This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/26/2019 at 15:29:12 (UTC).

RITA DERSARKISSIAN ET AL VS WESTFIELD TOPANGA ET AL

Case Summary

On 07/29/2016 RITA DERSARKISSIAN filed a Personal Injury - Other Product Liability lawsuit against WESTFIELD TOPANGA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are PATRICIA D. NIETO and SHIRLEY K. WATKINS. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8963

  • Filing Date:

    07/29/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Product Liability

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

PATRICIA D. NIETO

SHIRLEY K. WATKINS

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

DERSARKISSIAN RITA

ISSAIAN HOOBERT

Respondents, Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

WESTFIELD TOPANGA

WESTFIELD CORPORATION

WESTFIELD GROUP

DOES 1-100

ALL NEW GLASS OF CA INC.

WESTFIELD PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC DOE 5

WESTFIELD AMERICA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

COAST FLOORS INC. (DOE 76)

COAST FLOORS INC. DOE 76

I.C.E. BUILDERS INC. DOE 1

WESTFIELD TOPANGA OWNER LLC (DOE 2)

WESTFIELD AMERICA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP DOE 4

WESTFIELD PROPERTY MANGEMENT LLC (DOE 5)

WESTFILED TOPANGA OWNER LLC DOE 2

WESTFIELD AMERICA INC. (DOE 3)

WESTFIELD AMERICA INC. DOE 3

I.C.E. BUILDERS INC. (DOE 1)

ALL NEW GLASS OF CALIFORNIA INC

Cross Defendants and Defendants

COAST FLOORS INC. (DOE 76)

COAST FLOORS INC. DOE 76

I.C.E. BUILDERS INC. DOE 1

ALL NEW GLASS OF CALIFORNIA INC

17 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

HERZOG YUHAS EHRLICH & ARDELL APC

HERZOG IAN ISAAC

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

NYS MARK H.

WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER

TROPIO SCOTT THOMAS

BRIAN M. PLESSALA ESQ.

TROPIO SCOTT T. ESQ.

NOLAN PAUL J. ESQ.

ALL NEW GLASS OF CALIFORNIA (DOE 6)

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

NOLAN PAUL J. ESQ.

PLESSALA BRIAN MARTIN

Other Attorneys

NYS MARK HUBERT

NOLAN PAUL JAMES

9 More Attorneys Available

 

Court Documents

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND ALL RELATED DATES

3/13/2018: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND ALL RELATED DATES

DEFENDANT/CROSS-DEFENDANT I.C.E. BUILDERS, INC.'S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES, OR, IN TILE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEARING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT LESS TI-IAN T

4/6/2018: DEFENDANT/CROSS-DEFENDANT I.C.E. BUILDERS, INC.'S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES, OR, IN TILE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEARING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT LESS TI-IAN T

I.C.E. BUILDERS, INC'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

4/19/2018: I.C.E. BUILDERS, INC'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT/CROSS-DEFENDANT/CROSS- COMPLAINANT I.C.E. BUILDERS, INC.'S REPLY TO MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEARING MOTION FOR SUM

4/24/2018: DEFENDANT/CROSS-DEFENDANT/CROSS- COMPLAINANT I.C.E. BUILDERS, INC.'S REPLY TO MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEARING MOTION FOR SUM

ORDER TRANSFERRING PERSONAL INJURY (PI) CASE TO INDEPENDENT CALENDAR (IC) COURT

5/3/2018: ORDER TRANSFERRING PERSONAL INJURY (PI) CASE TO INDEPENDENT CALENDAR (IC) COURT

Case Management Statement

7/17/2018: Case Management Statement

Declaration

7/26/2018: Declaration

Notice of Motion

7/26/2018: Notice of Motion

Minute Order

8/2/2018: Minute Order

Order

8/31/2018: Order

Other -

9/27/2018: Other -

Order

4/11/2019: Order

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURY 1. NEGLIGENCE - PREMISES LIABILITY, OWNERS; ETC

7/29/2016: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURY 1. NEGLIGENCE - PREMISES LIABILITY, OWNERS; ETC

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

1/6/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

IC.E. BUILDERS, INC.'S CROSS-COMPLAINT

3/20/2017: IC.E. BUILDERS, INC.'S CROSS-COMPLAINT

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

4/12/2017: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND ALL RELATED DATES

10/20/2017: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND ALL RELATED DATES

STIPULATION AND ORDER RO PERMIT FILING OF FIRST AMENDED ANSWER

11/17/2017: STIPULATION AND ORDER RO PERMIT FILING OF FIRST AMENDED ANSWER

94 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/24/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department T, Shirley K. Watkins, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department T, Shirley K. Watkins, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department T, Shirley K. Watkins, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for Order to Continue Trial Date) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for Order to Continue Trial Date)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • Order (re Ex Parte Application for Order to Continue Trial Date); Filed by All New Glass of California, Inc, (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (for Order to Continue Trial Date); Filed by All New Glass of California, Inc, (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2019
  • Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2018
  • Notice (of Case Reassignment); Filed by Rita Dersarkissian (Plaintiff); Hoobert Issaian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2018
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2018
  • Order (Granting Defendant Westfield Topanga Owner LLC's Application for determination of good faith settlement); Filed by Westfiled Topanga Owner, LLC (DOE 2) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
255 More Docket Entries
  • 01/04/2017
  • AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2017
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2016
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2016
  • Receipt; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Rita Dersarkissian (Plaintiff); Hoobert Issaian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2016
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Rita Dersarkissian (Plaintiff); Hoobert Issaian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2016
  • Receipt; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURY 1. NEGLIGENCE - PREMISES LIABILITY, OWNERS; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: BC628963 Hearing Date: August 13, 2021 Dept: T

\r\n\r\n

\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n

RITA\r\n DERSARKISSIAN, et al.

\r\n

\r\n

Plaintiffs,

\r\n

\r\n

vs.

\r\n

\r\n

WESTFIELD\r\n TOPANGA, et al.

\r\n

\r\n

Defendants.

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

CASE NO: \r\n BC628963

\r\n

\r\n

[TENTATIVE]\r\n ORDER RE:

\r\n

MOTION\r\n FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

\r\n

\r\n

Dept. T

\r\n

8:30 a.m.

\r\n

August 13, 2021

\r\n
\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[TENTATIVE] ORDER: Defendant All New Glass of CA, Inc.’s Motion\r\nfor Summary Adjudication is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n
  1. Introduction

\r\n\r\n

Defendant All New Glass of CA, Inc.\r\n(“Defendant”) moves for summary adjudication as to the second and fourth causes\r\nof action within Plaintiffs Rita Dersarkissian and Hoobert Issaian’s\r\n(collectively “Plaintiffs”) First Amended Complaint.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n
  1. Evidentiary Objections

\r\n\r\n

The court rules on the Plaintiffs’\r\nevidentiary objections to the Declaration of Eric Johnson as follows:

\r\n\r\n

(1) Overruled.

\r\n\r\n

(2) Overruled.

\r\n\r\n

(3) Overruled.

\r\n\r\n

(4) Overruled.

\r\n\r\n

(5) Overruled.

\r\n\r\n

(6) Overruled.

\r\n\r\n

(7) Overruled.

\r\n\r\n
  1. Discussion

\r\n\r\n

The Court will first address\r\nthe arguments made as to Plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action, and thereafter\r\naddress the arguments made as to Plaintiffs’ second cause of action.

\r\n\r\n
  1. Fourth Cause of Action —\r\nStrict Liability

\r\n\r\n

Defendant argues\r\nPlaintiffs’ fourth cause of action for strict liability fails as a matter of\r\nlaw because Plaintiffs are unable to proffer evidence demonstrating Defendant\r\nwas a manufacturer or seller of the glass which was used to compose the entry\r\nway door to the subject Victoria’s Secret storefront. Rather, Defendant argues it was retained by\r\nVictoria’s Secret’s parent company, Limited Brands, to install the glass. In opposition, Plaintiffs argue Defendant's\r\nMotion must be denied because a triable issue of material fact exists as to\r\nwhether Defendant is a seller and, therefore, subject to strict liability based\r\nupon the stream-of-commerce theory.

\r\n\r\n

Here, the Court finds\r\nthat Defendant has submitted sufficient evidence in order to shift the burden\r\nto Plaintiff. Defendant has produced\r\nevidence supporting its claim that it is not liable under the\r\nstream-of-commerce theory of strict liability because Defendant was retained by\r\nLimited Brands to perform a service, rather than to sell a product. (Hernandezcueva v. E.F. Brady Co., Inc.\r\n(2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 249, 258 [“[w]hen the purchase of a product ‘is the\r\nprimary objective or essence of the transaction, strict liability applies even\r\nto those who are mere conduits in distributing the product to the\r\nconsumer.’ In contrast, the doctrine of\r\nstrict liability is ordinarily inapplicable to transactions ‘whose primary\r\nobjective is obtaining services,’ and to transactions in which the ‘service\r\naspect predominates and any product sale is merely incidental to the provision\r\nof the service’”].) Defendant argues\r\nthat it was hired by Limited Brands to perform a service, namely the\r\ninstallation of the glass which composed the subject entry way door. (UMF No. 4; Flores Decl., Ex. C; Johnson\r\nDecl., ¶ 4 [“Defendant All New Glass was only subcontracted to provide the service\r\nto assemble and install a store front package at the specified Victoria’s\r\nSecret store”].) Defendant contends that\r\nit did not manufacture the glass which was used to compose the entry way\r\ndoor. (UMF No. 13.) Accordingly, as Defendant has produced\r\nevidence demonstrating it was a mere provider of services, the burden shifts to\r\nPlaintiffs to create a triable issue of fact as to whether Defendant is subject\r\nto strict liability.

\r\n\r\n

Here, Plaintiffs have established\r\na triable issue of material fact as to whether Defendant’s role as a provider\r\nof a services was “predominated” by Defendant’s dual-role as a seller of glass,\r\nand whether Defendant’s sale of glass was merely incidental to Defendant’s\r\ninstallation services. (Hernandezcueva,\r\nsupra, 243 Cal.App.4th at p. 262 [“[b]ecause [Defendant] supplied and\r\ninstalled asbestos-containing products, our inquiry requires a fact\r\nsensitive examination into whether the ‘service aspect predominate[d] and any\r\nproduct sale [was] merely incidental to the provision of the service’”].) Plaintiffs have produced evidence supporting\r\nits contention that Defendant was hired by Limited Brands to supply and install\r\nthe glass which composed the entry door. \r\n(Yuhas Decl., Ex. 1 at p. 68:13-17; UMF No. 11.) Further, Plaintiffs have produced evidence\r\ndemonstrating that Defendant was more than an “occasional seller” of glass, but\r\nrather, that Defendant’s subcontracts for the installation of store front\r\npackages repeatedly called for Defendant’s purchase of glass, and the\r\nsubsequent installation of such glass at the subject Victoria’s Secret\r\nstorefront. (Id., Ex. 1 at p.\r\n59:10-13; Rest.2d Torts, § 402A [stating strict liability is not extended to an\r\n“occasional seller of food or other such products who is not engaged in that\r\nactivity as a part of his business”].) \r\nIn fact, Defendant was hired to purchase and install glass for\r\nfifty-nine (59) Victoria’s Secret storefronts from 2012 to 2013. (Ibid.) In considering such evidence, a reasonable\r\njury may find that Defendant was involved in the stream of commerce relating to\r\nthe sale of a defective product. (Hernandezcueva,\r\nsupra, 243 Cal.App.4th at pp. 262-263 [holding a reasonably jury could\r\nfind defendant was involved in the stream of commerce relating to defective\r\nproduct because defendant was more than just an “occasional seller” of drywall\r\nand joint compounds whose provision of those products was merely incidental to\r\nits services].)

\r\n\r\n

Additionally,\r\nPlaintiffs have proffered evidence demonstrating that Defendant’s role in the\r\nstream of commerce by demonstrating that Defendant profited to some degree from\r\nthe sale of the defective glass to Plaintiff. \r\n(Kasel v. Remington Arms Co. (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 711, 725 [“under the stream-of-commerce\r\napproach to strict liability[,] no precise legal relationship to the member of\r\nthe enterprise causing the defect to be manufactured or to the member most\r\nclosely connected with the customer is required before the courts will impose\r\nstrict liability. It is the defendant's participatory connection, for his\r\npersonal profit or other benefit, with the injury-producing product and\r\nwith the enterprise that created consumer demand for and reliance upon the\r\nproduct (and not the defendant's legal relationship (such as agency) with the\r\nmanufacturer or other entities involved in the manufacturing-marketing system)\r\nwhich calls for imposition of strict liability”].) Based on a review of the Final\r\nInvoice, Defendant sold the glass for the entry way doors to Limited Brands for\r\napproximately $103,161, while installation costs totaled approximately\r\n$56,781. (Yuhas Decl., Ex. 11 [“1.\r\nGlass, $51,336 . . . 5. Entry Doors, $40,373 . . . 6. Installation, $56,781 . .\r\n. 11. Glass — Change to entry doors, $11,452”].) Accordingly, the evidence proffered supports\r\nthat Defendant sold the relevant glass to Limited Brands for $103,161. (Ibid.) Based on the evidence presented by Plaintiff,\r\na reasonable jury may conclude that Defendant’s role as a installer of glass\r\nwas predominated by Defendant’s role as a simultaneous seller of glass. (Hernandezcueva, supra, 243\r\nCal.App.4th at pp. 263.)

\r\n\r\n

Ultimately, Plaintiffs\r\nhave presented sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact as to\r\nwhether Defendant’s role as a provider of a service was predominated by\r\nDefendant’s dual-role as a seller of glass, and whether Defendant’s sale of\r\nglass was merely incidental to Defendant’s installation services. (Hernandezcueva, supra, 243\r\nCal.App.4th at p. 262.) Thus,\r\nDefendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication as to Plaintiff’s fourth cause of\r\naction is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n
  1. Second Cause of Action —\r\nNegligence

\r\n\r\n

Defendant argues Plaintiff’s second cause of action fails\r\nas a matter of law based on arguments factually identical to those made with\r\nrespect to Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action. \r\nNamely, Defendant argues Plaintiffs are unable to present evidence\r\ndemonstrating Defendant owed Plaintiffs a duty because it was not the\r\nmanufacturer or seller of the glass which was used to compose the entry way\r\ndoor to the subject Victoria’s Secret storefront. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986)\r\n185 Cal.App.3d 135, 141 [holding “[a] manufacturer/seller of a product is under\r\na duty to exercise reasonable care in its design so that it can be safely used\r\nas intended by its buyer/customer”].)

\r\n\r\n

Here, as explained above,\r\nDefendant has shifted the burden to Plaintiffs by presenting evidence\r\ndemonstrating Defendant was not the manufacturer or seller of the glass which\r\nwas used to compose the entry way door. \r\nHowever, Plaintiffs have sufficiently produced evidence demonstrating a\r\ntriable issue of fact exists as to whether Defendant is a “seller” of the glass\r\nat issue in the present litigation. \r\nAccordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication as to\r\nPlaintiff’s second cause of action is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

IT IS SO ORDERED, CLERK TO GIVE NOTICE.

\r\n\r\n"
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where WESTFIELD GROUP is a litigant

Latest cases where GRAY WEST CONSTRUCTION is a litigant

Latest cases where WESTFIELD PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases where WESTFIELD AMERICA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP is a litigant