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.
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
SAMANTHA P. JESSNER
TERESA A. BEAUDET
BARBARA M. SCHEPER
MATTHEW ST. GEORGE
LAURA C. ELLISON
DOES 1 TO 20
DOWNTOWN K.F.C. INC.
DOWNTOWN KFC INC
DOWNTOWN KFC INC.
MARIN VICTOR A.
A. MARIN VICTOR
GRANNIS JOHN F. ESQ.
HOLT CRAIG A. ESQ.
KARAKAUER & ASSOCIATES
GRANNIS JOHN F.
HOLT CRAIG A.
10/30/2012: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
3/11/2013: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT TO PI COURT AND ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE
4/9/2013: Minute Order
1/8/2014: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATE
1/8/2014: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATE; [PROPOSEDI ORDER
2/18/2014: NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL
7/24/2014: NOTICE OF P1 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE PROGRAM & ORDER
8/19/2014: Proof of Service
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
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
9/3/2014: DEFENDANT?S SUPPLEMENTAL TRIAL WITNESS LIST
9/8/2014: DEFENDANT'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL TRIAL WITNESS LIST
9/10/2014: CACT JURY INSTRUCTIONS NOT AGREED TO BETWEEN THE PARTIES
10/23/2014: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATESJ PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (DEPARTMENT 91, 92, 93, 97)
1/13/2015: Minute Order
1/21/2015: Minute Order
7/14/2015: NOTICE PF FEES DUE FOR CLERK'S
12/15/2015: APPELLANT'S NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL
Remittitur (REMITTITUR ISSUED ON 9/8/16 ); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Unknown Document Type; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
REMITTITURRead MoreRead Less
Unknown Document Type; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Miscellaneous-Other (CLERK'S CERTIFICATION OF RECORD ON APPEAL ); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Miscellaneous-Other; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service; Filed by PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE-CIVILRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Designation of RecordRead MoreRead Less
Order on Court Fee Waiver After Hearing (Superior Court); Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Order-Court Fee Waiver After Hrg; Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER (SUPERIOR COURT)Read MoreRead Less
Order-Court Fee Waiver; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by BLANCA FARIAS (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
ComplaintRead MoreRead Less
Request-Waive Court Fees; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC494759 Hearing Date: January 08, 2020 Dept: 5
DOWNTOWN KFC, INC.,
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