Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/06/2019 at 12:29:25 (UTC).

GABRIEL ESTRADA ET AL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/22/2016 GABRIEL ESTRADA filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CITY OF LOS ANGELES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4648

  • Filing Date:

    06/22/2016

  • 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

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

ESTRADA GABRIEL

ESTRADA SONIA

Defendants and Respondents

LOS ANGELES CITY OF

GUELAGUETZA RESTAURANT

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

CITY OF LOS ANGELES A PUBLIC ENTITY

BAI FAMILY TRUST ROE 1

3014 PAKS PROPERTY LLC

BAI FAMILY TRUST

BAI KUN Y.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

CARPENTER ZUCKERMAN & ROWLEY LLP

CARPENTER JOHN

Defendant Attorneys

WOODWARD KAREN

LEE GINA

VANDENBURG LAUREN K

WOLF MATTHEW C.

 

Court Documents

Unknown

2/26/2018: Unknown

DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. WOLF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

6/15/2018: DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. WOLF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Unknown

8/15/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

8/30/2018: Minute Order

Request for Judicial Notice

10/5/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Declaration

10/5/2018: Declaration

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

12/20/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Minute Order

1/14/2019: Minute Order

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT PBF&E LLC DBA GUELAGUETZA RESTAURANT TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT

10/11/2016: ANSWER OF DEFENDANT PBF&E LLC DBA GUELAGUETZA RESTAURANT TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT

CROSS-COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANT PBF&E LLC DBA GUELACUETZA RESTAJJRANT FOR: 1. INDEMNITY; ETC.

10/11/2016: CROSS-COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANT PBF&E LLC DBA GUELACUETZA RESTAJJRANT FOR: 1. INDEMNITY; ETC.

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

12/5/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

Unknown

1/30/2017: Unknown

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

1/31/2017: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

Minute Order

2/14/2017: Minute Order

Minute Order

6/7/2017: Minute Order

Unknown

9/1/2017: Unknown

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

9/1/2017: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

Unknown

11/30/2017: Unknown

94 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 49; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 49; Order to Show Cause Re: (sanctions against defense counsel for the City for FTA 1-14-19) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 49; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference; Order to Show Cause regarding sancti...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2019
  • [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District) (Stipulation (ONLY)); Filed by City of Los Angeles, a public entity (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2019
  • Order ((re: Stipulation))

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2019
  • Declaration (of Karen Woodward in response to Order to Show Re: Defendant's Failure to Appear at January 14, 2019 Status Conference); Filed by City of Los Angeles, a public entity (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • Memorandum of Costs (Summary); Filed by Guelaguetza Restaurant (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2019
  • Notice (of Intra-Office Transfer of Attorney of Record); Filed by City of Los Angeles, a public entity (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 49; Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
177 More Docket Entries
  • 10/11/2016
  • Answer; Filed by Guelaguetza Restaurant (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2016
  • SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2016
  • PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2016
  • ANSWER OF DEFENDANT PBF&E LLC DBA GUELAGUETZA RESTAURANT TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2016
  • CROSS-COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANT PBF&E LLC DBA GUELACUETZA RESTAJJRANT FOR: 1. INDEMNITY; ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2016
  • NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES' DEMURRER AS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2016
  • Demurrer; Filed by City of Los Angeles, a public entity (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2016
  • PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT ASSERTING CAUSES OF ACTION FOR: 1. DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY (GOVERNMENT CODE 815.2(A), 815.4, 835); ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Gabriel Estrada (Plaintiff); Sonia Estrada (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC624648    Hearing Date: December 18, 2020    Dept: 49

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Gabriel Estrada, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No.

BC624648

v.

[Tentative] Ruling

City of Los Angeles,

Defendant.

Hearing Date: December 18, 2020

Department 49, Judge Stuart M. Rice

(1) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend to File a First Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Gabriel Estrada and Sonia Estrada

Responding Party: Defendant City of Los Angeles

Ruling: Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is denied.

Leave to File a First Amended Complaint

(1) The effect of the amendment;

(2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper;

(3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and

(4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

Date: December 18, 2020

Honorable Stuart M. Rice

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC624648    Hearing Date: November 19, 2020    Dept: 49

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Gabriel Estrada, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No.

BC624648

v.

[Tentative] Ruling

City of Los Angeles,

Defendant.

Hearing Date: November 19, 2020

Department 49, Judge Stuart M. Rice

(1) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend to File a First Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Gabriel Estrada and Sonia Estrada

Responding Party: Defendant City of Los Angeles

Ruling: Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is continued.

Leave to File a First Amended Complaint

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1324(b), a separate declaration must accompany the motion for leave to file an amended complaint, and must specify:

(1) The effect of the amendment;

(2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper;

(3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and

(4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

Here, the attached declaration of Matthew J. Singer provides for the effects of the amendment, and why the amendment is necessary. However, the declaration fails to specify when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, nor does it explain why no request was made earlier.

The Complaint in this action was filed on June 22, 2016, over four (4) years ago. However, the declaration provides in vague terms that “[o]ver the course of discovery in this matter, Plaintiffs have been made aware of alterations made to the area upon which Plaintiff Gabriel Estrada’s injuries arose, such as the installation of truncated domes, which required Defendant City of Los Angeles to bring the entire street into compliance with ADA accessibility standards.” (Singer Decl. ¶ 4.)

As noted by Plaintiffs, California indeed has a strong public policy for liberal amendments to pleadings. However, this does not excuse parties from the requirements of CRC 3.1324(b). It is unclear why Plaintiffs waited so long to allege a claim which allegedly pertains to a disability Gabriel had over the past four years and at the time of the incident.

As Plaintiffs have not complied with the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b), Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is continued to Friday, December 18, 2020 at 8:30am.

Plaintiffs shall submit a declaration which fulfills the requirements of CRC 3.1324(b).

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Date: November 19, 2020

Honorable Stuart M. Rice

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where LOS ANGELES CITY OF is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer LEE GINA

Latest cases represented by Lawyer VANDENBURG LAUREN KENNEDY

Latest cases represented by Lawyer WOLF MATTHEW C.