This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/17/2019 at 12:17:23 (UTC).

CHLOE SEGURA VS CHUCK E CHEESE ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/25/2016 CHLOE SEGURA filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CHUCK E CHEESE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are YOLANDA OROZCO and HOLLY J. FUJIE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1221

  • Filing Date:

    08/25/2016

  • 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 Judges

YOLANDA OROZCO

HOLLY J. FUJIE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Guardian Ad Litem

GUTIERREZ VALERIE

Defendants and Respondents

CHUCK E. CHEESE CEC ENTERTAINMENT INC.

CHUCK E. CHEESE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DOES 1 THROUGH 30

CEC ENTERTAINMENT INC.

CHEESE CHUCK E.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

SKAGGS DOE 1 YVONNE

Cross Defendants

GOLDMAN STEVE

SKAGGS YVONNE

Minor

SEGURA CHLOE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Minor and Plaintiff Attorneys

ROSE KLEIN & MARIAS LLP

BELMUDES DENNIS SAMUEL

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

LENKOV JEFFREY MYLES

MANNING & KASS ELLROD RAMIREZ TRESTER

Cross Defendant Attorneys

JEFFREY M. LENKOV ESQ.

BELOFSKY DAVID ARTHUR

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

9/26/2016: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM - CIVIL

12/7/2016: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM - CIVIL

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF DENNIS S. BELMUDES

7/11/2017: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF DENNIS S. BELMUDES

Unknown

9/28/2017: Unknown

Unknown

2/1/2018: Unknown

COMPENDIUM OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

2/1/2018: COMPENDIUM OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

DECLARATION OF DENNIS S. BELMUDES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CEC ENTERTAINMENT, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

4/23/2018: DECLARATION OF DENNIS S. BELMUDES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CEC ENTERTAINMENT, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CEC ENTERTAINMENT, INC.'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS AND PLAINTIFF?S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

4/23/2018: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CEC ENTERTAINMENT, INC.'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS AND PLAINTIFF?S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

5/22/2018: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Motion to Compel

9/24/2018: Motion to Compel

Motion for Leave

9/24/2018: Motion for Leave

Unknown

11/1/2018: Unknown

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

12/26/2018: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Opposition

1/7/2019: Opposition

Minute Order

1/16/2019: Minute Order

Other -

4/5/2019: Other -

Minute Order

4/5/2019: Minute Order

Answer

4/16/2019: Answer

76 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/28/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Yvonne Skaggs (Doe 1) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • Notice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Yvonne Skaggs (Doe 1) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Valerie Gutierrez (Plaintiff); Chloe Segura (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • Answer (to Cross-Complaint); Filed by YVONNE SKAGGS (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (by Defendant Chuck E. Cheese) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • Other - (Court's Order re: Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Chuck E. ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Chloe Segura (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by CEC Entertainment, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2019
  • Notice of Lodging (In Department B Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Summary Judgment Pursuant to Court Order); Filed by Valerie Gutierrez (Plaintiff); Chloe Segura (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
202 More Docket Entries
  • 12/15/2016
  • Ord Apptng Guardian Ad Litem; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2016
  • Ord Apptng Guardian Ad Litem (FOR CHLOE SEGURA ); Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2016
  • APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM - CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2016
  • Application-Miscellaneous (FOR CHLOE SEGURA GUARDIAN AD LITEM ); Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2016
  • Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2016
  • NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2016
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2001
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Deposition of Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC631221    Hearing Date: March 06, 2020    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

CHLOe segura,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHUCK E. CHEESE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC631221

Hearing Date: March 6, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion for judgment on the pleadings

BACKGROUND

A. Allegations

Plaintiff Chloe Segura (“Plaintiff”), a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, Valerie Gutierrez, alleges that she was injured at a Chuck E. Cheese’s location on August 16, 2015. She alleges that while she was a patron on the premises, she was physically assaulted by a third party patron in the “SkyTubes” (an above-ground, maze-like tunnel). The second amended complaint (“SAC”), filed August 11, 2017, alleges causes of action for: (1) negligence against CEC and Does 1-30; and (2) battery against Does 16-30.

On November 5, 2018, CEC filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Steve Goldman, Yvonne Skaggs, and ROES 1 to 30. CEC asserts the following causes of action: (1) equitable indemnification, (2) equitable contribution, and (3) declaratory relief.

On September 12, 2019, Skaggs filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendant Department of Children and Family Services and ROES 1 to 30 for: (1) indemnification; (2) apportionment of fault; and (3) declaratory relief. On October 17, 2019, County of Los Angeles (sued as Department of Children and Family Services) filed an answer to the cross-complaint.

B. Motion on Calendar

On February 5, 2020, County of Los Angeles (“County”) filed a motion for judgment on pleadings. The notice does not state which pleading the motion is directed against. However, the memorandum of points and authorities and the declaration of counsel Krystal Saleh indicates that the motion is directed against the cross-complaint of Skaggs.

On February 21, 2020, Skaggs filed an opposition brief.

On February 26, 2020, County filed a reply brief.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

County requests judicial notice of CEC’s cross-complaint and Plaintiff’s SAC. (See Saleh Decl., Exs. B-C.) The requests are granted. (Evid. Code, §452(d).)

DISCUSSION

County argues that it is not required to indemnify Skaggs and that it is not liable for any of Plaintiff’s injuries because County is not the legal guardian of Goldman, who was the individual that inappropriately touched Plaintiff in the SkyTubes.

According to the cross-complaint, County and its DCFS were and remain the legal guardian of Goldman even though they placed him into the custody of Skaggs because they continued to assess, evaluate, direct, supervise, and otherwise control his actions. (Cross-Compl., ¶7.)

First, in considering this motion, the Court treats the motion as “admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Adelman v. Associated Intern. Ins. Co. Though Skaggs alleges that County is Goldman’s legal guardian, this is a legal conclusion that must be supported by factual allegations.

Second, County argues that pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code, §366.26[1], a child’s natural parents retain legal custody of the child unless the Court terminates their parental rights, and that there are no allegations in the cross-complaint that legal custody was taken from Goldman’s natural parents. (Mot. at p.5.) Thus, it argues that Goldman’s natural parents have sole legal custody over him. Based on the allegations of the cross-complaint, it is not clear what relationship Goldman has with his natural parents and thus whether County is or is not legally the guardian of Goldman.

Third, County argues that Skaggs, a foster parent, is not a County employee and thus County cannot be liable for her alleged misconduct. A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of its employee within the scope of his or her employment. (Gov’t Code, §815.2.) Pursuant to Government Code, §810.2, an “employee” includes a judicial officer, employee, or servant, that does not include an independent contractor. “There is no evidence that by becoming a foster parent, a private person somehow becomes an ‘employee’ of the state or of any other public entity. Nor is there any allegation that the state supervised defendants’ foster parenting duties in any way.” (Becerra v. Gonzales

Here, there is a conclusory allegation that County assessed, evaluated, directed, supervised, and controlled Goldman’s actions, but there are no allegations that County supervised Skaggs’ foster parenting duties in any way. In addition, Plaintiff has not provided any conflicting case law in her opposition brief showing that a foster parent is equivalent to an employee of a public entity.

Finally, the Court notes that the allegations of the cross-complaint are lacking for each cause of action. For the indemnity cause of action, Skaggs does not specify whether she is pursuing equitable or express/contractual indemnity against County. The declaratory relief cause of action only alleges that there is a dispute and controversy between the parties but fails to allege the dispute and controversy at issue. (See Cross-Compl., ¶13.) Further, a declaratory relief cause of action under CCP §1060 states that a person interested under a written instrument or who desires a declaration of rights in and over property may bring a cross-complaint for a declaration of such rights and duties. However, it is unclear from the pleading what writing is at issue that Skaggs seeks a judicial declaration upon. With regard to the declaratory relief and apportionment causes of action, Skaggs raises no arguments in the opposition brief regarding the sufficiency of the claims.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

County’s motion for judgment on the pleadings to Skaggs’ cross-complaint is granted. As this is Skaggs’ first attempt at the pleading, the Court will allow 20 days leave to amend the cross-complaint. However, prior to and upon amendment, Skaggs should consider the legal viability of her claims against County and the parties should meet and confer on the issues raised.

County shall provide notice of this order.


[1] Subsection (c)(1) states that the court shall terminate parental rights and order the child placed for adoption upon clear and convincing evidence of certain assessments.