This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/25/2021 at 00:05:36 (UTC).

WAWANESA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS EILEEN ROSEMAN

Case Summary

On 03/26/2020 WAWANESA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against EILEEN ROSEMAN. 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 Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2807

  • Filing Date:

    03/26/2020

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

WAWANESA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant

ROSEMAN EILEEN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

PALECEK THOMAS

Defendant Attorney

GURAL KELLEY

 

Court Documents

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

10/15/2020: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Eileen Roseman in support of MSJ

10/15/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Eileen Roseman in support of MSJ

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

1/27/2021: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment

1/27/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment

Objection (name extension) - Objection Objection to Plaintiff's Evidence

2/2/2021: Objection (name extension) - Objection Objection to Plaintiff's Evidence

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

2/10/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

Notice of Change of Firm Name - Notice of Change of Firm Name

4/16/2021: Notice of Change of Firm Name - Notice of Change of Firm Name

Notice of Settlement - Notice of Settlement

4/30/2021: Notice of Settlement - Notice of Settlement

Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement)

4/30/2021: Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement)

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

6/16/2021: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Answer - Answer

5/29/2020: Answer - Answer

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

5/29/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

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

4/28/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

3/26/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint - Complaint

3/26/2020: Complaint - Complaint

Summons - Summons on Complaint

3/26/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

3/26/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

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

3/26/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

10 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/18/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) scheduled for 09/20/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 06/18/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2021
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Wawanesa General Insurance Company on 03/26/2020, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by Wawanesa General Insurance Company as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Notice of Settlement: Status Date changed from 04/30/2021 to 04/30/2021; As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) scheduled for 09/20/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement); Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/30/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 04/30/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/23/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 04/30/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2021
  • DocketNotice of Change of Firm Name; Filed by: Eileen Roseman (Defendant); New Firm Name: James T. Shott & Associates

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Kelley Gural (Attorney): Organization Name changed from Michael Maguire & Associates to James T. Shott & Associates

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

    Read MoreRead Less
14 More Docket Entries
  • 05/29/2020
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by: Eileen Roseman (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/28/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Wawanesa General Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Eileen Roseman (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 04/20/2020; Service Cost: 108.25; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Wawanesa General Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Eileen Roseman (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Wawanesa General Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Eileen Roseman (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Wawanesa General Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Eileen Roseman (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/30/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/23/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC02807    Hearing Date: February 11, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE:    Wed., February 10, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME Wawanesa General Insurance Company v. Roseman

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC02807 COMPL. FILED: 03-26-20

NOTICE:   OK DISC. C/O: 08-24-21

DISC. MOT. C/O:    09-08-21

TRIAL DATE: 09-23-21

PROCEEDINGS    MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Eileen Roseman

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Wawanesa General Insurance

 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Eileen Roseman’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

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 27, 2021 [   ] Late [   ] None

REPLY: Filed on February 2, 2021 [   ] Late [   ] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On March 26, 2020, Plaintiff Wawanesa General Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Eileen Roseman (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an Answer on May 29, 2020.

On October 15, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”). Plaintiff filed an Opposition on January 27, 2021, and Defendant filed a Reply on February 2.

  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. Discussion

A. Negligence  

Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached their duty of care by failing to use reasonable care in maintaining, supervising, inspecting, caring for, and/or controlling her property, which caused flooding and extensive water damage to Plaintiff’s insured Peggy Van Essen’s (“Van Essen”) property on August 6, 2018 in the amount of $14,793.63. (Compl., ¶¶ 7-11.)

The elements of a negligence cause of action are duty, breach of that duty, proximate cause, and damages. (Peredia v. HR Mobile Services, Inc. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 680, 687.) In addition, Civil Code section 1714 provides:

“Everyone is responsible not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for any injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.”  

Defendant’s evidence in her moving papers consists solely of her own declaration stating (1) that she is the owner of 20139 Leadwell St., Unit No. 1, Winnetka, CA (“Defendant’s Unit”) and has resided there since 1996; (2) that she was out of town and not home on August 6, 2018; (3) that on August 6, 2018, she received a call from next-door neighbor Van Essen stating water was coming in to her condominium from Defendant’s Unit; (4) that Defendant gave Van Essen permission to enter her Unit and call a plumber; (5) that she was later informed by the plumber that the leak in Defendant’s unit originated with a broken angle stop under her bathroom vanity; (6) that the plumber also informed Defendant the angle stop failed due to ordinary wear and tear; (7) that before the August 6, 2018 incident, the angle stop had not, on any occasion, leaked and that it did not previously appear broken or damaged; and (9) that before the August 6, 2018 incident, no one had ever informed her that the angle stop in her bathroom was broken or damaged or that, for any reason, it needed to be repaired or replaced. (Mot., Roseman Decl., ¶¶ 1-8.)

Defendant argues she had no duty to prevent injuries resulting from alleged defective conditions of which she did not or should not have known about. (Mot., p 9:26-28.) Relying on Martin Mora v. The Baker Commodities, Inc. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 771, 782, Defendant argues a landowner’s “responsibility to inspect is limited” as none of the information available to her would indicate that damage to Plaintiff’s insured’s property would occur. (Mot., p. 11:20-27; 12:1-7.) She further argues that “there are no precautions she could have undertaken” to prevent the damages suffered by Plaintiff’s insured as she was under no duty to “take extraordinary measures or make unreasonable expenditures of time and money.” (Id. at 12:1-7.)

First, the Court notes the Mora case is distinguishable as that case discusses a landlord’s duties, not a homeowner occupant as in the instant case. More importantly, Defendant’s declaration does not discuss how, or establish that, she exercised ordinary care and skill in managing her property. Her declaration merely states she has occupied the property since 1996 and that the plumber hired to fix the August 6, 2018 leak stated the cause was “ordinary wear and tear.”  (Mot., Roseman Decl., ¶¶ 2, 6.) Defendant does not discuss her maintenance efforts since moving into the unit or provide a copy of the plumber’s report or invoice noting the cause of the leak. Her sole declaration does not demonstrate she discharged her duty to manage her property with ordinary care or skill. Thus, the burden does not shift to Plaintiff.

For the sake of completion, the Court notes that in her Reply papers, Defendant includes a copy of the transcript for the deposition that took place on January 21, 2021, arguing it demonstrates Defendant made regular repairs to her plumbing system and had yearly inspections. (Reply pp. 2:6-4:9.) Even if the Court was inclined to consider evidence submitted on reply, which is generally not permitted (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537), Defendant did not submit any documentary evidence supporting her testimony.

Thus, the Court finds that Defendant has not demonstrated she discharged her duty to manage her unit with ordinary care and skill.

Notably, Defendant did not request summary adjudication of the issues in the alternative. Where summary adjudication is sought, the notice must specify the “specific cause of action, affirmative defense, claims for damages, or issues of duty” sought to be adjudicated. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350, subd. (b).) As only summary judgment is sought, and as the Court has found Defendant did not carry her burden with respect to the first cause of action, the Motion is DENIED in its entirety without considering the remaining causes of action. (See Homestead Savings v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 494, 498 [reiterating “[i]t would be unfair to grant a summary adjudication order unless the opposing party was on notice that an issue-by-issue adjudication might be ordered if summary judgment was denied].) 

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Eileen Roseman’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STLC02807    Hearing Date: February 10, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Wed., February 10, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Wawanesa General Insurance Company v. Roseman

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC02807 COMPL. FILED: 03-26-20

NOTICE: OK DISC. C/O: 08-24-21

DISC. MOT. C/O: 09-08-21

TRIAL DATE: 09-23-21

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Eileen Roseman

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Wawanesa General Insurance

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Eileen Roseman’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

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 27, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on February 2, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On March 26, 2020, Plaintiff Wawanesa General Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Eileen Roseman (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an Answer on May 29, 2020.

On October 15, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”). Plaintiff filed an Opposition on January 27, 2021, and Defendant filed a Reply on February 2.

  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. Discussion

A. Negligence

Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached their duty of care by failing to use reasonable care in maintaining, supervising, inspecting, caring for, and/or controlling her property, which caused flooding and extensive water damage to Plaintiff’s insured Peggy Van Essen’s (“Van Essen”) property on August 6, 2018 in the amount of $14,793.63. (Compl., ¶¶ 7-11.)

The elements of a negligence cause of action are duty, breach of that duty, proximate cause, and damages. (Peredia v. HR Mobile Services, Inc. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 680, 687.) In addition, Civil Code section 1714 provides:

“Everyone is responsible not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for any injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.”

Defendant’s evidence in her moving papers consists solely of her own declaration stating (1) that she is the owner of 20139 Leadwell St., Unit No. 1, Winnetka, CA (“Defendant’s Unit”) and has resided there since 1996; (2) that she was out of town and not home on August 6, 2018; (3) that on August 6, 2018, she received a call from next-door neighbor Van Essen stating water was coming in to her condominium from Defendant’s Unit; (4) that Defendant gave Van Essen permission to enter her Unit and call a plumber; (5) that she was later informed by the plumber that the leak in Defendant’s unit originated with a broken angle stop under her bathroom vanity; (6) that the plumber also informed Defendant the angle stop failed due to ordinary wear and tear; (7) that before the August 6, 2018 incident, the angle stop had not, on any occasion, leaked and that it did not previously appear broken or damaged; and (9) that before the August 6, 2018 incident, no one had ever informed her that the angle stop in her bathroom was broken or damaged or that, for any reason, it needed to be repaired or replaced. (Mot., Roseman Decl., ¶¶ 1-8.)

Defendant argues she had no duty to prevent injuries resulting from alleged defective conditions of which she did not or should not have known about. (Mot., p 9:26-28.) Relying on Martin Mora v. The Baker Commodities, Inc. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 771, 782, Defendant argues a landowner’s “responsibility to inspect is limited” as none of the information available to her would indicate that damage to Plaintiff’s insured’s property would occur. (Mot., p. 11:20-27; 12:1-7.) She further argues that “there are no precautions she could have undertaken” to prevent the damages suffered by Plaintiff’s insured as she was under no duty to “take extraordinary measures or make unreasonable expenditures of time and money.” (Id. at 12:1-7.)

First, the Court notes the Mora case is distinguishable as that case discusses a landlord’s duties, not a homeowner occupant as in the instant case. More importantly, Defendant’s declaration does not discuss how, or establish that, she exercised ordinary care and skill in managing her property. Her declaration merely states she has occupied the property since 1996 and that the plumber hired to fix the August 6, 2018 leak stated the cause was “ordinary wear and tear.” (Mot., Roseman Decl., ¶¶ 2, 6.) Defendant does not discuss her maintenance efforts since moving into the unit or provide a copy of the plumber’s report or invoice noting the cause of the leak. Her sole declaration does not demonstrate she discharged her duty to manage her property with ordinary care or skill. Thus, the burden does not shift to Plaintiff.

For the sake of completion, the Court notes that in her Reply papers, Defendant includes a copy of the transcript for the deposition that took place on January 21, 2021, arguing it demonstrates Defendant made regular repairs to her plumbing system and had yearly inspections. (Reply pp. 2:6-4:9.) Even if the Court was inclined to consider evidence submitted on reply, which is generally not permitted (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537), Defendant did not submit any documentary evidence supporting her testimony.

Thus, the Court finds that Defendant has not demonstrated she discharged her duty to manage her unit with ordinary care and skill.

Notably, Defendant did not request summary adjudication of the issues in the alternative. Where summary adjudication is sought, the notice must specify the “specific cause of action, affirmative defense, claims for damages, or issues of duty” sought to be adjudicated. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350, subd. (b).) As only summary judgment is sought, and as the Court has found Defendant did not carry her burden with respect to the first cause of action, the Motion is DENIED in its entirety without considering the remaining causes of action. (See Homestead Savings v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 494, 498 [reiterating “[i]t would be unfair to grant a summary adjudication order unless the opposing party was on notice that an issue-by-issue adjudication might be ordered if summary judgment was denied].)

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Eileen Roseman’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where WAWANESA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer GURAL KELLEY