On 02/07/2017 ANN MARIE DRAKE filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against AIRSERV INC. 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 DEIRDRE HILL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
PATRICIA D. NIETO
DRAKE ANN MARIE
JON DRAKE VLADIMIRTSEV AN IND. AND
WILLIAMS DOE ATTENDANT
HENRY DOE DRIVER
G2 STAFFING INC. A TEXAS CORPORATION
AMERICAN AIRLINES INC. DOE 1 AND 51
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
ATTENDANT WILLIAMS DOE
ABM AVIATION INC. A GEORGIA CORPORATION
AMERICAN AIRLINES INC. DOE 1
G2 SECURE STAL CA L.P.
AIRSERV INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
LEDERER & NOJIMA
THE REEVES LAW GORUP
LEDERER & NOJIMA LLP SETH MUMY
HULTIN CASEY ANNE
THE REEVES LAW GORUP
HULTIN CASEY ANNE
MOTLAGH JASMIN F.
FITZPATRICK & HUNT PAGANO AUBERT LLP
LEDERER & NOJIMA
DEWARR JACQUELINE DARLENE
AUBERT GARTH WOLFE
FITZPATRICK & HUNT PAGANO AUBERT LLP
6/11/2019: Separate Statement - PLAINTIFF ANN DRAKE'S SUPPLEMENTAL SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FACTS FILED IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO G2
8/23/2018: Declaration -
9/6/2018: Proof of Service - No Service - OF SUMMONS
9/13/2018: Answer -
10/24/2018: Order - Order Granting Defendants ABM Aviation, Inc. and Air Serv Corporation's Motion to Quash Deposition Notices and Motion for Protective Order
11/13/2018: Opposition - Opposition to Defendant G2 Secure Staff, LLC'S Motion for Summary Judgment
11/20/2018: Declaration - Declaration of Casey Hultin, Esq. in support of plaintiff Ann Marie Drake's opposition to defendant Michael William's Motion for Summary Judgement
11/20/2018: Notice of Ruling
11/29/2018: Objection - Objection To Declaration Of Casey Hultin, and Exhibits 20-23
2/20/2019: Separate Statement
4/22/2019: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF OFFICER JASON SMITH
5/6/2019: Notice of Ruling
5/14/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION)
2/6/2017: SUMMONS -
3/16/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -
5/19/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -
6/2/2017: Minute Order -
6/20/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
Hearing01/07/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing01/03/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Hearing12/12/2019 at 08:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Hearing on Motion for Protective OrderRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (Pursuant to Stipulation to Specially Set Motion for Protective Order) - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
DocketSeparate Statement; Filed by AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. (DOE 1) (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMotion for Protective Order; Filed by AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. (DOE 1) (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application Pursuant to Stipulation to Sp...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketEx Parte Application (Pursuant to Stipulation to Specially Set Motion for Protective Order); Filed by AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. (DOE 1) (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion to Bifurcate - Held - Motion DeniedRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Bifurcate)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Ann Marie Drake (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons ("BY FAX" ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Ann Marie Drake (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaintRead MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: WRONGFUL DEATH ;ETCRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC649708 Hearing Date: December 12, 2019 Dept: SWB
Torrance Dept. B
ANN MARIE DRAKE,
AIRSERV, INC., et al.,
Hearing Date: December 12, 2019
Moving Parties: Defendant American Airlines, Inc.
Responding Party: Plaintiff Anne Marie Drake
Motion for Protective Order
The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.
The motion for protective order is GRANTED as to Subject Categories Nos. 6-8, 16-19, 24-32, 34-36, 39, 49-53, 56-57 and Request for Production of Documents Nos. 18-19, 26-26, 41-42 and DENIED as to Subject Categories 54 and 55.
On September 15, 2017, Plaintiff Ann Drake and Plaintiffs-in-Intervention Steven Drake and Jon Vladimirtsev Drake filed the operative second amended complaint (“SAC”) and second amended complaint-in-intervention (“SACI”), respectively.
The SAC has causes of action for: (1) wrongful death, (2) survival action – negligence, and (3) survival action – negligent hiring/training/retention.
The SACI has causes of action for: (1) wrongful death, (2) negligence, (3) negligent hiring, and (4) elder neglect. All claims are made against, among other parties, Does 1 to 30.
On August 31, 2018, Plaintiffs filed amendments to both pleadings to add Defendant American Airlines, Inc. as Doe 1 and 51.
On December 6, 2018, the parties stipulated to dismissal the third cause of action for negligent hiring in both pleadings as to Defendant American Airlines, Inc.
Under CCP §2025.420, “(a) Before, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (b) The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions: (1) That the deposition not be taken at all. . . .”
The burden is on the moving party to establish “good cause” for whatever relief is requested. Generally, a deponent seeking a protective order will be required to show that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness involved in the discovery procedure clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Emerson Electric Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 1101, 1110.
Defendant American Airlines (“American”) requests a protective order preventing plaintiff from demanding that American produce multiple PMK depositions without meaningfully meeting and conferring on the substantive issues regarding the PMK Subject Categories Nos. 6-8, 16-19, 24-32, 34-36, 39, 49-57, and the requests for production of documents to Nos. 18-19, 26-26, 41-42. American agrees to produce a PMK for No. 33, 37, and 38.
Defendant asserts that in the court’s ruling dated August 28, 2018 on the motions for summary judgment, the court found that “under the circumstances presented here, the state law applicable standard of care is preempted by the ACAA.” The court stated that “The federal law standard of care would prohibit Defendants from forcing assistance upon Ms. Drake after her refusal. (14 C.F.R. 382.11(a) [‘As a carrier, you must not do any of the following things . . . (2) You must not require a qualified individual with a disability to accept special services (including, but not limited to, preboarding) that the individual does not request. . . .’].) Thus Defendants have framed the standard of care to require that Henry [and Williams] had offered Ms. Drake assistance to ascend onto the bus in the first instance because they take the position that they were not required to do any further assistance after her refusal.” Specifically, in the court’s ruling on American’s motion for summary judgment, the court stated, “the court is inclined to find the standard of care is preempted by ACAA based on Gilstrap” v. United Airlines, Inc.
Defendant argues that that the sole remaining issue in the case is whether Henry and Williams offered Ms. Drake assistance in the first instance. Defendant argues that there are no issues left for resolution that require the depositions sought. Further, American contends, American has produced all responsive documentation. Moreover, plaintiff has deposed witness Ana Urquidi as to several of the categories.
In opposition, plaintiff argues that the court has not set forth the standard of care in this case and thus, American has no good cause to restrict the subject matters and request for production of documents.
Defendant has met its burden of showing good cause for a protective order except as to Subject Categories Nos. 54 (“Your position on when Ms. Drake refused assistance.) and 55 (“Your position on how Ms. Drake refused assistance.”). In its ruling on American’s MSJ, the court set forth that the standard of care was based on the ACAA. As to several other Subject Categories, they go to the cause of action for negligent hiring, training, and retention, which was dismissed. Further, on February 20, 2019, the court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to demand for production of documents, set one. In that motion, plaintiff was seeking contracts with the co-defendants. Here, Subject Category No. 34 covers American’s contract with G2 as well as Request for Production Nos. 18 and 19. That motion also sought documents relating to American’s training documents provided to Airserv. The court had found that plaintiffs had not met their burden of showing good cause.
The motion is therefore DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART.
Moving defendant is ordered to give notice of the ruling.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases