On 12/07/2016 DANIEL GARCIA filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against BRUNTON ENTERPRISES INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
****3161
12/07/2016
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Burbank Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
GARCIA DANIEL
ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY
PLAS-TAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY
DOES 1 TO 50
BRUNTON ENTERPRISES INC
BIGGE CRANE AND RIGGING CO. DOE 1
PALMER SCOTT DOE 6
BRUNTON ENTERPRISES INC. DBA PLAS-TAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY
BIGGE CRANE AND RIGGING CO.
BIGGE CRANE AND RIGGING CO. A BUSINESS ENTITY OF UNKNOWN FORM
RYNEAL F. STEVE
RYNEAL FRED STEVE
KIRSCH JOSHUA ERIK
BEHAR JEFFREY STEVEN
CAMMARANO DENNIS A
5/14/2018: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL FSC AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY
7/13/2018: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF BRUNTON ENTERPRISES, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJTDICATION AS TO BIGGE CRANE & RIGGING CO.'S CROSS-COMPLAINT
7/13/2018: BRUNTON ENTERPRISES'S TNC. DBA PLAS-TAL MANUFACTURINC CO.'S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION, AS TO BIGGE CRANE & RIGGING CO.'S CROSS-COMPLAINT
7/13/2018: DECLARATION OF SEAN BRUNTON IN SUPPORT OF BRUNTON ENTERPRISES. INC. DBA PLAS-TAL MANUFACTURING CO.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
9/17/2018: DEFENDANT BIGGE CRANE AND RIGGING CO.'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIALS FACTS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO BRUNTON ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA PLAS-TAL MANUFACTURING, CO.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDG
9/17/2018: EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF SEAN BRUNTON SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF BRUNTON ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA PLAS-TAL MANUFACTURING, CO.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJ
9/17/2018: DEFENDANT BIGGE CRANE AND RIGGING CO.'S OPPOSITION TO BRUNTON ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA PLAS-TAL MANUFACTURING, CO.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
9/27/2018: SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF STACY M. YOUNG IN SUPPORT OF BRUNTON ENTERPRISES, INC.?S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN TILE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJTJTMCATION
9/27/2018: EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF ALFRED REEVES, III IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
3/22/2019: Minute Order
3/26/2019: Case Management Statement
4/8/2019: Case Management Statement
4/11/2019: Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone
4/16/2019: Case Management Statement
12/7/2016: COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES
2/9/2017: Proof of Service
4/25/2017: ANSWER OF CROSS-DEFENDANT BRUNTON ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA PLAS-TAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF BIGGE CRANE AND RIGGING CO.
6/20/2017: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
at 08:30 AM in Department B; Case Management Conference - Held
Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk
Case Management Statement; Filed by Brunton Enterprises, Inc (Defendant)
Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone; Filed by Daniel Garcia (Plaintiff)
Case Management Statement; Filed by Bigge Crane and Rigging Co. (Cross-Complainant); Bigge Crane and Rigging Co. (DOE 1) (Defendant)
Notice of Motion; Filed by Bigge Crane and Rigging Co. (DOE 1) (Defendant)
Case Management Statement; Filed by Daniel Garcia (Plaintiff)
at 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (by Defendant Brunton Enterprises, Inc.) - Held - Motion Denied
Other - (Court's Order re: Motion For Summary Judgment or, Alternatively, Summary Adjudication); Filed by Clerk
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Brunton E...)); Filed by Clerk
Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Brunton Enterprises, Inc (Defendant)
Receipt; Filed by Brunton Enterprises, Inc (Defendant)
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT BRUNTON ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA PLAS-TAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
Cross-Complaint; Filed by Brunton Enterprises, Inc (Defendant); Plas-Tal Manufacturing Company (Defendant)
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT
Answer; Filed by Brunton Enterprises, Inc (Defendant); Plas-Tal Manufacturing Company (Defendant)
Complaint; Filed by Arch Insurance Company (Plaintiff); Daniel Garcia (Plaintiff)
SUMMONS
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES
Case Number: BC643161 Hearing Date: January 17, 2020 Dept: NCB
North Central District
Department B
|
daniel garcia, Plaintiff, v.
brunton enterprises, inc. dba plas-tal manufacturing co., Defendant. |
Case No.: BC643161 (Consolidated with BC651073)
Hearing Date: January 17, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to vacate order dismissing case
|
BACKGROUND
A. Allegations of the Complaint and Cross-Complaints
Plaintiff Daniel Garcia (“Garcia” or “Plaintiff”) commenced this action against Defendant Brunton Enterprises, Inc. dba Plas-Tal Manufacturing Co. (“Plas-Tal”). Garcia alleges that he was on a building construction site at Universal Studios in his role as a carpenter for his employer, Matt Construction Company. Plaintiff alleges he was using hand signals to communicate instructions with the crane operator, Plas-Tal, to lift and lower beams. He alleges that he gave a hand signal to lower a beam, but Plas-Tal’s crane operator lifted the beam, causing the beam to come into contact with another wood beam that became dislodged and fell on Garcia’s head. His complaint, filed December 7, 2016, alleges a single claim for personal injury damages.
On January 11, 2017, Plas-Tal filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendant Bigge Crane and Rigging Co. (“Bigge”) for: (1) implied indemnity; (2) express indemnity; (3) equitable contribution; and (4) declaratory relief.
On April 19, 2017, Bigge filed a cross-complaint against Plas-Tal for: (1) contractual indemnity; (2) equitable indemnity; (3) contribution; and (4) declaratory relief.
On December 7, 2018, Garcia voluntarily dismissed with prejudice the complaint as to Plas-Tal regarding the waiver of costs only.
On June 6, 2017, this action was consolidated with Arch Insurance Company v. Brunton Enterprises Inc. (Case No. BC651073).
The BC643161 action and the BC651073 action will hereinafter be referred to as the “Garcia action” and “Arch action”, respectively.
B. Relevant Background and Motion to Vacate
On July 30, 2019, the Court entered the Stipulation for Dismissal and Proposed Order Thereon. Garcia, Arch Insurance Company (“Arch”) (the plaintiff in the consolidated case), Plas-Tal, and Bigge stipulated that Garcia and Arch settled Garcia’s Worker’s Compensation action (Case No. AJD10539334) and had agreed to dismissed with prejudice Arch’s complaint and all cross-actions in BC651073 (the Arch action), with each party to bear its own attorney’s fees and costs.
As a result of the July 30, 2019 Stipulation and Order for Dismissal, the Garcia action was dismissed.
On December 23, 2019, Garcia filed a motion to vacate the dismissal entered on July 30, 2019, dismissing the Garcia action (Case No. BC643161).
The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff Garcia moves to vacate the dismissal, arguing that the stipulation and order was only meant to dismiss Arch’s complaint and all cross actions therein (i.e., in the Arch action, case no. BC651073), and was not meant to dismiss the Garcia action (case no. BC643161) alleged against third-parties and related cross-complaints. Thus, Garcia moves for an order vacating the dismissal of the Garcia action so that it is restored to the civil active list and request that a new final status conference and trial date be set.
In support of the motion, Garcia provides the declaration of his counsel, F. Steve Ryneal. Mr. Ryneal states that he filed the complaint on Garcia’s behalf in the Garcia action, naming Plas-Tal, Bigge, and Scott Palmer as defendants; Brunton filed a cross-complaint against Bigge and Palmer; and Bigge filed a cross-complaint against Brunton. (Ryneal Decl., ¶¶2-4.) A parallel action was filed by Arch against Brunton in the Arch action to recover workers compensation benefits paid to Garcia; both Benton and Bigge filed cross-complaints in the second action. (Id., ¶¶5-7.) The Garcia action (BC643161) and the Arch action (BC651073) were consolidated on June 6, 2017. (Id., ¶8.) Counsel states that the parties in the Arch action later settled via a Compromise and Release agreement, and that the stipulation and order was intended only to dismiss the complaint and related cross-complaints in the Arch action only—not the Garcia action. (Id., ¶¶9-10, Ex. A.) He states that it was not the intent of the parties or their counsel to dismiss the Garcia action and related cross-complaints therein with the Arch action. (Id., ¶12.) Mr. Ryneal states that the stipulation and order was misconstrued such that the Garcia case was dismissed and the FSC and trial dates vacated (initially set for January 16 and 27, 2020, respectively). (Id., ¶¶13-14.) He states that the parties only recently discovered the accident when Bigge’s counsel went only to check the status of the case. (Id., ¶15.)
Based on the declaration of Garcia’s counsel, the Court finds that there is substantive merit to granting this motion. The motion was filed within 6 months of the dismissal. Also, the policy of the law is to have a hearing on the merits wherever possible and appellate courts are much more disposed to affirm an order when the result is to compel a trial on the merit than it is when the judgment by default is allowed to stand, and it appears that a substantial defense could be made. (Thompson v. Sutton (1942) 50 Cal.App.2d 272, 276.)
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal entered in the Garcia case (case no. BC643161) is granted.
The Court sets a Case Management Conference for March 12, 2020.
Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.