On 09/24/2015 BEATA KAMINSKA filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CITY OF LOS ANGELES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
DOES 1 TO 10
LOS ANGELES CITY OF
LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
GREENWOOD ELIZABETH LOUISE
MCALEER MATTHEW WILLIAM
2/7/2018: Minute Order
2/9/2018: DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH MITCHELL RE: DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES' CCP SECTION 43O.41 MEET AND CONFER RE: DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
5/30/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
12/4/2018: Notice of Continuance
3/29/2019: Notice of Ruling
3/29/2019: Minute Order
5/17/2019: Proof of Personal Service
5/31/2019: Minute Order
6/3/2019: Certificate of Mailing for
3/9/2017: Minute Order
8/3/2017: AMENDED SUMMONS
11/7/2017: Minute Order
Motion to Quash Service of Summons; Filed by Officer Shuff (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Answer (DEFENDANT SERGEANT RICHARD ASKEW?S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF?S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL); Filed by Sgt. Askew (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 74; Non-Appearance Case Review (ReDismissal of all unserved Defendants and/or Does) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Dismissal of all unserved Defe...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Dismissal of all unserved Defe...) of 06/03/2019); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Order - Dismissal; Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 74; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 74; Hearing on Motion for Protective Order - Held - Motion DeniedRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Ruling; Filed by City of Los Angeles (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Protective Order; Hearing on Demurrer -...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Beata Kaminska (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OTHER CONTACT INFORMATIONRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 91; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
at 10:00 AM in Department 91; Final Status Conference (Final Status Conference; Court makes order) -Read MoreRead Less
Minute OrderRead MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2017-03-09 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Beata Kaminska (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVERRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC595737 Hearing Date: December 17, 2020 Dept: 74
BC595737 BEATA KAMINSKA VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Order Granting Summary Judgment
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED.
This motion is untimely. The Court dismissed this suit on January 10, 2020. Plaintiff filed this instant motion on October 2, 2020, approximately nine months later. Despite such, Plaintiff argues the Court should consider this motion as the six months timeliness requirement is not a hard rule. “The law favors judgments based on the merits, not procedural missteps. Our Supreme Court has repeatedly reminded us that in this area doubts must be resolved in favor of relief, with an order denying relief scrutinized more carefully that an order granting it. As Justice Mosk put it in Rappleyea, ‘Because the law favors disposing of cases on their merits, ‘any doubts in applying section 473 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default [citations]. Therefore, a trial court order denying relief is scrutinized more carefully than an order permitting trial on the merits.’” (Lasalle v. Vogel (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 127, 134–135.) As such, the Court will consider the merits of this motion.
Plaintiff failed to timely submit its opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment due to an illness and printing issues. (Motion, p. 2:5-9.) Due to these issues, Plaintiff’s opposition lacked certain arguments; however, to cure the issue Plaintiff filed an addendum to the opposition on the following date. (Motion, p. 2:12-18.) Plaintiff further argues that the Court was unaware of the addendum and likely did not consider the addendum. (Motion, p. 2:19-22.) Despite Plaintiff’s late filing of the opposition, the Court considered the merits of the first opposition filed and found Plaintiff’s opposition failing as it did not establish a triable issue as to “the applicability of Gov. Code §821.6’s immunity to the claims of the SAC.” Furthermore, Plaintiff’s addendum would not have cured this issue as Gov. Code §821.6 is not addressed.
Case Number: BC595737 Hearing Date: November 05, 2020 Dept: 74
BC595737 BEATA KAMINSKA VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice are granted. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied. The motion was not filed within 10 days of the subject order and plaintiff did not submit any “new or different facts, circumstances, or law” to warrant reconsideration. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(b).) “The Supreme Court …held that a party is prohibited from making, and the trial court from granting, a motion for reconsideration unless the requirements of sections 437c, subdivision (f)(2), or 1008 are satisfied.” (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 211.) Furthermore, an application for reconsideration that fails to comply with Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 cannot be considered. Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(e).
Case Number: BC595737 Hearing Date: November 18, 2019 Dept: 74
BC595737 BEATA KAMINSKA VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
Defendant Officer Shuff’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is continued to December 5, 2019 for proof of service that the complaint was mailed to Officer Shuff at LAPD Headquarters.
Complainants have the initial burden to evidence valid statutory service of a summons and complaint. (Dill v. Berquist Const. Co., Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439-1440; Floveyor Internat. v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 789, 794.)
Plaintiff has submitted evidence that both LAPD Headquarters and City Hall told Carlin, the process server, that Officer Shuff was assigned to LAPD Headquarters, and that service was accepted by at the Duty Desk. Officer Shuff submitted only a declaration by his attorney, who has no personal knowledge, that on information and belief Officer Shuff is not assigned to headquarters.
However, because this was substituted service, it is not complete until a copy of the summons and complaint are mailed to Officer Shuff at headquarters.
The motion is continued for proof of service on mailing the summons and complaint.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases