibits

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of McKinney in Support of Opposition to Plaintiff's MSJ

1/20/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of McKinney in Support of Opposition to Plaintiff's MSJ

Objection (name extension) - Objection Evidentiary Objections in Suppport of Opposition to Plaintiff's MSJ

1/20/2021: Objection (name extension) - Objection Evidentiary Objections in Suppport of Opposition to Plaintiff's MSJ

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

1/20/2021: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Chilleen in Support of Opposition to Plaintiff's MSJ

1/20/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Chilleen in Support of Opposition to Plaintiff's MSJ

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Defendant Ralphs' Opposition to Plaintiff Marquez' Motion for Summary Judgmnet

1/20/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Defendant Ralphs' Opposition to Plaintiff Marquez' Motion for Summary Judgmnet

Reply (name extension) - Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

1/26/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

Reply (name extension) - Reply Defendant Ralphs' Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgmnet

1/28/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply Defendant Ralphs' Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgmnet

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment) of 02/02/2021

2/2/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment) of 02/02/2021

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

8/23/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

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

8/23/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

23 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/23/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/13/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 02/04/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 08/26/2022 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 02/04/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment; Hearing on Motion for...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Summary Judgment scheduled for 02/03/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 02/03/2021; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Summary Judgment scheduled for 02/03/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 02/03/2021; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Summary Judgment scheduled for 02/03/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment) of 02/02/2021; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2021
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment scheduled for 02/02/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 02/03/2021 10:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
29 More Docket Entries
  • 09/11/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: LUIS MARQUEZ (Plaintiff); As to: RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation (Defendant); Service Date: 08/30/2019; Service Cost: 20.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: LUIS MARQUEZ (Plaintiff); As to: RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation (Defendant); Service Date: 08/30/2019; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 02/19/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 08/26/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: LUIS MARQUEZ (Plaintiff); As to: RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: LUIS MARQUEZ (Plaintiff); As to: RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: LUIS MARQUEZ (Plaintiff); As to: RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC07891    Hearing Date: February 03, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Wed., February 3, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Marquez v. Ralphs Grocery Company COMPL. FILED: 08-23-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC07891 DISC. C/O: 04-13-21

NOTICE: OK DISC. MOT. C/O: 04-28-21

TRIAL DATE: 05-13-21

PROCEEDINGS: (1) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Luis Marquez

RESP. PARTY: Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company

PROCEEDINGS: (2) DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Luis Marquez

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

(CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

(1) Plaintiff Luis Marquez’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

(2) Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

SERVICE:

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

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

[X] 75/80 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005 (b)) OK

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

OPPOSITION: Filed on January 20, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on January 26, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

OPPOSITION: Filed on January 19, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on January 28, 2021 [X] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On August 23, 2019, Plaintiff Luis Marquez (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act against Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company (“Defendant”). Defendant filed its Answer on September 26, 2019.

On November 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (“Plaintiff’s MSJ”). Defendant filed an Opposition on January 20, 2021, and Plaintiff filed a Reply on January 26, 2021.

Also on November 19, Defendant filed a competing Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication (“Defendant’s MSJ”). Plaintiff filed an Opposition on January 19, and Defendant filed a late Reply on January 28.

  1. Legal Standard

A party seeking summary judgment has the burden of producing evidentiary facts sufficient to entitle him/her to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153.) The moving party must make an affirmative showing that he/she is entitled to judgment irrespective of whether or not the opposing party files an opposition. (Villa v. McFerren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733.)

When a Defendant or Cross-Defendant seeks summary judgment, he/she 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).) When a Plaintiff or Cross-Complainant seeks summary judgment, he/she must produce admissible evidence on each element of each cause of action on which judgment is sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) The moving party’s “affidavits must cite evidentiary facts, not legal conclusions or ‘ultimate’ facts” and be strictly construed. (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519; Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 639.)

The opposing party on a motion for summary judgment is under no evidentiary burden to produce rebuttal evidence until the moving party meets his or her initial movant’s burden. (Binder v. Aetna Life Insurance Company (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832.) Once the initial movant’s burden is met, then the burden shifts to the opposing party to show, with admissible evidence, that there is a triable issue requiring the weighing procedures of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p).) The opposing party may not simply rely on his/her allegations to show a triable issue but must present evidentiary facts that are substantial in nature and rise beyond mere speculation. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151.) As to any alternative request for summary adjudication of issues, such alternative relief must be clearly set forth in the Notice of Motion and the general burden-shifting rules apply but the issues upon which summary adjudication may be sought are limited by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).)

  1. Defendant’s Evidentiary Objections

Defendant objects to paragraphs 5-8 of Plaintiff’s declaration submitted in support of Plaintiff’s MSJ. The objection is OVERRULED.

  1. Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant requests judicial notice of (1) a list of lawsuits filed by Plaintiff; (2) Plaintiff’s federal complaint filed in Marquez v. Ralphs Grocery Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-04239-DSF-PJW on May 20, 2018; (3) the federal court’s August 14, 2019 order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment; (4) Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Interrogatories, Nos. 1 and 3; (5) the declaration of Plaintiff’s investigator, Even Louis, filed in the federal action; and (6) the Court’s decision in Cohen v. Ralphs Grocery Company Case No. 12E1078. (Def. MSJ, RJN, p. 1, ¶¶ 1-6.)

Defendant’s request is GRANTED as to request numbers 2, 3, 5, 6. (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (d).) However, numbers 1 and 4 do not fall within any category that permits judicial notice, so judicial notice is DENIED.

  1. Discussion

A. Unruh Civil Rights Act and the California Disabled Persons Act

Civil Code section 51 subdivision (b) states that “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their…disability…, are entitled to the full and equal accommodations advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” A violation of any individual right under the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) is also a violation of California’s Unruh Act. (Civ. Code § 51, subd. (f).)

Civil Code sections 55.51 through 55.57 apply to “construction-related accessibility claims”, which are defined as “a violation of a ‘construction-related accessibility standard’ under federal or state law.’” (Civ. Code, § 55.52, subd. (a)(1), (6); Mundy v. Pro-Thro Enterprises (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 5.) To prevail on a claim of violations of the Unruh Act based on a violation of a construction-related accessibility standard, the plaintiff is required to “prove he was denied full and equal access after personally encountering an ADA violation.” (Id.)

Thus, the elements of a claim for violation of the Unruh Act are that: (1) Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) Defendant owned, leased, or operated a place of public accommodation; (3) the place of public accommodation was in violation of one or more construction-related accessibility standards; (4) the violations denied Plaintiff full and equal access to the place of public accommodation; (5) the violations were personally encountered by Plaintiff on a particular occasion; (6) Plaintiff experienced difficulty, discomfort, or embarrassment due to the violations; and (7) the discrimination was intentional unless premised exclusively upon a violation of the ADA. (Cal. Civ. Code § 55.56; Mundy v. Pro-Thro Enterprises (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1; Surrey v. TrueBeginnings (2009) 168 Cal.App.4th 414.)

B. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the ADA by failing to “ensure that the privileges, advantages, accommodations, facilities, goods and services of [a] place of public accommodation [are] offered on a full and equal basis by anyone who owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation.” (Compl., ¶ 8 [citing 42 U.S.C., § 12182, subd. (a)].) Under the ADA, discrimination includes “a failure to remove architectural barriers…that are structural in nature, in existing facilities…where such removal is readily achievable. (42 U.S.C. § 12182, subd. (b)(2)(A)(iv).)

Plaintiff alleges a construction-related accessibility claim, arguing that Defendant’s placement of a bottle of hand sanitizer on top of a two-tier shelf failed to comply with the applicable height and reach requirements and is thus in violation of the law. (Id. at ¶¶ 15-20.)

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on the basis that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Plf. Notice of MSJ, p. 2:3-10.)

In support of his Motion, Plaintiff presents the following evidence. Plaintiff is a paraplegic and uses a wheelchair for mobility. (Plf. MSJ, Separate Statement, No. 1, Marquez Decl., ¶ 2.) It is undisputed that Defendant owns the Ralphs grocery store located at 5951 Del Amo Blvd., Lakewood, CA (the “Lakewood Ralphs”). (Id., Nos. 2-3.) Plaintiff provides evidence that on March 23, 2018, he visited the Lakewood Ralphs to buy bread and that he found hand sanitizer in the bakery area. (Id., No. 4-5, Marquez Decl., ¶¶ 3-5, Exh. 3.) He also states that he wanted to use the hand sanitizer, but it was placed too high for him to reach, causing difficulty and frustration. (Id., Nos. 5-6, Marquez Decl., ¶ 6, 7.) Plaintiff further states that he uses a manual wheelchair, that his hands get dirty from operating his wheelchair, and that he wanted to find a way to handle the bread hygienically. (Id.) A store employee eventually helped him but he was embarrassed that he could not do a simple task independently. (Id. No. 8, Marquez Decl., ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff also presents a declaration from Evens Louis (“Louis”), a private investigator, who visited the Lakewood Ralphs on May 16, 2018. (Id., No. 9, Louis, ¶¶ 2,3, Exh. 5.). Louis declares that he took measurements of where the hand sanitizer “dispenser” was placed in the bakery and found that it was located on top of a two-tiered display surface, 42 inches high and approximately 15 inches deep. (Id. No. 10, Louis Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. 5.) It is undisputed that during the pendency of the federal lawsuit, Defendant permanently removed the hand sanitizer bottle from the bakery. (Plf. MSJ, Def. Separate Statement, No. 12.)

Relying on 36 C.F.R. Part 1191, Appendix D, § 308.3.2, Plaintiff argues that the hand sanitizer “must be placed within the appropriate reach range, which depends on whether the approach is forward or parallel and obstructed or unobstructed.” (Plf. MSJ, p. 7:18-21.) 36 C.F.R. Part 1191, Appendix D, § 308.3.2 provides:

“Where a clear floor or ground space allows a parallel approach to an element and the high side reach is over an obstruction, the height of the obstruction shall be 34 inches (865 mm) maximum and the depth of the obstruction shall be 24 inches (610 mm) maximum. The high side reach shall be 48 inches (1220 mm) maximum for a reach depth of 10 inches (255 mm) maximum. Where the reach depth exceeds 10 inches (255 mm), the high side reach shall be 46 inches (1170 mm) maximum for a reach depth of 24 inches (610 mm) maximum.” (Emphasis added.)

As already noted above, Louis states in his declaration that the hand sanitizer bottle in question was placed on a two-tier shelf that was 42 inches high and approximately 15 inches deep. (Plf. MSJ, Separate Statement, No. 10, Louis Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. 5.) Notably, Plaintiff does not present any evidence as to the height of the obstruction. The maximum height permitted under section 308.3.2 is 46 inches for depths between 11 inches and 24 inches and 48 inches for reach depths of 10 inches or less. Louis’ 42-inch height measurement of the two-tier display is several inches lower than the maximum permitted under section 308.3.2. The 15-inch depth measurement is also within permitted ranges. Based on this evidence, the Court cannot find the Lakewood Ralphs violated a construction-related accessibility standard.

As Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Lakewood Ralphs violated one or more construction-related accessibility standards, Plaintiff has not carried his initial burden. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

C. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Defendant argues it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because (1) hand sanitizers are not covered by the ADA/Unruh Act, (2) even if hand sanitizers were covered, it was and has always been within accessible limits, or (3) even if hand sanitizers were covered and were not within an accessible range, Plaintiff’s claim fails because he was not denied access and cannot show that he encountered a barrier that caused him difficulty. (Def. MSJ, Notice p. 1:9-17.)

As noted in the discussion above, the elements of a claim for violation of the Unruh Act are that: (1) Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) Defendant owned, leased, or operated a place of public accommodation; (3) the place of public accommodation was in violation of one or more construction-related accessibility standards; (4) the violations denied Plaintiff full and equal access to the place of public accommodation; (5) the violations were personally encountered by Plaintiff on a particular occasion; (6) Plaintiff experienced difficulty, discomfort or embarrassment due to the violations; and (7) the discrimination was intentional unless premised exclusively upon a violation of the ADA. (Cal. Civ. Code § 55.56; Mundy v. Pro-Thro Enterprises (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1; Surrey v. TrueBeginnings (2009) 168 Cal.App.4th 414.)

Defendant’s evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff cannot establish Defendant violated a construction-related accessibility standard. 36 C.F.R. Part 1191, Appendix D, § 308.3.2 provides:

“Where a clear floor or ground space allows a parallel approach to an element and the high side reach is over an obstruction, the height of the obstruction shall be 34 inches (865 mm) maximum and the depth of the obstruction shall be 24 inches (610 mm) maximum. The high side reach shall be 48 inches (1220 mm) maximum for a reach depth of 10 inches (255 mm) maximum. Where the reach depth exceeds 10 inches (255 mm), the high side reach shall be 46 inches (1170 mm) maximum for a reach depth of 24 inches (610 mm) maximum.” (Emphasis added.)

Defendant presents evidence that the hand sanitizer on the two-tier shelf was located 40 inches above the floor, over an obstruction that was 34 inches above the floor with a reach depth of 24 inches. (Def. MSJ, McKinney Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) These measurements are within the limits imposed by section 308.3.2. Thus, Defendant carried its initial burden to demonstrate that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established. The burden now shifts to Plaintiff to show that a triable issue of material fact exists as to whether Defendant violated a construction-related accessibility standard.

In Opposition, Plaintiff presents the declaration of Louis, stating that the two-tiered display surface measured 42 inches tall and was approximately 15 inches deep. (Plf. Oppo., p. 6:5-11, Louis Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.) Although these measurements slightly differ from the measurements presented by Plaintiff, Louis’ declaration does not create a triable issue of material fact as the total height and depth do not exceed the maximum permitted under section 308.3.2. Plaintiff also does not provide any evidence contradicting Defendant’s 34-inch measurement of the obstruction. Thus, Plaintiff has not carried his burden to establish that a triable issue of material fact exists regarding Defendant’s violation of a construction-related accessibility standard.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion Summary Judgment Motion is GRANTED.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons:

(1) Plaintiff Luis Marquez’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

(2) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC07891    Hearing Date: February 02, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., February 2, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Marquez v. Ralphs Grocery Company COMPL. FILED: 08-23-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC07891 DISC. C/O: 04-13-21

NOTICE: OK DISC. MOT. C/O: 04-28-21

TRIAL DATE: 05-13-21

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Luis Marquez

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

(CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, is CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 3, 2021 AT 10:30 A.M. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE to be concurrently heard with Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

SERVICE:

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

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

[X] 75/80 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005 (b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on January 19, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on January 28, 2021 [X] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background & Discussion

On August 23, 2019, Plaintiff Luis Marquez (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act against Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company (“Defendant”). Defendant filed its Answer on September 26, 2019.

On November 19, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication (the “Motion”). Plaintiff filed an Opposition on January 19, 2021, and Defendant filed a Reply on January 28, 2021.

Also on November 19, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on January 20, 2021, and Plaintiff filed a Reply on January 26, 2021. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is set for hearing for February 3, 2021 at 10:30 a.m.

Thus, the Court CONTINUES Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment to FEBRUARY 3, 2021 AT 10:30 a.m. so that it may be concurrently heard with Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgement.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, is CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 3, 2021 AT 10:30 A.M. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE to be concurrently heard with Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer GRACE PHYL