Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/07/2019 at 00:20:57 (UTC).

FRANCISCO RAMOS VS LUIS R FIGUEROA ET AL

Case Summary

On 09/21/2016 FRANCISCO RAMOS filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against LUIS R FIGUEROA. 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:

    ****4597

  • Filing Date:

    09/21/2016

  • 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

RAMOS FRANCISCO

Defendants and Respondents

FIGUEROA DORA

DOES 1 TO 75

FIGUEROA LUIS R.

LF TRUCKING

WALT'S TOW SERVICE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM W. GREEN & ASSOC.

MESAROS CHRISTOPHER P.

Defendant Attorney

OWENBY RUTH L. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL?CIVIL

1/17/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL?CIVIL

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL?CIVIL

1/17/2018: DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL?CIVIL

ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNDEL

2/9/2018: ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNDEL

Minute Order

2/9/2018: Minute Order

ORDER RE MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

2/9/2018: ORDER RE MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

NOTICE OF RULING

2/15/2018: NOTICE OF RULING

Minute Order

3/6/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

5/11/2018: Minute Order

Substitution of Attorney

11/30/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Stipulation

12/4/2018: Stipulation

Minute Order

12/4/2018: Minute Order

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

1/23/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Minute Order

3/4/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

6/5/2019: Minute Order

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

9/21/2016: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

SUMMONS

9/21/2016: SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

11/10/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

ANSWER-PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH- COMPLAINT OF (NAME): FRANCISCO RAMOS

11/21/2016: ANSWER-PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH- COMPLAINT OF (NAME): FRANCISCO RAMOS

8 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and Failure to File Default Judgment Pursuant to CRC 3.740 (/Trial Setting Conference) - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Francisco Ramos (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2018
  • Minute Order ((Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2018
  • Stipulation - No Order (to continue trial); Filed by Francisco Ramos (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
22 More Docket Entries
  • 01/17/2018
  • Declaration; Filed by Francisco Ramos (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2016
  • Answer; Filed by Dora Figueroa (Defendant); Luis R. Figueroa (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2016
  • ANSWER-PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH- COMPLAINT OF (NAME): FRANCISCO RAMOS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Francisco Ramos (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Francisco Ramos (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2016
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Francisco Ramos (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC634597    Hearing Date: November 20, 2020    Dept: 32

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

Francisco Ramos,

Plaintiff,

v.

luis R. Figueroa, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC634597

Hearing Date: November 20, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

DefendantS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Francisco Ramos (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Luis R. Figueroa and Dora Figueroa (collectively, “Defendants”) after he was injured in a welding accident. Defendants move for summary judgment on the single cause of action, one for negligence, which Plaintiff opposes. The motion is denied.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff has been an auto body repair professional for over 40 years and was unemployed at the time of the accident. (Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Separate Statement of Material Facts, ¶¶ 1, 10.) Defendants are the sole proprietors of a business known as “LF Trucking.” (Id., ¶ 2.) Defendants maintain a yard in which trucks are parked, as well as a small shop with tools and machinery, including welders. (Id., ¶¶ 4-5.)

In or around October 2014, Defendant Luis Figueroa purchased a classic pickup trick to restore. (Id., ¶ 14.) He stored the truck at Defendants’ business while he looked for an auto body repair professional to help restore it. (Ibid.) Eventually, Defendant Luis Figueroa spoke with Plaintiff, who negotiated a price to repair the body of the truck, and Defendant Luis Figueroa hired him. (Id., ¶¶ 16-17.)

According to Plaintiff, Defendant Luis Figueroa designated an area at Defendants’ business for Plaintiff to work and instructed another mechanic to “set up” the equipment for Plaintiff. (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, ¶ 4.) Defendant Luis Figueroa provided “everything” Plaintiff needed to finish the job. (Id., ¶ 7.) For approximately one week, Plaintiff worked on the vehicle without incident and would come and go from the property via the front gate. (Id., ¶ 5.) After the first week, Defendant Luis Figueroa left town without telling Plaintiff, and Plaintiff continued his work. (Id., ¶¶ 6-7.) One morning, Plaintiff resumed his work, and when he turned on the welder, it exploded. (Id., ¶¶ 7-8.) Plaintiff had been using the same nozzle and hose he had been using for the work, which had been provided by Defendant Luis Figueroa. (Id., ¶ 7.)

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.)  

EVIDENTIARY ISSUES

The Court does not consider any evidence that Defendants performed maintenance on the welder following the accident. Evidence of remedial measures is not admissible, per Evidence Code section 1151.

Defendant objects to the declaration of Plaintiff’s expert witness, George Rolla, arguing that there is no foundation to support his statement that he examined the same hose that was involved in the accident. Plaintiff testified that he went back to Defendant’s business approximately six month after the accident and took the hose from a box of old hoses. (Supplemental Declaration of Gilbert A. Garcia, Exh. #9, pp. 84-89.) Plaintiff testified that it was the same hose he used at the time of the accident:

Q: Are you sure that’s the same hose that you were using when the fire happened?

A: Yes.

Q: How do you know?

A: Because that burn doesn’t happen with just anything.

(Id., Exh. #9, p.88.) This testimony is sufficient because the Court is required to interpret all evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, the Court raised this issue and afforded Plaintiff an opportunity to clarify the record. Plaintiff proffered a declaration making clear that it was the same hose:

While at the property, I looked into a box/crate filled with various tools located near where I used to work. There were two different acetylene and oxygen torch hoses within the box. One of the hoses looked almost new, while the other was badly damaged. I immediately recognized the latter as the hose from the torch I used while working for Mr. Figueroa (that below up in my hand). As previously testified in deposition, I used Mr. Figueroa’s torch/welder day-in, day-out throughout my time at Mr. Figueroa’s property. I recognized it as the same one. Therefore, I removed a portion of the hose (to preserve as evidence) and left.

(Supplemental Declaration of Francisco Ramos, ¶ 3.) Therefore, Defendants’ objection is overruled.

DISCUSSION

The elements of a cause of action for negligence are: Duty, breach, causation, and damages. Defendants first argue that they owed no duty to Plaintiff because he was an independent contractor rather than an employee. This is not a case of vicarious liability, i.e., a case in which Plaintiff’s alleged negligence caused harm to a subcontractor, who then sued Defendants as the hiring party. (See Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689; Tverberg v. Fillner Construction, Inc. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1439.) Rather, Plaintiff asserts liability directly against Defendants because they allegedly provided a welder that had not been maintained properly. Specifically, Plaintiff’s theory of the case is that Defendants did not maintain the welder appropriately or replace the hose when it started to develop fissures, which caused a gas leak and the explosion. (Declaration of George Rolla, ¶¶ 10-21.) Plaintiff’s theory is that Defendants should have seen the wear and tear and aging on the hose and replaced it before giving the welder to Plaintiff. (Ibid.) Simply, if Defendants provide tools for a job, especially one that is inherently dangerous like welding, they have a duty to maintain the tools properly and repair any obvious issues.

Defendants argue that, in fact they did not authorize Plaintiff to work on the truck at their property and did not authorize him to use any of their tools. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff would remove parts from the truck and take them off-site to work on them. There is a triable issue on these points because Plaintiff testified to the contrary. Specifically, Plaintiff testified that Defendant Luis Figueroa: (1) designated an area at Defendants’ business for Plaintiff to work and instructed another mechanic to “set up” the equipment for Plaintiff, (2) provided “everything” Plaintiff needed to finish the job, (3) allowed Plaintiff to come and go through the front gate, and (4) regularly inspected Plaintiff’ work. This is sufficient to give rise to a triable issue, as the Court cannot resolve credibility issues on summary judgment.

Similarly, Defendants argue that it was not foreseeable “Plaintiff or anyone other than an authorized user would use the welding equipment,” citing Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108. Again, Defendants’ argument ignores Plaintiff’s testimony that Defendant Luis Figueroa authorized him to work on Defendants’ property and provided the (allegedly defective) equipment that caused Plaintiff’s injuries. Therefore, the Court cannot resolve this issue on summary judgment.

In the alternative, Defendants argue that they did not breach any duty to Plaintiff. Defendants rely on Plaintiff’s responses to their special interrogatories requesting all facts supporting his allegation that Defendants were negligent. Plaintiff served responses on November 15, 2019, which lack specific facts. (See Compendium of Exhibits in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, Exh. #5.) This shifts the burden to Plaintiff to proffer sufficient facts to give rise to a triable issue. (See Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 590.)

Plaintiff relies on Defendant Luis Figueroa’s deposition testimony, which was taken on July 17, 2020, after his discovery responses were due. Defendant Luis Figueroa testified that there are no scheduled inspections of the equipment at his business, and he could not recall the last time the hoses at issue had been inspected. (Declaration of Mark E. Bauman, Exh. B, pp. 39-40.)

Plaintiff also relies on a declaration from George Rolla, a welder and welding instructor who is acting as an expert witness. Rolla inspected the discovery in this case, as well as the hose that was attached to the welder at the time of the accident. Rolla states that the hose was worn and brittle, and had visible signs of aging. (Declaration of George Rolla, ¶ 21.) Rolla states that the apparent cause of the rupture of the hose was fissures from age and overuse. (Id., ¶¶ 30-31.) This is sufficient to give rise to a triable issue whether Defendants breached their duty toward Plaintiff.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied. This case was filed on September 21, 2016, which means under normal circumstances that the case must be tried by September 21, 2021, per Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310. However, for purposes of computing this time, the Court excludes all time for which “[b]ringing the action to trial . . . was impossible, impracticable, or futile.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 583.340(c).)  Beginning on March 16, 2020, there have been no civil jury trials in the Los Angeles County Superior Court due to COVID-19.  Pursuant to the Presiding Judge’s order of July 10, 2020, civil jury trials will resume on the first court day in January 2021, which is January 4, 2021.  This time period—March 16, 2020 to January 4, 2021—which is 294 days, is excluded. Therefore, the deadline for this case to proceed to trial is July 12, 2022.

The Court sets the following dates:

Final Status Conference: April 16, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.

Trial: April 30, 2021, at 8:30 a.m. 

Fact discovery and related motions shall remain closed. Expert discovery and related motions shall be based on the new trial date. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: November 20, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC634597    Hearing Date: October 27, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

Francisco Ramos,

Plaintiff,

v.

luis R. Figueroa, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC634597

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Francisco Ramos (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Luis R. Figueroa and Dora Figueroa (collectively, “Defendants”) after he was injured in a welding accident. Defendants move for summary judgment on the single cause of action, one for negligence, which Plaintiff opposes. The Court continues the hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment but issues this tentative order in advance of the hearing.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff has been an auto body repair professional for over 40 years and was unemployed at the time of the accident. (Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Separate Statement of Material Facts, ¶¶ 1, 10.) Defendants are the sole proprietors of a business known as “LF Trucking.” (Id., ¶ 2.) Defendants maintain a yard in which trucks are parked, as well as a small shop with tools and machinery, including welders. (Id., ¶¶ 4-5.)

In or around October 2014, Defendant Luis Figueroa purchased a classic pickup trick to restore. (Id., ¶ 14.) He stored the truck at Defendants’ business while he looked for an auto body repair professional to help restore it. (Ibid.) Eventually, Defendant Luis Figueroa spoke with Plaintiff, who negotiated a price to repair the body of the truck, and Defendant Luis Figueroa hired him. (Id., ¶¶ 16-17.)

According to Plaintiff, Defendant Luis Figueroa designated an area at Defendants’ business for Plaintiff to work and instructed another mechanic to “set up” the equipment for Plaintiff. (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, ¶ 4.) Defendant Luis Figueroa provided “everything” Plaintiff needed to finish the job. (Id., ¶ 7.) For approximately one week, Plaintiff worked on the vehicle without incident and would come and go from the property via the front gate. (Id., ¶ 5.) After the first week, Defendant Luis Figueroa left town without telling Plaintiff, and Plaintiff continued his work. (Id., ¶¶ 6-7.) One morning, Plaintiff resumed his work, and when he turned on the welder, it exploded. (Id., ¶¶ 7-8.) Plaintiff had been using the same nozzle and hose he had been using for the work, which had been provided by Defendant Luis Figueroa. (Id., ¶ 7.)

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.)  

DISCUSSION

The elements of a cause of action for negligence are: Duty, breach, causation, and damages. Defendants first argue that they owed no duty to Plaintiff because he was an independent contractor rather than an employee. This is not a case of vicarious liability, i.e., a case in which Plaintiff’s alleged negligence caused harm to a subcontractor, who then sued Defendants as the hiring party. (See Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689; Tverberg v. Fillner Construction, Inc. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1439.) Rather, Plaintiff asserts liability directly against Defendants because they allegedly provided a welder that had not been maintained properly. Specifically, Plaintiff’s theory of the case is that Defendants did not maintain the welder appropriately or replace the hose when it started to develop fissures, which caused a gas leak and the explosion. (Declaration of George Rolla, ¶¶ 10-21.) Plaintiff’s theory is that Defendants should have seen the wear and tear and aging on the hose and replaced it before giving the welder to Plaintiff. (Ibid.) Simply, if Defendants provide tools for a job, especially one that is inherently dangerous like welding, they have a duty to maintain the tools properly and repair any obvious issues.

Defendants argue that, in fact they did not authorize Plaintiff to work on the truck at their property and did not authorize him to use any of their tools. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff would remove parts from the truck and take them off-site to work on them. There is a triable issue on these points because Plaintiff testified to the contrary. Specifically, Plaintiff testified that Defendant Luis Figueroa: (1) designated an area at Defendants’ business for Plaintiff to work and instructed another mechanic to “set up” the equipment for Plaintiff, (2) provided “everything” Plaintiff needed to finish the job, (3) allowed Plaintiff to come and go through the front gate, and (4) regularly inspected Plaintiff’ work. This is sufficient to give rise to a triable issue, as the Court cannot resolve credibility issues on summary judgment.

Similarly, Defendants argue that it was not foreseeable “Plaintiff or anyone other than an authorized user would use the welding equipment,” citing Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108. Again, Defendants’ argument ignores Plaintiff’s testimony that Defendant Luis Figueroa authorized him to work on Defendants’ property and provided the (allegedly defective) equipment that caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

Nevertheless, the Court’s tentative decision is to grant summary judgment because Plaintiff proffers insufficient evidence that Defendants breached any duty or that any such breach caused his injuries. Defendants rely on Plaintiff’s responses to their special interrogatories requesting all facts supporting his allegation that Defendants were negligent. Plaintiff served responses on November 15, 2019, which lack specific facts. (See Compendium of Exhibits in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, Exh. #5.) This shifts the burden to Plaintiff to proffer sufficient facts to give rise to a triable issue. (See Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 590.)

There is no evidence in the record that the hose at issue was, in fact, defective. Nowhere in his deposition did Plaintiff testified that he observed cracks or damage to the hose at or before the accident. (Declaration of Gilbert A. Garcia, Exh. #6, pp.78-80.) To the contrary, Plaintiff testified that the hose appeared to be fine at the time of the accident. (Ibid.)

Instead, Plaintiff testified that he went back to Defendants’ business approximately six month after the accident and took a hose from a box of old hoses. (Supplemental Declaration of Gilbert A. Garcia, Exh. #9, pp. 84-89.) Plaintiff testified that it was the same hose he used during the accident, but his testimony lacks foundation. Plaintiff did not testify that he recognized the hose or that the hose was in the same condition as the one he used on the date of the accident. Rather, he testified that the hose must have been the same one because the explosion must have been caused by a cracked hose, and the hose in the box was cracked.

Q: And do you have any idea what caused the hose area to catch fire?

A: After seeing the accident, all I can think is that the hose was old.

(Declaration of Gilbert A. Garcia, Exh. #6, p. 84.)

Q: Are you sure that’s the same hose that you were using when the fire happened?

A: Yes.

Q: How do you know?

A: Because that burn doesn’t happen with just anything.

(Supplemental Declaration of Gilbert A. Garcia, Exh. #9, p. 88.) This testimony is insufficient foundation to establish that the hose he took from Defendants’ yard was the same hose he used during the accident. This foundational problem is fatal because Defendant’s expert, George Rolla, bases his opinion on the assumption that the hose he examined was, in fact, the same hose Plaintiff used during the accident.

The Court does not grant summary judgment at this time because Defendant proffers new evidence with the reply brief, viz., Plaintiff’s testimony relating to him having taken the hose from Defendants’ yard. (Id., Exh. #9, pp. 87-89.) Plaintiff is entitled to an opportunity to respond. (See San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 316.) Therefore, the Court continues this hearing and authorizes Plaintiff to file a sur-reply brief and any relevant evidence to respond to the issues raised in this tentative order, as well as the evidence Defendants proffered with their reply brief.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court continues the hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment to November 20, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. The Court authorizes Plaintiff to file a sur-reply brief on or before November 10, 2020. The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.

DATED: October 26, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where WALT'S TOW SERVICE is a litigant