This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/26/2019 at 12:53:27 (UTC).

BLANCA FARIAS VS DOWNTOWN KFC INC

Case Summary

On 10/30/2012 BLANCA FARIAS filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against DOWNTOWN KFC INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are SAMANTHA P. JESSNER, TERESA A. BEAUDET, BARBARA M. SCHEPER, MATTHEW ST. GEORGE and LAURA C. ELLISON. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4759

  • Filing Date:

    10/30/2012

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

SAMANTHA P. JESSNER

TERESA A. BEAUDET

BARBARA M. SCHEPER

MATTHEW ST. GEORGE

LAURA C. ELLISON

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

FARIAS BLANCA

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 20

DOWNTOWN K.F.C. INC.

DOWNTOWN KFC INC

DOWNTOWN KFC INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

MARIN VICTOR A.

A. MARIN VICTOR

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

GRANNIS JOHN F. ESQ.

KRAKAUER FRED

HOLT CRAIG A. ESQ.

KARAKAUER & ASSOCIATES

GRANNIS JOHN F.

HOLT CRAIG A.

FRED KRAKAUER

 

Court Documents

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

10/30/2012: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT TO PI COURT AND ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

3/11/2013: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT TO PI COURT AND ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

Minute Order

4/9/2013: Minute Order

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATE

1/8/2014: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATE

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATE; [PROPOSEDI ORDER

1/8/2014: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATE; [PROPOSEDI ORDER

NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

2/18/2014: NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

NOTICE OF P1 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE PROGRAM & ORDER

7/24/2014: NOTICE OF P1 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE PROGRAM & ORDER

Proof of Service

8/19/2014: Proof of Service

MOTION-IN-LIMINE #2 PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM DISCUSSING ANY DAMAGES, ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL DURING VOIR DIRE; DECLARATION FRED KRAKAUER; MEMORANDUM POINTS & AUTHORITIES; [PROPOSED] ORDER

8/20/2014: MOTION-IN-LIMINE #2 PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM DISCUSSING ANY DAMAGES, ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL DURING VOIR DIRE; DECLARATION FRED KRAKAUER; MEMORANDUM POINTS & AUTHORITIES; [PROPOSED] ORDER

MOTION-IN-LIMINE #9 RE: EXCLUSION OF NEW, SURPRISE OR UNDISCLOSED EXPERT TESTIMONY/OPINION [I.E. TESTIMONY/OPINION NOT DISCLOSED AT EXPERT'S DEPOSITION]; DECLARATION OF FRED KRAKAUER; MEMORANDUM POINT

8/28/2014: MOTION-IN-LIMINE #9 RE: EXCLUSION OF NEW, SURPRISE OR UNDISCLOSED EXPERT TESTIMONY/OPINION [I.E. TESTIMONY/OPINION NOT DISCLOSED AT EXPERT'S DEPOSITION]; DECLARATION OF FRED KRAKAUER; MEMORANDUM POINT

DEFENDANT?S SUPPLEMENTAL TRIAL WITNESS LIST

9/3/2014: DEFENDANT?S SUPPLEMENTAL TRIAL WITNESS LIST

DEFENDANT'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL TRIAL WITNESS LIST

9/8/2014: DEFENDANT'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL TRIAL WITNESS LIST

CACT JURY INSTRUCTIONS NOT AGREED TO BETWEEN THE PARTIES

9/10/2014: CACT JURY INSTRUCTIONS NOT AGREED TO BETWEEN THE PARTIES

ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATESJ PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (DEPARTMENT 91, 92, 93, 97)

10/23/2014: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATESJ PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (DEPARTMENT 91, 92, 93, 97)

Minute Order

1/13/2015: Minute Order

Minute Order

1/21/2015: Minute Order

NOTICE PF FEES DUE FOR CLERK'S

7/14/2015: NOTICE PF FEES DUE FOR CLERK'S

APPELLANT'S NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL

12/15/2015: APPELLANT'S NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL

52 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/13/2016
  • Remittitur (REMITTITUR ISSUED ON 9/8/16 ); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2016
  • Unknown Document Type; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2016
  • REMITTITUR

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2016
  • Unknown Document Type; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2016
  • Miscellaneous-Other (CLERK'S CERTIFICATION OF RECORD ON APPEAL ); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2016
  • Miscellaneous-Other; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2015
  • Proof of Service; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2015
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2015
  • PROOF OF SERVICE-CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2015
  • Notice of Designation of Record

    Read MoreRead Less
205 More Docket Entries
  • 11/29/2012
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver After Hearing (Superior Court); Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2012
  • Order-Court Fee Waiver After Hrg; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2012
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2012
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER (SUPERIOR COURT)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2012
  • Order-Court Fee Waiver; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2012
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2012
  • Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2012
  • Complaint; Filed by BLANCA FARIAS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2012
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2012
  • Request-Waive Court Fees; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC494759    Hearing Date: January 08, 2020    Dept: 5

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

BLANCA FARIAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOWNTOWN KFC, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC494759

Hearing Date: January 8, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Plaintiff’s MOTION FOR REMOVAL OF ENFORCEMENT OF MONEY JUDGMENT

On October 30, 2012, Plaintiff Blanca Farias (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Downtown KFC, Inc., alleging causes of action for general negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was negligent in failing to place signs or other devices warning Plaintiff of a wet area in the entrance of its property, causing Plaintiff to slip and fall. On January 29, 2015, following a jury trial, the jury entered a verdict in favor of Defendant, and against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff, in propria persona, appealed from the adverse judgment and costs award. On June 29, 2016, the California Court of Appeal issued a remittitur granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and ordered the appeal dismissed as abandoned.

On November 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to remove the enforcement of the money judgment. Plaintiff additionally requests the court to order Defendant to pay Plaintiff $20,000.00, which was allegedly offered by Defendant to settle the case.

The motion is denied. As an initial matter, there is no proof of service with Plaintiff’s motion. Putting that aside, there is no legal basis to grant the relief sought by Plaintiff. Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 663, a trial court is authorized to vacate a judgment in a jury trial where the judgment is not consistent with or not supported by the special verdict. “As the statutory language indicates, a motion to vacate lies only where a ‘different judgment’ compelled by the facts found. [Citation.] A motion to vacate under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 663 may only be brought when ‘the trial judge draws an incorrect legal conclusion or renders an erroneous judgment upon the facts found by it to exist.” (County of Alameda v. Carleson (1971) 5 Cal.3d 730, 738.) It is a “‘remedy to be used when a trial court draws incorrect conclusions of law or renders an erroneous judgment on the basis of uncontroverted evidence.” (Plaza Hollister Ltd. Partnership v. County of San Benito (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1, 14.) However, in ruling on a motion to vacate, the court cannot in any way change any finding of fact. (Glen Hill Farm, LLC v. California Horse Racing Bd. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1302.) Even if the motion was timely, Plaintiff merely argues that she continues to experience physical limitations as a result of the injuries she alleges to have sustained from the slip and fall incident. This is an inadequate basis for the court to vacate the judgment. Nor is there any legal authority authorizing the Court to enforce a settlement offer under these circumstances. Therefore, the motion is denied. The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is denied. The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.

DATED: January 8, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court