Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/25/2019 at 13:27:39 (UTC).

WILLIE MCMILLIAN VS LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS

Case Summary

On 09/27/2016 WILLIE MCMILLIAN filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARC D. GROSS and HOLLY J. FUJIE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5553

  • Filing Date:

    09/27/2016

  • 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 Judges

MARC D. GROSS

HOLLY J. FUJIE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MCMILLIAN WILLIE

Defendants and Respondents

LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS

DOES 1 TO 50

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF VAHDAT & ASSOCIATE

VAHDAT & ABOUDI A.P.C.

VAHDAT G. AMY ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

RUIZ RODOLFO F. ESQ.

RODOLFO F. RUIZ ESQ.

 

Court Documents

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED CUT-OFF DATES; ETC.

1/10/2018: EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED CUT-OFF DATES; ETC.

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED CUT-OFF DATES; MEMORAMDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JACQUELINE M. SPARAGNA

1/10/2018: EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED CUT-OFF DATES; MEMORAMDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JACQUELINE M. SPARAGNA

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET THREE (NO. 25) AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION (NO. 24) IN PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION NOTICE; DECLARATION OF JACQUELIN

1/26/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET THREE (NO. 25) AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION (NO. 24) IN PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION NOTICE; DECLARATION OF JACQUELIN

Unknown

3/1/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

3/1/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

3/13/2018: Unknown

NOTICE OF ORDER TRANSFERRING PERSONAL INJURY (PI) CASE TO DEPARTMENT M, SOUTHWEST DISTRICT, THE HONORABLE JUDGE SEE

3/13/2018: NOTICE OF ORDER TRANSFERRING PERSONAL INJURY (PI) CASE TO DEPARTMENT M, SOUTHWEST DISTRICT, THE HONORABLE JUDGE SEE

Notice of Case Management Conference

3/29/2018: Notice of Case Management Conference

Unknown

4/5/2018: Unknown

Case Management Statement

4/18/2018: Case Management Statement

Unknown

6/1/2018: Unknown

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

10/3/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

11/10/2016: DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

Unknown

11/17/2016: Unknown

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

2/3/2017: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL VETERAN'S ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER TO COMPLY WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS; ETC.

8/4/2017: DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL VETERAN'S ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER TO COMPLY WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS; ETC.

DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL VETERAN'S ADMIMSTRATION MEDICAL CENTER TO COMPLY WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

10/10/2017: DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL VETERAN'S ADMIMSTRATION MEDICAL CENTER TO COMPLY WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA

10/17/2017: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA

32 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/23/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (for an Order Continuing Trial Date, Final Status Conference Date, and All Related Cut-Off Dates); Filed by LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Declaration (of Jacqueline M. Sparagna in Support of Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint); Filed by LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint; Filed by LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2019
  • at 08:34 AM in Department M; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2019
  • at 08:32 AM in Department M; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • Stipulation and Order (to Continue Trial Date, Final Status Conference Date); Filed by LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 92; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 92; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2018
  • at 08:33 AM in Department M; Unknown Event Type - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2018
  • Case Management Order; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
100 More Docket Entries
  • 11/10/2016
  • DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2016
  • Demurrer (TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2016
  • Demurrer; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2016
  • Proof of Service (LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2016
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2016
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by WILLIE MCMILLIAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC635553    Hearing Date: August 19, 2020    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Wednesday, August 19, 2020

Department B Calendar No. 9

PROCEEDINGS

Willie McMillian v. Los Angeles World Airports, et al.

  1. Southwest Airlines Co.’s (“Southwest” or “SWA”) Motion for Summary Judgment, or, Alternatively, Summary Adjudication

TENTATIVE RULING

Southwest Airlines Co.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

Objections

Defendant’s objection to Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of Exhibits 1 to 4 is sustained. Exhibit 1 is an excerpt from the deposition of Plaintiff. Exhibit 2 is Plaintiff’s hand drawn map of the airport terminal entrance. Exhibit 3 is an airport terminal diagram. Exhibit 4 is an email from Defense counsel for Southwest notifying the parties that the Court had vacated the trial date and final status conference date and that Southwest is withdrawing the portion of its motion directed against Los Angeles World Airports (“LAWA”). None of these items are proper matters to which the Court may take judicial notice. However, the Court does note that, alternatively, these exhibits were attempted to be authenticated by Kevin Davis. Thus, the Court will rule separately on the specific objections to Exhibits 2 to 4.

Defendant’s objections to Exhibits 2 to 4 are sustained.

Request for Judicial Notice

As noted above, Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is denied.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice of the First Amended Complaint and Cross-Complaint is granted pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d).

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.

“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).)

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on September 27, 2016. Plaintiff filed his operative First Amended Complaint on November 21, 2016. Plaintiff Willie McMillian (“McMillian”) allegedly incurred injures at the Los Angeles International Airport while sitting at the wheelchair check-in area in front of Terminal 1 in a chair that collapsed. Plaintiff claims to have sustained neck, back, left wrist, left shoulder, and head injuries. Plaintiff set forth causes of action for: 1. Damages (Civ. Code § 3333) for Personal Injuries Against Public Entities and Employees (Gov. Code §§ 835; 840.2; 840.4) Based on a Dangerous Condition of Public Property. On June 20, 2019, Los Angeles World Airports filed a Cross-Complaint.

Defendant/Cross-Defendant Southwest Airlines (“SWA” or “Southwest”) moved for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication as to the Cross-Complaint of Los Angeles World Airport (“LAWA”) and the Complaint of Plaintiff McMillan. The motion was made on the ground that there was no triable issue of material fact as to each cause of action. Subsequent to the filing, SWA withdrew the portion of the motion seeking summary judgment and/or adjudication as to the Cross-Complaint. Thus, this leaves only the motion for summary judgment and/or adjudication of the sole cause of action brought by Plaintiff for Damages (Civ. Code § 3333) for Personal Injuries Against Public Entities and Employees (Gov. Code §§ 835; 840.2; 840.4) Based on a Dangerous Condition of Public Property delineated as Issue 5 in the Notice of Motion.

Defendant has met its burden to show that Plaintiff’s cause of action has no merit by showing that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established and/or that a complete defense exists to the cause of action. Plaintiff has not met his burden to provide specific facts to show the existence of a triable issue of material fact as to the cause of action. Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(2).

Plaintiff’s “cause of action consists of the following elements: (1) a dangerous condition of public property; (2) a foreseeable risk, arising from the dangerous condition, of the kind of injury the plaintiff suffered; (3) actionable conduct in connection with the condition, i.e., either negligence on the part of a public employee in creating it, or failure by the entity to correct it after notice of its existence and dangerousness; (4) a causal relationship between the dangerous condition and the plaintiff's injuries; and (5) compensable damage sustained by the plaintiff.” Cole v. Town of Los Gatos (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 749, 757–758.

Defendant has established that the area where Plaintiff fell was an area over which Southwest had no ownership and/or control, therefore, negating the essential element of duty with respect to Plaintiff’s cause of action. “[A] carrier owes its passengers the highest degree of care. But this rule applies while the passengers are in transitu, and until they have safely departed from the carrier's vehicle …. [A]s a passenger's entrance to the carrier's station is characterized by none of the hazards incident to the journey itself, the rigor of the rule above announced [the rule of highest degree of care] is justly relaxed, in that at such a time and place the carrier is bound to exercise only a reasonable degree of care for the protection of [its] passengers.” Marshall v. United Airlines (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 84, 86–87 (internal citations and quotations omitted). “Liability for the negligent maintenance of property arises from the rule expressed by Civil Code section 1714 stating, as relevant, ‘Everyone is responsible, ... for an injury occasioned to another by his want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his property ....’ This responsibility, of course, extends not only to the owner, but also to the occupant who has the right of control of the property. The ‘crucial element [of liability for the dangerous condition of property] is control. ...’ In the absence of agreement or other special circumstances, there can be no duty to maintain property, and hence no liability for its negligent maintenance, where there is no ownership or right of control or management of the property.” Id. at 88 (internal citations omitted).

Southwest has established with competent evidence through the declaration of Kathi Woodley, the Corporate Facilities Regional Manager at Los Angeles International Airport ("LAX") for Southwest Airlines Co., and through the lease’s terms describing Southwest's Demised Premises (as the premises controlled by Southwest), that the wheelchair check-in area in front of Terminal 1 was not part of the Demised Premises. Further, section 9.1 of the Lease requires Southwest to maintain the Demised Premises only. Section 9.2 of the Lease provides it is LAWA’s responsibility to maintain the public area. The Wheelchair Area is located on the outside of Terminal 1, on the sidewalk. Therefore, the competent uncontroverted evidence establishes that Southwest had no control over the area where Plaintiff fell. (Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts and Supporting Evidence, 107-141.)

Plaintiff provided no competent evidence to dispute Defendant’s evidence. Plaintiff argues that a triable issue of fact is created due to his own subject belief that the area that he fell was controlled by Defendant. However, Plaintiff fails to provide any authority that establishes that his subjective belief that a party has ownership or control over the premises would have any bearing as to the essential element of control. Presumably, this absence of authority exists because the duty of care based on ownership and control cannot be subject to the subjective perception of any individual who may encounter the condition of property. Plaintiff admits that the sole basis for disputing Defendant’s facts is via the deposition testimony of Plaintiff wherein he stated that he saw a sign indicating this was the Southwest check in area. Plaintiff then held the belief that, therefore, Southwest should be held liable. Again, no authority was provided to show that a triable issue of fact can be created merely through Plaintiff’s own subjective belief that an entity had ownership or control over the property in contravention of the Defendant’s actual evidence which established no ownership or control.

Therefore, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

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 RUIZ RODOLFO F. ESQ.