This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/03/2019 at 00:01:09 (UTC).

NIUKKA HERNANDEZ VS BEVERLY HOT SPRINGS INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 07/14/2016 NIUKKA HERNANDEZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against BEVERLY HOT SPRINGS INC. 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:

    ****7222

  • Filing Date:

    07/14/2016

  • 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

HERNANDEZ NIUKKA

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-20

BEVERLY HOT SPRINGS INC

BEVERLY HOT SPRINGS SPA & SKIN CARE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BISNAR | CHASE

CHASE BISNAR |

Defendant Attorney

ACKERMAN LEE B.

 

Court Documents

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL

1/14/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; HEARING ON MOTION TO BIFURCATE)

1/28/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; HEARING ON MOTION TO BIFURCATE)

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF LEE B. ACKERMAN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

2/7/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF LEE B. ACKERMAN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Notice of Ruling

2/7/2020: Notice of Ruling

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO DESIGNATE AN ADDITIONAL EXPERT AFTER THE TIME TO SUPPLEMENTALLY DESIGNATE HAD ELAPSED; DECLARATION OF H. GAVIN LONG

2/25/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO DESIGNATE AN ADDITIONAL EXPERT AFTER THE TIME TO SUPPLEMENTALLY DESIGNATE HAD ELAPSED; DECLARATION OF H. GAVIN LONG

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST OR TO SUBMIT TARDY EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR SAID MOTION

2/26/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST OR TO SUBMIT TARDY EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR SAID MOTION

Motion re: - MOTION RE: FOR ORDER TO ALLOW SITE INSPECTION; DECLARATION OF H. GA VIN LONG; [PROPOSED] ORDER

2/27/2020: Motion re: - MOTION RE: FOR ORDER TO ALLOW SITE INSPECTION; DECLARATION OF H. GA VIN LONG; [PROPOSED] ORDER

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

3/18/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF LEE B. ACKERMAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION PURSUANT TO STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND DISCOVERY CUTOFF DATES

3/29/2018: SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF LEE B. ACKERMAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION PURSUANT TO STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND DISCOVERY CUTOFF DATES

Minute Order -

4/3/2018: Minute Order -

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

4/3/2018: ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

NOTICE OF RULING ON MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND DISCOVERY CUTOFF DATES

4/4/2018: NOTICE OF RULING ON MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND DISCOVERY CUTOFF DATES

Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS OPPOSING SEPARATE STATEMENT SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

5/22/2019: Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS OPPOSING SEPARATE STATEMENT SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Objection - OBJECTION OBJECTION TO HERNANDEZ DECLARATION

5/29/2019: Objection - OBJECTION OBJECTION TO HERNANDEZ DECLARATION

Objection - OBJECTION OBJECTION TO LONG DECLARATION

5/29/2019: Objection - OBJECTION OBJECTION TO LONG DECLARATION

Objection - OBJECTION OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

5/29/2019: Objection - OBJECTION OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

10/19/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

3/8/2017: ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

76 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/08/2020
  • Hearing06/08/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2020
  • Hearing05/04/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Extend Discovery Cut-Off Date

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2020
  • Hearing05/04/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Order Motion for Order to Augment Witness List/Submit Tardy Expert Information

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2020
  • Hearing05/04/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion - Other For An Order Reopening Discovery to Allow a Site Inspection

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Extend Discovery Cut-Off Date - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (For An Order Reopening Discovery to Allow a Site Inspection) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Order (Motion for Order to Augment Witness List/Submit Tardy Expert Information) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2020
  • Docketat 09:09 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 03/18/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
109 More Docket Entries
  • 03/06/2017
  • DocketANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2017
  • DocketREQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2017
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2016
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2016
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Niukka Hernandez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2016
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Niukka Hernandez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2016
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2016
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2016
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Niukka Hernandez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2016
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES NEGLIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC627222    Hearing Date: January 28, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

niurka hernandez,

Plaintiff,

v.

beverly hot springs, inc.,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC627222

Hearing Date: January 28, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to bifurcate

Plaintiff Niurka Hernandez (“Plaintiff” alleges that she received a bacterial infection at a spa owned and operated by Defendant Beverly Hot Springs, Inc. (“Defendant”). Now, Defendant moves to bifurcate the trial of this case into two phases: The first addressing the validity and effect of Plaintiff’s release, and the second addressing any remaining issues. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 598, “The court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby . . . make an order . . . that the trial of any issue or any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part thereof in the case[.]”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 598.)

In this case, Defendant has failed to demonstrate that trial on the validity and effect of the release separately from all remaining issues would result in efficiencies. As the Court noted in its order of June 5, 2019, issues of fact exist as to whether Defendant is liable for its gross negligence, notwithstanding the waiver Plaintiff signed. (See City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 747, 751.) Thus, the trier of fact will need to determine whether Defendant’s conduct amounts to gross negligence in order to determine if the release bars Plaintiff’s claims. It is logical and efficient for Plaintiff to present evidence on Defendant’s alleged gross negligence along with other pertinent issues. Therefore, Defendant’s motion is denied.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant properly sought a bifurcation order in advance of the trial date. However, a trial court may also “on its own motion . . . make such an order at any time.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 598.) This order is without prejudice to Defendant’s ability to request that the trial court consider bifurcation on its own motion. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: January 28, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court