This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/09/2015 at 23:37:52 (UTC).

BLAIR C GREENE VS BANK OF AMERICA

Case Summary

On 08/12/2011 BLAIR C GREENE filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against BANK OF AMERICA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is REX HEESEMAN. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7544

  • Filing Date:

    08/12/2011

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

REX HEESEMAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

GREENE BLAIR C.

Defendants

BANK OF AMERICA

DOES 1 THROUGH 20

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

GREENE BLAIR C. ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

WRAIGHT MARK I.

 

Court Documents

COMPLAINT FOR 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC.

8/12/2011: COMPLAINT FOR 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC.

SUMMONS

8/12/2011: SUMMONS

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

9/15/2011: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

9/16/2011: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

11/9/2011: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

Unknown

11/30/2011: Unknown

Unknown

12/2/2011: Unknown

PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL?CIVIL

12/2/2011: PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL?CIVIL

Proof of Service

12/2/2011: Proof of Service

Minute Order

12/14/2011: Minute Order

DECLARATION OF BLAIR C. GREENE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES

2/8/2012: DECLARATION OF BLAIR C. GREENE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO OMPEL RESPONSES

2/8/2012: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO OMPEL RESPONSES

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC467544    Hearing Date: October 31, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion to Continue the Trial Date, Final Status Conference Date, and All Related Motion Cut-Off and Discovery Deadlines

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on August 29, 2012. A Second Amended Complaint was filed on November 21, 2012. The operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) was filed on March 15, 2013, naming Diagraph, Inc., Illinois Toolworks, Inc., IPS Corporation, ITW Diagraph, Inc., and Sony Electronics, Inc. as Defendants. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action against Defendants: (1) negligence, (2) strict liability, (3) willful misconduct, (4) intentional misrepresentation, (5) negligent misrepresentation, (6) deceit by concealment, (7) premises liability, and (8) products liability.

Plaintiff is a mentally and cognitively impaired 20-year old woman born on April 13, 1999. It is alleged that Plaintiff’s mother, Cheryl Lopez, worked for Sony during her pregnancy with Plaintiff in a television manufacturing facility in Rancho Bernardo, California. It is alleged that Ms. Lopez, during her employment and pregnancy, had been exposed to several chemicals known to cause severe cognitive impairment and disability, especially during critical early development of the brain and central nervous system. It is alleged that Song never warned Ms. Lopez that working in its environment could be harmful to her unborn child.

On March 14, 2014, the Court granted Defendant Sony Electronics, Inc.’s (“Sony”) motion for summary judgment on a statute of limitations defense. The matter was appealed. In July 2018, the California Supreme Court reversed the grant of summary judgment and the case was remitted to the Court. On April 22, 2019, at the first hearing in this Court after the case was remitted, the Court set the case for trial on January 23, 2020.

On September 4, 2019, Sony appeared ex parte to continue the trial date, final status conference date, and all related dates. The Court denied Sony’s ex parte application, finding no showing of exigent circumstances and no showing of good cause for a continuance of trial at the time.

On October 8, 2019, Defendant Sony filed a motion to continue trial, the final status conference, and all related motion cut-off and discovery deadlines because significant discovery remains to be completed before trial that was not completed before the appeal, including investigation and deposition of witnesses in the San Diego area.

On October 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for preferential trial setting under Code of Civil Procedure section 36(e).  This motion is set for hearing on November 18, 2019.

Because Defendant Sony's motion to continue trial and Plaintiff's motion for preferential trial setting both raise the question of when this case should be set for trial, the Court continues the motion on Defendant Sony's motion to November 18, 2019 to be heard at the same time as Plaintiff's motion.  

Defendant Sony is to give notice of the Court's ruling.