This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/13/2019 at 00:02:27 (UTC).

ELVIA LOPEZ VS THE CONGA ROOM LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/11/2016 ELVIA LOPEZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against THE CONGA ROOM LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0174

  • Filing Date:

    02/11/2016

  • 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

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

LOPEZ ELVIA

Defendants and Respondents

CONGA ROOM THE LLC

CONGA ROOM MANAGEMENT LLC

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

CONGA ROOM LIVE F&F LP

CONGA ROOM LIVE LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

MARTINIAN & ASSOCIATES INC.

Defendant Attorney

SCHONBUCH MICHAEL N. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application for an order to continue trial

1/17/2019: Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application for an order to continue trial

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO REQUEST THE COURT TO CONTI...)

8/9/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO REQUEST THE COURT TO CONTI...)

Declaration - DECLARATION OF ELLEN LEVIN IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

11/20/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF ELLEN LEVIN IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

11/20/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Response - RESPONSE DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

11/27/2019: Response - RESPONSE DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Reply - REPLY DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMA

11/27/2019: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMA

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

12/5/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE;

3/17/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE;

PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME AND TO IMMEDIATELY HEAR ITS MOTION TO CONTINUE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE TRIAL DATE AND PRETRIAL DATES AND DEADLINES INCLUDING REGU

3/9/2018: PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME AND TO IMMEDIATELY HEAR ITS MOTION TO CONTINUE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE TRIAL DATE AND PRETRIAL DATES AND DEADLINES INCLUDING REGU

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

8/29/2018: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

Stipulation - No Order - Stipulation - No Order FOR AN ORDER AMENDING THE COURT'S JANUARY 17, 2019 ORDER REGARDING TRIAL RELATED DEADLINES

1/22/2019: Stipulation - No Order - Stipulation - No Order FOR AN ORDER AMENDING THE COURT'S JANUARY 17, 2019 ORDER REGARDING TRIAL RELATED DEADLINES

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL

5/22/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

6/12/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

2/8/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

DEFENDANTS CONGA ROOM LIVE, LLC, CONGA ROOM LIVE F&F, LP, AND CONGA ROOM MANAGEMENT, LLC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

3/3/2017: DEFENDANTS CONGA ROOM LIVE, LLC, CONGA ROOM LIVE F&F, LP, AND CONGA ROOM MANAGEMENT, LLC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

4/6/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

Minute Order -

10/19/2017: Minute Order -

40 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/11/2020
  • Hearing08/11/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2020
  • Hearing07/31/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Hearing on Ex Parte Application for order to continue trial d...) of 03/23/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for order to continue trial d...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for order to continue trial date;) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for order to continue trial d...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2020
  • DocketEx Parte Application (for order to continue trial date;); Filed by Conga Room Live F&F, LP (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (To Continue Trial) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
79 More Docket Entries
  • 04/06/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Elvia Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2017
  • DocketDEFENDANTS CONGA ROOM LIVE, LLC, CONGA ROOM LIVE F&F, LP, AND CONGA ROOM MANAGEMENT, LLC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Conga Room Live, LLC (Defendant); Conga Room Live F&F, LP (Defendant); Conga Room Management, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Elvia Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2017
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Elvia Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2017
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2016
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. PREMISES LIABILITY; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2016
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2016
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Elvia Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC610174    Hearing Date: December 05, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

elvia lopez,

Plaintiff,

v.

the conga room, llc, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC610174

Hearing Date: December 5, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Defendants’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Elvia Lopez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Conga Room Live, LLC, Conga Room Live F&F, LP, and Conga Room Management (“Defendants”) after she slipped and fell at Defendant’s restaurant. Defendants now move for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s complaint, or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of the causes of action for negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff opposes the motion, which is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law[.]  There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)  “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.”  (Ibid.)  

OBJECTIONS

Plaintiff’s Objection #1 – The Court need not rule on this objection, because the Court did not rely on this evidence in ruling on the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(q).)

Plaintiff’s Objection #2 – The Court need not rule on this objection, because the Court did not rely on this evidence in ruling on the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(q).)

Plaintiff’s Objection #3 – Overruled because the declaration is supported by sufficient foundation.

DISCUSSION

The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages.  (Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.)  Those who own, possess, or control property generally have a duty to exercise ordinary care in managing the property to avoid exposing others to an unreasonable risk of harm.  (Annocki Defendants argue that they are not liable because no such condition existed or, in the alternative, they had no actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition.

A. Dangerous Condition

Defendants first argue that no dangerous condition existed. Defendants rely on Plaintiff’s deposition testimony. At deposition, Plaintiff testified that she slipped on “something wet . . . ,” but could not identify what that was. (Defendants’ Index of Exhibits in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit 4, p. 45.) Defendant also rely on the deposition testimony of Aaron Cleveland (“Cleveland”), who worked as a security guard at the venue at the time of Plaintiff’s accident. Cleveland states that, after Plaintiff’s fall, he was unable to find any moisture on the floor of the venue. (Defendants’ Index of Exhibits in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit 6, p. 10.) This evidence is sufficient to satisfy Defendants’ burden, shifting the burden to Plaintiff to proffer sufficient evidence of a dangerous condition.

Plaintiff similarly relies on her deposition testimony. Plaintiff also relies on the deposition testimony of Noel Silva (“Silva”), who was present with Plaintiff at the time of her fall. Solis testified that he saw liquid on the floor when Plaintiff fell. (Declaration of Ellen Levin, Exh. C, p. 30.) This evidence is sufficient to raise triable issues of material fact as to whether a dangerous condition existed.

B. Actual or Constructive Notice

In the alternative, Defendants argue that they had no actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Defendants rely on a declaration from Gil Solis (“Solis”), Vice President of Operations, which states that Defendants require their employees to continuously monitor the venue for conditions that could be dangerous for patrons. (Declaration of Gil Solis, ¶ 4.) “[M]ultiple employees continually patrolled the venue each and every night to prevent and immediately address conditions that could potentially be hazardous to patrons.” (Ibid.) Solis further states that Defendants hired a third-party security services company to provide security guards at various positions throughout the venue, who were responsible for reporting hazardous conditions. (Ibid.)

Defendants’ evidence satisfies their burden, shifting the burden to Plaintiff to proffer sufficient evidence to give rise to a triable issue. Plaintiff fails to do so. Plaintiff again relies on the deposition testimony of Noel Silva. Silva further testified that there were no security guards in the area where Plaintiff fell. (Declaration of Ellen Levin, Exh. C, pp. 31-32.) However, this evidence does not establish that the liquid had been on the floor for an extended period of time or that Defendants were negligent. Simply, Plaintiff proffers insufficient evidence to give rise to a triable issue whether Defendants’ measures were ineffective or that the liquid had been on the floor for an extended period of time. Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: December 5, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court