Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/11/2021 at 07:31:44 (UTC).

NICOLE JACKSON VS LA COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Case Summary

On 07/22/2020 NICOLE JACKSON filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against LA COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY. 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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******6213

  • Filing Date:

    07/22/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

JACKSON NICOLE

Defendant

LA COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

 

Court Documents

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

9/17/2020: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Summons - Summons on Complaint

8/11/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

7/22/2020: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

7/22/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

7/22/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

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

7/22/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Complaint - Complaint

7/22/2020: Complaint - Complaint

Notice of Rejection - Pleadings - Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

7/24/2020: Notice of Rejection - Pleadings - Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/26/2023
  • Hearing07/26/2023 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2022
  • Hearing01/19/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Request to Waive Additional Court Fees (Superior Court): Filed By: Nicole Jackson (Plaintiff); Result: Granted; Result Date: 09/17/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court): Status Date changed from 09/17/2020 to 09/17/2020; Status changed from TP to Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2020
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); TP by:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2020
  • DocketRequest to Waive Additional Court Fees (Superior Court); Filed by: Nicole Jackson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Filed by: Nicole Jackson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2020
  • DocketNotice of Rejection - Pleadings; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2020
  • DocketAddress for Nicole Jackson (Plaintiff) clerical correction

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 01/19/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 07/26/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Nicole Jackson (Plaintiff); As to: LA County Metropolitan Transit Authority (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2020
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Nicole Jackson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2020
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk; As to: Nicole Jackson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Nicole Jackson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC06213    Hearing Date: April 28, 2021    Dept: 26

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO DEEM MATTERS ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Nicole Jackson
RESPONDING PARTY: None
MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED
(CCP § 2033.280)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Nicole Jackson’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted Against Defendant Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is GRANTED. DEFENDANT IS ORDERED
TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $60.00 TO PLAINTIFF WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff Nicole Jackson (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in this action for intentional tort and general
negligence against Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(“Defendant”) on July 22, 2020.
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted and Request for Sanctions
on April 2, 2021. Although the Motion is not accompanied by a proof of service, Defendant filed an
opposition on April 15, 2021 and does not contend any prejudice in opposing the Motion. Plaintiff
replied on April 19, 2021.
Discussion
The service date of the Requests for Admission is in dispute. Plaintiff contends the Requests were
served on February 18, 2021. (Motion, Jackson Decl., Exh. 1.) Defendant states in opposition that the
Requests were not accompanied by a proof of service and were not served in an envelope. (Opp.,
Vasquez Decl., ¶5 and Exh. A.) Rather, the documents were personally delivered to Defendant on
February 25, 2021. (Id. at ¶4.) It was not until March 16, 2021 that the Requests were forwarded to
defense counsel. (Motion, Freeman Decl., ¶5.) On March 22, 2021, defense counsel left Plaintiff a
voicemail asking for a copy of the proof of service and sent a meet and confer letter to the same effect
by mail. (Id. at ¶7 and Exh. B.) Defendant contends it served unverified responses on March 29, 2021,
however, the document attached to defense counsel’s declaration is Plaintiff’s response to Requests for
Admission. (Id. at Exh. C.) Verifications to the purported responses were not served until April 8, 2021.
(Id. at Exh. D.)
There is no requirement for a prior meet and confer effort before a motion to deem requests for
admission can be filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.) Further, the motion can be brought any time after
the responding party fails to provide the responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.) To the extent
Defendant contends the Requests for Admission were personally served on February 25, 2021,
responses were due 30 days later on March 27, 2021. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250) Defendant’s service
of unverified responses on March 29, 2021 was tantamount to no response at all. (See Appleton v.
Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) While Plaintiff could have responded to the meet and
confer letter sent by defense counsel on March 22, 2021, she was not obligated to do so. The responses
served on March 29, 2021 only became effective upon service of the verifications on April 8, 2021.
Therefore, Defendant did not respond to the Requests for Admission until April 8, 2021. Under either
service date of the Requests for Admission, Defendant’s responses were untimely. Nor has Defendant
demonstrated that the responses served were in compliance with the statutory requirements because no
copy of the responses is attached to the opposition.
Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admission admitted. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2033.280.) Sanctions are required under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010, 2023.030
and 2033.280, and have been properly noticed. However, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she is
entitled to the amount sought. Parties in pro per are entitled to recover costs, but not attorney’s fees.
(Kravitz v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1015, 1017.) Plaintiff’s supporting declaration seeks
attorney’s fees and costs. The attorney’s fees cannot be awarded and Plaintiff does not explain the nature
of the expenses and costs she incurred. (Motion, Jackson Decl., ¶4.) Therefore, the Court awards
Plaintiff $60.00 in costs based on the filing fee of the Motion.
Conclusion
Plaintiff Nicole Jackson’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted Against Defendant Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is GRANTED. DEFENDANT IS ORDERED
TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $60.00 TO PLAINTIFF WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.
Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 20STLC06213    Hearing Date: April 27, 2021    Dept: 26

PROCEEDINGS: (1) DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT; and
(2) MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority
RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Nicole Jackson
DEMURRER; MOTION TO STRIKE
(CCP §§ 430.31, et seq., 435, et seq.)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Demurrer to the Complaint is
SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND. PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE A FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.
Defendant Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Motion to Strike Portions of the
Complaint is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff Nicole Jackson (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in this action for intentional tort and general
negligence against Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(“Defendant”) on July 22, 2020. Proof of service of the Summons and Complaint was not filed until
February 22, 2021. Defendant filed the instant Demurrer to, and Motion to Strike Portions of, the
Complaint on March 26, 2021. Plaintiff filed oppositions on April 12, 2021 and Defendant replied on
April 15, 2021.
On April 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.
Demurrer
The Court finds that the Demurrer is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by
Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. (Demurrer, Freeman Decl., ¶¶2-3 and Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s
filing of a First Amended Complaint does not operate to take the Demurrer off calendar. The
amended should have been “filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the
demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 472.) Therefore, the Court strike the First Amended Complaint filed
on April 20, 2021 on its own motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 436, subdivision
(b).
Defendant demurs to the Complaint for failure to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action
(Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e)) and uncertainty (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f)). Special
demurrers are not allowed in a court of limited jurisdiction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (c).)
Therefore, the Court will not consider the demurrer for uncertainty.
The Complaint alleges causes of action for “intentional tort” and general negligence. Defendant
generally demurs on the grounds that no statutory basis is alleged in support of either cause of action
and that the causes of action lack specificity. Causes of action for personal injuries against a public
entity are only permitted by statute and the authorizing statute or statutes must be alleged in the
Complaint. (Cal. Govt. Code, § 815, subd. (a); Lehto v. City of Oxnard (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 285,
292.) As Defendant points out in the Demurrer, Plaintiff has not alleged a statutory basis for either
cause of action. (Compl., ¶¶IT-1, GN-1.)
Defendant also correctly points out that a cause of action against a public entity must be alleged with
specificity and particularity because it is based on statute. (Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist.
(1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 795.) The elements of a cause of action for battery are: (1) Defendant
intentionally committed an act resulting in a harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff’s body;
(2) plaintiff did not consent to the contact; and (3) the contact caused injury, damage, loss or harm to
plaintiff. (Brown v. Ransweiler (2009) 171 Cal. App. 4th 516, 526.) The Complaint does not allege
facts demonstrating that Defendant’s bus driver intentionally touched Plaintiff or that the contact
caused her injury. The Complaint passively alleges that “Plaintiff felt an arm across her chest” and
that Plaintiff asked if the bus driver touched her. (Compl., ¶IT-1.) Nor are there any allegations in the
first cause of action that Plaintiff was injured as a result of any unwanted contact. (Ibid.)
Regarding specific facts in support of the negligence cause of action, the Complaint must allege duty,
breach, causation and damages. (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.
App. 4th 292, 318.) The Complaint alleges Defendant had a duty to control “their environment” but
does not explain what environment is being referred to or in what manner Defendant was to control it.
(Compl., ¶GN-1.) Nor does Plaintiff allege how that duty was breached other than by an “assault.”
Finally, the Complaint does not include facts showing how the assault resulted in Plaintiff’s alleged
injuries of headaches, anxiety, and PTSD. (Ibid.)
Plaintiff’s opposition to the Demurrer does not demonstrate the adequacy of the Complaint. As
Defendant points out in reply, Plaintiff incorrectly argues that the Demurrer is an attack on the merits
of her case. The Demurrer, however, makes no attack on the substance of the causes of action.
Based on the foregoing, the Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND.
Motion to Strike
California law authorizes a party’s motion to strike matter from an opposing party’s pleading if it is
irrelevant, false, or improper. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 435; 436, subd. (a).) Motions may also target
pleadings or parts of pleadings which are not filed or drawn in conformity with applicable laws, rules
or orders. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) However, in a court of limited jurisdiction, motions to
strike may only be brought on grounds that the allegations do not support the request for relief or
damages. (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (c).)
Defendant moves to strike portions of the Complaint on the following grounds: (1) the causes of
action are not based on statute and not alleged with specificity; (2) the general negligence cause of
action is duplicative of the intentional tort cause of action; (3) the prayer for $9,500.00 in damages is
not allowed in a personal injury complaint; and (4) the allegations do not support the request for
punitive damages.
The first three grounds to strike portions of the Complaint are improper. The first ground reiterates
the Demurrer but motions to strike are to reach defects that cannot be challenged by demurrer. (See
Cho v. Chang (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 521, 527.) The second and third grounds do not pertain to
whether the allegations support the requested relief and are not allowed in a limited jurisdiction court.
Only the request to strike the punitive damages allegations is proper. However, the Court having
sustained the demurrer to Complaint, the Motion to Strike the punitive damages allegations is moot.
The Motion to Strike Portions of the Complaint, therefore, is placed off calendar.
Conclusion
Defendant Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Demurrer to the Complaint is
SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND. PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE A FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.
Defendant Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Motion to Strike Portions of the
Complaint is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.
Moving party to give notice.
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where LA COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANS. AUTHORITY is a litigant