AURORA GARCIA VS TJX COMPANIES ET AL
Case Summary
On 08/04/2016 AURORA GARCIA filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against TJX COMPANIES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GEORGINA T. RIZK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details
-
Case Number:
****9441
-
Filing Date:
08/04/2016
-
Case Status:
Pending - Other Pending
-
Courthouse:
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
-
County, State:
Los Angeles, California
Judge Details
Presiding Judge
GEORGINA T. RIZK
Party Details
Plaintiff and Petitioner
GARCIA AURORA
Defendants and Respondents
TJX COMPANIES
MARMAXX GROUP
T.J. MAXX
T.K. MAXX
MARSHALS
DOES 1 TO 50
MARSHALLS MEGA STORE
MAXX T.J.
MAXX T.K.
MARSHALLS OF CA LLC
Attorney/Law Firm Details
Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys
LAW OFFICE OF BOB B. KHAKSHOOY
KHAKSHOOY BOB BABAK ESQ.
Defendant Attorney
VU JACQUELINE KIEU ESQ.
Court Documents
1/16/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
1/18/2018: Minute Order
2/5/2018: AMENDED
2/5/2018: Proof of Service by 1st Class Mail
2/28/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY MARSHALLS OF CA, LLC
3/21/2018: Minute Order
3/5/2019: Minute Order
3/12/2019: Minute Order
3/13/2019: Notice of Ruling
8/4/2016: SUMMONS
8/4/2016: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: (1) PREMISES LIABILITY; ETC
Docket Entries
- 10/15/2019
-
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 2 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial
- 10/01/2019
-
Hearingat 10:00 AM in Department 2 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference
- 03/19/2019
-
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion
- 03/13/2019
-
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Marshalls Erroneously Sued As Marshalls of CA, LLC (Defendant)
- 03/12/2019
-
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion
- 03/12/2019
-
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Continue the Trial, Final Status Conference, and Discovery and Motion cut-off Dates;) - Held - Motion Granted
- 03/12/2019
-
DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference; Hearing on Ex Parte Application to C...)); Filed by Clerk
- 03/05/2019
-
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued
- 03/05/2019
-
DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk
- 03/21/2018
-
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 91; (OSC RE Dismissal; Trial Date Set) -
- 02/05/2018
-
DocketProof of Service by 1st Class Mail
- 02/05/2018
-
DocketAMENDED
- 01/18/2018
-
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 91; Final Status Conference (Final Status Conference; Court makes order) -
- 01/18/2018
-
DocketMinute Order
- 01/18/2018
-
DocketMinute order entered: 2018-01-18 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk
- 01/16/2018
-
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Aurora Garcia (Plaintiff)
- 01/16/2018
-
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
- 08/04/2016
-
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: (1) PREMISES LIABILITY; ETC
- 08/04/2016
-
DocketSUMMONS
- 08/04/2016
-
DocketComplaint; Filed by Aurora Garcia (Plaintiff)
Tentative Rulings
Case Number: BC629441 Hearing Date: December 18, 2019 Dept: 2
Garcia v. TJX Companies, et al.
Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate is DENIED.
1) The motion is not untimely made. The motion is required to be made no later than the close of pretrial conference or no later than 30 days before trial. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 598.
While not characterized as a “pre-trial conference,” the final status conference serves the same function in that all trial briefs, motions in limine, joint statements, exhibits, jury instructions and all other trial-related documents are required to be submitted by the date of the final status conference. See Second Amended Standing Order re: Final Status Conference, Personal Injury Courts, filed 8/9/19.
This motion is set to be heard one day before the FSC set for 12/19/19.
2) Defendant has not established that bifurcation will promote the ends of justice or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 598.
Bifurcation is appropriate in cases where the “liability issue is resolved against the plaintiff and bifurcation will avoid the waste of time and money caused by the unnecessary trial of damage questions.” Trickey v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (1967) 252 Cal. App. 2d 650, 653.
Separate phases are warranted to avoid wasting court time in cases where plaintiff loses on the liability issue. Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal. 3d 875, 888, fn. 8.
Defendant concedes that liability is disputed given the Defendant’s employees’ testimony that a dangerous condition evident at the time of the incident. Declaration of Jackie Vu, Ex. B, 45:24-46:2, Ex. C, 38:11-22.
Defendant argues that if the jury believes Defendant’s employees, there will be no need to determine damages. That is true of every personal injury case, but this does not require that every personal injury case be bifurcated. The facts of a particular case must justify bifurcation. Foreman at 888, fn. 8.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases