This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/23/2019 at 02:13:04 (UTC).

ANN MARIE DRAKE VS AIRSERV INC ET AL

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9708

  • Filing Date:

    02/07/2017

  • 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

PATRICIA D. NIETO

DEIRDRE HILL

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

DRAKE ANN MARIE

JON DRAKE VLADIMIRTSEV AN IND. AND

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

AIRSERV INC

WILLIAMS DOE ATTENDANT

DOES 1-40

DRAKE STEVEN

HENRY DOE DRIVER

DOES 1-30

DRAKE JON

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.

HENTRY KARIMAH

AIRSERV INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

VLADIMIRTSEV

HENRY KARIMAH

16 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant, Cross Plaintiff and Plaintiff Attorneys

LEDERER & NOJIMA

THE REEVES LAW GORUP

LEDERER & NOJIMA LLP SETH MUMY

HULTIN CASEY ANNE

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

THE REEVES LAW GORUP

HULTIN CASEY ANNE

Defendant, Respondent and Plaintiff Attorneys

MOTLAGH JASMIN F.

ROSE ASHLEY

FITZPATRICK & HUNT PAGANO AUBERT LLP

LEDERER & NOJIMA

DEWARR JACQUELINE DARLENE

AUBERT GARTH WOLFE

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

FITZPATRICK & HUNT PAGANO AUBERT LLP

 

Court Documents

Separate Statement - PLAINTIFF ANN DRAKE'S SUPPLEMENTAL SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FACTS FILED IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO G2

6/11/2019: Separate Statement - PLAINTIFF ANN DRAKE'S SUPPLEMENTAL SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FACTS FILED IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO G2

Declaration -

8/23/2018: Declaration -

Proof of Service - No Service - OF SUMMONS

9/6/2018: Proof of Service - No Service - OF SUMMONS

Answer -

9/13/2018: Answer -

Order - Order Granting Defendants ABM Aviation, Inc. and Air Serv Corporation's Motion to Quash Deposition Notices and Motion for Protective Order

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

Opposition - Opposition to Defendant G2 Secure Staff, LLC'S Motion for Summary Judgment

11/13/2018: Opposition - Opposition to Defendant G2 Secure Staff, LLC'S Motion for Summary Judgment

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: Declaration - Declaration of Casey Hultin, Esq. in support of plaintiff Ann Marie Drake's opposition to defendant Michael William's Motion for Summary Judgement

Notice of Ruling

11/20/2018: Notice of Ruling

Objection - Objection To Declaration Of Casey Hultin, and Exhibits 20-23

11/29/2018: Objection - Objection To Declaration Of Casey Hultin, and Exhibits 20-23

Separate Statement

2/20/2019: Separate Statement

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF OFFICER JASON SMITH

4/22/2019: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF OFFICER JASON SMITH

Notice of Ruling

5/6/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION)

5/14/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION)

SUMMONS -

2/6/2017: SUMMONS -

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

3/16/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

5/19/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

Minute Order -

6/2/2017: Minute Order -

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

6/20/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

189 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/07/2020
  • Hearing01/07/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2020
  • Hearing01/03/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2019
  • Hearing12/12/2019 at 08:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Hearing on Motion for Protective Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (Pursuant to Stipulation to Specially Set Motion for Protective Order) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2019
  • DocketSeparate Statement; Filed by AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. (DOE 1) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2019
  • DocketMotion for Protective Order; Filed by AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. (DOE 1) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application Pursuant to Stipulation to Sp...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2019
  • DocketEx Parte Application (Pursuant to Stipulation to Specially Set Motion for Protective Order); Filed by AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. (DOE 1) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion to Bifurcate - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Bifurcate)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
493 More Docket Entries
  • 03/10/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Ann Marie Drake (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons ("BY FAX" ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Ann Marie Drake (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2017
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: WRONGFUL DEATH ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC649708    Hearing Date: December 12, 2019    Dept: SWB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. B

ANN MARIE DRAKE,

Plaintiff,

Case No.:

BC649708

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

AIRSERV, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

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.

RULING

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.

BACKGROUND

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.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

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.

DISCUSSION

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.