This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/27/2019 at 18:47:02 (UTC).

CANDIDA GONZALEZ VS BODEGA LATINA CORPORATION

Case Summary

On 08/23/2016 CANDIDA GONZALEZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against BODEGA LATINA CORPORATION. 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 Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1448

  • Filing Date:

    08/23/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • 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 Judge

GEORGINA T. RIZK

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

GONZALEZ CANDIDA

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

BODEGA LATINA CORPORATION

DOES 1-25

HAYAVI MICHAEL M.D.

HERNANDEZ CART SERVICE INC.-DOE 1

HAYAVI MICHAEL M.D. [DOE 2]

HERNANDEZ CART SERVICE INC.

Defendants and Cross Defendants

HAYAVI MICHAEL M.D.

HERNANDEZ CART SERVICE INC.

HAYAVI MICHAEL M.D. [DOE 2]

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

VAZIRI LAW GROUP APC

BRADDOCK ISAAC HENSON ESQ.

NASSERI JOUBIN

Defendant Attorneys

MCDONALD CHRISTOPHER M. ESQ.

LONGO DAN LEROY

FLATLEY ELIZABETH ANNE

HUEZO CELIM EDUARDO

MCDONALD CHRISTOPHER MARK ESQ.

HUEZO CELIM EDUARDO ESQ.

LONGO DAN LEROY ESQ .

Cross Defendant Attorneys

FLATLEY ELIZABETH ANNE ESQ.

IZURIETA JACQUELINE INEZ

 

Court Documents

Notice - NOTICE OF DEMAND FOR COPY OF THE REPORT OF MICHAEL E. GOLD, M.D.'S PHYSICAL EXAMINATION

9/5/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF DEMAND FOR COPY OF THE REPORT OF MICHAEL E. GOLD, M.D.'S PHYSICAL EXAMINATION

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL TRI...)

6/21/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL TRI...)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL TRIAL-RELATED DATES AND DEADLINES

6/21/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL TRIAL-RELATED DATES AND DEADLINES

Notice of Ruling

7/10/2019: Notice of Ruling

ORDER ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

6/12/2018: ORDER ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

STIPULATION TO FILE CROSS COMPLAINT;ORDER

6/12/2018: STIPULATION TO FILE CROSS COMPLAINT;ORDER

CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR TOTAL INDEMNITY, IMPLIED PARTIAL INDEMNITY, DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT

6/22/2018: CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR TOTAL INDEMNITY, IMPLIED PARTIAL INDEMNITY, DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT

Motion for Order - Motion for Order to Continue the Trial

10/29/2018: Motion for Order - Motion for Order to Continue the Trial

Reply - Reply Reply to Non-Opposition to Defendant Michael Hayavi, M.D.'s Motion to Continue The Trial Date and All Pre-Trial and Expert Discovery Dates

12/4/2018: Reply - Reply Reply to Non-Opposition to Defendant Michael Hayavi, M.D.'s Motion to Continue The Trial Date and All Pre-Trial and Expert Discovery Dates

Minute Order - Minute Order (Cross-Defendant's Motion to Continue Trial;)

12/11/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Cross-Defendant's Motion to Continue Trial;)

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER M. MCDONALD IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BODEGA LATINA CORPORATION DBA EL SUPER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

5/16/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER M. MCDONALD IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BODEGA LATINA CORPORATION DBA EL SUPER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Motion for Summary Judgment

5/16/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment

Separate Statement

5/16/2019: Separate Statement

Motion for Summary Judgment

5/16/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment

SUMMONS -

8/23/2016: SUMMONS -

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

8/23/2016: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

11/14/2016: ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT)

10/17/2017: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES] PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY (CENTRAL DISTRICT)

39 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/28/2020
  • Hearing05/28/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 2 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2020
  • Hearing05/14/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 2 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2020
  • Hearing01/17/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department 2 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (For An Order Continuing Hearing Motion For Summary Judgment Currently Scheduled For September 20, 2019) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application For An Order Cont...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2019
  • DocketStipulation and Order (to Continue the Hearing of Defendant Bodega Latina Corporation - dba - El Super's Motion for Summary Judgment, The Trial Date , and All Related Dates and Deadlines.....See above M.O. Re: Ex-Parte); Filed by Bodega Latina Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Candida Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2019
  • DocketEx Parte Application (For An Order Continuing Hearing Motion For Summary Judgment Currently Scheduled For September 20, 2019 [CCP Section 437c(h) and [Trial Continuance] Pursuant to Sipulation of the Parties;); Filed by Candida Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2019
  • DocketDeclaration in Support of Ex Parte Application; Filed by Candida Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
68 More Docket Entries
  • 10/26/2016
  • DocketSummons on Cross Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2016
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Bodega Latina Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2016
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by Bodega Latina Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2016
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Candida Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2016
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2016
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2016
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Candida Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2016
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2016
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Candida Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2016
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC631448    Hearing Date: January 17, 2020    Dept: 29

Gonzalez v. Bodega Latina Corporation, et al.

Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Bodega Latina Corporation dba El Super is DENIED. Defendant has not established that it is entitled to judgment in its favor based on the material facts presented. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 437c(p).

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges she was hit by shopping carts in Defendant Bodega Latina’s El Super parking lot. Plaintiff alleges that Bodega Latina negligently maintained the premises, allowing for the creation or existence of a dangerous condition. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant knew or should have known, in the exercise of reasonable care, that “pushing shopping carts where customers were walking created an unreasonable risk of harm”; that Defendant “failed to block/cordon off or protect the area where shopping carts were being used”; and otherwise failed to exercise due care with respect to the matters alleged in the complaint. Plaintiff alleges two claims against Bodega Latina: general negligence and premises liability. Bodega Latina has moved for summary judgment, claiming that the undisputed evidence establishes that the carts were being pushed by an employee of co-defendant Hernandez Cart Services, not Bodega Latina.

EVIDENCE

Defendant Bodega Latina owns and operates the El Super grocery store at issue in this litigation. Bodega Latina entered into a contract with a third-party vendor, Defendant Hernandez Cart Services, Inc. to locate and return shopping carts that were improperly taken from El Super grocery store by customers and others. Hernandez’s services included the retrieval and delivery of shopping carts to the subject El Super grocery store. On the date in question, Hernandez’s driver pulled his pick-up truck up to the front of the store, and unloaded several trains of shopping carts and wheeled them a short distance from the truck to the shopping cart corral near the front door. The cart corral location is where patrons obtain a shopping cart on their way into the store.

Bodega Latina presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to meet its prima facie burden to establish that the person who hit Plaintiff with the shopping carts was an employee of Hernandez Cart Services. Plaintiff alleges that on October 11, 2014, Plaintiff was injured when she was hit in her low back by shopping carts. As Plaintiff walked toward the grocery store, she saw a male exit a pickup truck and begin to unload shopping carts from the bed of the pick-up truck containing two rows of collapsed shopping carts consisting of approximately fifty carts in total. It was this person who hit her with the shopping carts. Plaintiff does not dispute that it was an individual working for Hernandez Cart Services Inc. who hit her. (See Plaintiff’s Memo of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment at p. 2, line 9-11.)

Plaintiff contends that the individual working for Hernandez was being “overseen” or “supervised” by a security guard employed by Bodega Latina. The evidence the Plaintiff submits does not support this conclusion. With respect to the security guard’s employment status, the evidence shows that the security guard, Antonio Armendariz, was supplied to El Super by Allied Risk Management pursuant to contract; he was not employed by Bodega Latina. To support the contention that Mr. Armendariz was “overseeing” or “supervising” Hernandez’s employee, Plaintiff submits a document that purports to be a witness statement from Mr. Armendariz, which states: “I was outside counting the shopping carts from one of the car collectors. While I was waiting to count the carts this driver [illegible word] a group of 10 carts and hit this lady in the back.” The statement is not in the form of a declaration and is not signed under penalty of perjury, but the Court nonetheless considers it because Bodega Latina has not objected to it. The statement does not support the contention that Mr. Armendariz was “overseeing” or “supervising” Hernandez’s employee.

Plaintiff also presents a blurry, grainy video clip that is over 15 minutes long and that and appears to depict some activity with shopping carts through a window. At one point on the video, it appears that a second person assists the driver in steering the carts into the corral, but the video clip does not somehow raise a triable issue of fact as to any direct involvement by any employee of Bodega Latina in the incident at issue here. The clip does show the relative locations of the truck, the cart corral and the front door of the store, as described above.

DISCUSSION

Bodega Latina has failed to establish entitlement to judgment in its favor as a matter of law. On the issue of duty, Bodega Latina simply assumes, without argument or evidence, that it could not be held liable for the acts of the Hernandez’s employee because he was not an employee of Bodega Latina. But Bodega Latina has failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that Bodega Latina had no duty to take reasonable precautions to protect its patrons from the wrongful acts of third parties such as Hernandez’s employees. “A defendant may owe an affirmative duty to protect another from the conduct of third parties if he or she has a “special relationship” with the other person.” Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 224, 234-36. “Courts have found such a special relationship in cases involving the relationship between business proprietors such as shopping centers . . . and their . . . patrons[] or invitees.” Id. It is “well established” that a “proprietor’s general duty of maintenance,” which is owed to patrons, “includes the duty to take reasonable steps” to protect common areas against foreseeable, wrongful acts of third parties. Kentucky Fried Chicken of Cal., Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 14 Cal. 4th 814, 819, 823-24 (“The duty of a proprietor of a business establishment to business invitees generally includes a ‘duty to take affirmative action to control the wrongful acts of third persons which threaten invitees where the occupant has reasonable cause to anticipate such acts and the probability of injury resulting therefrom’.”); Peterson v. San Francisco Community College Dist. (1984) 36 Cal. 3d 799, 806 (a special relationship exists between “a possessor of land and members of the public who enter in response to the landowner’s invitation); Taylor v. Centennial Bowl, Inc. (1966) 65 Cal. 2d 114, 121 (same).

Because of this special relationship, it is not enough for Bodega Latina to merely show that the acts were committed by an employee of a third party. As the moving party, Bodega Latina also bears the burden of making out a prima facie case that the risk of injury was not foreseeable or that there were no reasonable precautions that Bodega Latina was required to take to protect against the risk of injury from Hernandez’s employees. Bodega Latina has not met its initial burden.

It may be the case that the alleged negligence by Hernandez’s employee was not foreseeable or that there were no reasonable precautions that Bodega Latina was required to take to prevent the risk of harm. There are numerous factors that the Court must consider in making that determination. But Bodega Latina has prevented no facts, argument or evidence that would permit the Court to make that determination as a matter of law. While Plaintiff’s case appears weak, the Court cannot grant summary judgment to Bodega Latina based on the evidence and argument that Bodega Latina presented here.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.