This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/02/2019 at 00:12:28 (UTC).

NEVIS TWO LLC VS PAQUITO B PUGEDA ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/12/2016 NEVIS TWO LLC filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against PAQUITO B PUGEDA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK. The case status is Disposed - Other Disposed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6771

  • Filing Date:

    04/12/2016

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Other Disposed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

NEVIS TWO LLC

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

PUGEDA GLORINA S.

DOES 1 THROUGH 10

PUGEDA PAQUITO B.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

E. JOHNSON LAW FIRM THE

LAMOND CHRISTIAN FITZGERALD

JOHNSON ERIK L

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

EARLY MASLACH

MORRIS JEFFREY MICHAEL

Other Attorneys

DARROLL EILEEN PALMER

 

Court Documents

Unknown

4/6/2017: Unknown

Unknown

5/25/2017: Unknown

Unknown

10/12/2017: Unknown

Unknown

10/27/2017: Unknown

Unknown

12/4/2017: Unknown

Case Management Statement

12/6/2017: Case Management Statement

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

12/11/2017: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Unknown

2/1/2018: Unknown

Case Management Statement

3/19/2018: Case Management Statement

Unknown

4/23/2018: Unknown

Case Management Order

4/26/2018: Case Management Order

Request for Judicial Notice

9/21/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Cross-Complaint

9/21/2018: Cross-Complaint

Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

2/20/2019: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

2/28/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES

8/11/2016: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES

DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

10/25/2016: DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Minute Order

11/1/2016: Minute Order

111 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/06/2019
  • Joint Stipulation to Continue Trial; Order; Filed by Nevis Two, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Erik L Johnson (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • at 08:33 AM in Department M; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • RETURNED MAIL; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for Order to Show Cause for Contempt and Request for Attorneys' Fees and Costs) - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Ex Parte Application for Order to Show Cause for Contempt and...) of 04/04/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Ex Parte Application for Order to Show Cause for Contempt and...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • Opposition (to Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for OSC re Contempt and Request for Sanctions); Filed by GLORINA S. PUGEDA (Legacy Party); Paquito B. Pugeda (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (Contempt & Request for Fees & Costs); Filed by Nevis Two, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
174 More Docket Entries
  • 06/15/2016
  • Notice; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2016
  • Notice (OF RESCHEDULING HEARING DATE FOR MOTION TO STRIKE ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2016
  • NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED HEARING DATE FOR MOTION TO STRIKE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2016
  • Motion to Strike; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2016
  • NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2016
  • Motion to Strike (PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Nevis Two, LLC (Plaintiff); Nevis Two, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2016
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1. NUISANCE; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC616771    Hearing Date: July 21, 2020    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Tuesday, July 21, 2020

Department B Calendar No. 9

PROCEEDINGS

Nevis Two, LLC v. Paquito B. Pugeda, et al.

BC616771

  1. Paquito B. Pugeda and Glorina S. Pugeda’s Motion for Summary Judgment

    TENTATIVE RULING

    Paquito B. Pugeda and Glorina S. Pugeda’s (“Cross-Complainants”) Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

    Objections

    Cross-Defendant Nevis Two, LLC’s (“Cross-Defendant”) Objections

    Cross-Defendant’s objections 1 to 5 and 11 are sustained. Cross-Defendant’s objections 6 to 8 are overruled. The Court declines to rule on objections 9, 10, and 12. This evidence is directed to the issue of damages which is not relevant as a triable issue of fact exists regarding liability. The Court need only rule on those evidentiary objections that it deems material to disposition of the motion. CCP § 437c(q).

    Cross-Complainants’ Objections

    Cross-Complainants’ objections 1, 5, and 10 are sustained. Cross-Complainants’ objections 2 to 4 are overruled. The Court declines to rule on objections 6 to 9. This evidence is directed to the issue of damages which is not relevant as a triable issue of fact exists regarding liability. The Court need only rule on those evidentiary objections that it deems material to disposition of the motion. CCP § 437c(q).

    Background

    On April 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed its Complaint. This action arises from a dispute between two neighbors over property damage caused by a tree they jointly own. Plaintiff alleges that the tree grew through the property line and that Defendants refused to maintain their property or exercise reasonable care for the tree. Thus, the tree allegedly damaged sidewalks, damaged the roof, and encroached upon Plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff set forth causes of action for: 1. Nuisance; 2. Trespass; 3. Negligence.

    On December 4, 2017 Defendants filed a Cross-Complaint alleging that Cross-Defendant’s trimming of the tree caused the destruction of the tree. Cross-Complainants alleged causes of action for: (1) Intentional Destruction of Timber (Civ. Code Sections 834, 3346); (2) Negligence Per Se (Civ. Code Section 3346); (3) Private Nuisance.

    Cross-Complainants move for summary judgment as to their Cross-Complaint. Cross-Defendant has met its burden to provide specific facts to show the existence of a triable issue of material fact as to Cross-Complainants’ causes of action. CCP § 437c(p)(1).

    Motion for Summary Judgment

    The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1110, 1119.)

    “On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action ... cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” CCP § 437c(p)(2). “Once the defendant ... has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff ... to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” CCP § 437c(p)(2). “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 463, 467.

    “A plaintiff or cross-complainant has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. Once the plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant or cross-defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(1).

    “When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi, 159 Cal.App.4th at 467; CCP § 437c(c).)

    First and Second Causes of Action

    As to the first and second causes of action for Intentional Destruction of Timber and Negligence Per Se, Cross-Defendant has provided competent evidence to show the existence of a triable issue of material fact.

    Civil Code § 834 states: “Line trees. Trees whose trunks stand partly on the land of two or more coterminous owners, belong to them in common.” Here, neither party disputes that the tree stands partly on the line of both Cross-Complainants and Cross-Defendant.

    Civil Code § 3346(a) states:

    “For wrongful injuries to timber, trees, or underwood upon the land of another, or removal thereof, the measure of damages is three times such sum as would compensate for the actual detriment, except that where the trespass was casual or involuntary, or that the defendant in any action brought under this section had probable cause to believe that the land on which the trespass was committed was his own or the land of the person in whose service or by whose direction the act was done, the measure of damages shall be twice the sum as would compensate for the actual detriment, and excepting further that where the wood was taken by the authority of highway officers for the purpose of repairing a public highway or bridge upon the land or adjoining it, in which case judgment shall only be given in a sum equal to the actual detriment.”

    “The presumption of negligence created by Evidence Code section 669 concerns the standard of care, rather than the duty of care. In order for the presumption to be available, either the courts or the Legislature must have created a duty of care. [A]n underlying claim of ordinary negligence must be viable before the presumption of negligence of Evidence Code section 669 can be employed .... [I]t is the tort of negligence, and not the violation of the statute itself, which entitles a plaintiff to recover civil damages.” Millard v. Biosources, Inc. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1353 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

    “The negligence per se doctrine, as codified in Evidence Code section 669, creates a presumption of negligence if four elements are established: “(1) the defendant violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation of a public entity; (2) the violation proximately caused death or injury to person or property; (3) the death or injury resulted from an occurrence of the nature of which the statute, ordinance, or regulation was designed to prevent; and (4) the person suffering the death or the injury to his person or property was one of the class of persons for whose protection the statute, ordinance, or regulation was adopted.” Spates v. Dameron Hospital Assn. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 208, 218.

    Thus, to prevail on the first and second causes of action, Cross-Complainants must establish that Cross-Defendant violated Civ. Code § 3346 which requires wrongful causing of injury to the tree of Cross-Complainants. However, Cross-Defendant has shown that a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the trimming of the tree branches caused wrongful injury to the tree.

    There is no evidence, and Cross-Complainants do not contend, that Cross-Defendant actually entered upon Cross-Complainants’ land to cut parts of the tree on Cross-Complainants’ property, or that Cross-Defendant cut down the entire tree. Instead, Cross-Complainants allege that Cross-Defendant cut branches existing on Cross-Defendant’s property which Cross-Complainants believe ultimately caused harm to the tree resulting in the eventual removal of the tree. Cross-Complainants provide evidence that the branch trimming caused the eventual destruction of the tree. (Cross-Complainants’ Amended Separate Statement of Facts and Supporting Evidence, 7, 9, 24.) Contrarily, Cross-Defendant provides evidence that the trimming did not cause the underlying harm to the tree resulting in its eventual removal. (Cross-Defendant’s Response to Separate Statement of Facts, 24-27.) Thus, a triable issue of material fact exists as to the essential element of wrongful conduct which is required to establish statutory liability pursuant to Civil Code § 3346.

    Neither Kallis v. Sorzes (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1274, nor Rony v. Costa (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 746, 755, two cases primarily relied upon by Cross-Complainants, definitively establish Cross-Complainants’ contention that summary judgment is warranted. In both cases, there was no dispute as to liability because the Defendants had acted in a manner resulting in the eventual removal of the entire tree. Here, Cross-Defendant has provided evidence creating a dispute as to this central issue of liability. Cross-Defendant alleges that the tree stood for more than 5 years after being trimmed in 2015. (Decl., Gregory Applegate, ¶ 3.) In addition, according to Cross-Defendant’s expert, the tree showed no evidence of decay or infestation when it was observed in 2019 and 2020. (Decl., Gregory Applegate, ¶ 3.) Cross-Defendant’s expert acknowledges that the tree was removed but does not state that the cause was the tree branch pruning. (Decl., Gregory Applegate, ¶ 4.)

    Third Cause of Action

    Similarly, as discussed above, a triable issue of material fact exists as to the third cause of action for Nuisance. Nuisance is conduct which “interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property.” Civ. Code § 3479. To be actionable, the interference must be “substantial” and “unreasonable.” San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 893, 938. Here, triable issues of fact exist as to whether Cross-Defendant substantially and unreasonably interfered with Cross-Complainants’ enjoyment of life or property.

    Thus, Cross-Complainants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

    The Court notes that Cross-Defendant’s opposition included a request for judgment on the pleadings as to Cross-Complainants’ first and second causes of action. The Court denies any such request, without prejudice, subject to a properly noticed motion for judgment on the pleadings.

    Cross-Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer DARROLL EILEEN P.