This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/30/2021 at 02:19:58 (UTC).

ORLANDO GARCIA VS DONEL INVESTMENTS L.L.C., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY;, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 12/21/2020 ORLANDO GARCIA filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against DONEL INVESTMENTS L L C , A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY . 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 Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0535

  • Filing Date:

    12/21/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

GARCIA ORLANDO

Defendants

HG TOBACCO MART INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION;

DONEL INVESTMENTS L.L.C. A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY;

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

HANDY RUSSELL CLIVE

Defendant Attorneys

GARBER ADOLFO B

DONEL BENJAMIN

GARBER ADALFO

 

Court Documents

Answer - Answer

8/10/2021: Answer - Answer

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to the Defense Motion to Strike Complaint

6/29/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to the Defense Motion to Strike Complaint

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Non-Jury Trial

6/22/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Non-Jury Trial

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

6/2/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Plaintiff's Early Evaluation Conference Statement

6/4/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Plaintiff's Early Evaluation Conference Statement

Minute Order - Minute Order (Early Evaluation Conference (Construction Related Accessibili...)

6/16/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Early Evaluation Conference (Construction Related Accessibili...)

Order (name extension) - Order Proposed Order

4/20/2021: Order (name extension) - Order Proposed Order

Defendant's Application for Stay and Early Evaluation Conference Pursuant to Civil Code Section 55 - Defendant's Application for Stay and Early Evaluation Conference Pursuant to Civil Code Section 55.

4/27/2021: Defendant's Application for Stay and Early Evaluation Conference Pursuant to Civil Code Section 55 - Defendant's Application for Stay and Early Evaluation Conference Pursuant to Civil Code Section 55.

Notice of Rejection - Pleadings - Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

4/30/2021: Notice of Rejection - Pleadings - Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

Notice of Stay of Proceedings and Early Evaluation Conference (Construction-Related Accessibility C - Notice of Stay of Proceedings and Early Evaluation Conference (Construction-Related Accessibility

5/5/2021: Notice of Stay of Proceedings and Early Evaluation Conference (Construction-Related Accessibility C - Notice of Stay of Proceedings and Early Evaluation Conference (Construction-Related Accessibility

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANT DONEL INVESTMENTS LLC TO RESPONSD TO COMPLAINT SETTING NEW RESPONSE DATE FROM FEBRUARY 11, 2021 TO MARCH 11,

3/8/2021: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANT DONEL INVESTMENTS LLC TO RESPONSD TO COMPLAINT SETTING NEW RESPONSE DATE FROM FEBRUARY 11, 2021 TO MARCH 11,

Answer - Answer

3/10/2021: Answer - Answer

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

1/25/2021: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Notice (name extension) - Notice re: Inability to Consummate Settlement; Request to Return Case to Active Calendar

2/1/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice re: Inability to Consummate Settlement; Request to Return Case to Active Calendar

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

2/5/2021: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

2/11/2021: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Adolfo B. Garber To Meet & Confer

2/11/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Adolfo B. Garber To Meet & Confer

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

12/21/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

19 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/20/2022
  • Hearing06/20/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Adolfo B Garber (Attorney): First Name changed from Adalfo to Adolfo; Organization Name: Law Office of Adolfo Garber; Middle Name: B

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2021
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: HG Tobacco Mart Inc, a California Corporation; (Defendant); As to: Orlando Garcia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: HG Tobacco Mart Inc, a California Corporation; (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer scheduled for 08/03/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 08/03/2021; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2021
  • DocketReply Defendant, HG Tobacco Mart, Inc's Reply To Plaintiff's Opposiion To Strike Plaintiff's Complaint; Filed by: HG Tobacco Mart Inc, a California Corporation; (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2021
  • DocketOpposition to the Defense Motion to Strike Complaint; Filed by: Orlando Garcia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2021
  • DocketNotice of Non-Jury Trial; Filed by: Orlando Garcia (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer scheduled for 08/03/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
34 More Docket Entries
  • 01/25/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 06/20/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 01/25/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/20/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Notice of Settlement: Status Date changed from 01/20/2021 to 01/20/2021; As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Orlando Garcia (Plaintiff); As to: Donel Investments L.L.C., a California Limited Liability Company; (Defendant); HG Tobacco Mart Inc, a California Corporation; (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Orlando Garcia (Plaintiff); As to: Donel Investments L.L.C., a California Limited Liability Company; (Defendant); HG Tobacco Mart Inc, a California Corporation; (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Orlando Garcia (Plaintiff); As to: Donel Investments L.L.C., a California Limited Liability Company; (Defendant); HG Tobacco Mart Inc, a California Corporation; (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 12/26/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 06/20/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 20STLC10535 Hearing Date: August 3, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION\r\nTO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendant\r\nHG Tobacco Mart, Inc.

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Orlando Garcia

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO STRIKE

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 435)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant HG Tobacco Mart, Inc.’s\r\nMotion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint s DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE: \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X] Proof of Service Timely\r\nFiled (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§\r\n1013, 1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

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

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: Filed on June 29, 2021 [ ]\r\nLate [ ] None

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: Filed on July\r\n19, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On December 21, 2020, Plaintiff Orlando Garcia\r\n(“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Donel Investments, LLC (“Donel”) and HG\r\nTobacco Mart, Inc. (“HG Tobacco”). Defendant Donel filed an Answer on March 10,\r\n2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant HG Tobacco filed the\r\ninstant Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint (the “Motion”) on February 11,\r\n2021. Plaintiff filed an opposition on June 29 and Defendant HG Tobacco filed a\r\nreply brief on July 19.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

California law authorizes a party’s motion to strike\r\nmatter from an opposing party’s pleading if it is irrelevant, false, or\r\nimproper. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 435; 436, subd. (a).) Motions may also target\r\npleadings or parts of pleadings that are not filed or drawn in conformity with\r\napplicable laws, rules, or orders. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436, subd. (b).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

However, motions to strike in limited jurisdiction courts\r\nmay only challenge pleadings on the basis that “the damages or relief sought\r\nare not supported by the allegations of the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 92,\r\nsubd. (d).) The Code of Civil Procedure\r\nalso authorizes the Court to act on its own initiative to strike matters,\r\nempowering the Court to enter orders striking matter “at any time in its\r\ndiscretion, and upon terms it deems proper.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 436.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Finally, Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5 requires\r\nthat “[b]efore filing a motion to strike pursuant to this chapter, the moving\r\nparty shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed\r\nthe pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of\r\ndetermining whether an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to\r\nbe raised in the motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5, subd. (a).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nDiscussion\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Motion is accompanied by meet and confer declaration\r\nas required by Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5, subdivision (a). (Dem.,\r\nGarber Decl., ¶ 3.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges Defendants violated the\r\nAmericans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. (Compl., pp.\r\n5-7.) Plaintiff alleges, in pertinent part, (1) that Plaintiff is a level C-5\r\nquadriplegic; (2) that Plaintiff visited Defendants’ store located in Los\r\nAngeles, CA on November 11, 2020; (3) that Defendants failed to provide wheelchair\r\naccessible sales counters and failed to provide wheelchair-accessible paths of\r\ntravel at their store; and (4) that Plaintiff personally encountered these\r\nbarriers, causing him difficulty and discomfort. (Compl., ¶¶ 1-40.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant HG Tobacco argues the entire Complaint must be\r\nstricken under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.50, subdivision (b), because\r\nit did not meet the heightened pleading requirements for construction-related\r\naccessibility cases. (Dem., p. 3.) Section 425.50, subdivision (b), however, only\r\nprovides a complaint that alleges a construction-related accessibility claim\r\nfiled without a verification is subject to a motion to strike.\r\nPlaintiff’s Complaint was filed with the required verification. (Compl., p. 9.)\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

To the extent Defendant HG Tobacco\r\nargues this Motion to Strike should be granted because Plaintiff failed to\r\nstate sufficient facts, the Court is not persuaded. Motions to strike in\r\nlimited jurisdiction actions are permitted only on the basis that the damages\r\nor relief sought are not supported by the allegations in the complaint. (Code\r\nCiv. Proc., § 92, subds. (d), (e).) If Defendant wanted to challenge the\r\nsufficiency of the allegations, it should have filed a demurrer.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant HG Tobacco argues the Complaint does not\r\nsufficiently articulate a basis for the injunctive relief requested in the\r\nprayer. (Dem., p. 6.) However, as Plaintiff points out, he alleges a claim for\r\nviolation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Compl., ¶¶28-36) for which\r\nonly injunctive relief, not monetary damages, is available (Wander v. Kaus (9th\r\nCir. 2002) 304 F.3d 856, 858; Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc. (9th Cir. 2007)\r\n481 F.3d 724,730.) Defendant HG Tobacco appears to argue that because\r\ninjunctive relief was not mentioned in the title or the body of the Complaint,\r\nthe request for injunctive relief in the prayer should be stricken. (Dem., p.\r\n6.) However, Defendant HG Tobacco cites no authority for this proposition.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In passing, Defendant HG Tobacco also appears to argue\r\nthat the issuance of an injunction is not warranted. (Id.) However, it\r\nis improper to argue the merits of Plaintiff’s request for relief on a motion\r\nto strike because, as is well established, all allegations in the complaint are\r\npresumed to be true at this stage. (Clauson v. Superior Court. (1998) 67\r\nCap.App.4th 1253, 1255.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

IV. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant\r\nHG Tobacco Mart, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint s DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

\r\n\r\n

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where DONEL INVESTMENTS LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer HANDY RUSSELL CLIVE