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.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
HOLLY J. FUJIE
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
ROSE KLEIN & MARIAS LLP
BELMUDES DENNIS SAMUEL
LENKOV JEFFREY MYLES
MANNING & KASS ELLROD RAMIREZ TRESTER
JEFFREY M. LENKOV ESQ.
BELOFSKY DAVID ARTHUR
9/26/2016: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS
12/7/2016: APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM - CIVIL
7/11/2017: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF DENNIS S. BELMUDES
2/1/2018: COMPENDIUM OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF 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
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
5/22/2018: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
9/24/2018: Motion to Compel
9/24/2018: Motion for Leave
12/26/2018: Memorandum of Points & Authorities
1/16/2019: Minute Order
4/5/2019: Other -
4/5/2019: Minute Order
Answer; Filed by Yvonne Skaggs (Doe 1) (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Yvonne Skaggs (Doe 1) (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Valerie Gutierrez (Plaintiff); Chloe Segura (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Answer (to Cross-Complaint); Filed by YVONNE SKAGGS (Cross-Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (by Defendant Chuck E. Cheese) - Held - Motion DeniedRead MoreRead Less
Other - (Court's Order re: Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Chuck E. ...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Chloe Segura (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Proof of Personal Service; Filed by CEC Entertainment, Inc. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
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
Ord Apptng Guardian Ad Litem; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
Ord Apptng Guardian Ad Litem (FOR CHLOE SEGURA ); Filed by Attorney for Pltf/PetnrRead MoreRead Less
APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM - CIVILRead MoreRead Less
Application-Miscellaneous (FOR CHLOE SEGURA GUARDIAN AD LITEM ); Filed by Attorney for Pltf/PetnrRead MoreRead Less
Application ; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESSRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESRead MoreRead Less
ComplaintRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Deposition of Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC631221 Hearing Date: March 06, 2020 Dept: NCB
North Central District
CHUCK E. CHEESE, et al.,
Case No.: BC631221
Hearing Date: March 6, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
motion for judgment on the pleadings
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).)
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, 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.
 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.