This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/01/2022 at 14:56:36 (UTC).

ARCELIA SALCIDO CASTANEDA VS BOSTON PROPERTIES, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 09/03/2021 ARCELIA SALCIDO CASTANEDA filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against BOSTON PROPERTIES, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WILLIAM A. CROWFOOT. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2827

  • Filing Date:

    09/03/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

WILLIAM A. CROWFOOT

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

CASTANEDA ARCELIA SALCIDO

Defendants

BOSTON PROPERTIES A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

BOSTON PROPERTIES INC.

FUJITEC AMERICA INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

SHAGRAMANOV VLADIMIR

Defendant Attorneys

FELDER B. OTIS

YOSHIOKA HEIDI MIYOSHI

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INT...)

2/16/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INT...)

Notice of Ruling

2/17/2022: Notice of Ruling

Notice - NOTICE OF PAYMENT

3/7/2022: Notice - NOTICE OF PAYMENT

Motion for Summary Judgment

3/23/2022: Motion for Summary Judgment

Separate Statement

3/23/2022: Separate Statement

Notice - NOTICE DEFENDANT FUJITEC AMERICA INC'S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; DECLARATIONS OF HEIDI YOSHIOKA AND GIL MORENO

3/23/2022: Notice - NOTICE DEFENDANT FUJITEC AMERICA INC'S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; DECLARATIONS OF HEIDI YOSHIOKA AND GIL MORENO

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES FROM PLAINTIFF, ARCELIA SALCIDO CASTANEDA; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS

1/13/2022: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES FROM PLAINTIFF, ARCELIA SALCIDO CASTANEDA; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM PLAINTIFF, ARCELIA SALCIDO CASTANEDA; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITI

1/13/2022: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM PLAINTIFF, ARCELIA SALCIDO CASTANEDA; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITI

Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

1/7/2022: Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

Declaration - DECLARATION OF SUE H. KIM IN SUPPORT OF AUTOMATIC 30-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT BY FILING DEMURRER UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 430.41(A)(2)

11/2/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF SUE H. KIM IN SUPPORT OF AUTOMATIC 30-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT BY FILING DEMURRER UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 430.41(A)(2)

Answer

12/15/2021: Answer

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [PI GENERAL ORDER], STANDING ORDER RE PI PROCEDURES AND HEARING DATES

9/27/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [PI GENERAL ORDER], STANDING ORDER RE PI PROCEDURES AND HEARING DATES

PI General Order

9/27/2021: PI General Order

Answer

10/8/2021: Answer

Proof of Personal Service

9/9/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service

9/9/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service

9/9/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

9/3/2021: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

9 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/30/2024
  • Hearing08/30/2024 at 08:30 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/03/2023
  • Hearing03/03/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/17/2023
  • Hearing02/17/2023 at 10:00 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/08/2022
  • Hearing06/08/2022 at 1:30 PM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/23/2022
  • DocketSeparate Statement; Filed by Fujitec America, Inc. (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/23/2022
  • DocketMotion for Summary Judgment (OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION;); Filed by Fujitec America, Inc. (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/23/2022
  • DocketNotice (Defendant Fujitec America Inc's Evidence in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication; Declarations of Heidi Yoshioka and Gil Moreno); Filed by Fujitec America, Inc. (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/07/2022
  • DocketNotice (of Payment); Filed by Fujitec America, Inc. (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/17/2022
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Fujitec America, Inc. (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/16/2022
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 27, William A. Crowfoot, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents Set One) - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
11 More Docket Entries
  • 10/08/2021
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Fujitec America, Inc. (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/27/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([PI General Order], Standing Order re PI Procedures and Hearing Dates); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/27/2021
  • DocketPI General Order; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/09/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Arcelia Salcido Castaneda (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/09/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Arcelia Salcido Castaneda (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/09/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Arcelia Salcido Castaneda (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/03/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/03/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Arcelia Salcido Castaneda (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/03/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Arcelia Salcido Castaneda (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/03/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Arcelia Salcido Castaneda (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******2827 Hearing Date: June 8, 2022 Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

ARCELIA SALCIDO CASTANEDA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BOSTON PROPERTIES, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: *******2827

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

June 8, 2022

I. INTRODUCTION

On September 3, 2021, plaintiff Arcelia Salcido Castaneda (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Fujitec America, Inc. (“Defendant”) and Boston Properties for injuries arising from a September 11, 2019, incident inside an elevator.

On February 16, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to have its requests for admission deemed admitted after Plaintiff failed to serve responses.

On March 23, 2022, Defendant filed this motion for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, summary adjudication based on those deemed admissions. The motion is unopposed.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that on September 11, 2019, she was on the subject premises of 3000 Ocean Park Blvd., Santa Monica, CA 90405. (Defendant’s Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) No. 1.) While on the subject premises on September 11, 2019, Plaintiff further alleges that she rode in elevator, wherein a panel fell off the subject elevator and onto her, allegedly causing injuries. (UMF No. 2.)

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, courts must apply a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent’s claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.” (Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294.)

“A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if that party contends that the cause of action has no merit or that there is no affirmative defense thereto, or that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, or both, or that there is no merit to a claim for damages . . . or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subd. (f)(1).) A motion for summary adjudication shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subd. (f)(2).)

“[T]he initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facia 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subd. (p)(2).) A moving defendant need not conclusively negate an element of plaintiff’s cause of action. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854.)

To meet this burden of showing a cause of action cannot be established, a defendant must show not only “that the plaintiff does not possess needed evidence” but also that “the plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain needed evidence.” (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 854.) It is insufficient for the defendant to merely point out the absence of evidence. (Gaggero v. Yura (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 884, 891.) The defendant “must also produce evidence that the plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain evidence to support his or her claim.” (Ibid.) The supporting evidence can be in the form of affidavits, declarations, admissions, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 855.)

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subd. (p)(2).) The plaintiff may not merely rely on allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists, but instead, “shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action.” (Ibid.) “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.

IV. DISCUSSION

“[A] deemed admitted order establishes, by judicial fiat, that a nonresponding party has responded to the requests by admitting the truth of all matters contained therein.” (Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 979.) Requests for admissions “differs fundamentally from the other five discovery tools (depositions, interrogatories, inspection demands, medical examinations, and expert witness exchanges) . . . [because] admission requests seek to eliminate the need for proof: ‘The purpose of the admissions procedure . . . is to limit the triable issues and spare the parties the burden and expense of litigating undisputed issues.’ Sometimes, the admissions obtained will even leave the party making them vulnerable to summary judgment.” [Citations.] Matters that are admitted or deemed admitted through RFA discovery devices are conclusively established in the litigation and are not subject to being contested through contrary evidence. [Citation.]” (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 775.)

Defendant argues that the February 16, 2022 order issued by the Court means that Plaintiff has admitted that Defendant was not negligent, did not own manage or control the elevator, and was not the elevator serving company at the time of the incident or in the three months prior to the incident. (Def.’s Ex. B, RFA Nos. 1, 15-18, 34-36.) Based on these admissions, Defendant has met its initial burden to demonstrate that Plaintiff cannot establish that Defendant was liable.

Plaintiff did not oppose this motion, dispute any of Defendant’s material facts, or otherwise introduce additional facts which would show the existence of triable issues. Accordingly, Defendant has shown that summary judgment is appropriate.

V. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.



Case Number: *******2827 Hearing Date: February 16, 2022 Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

ARCELIA SALCIDO CASTANEDA,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

BOSTON PROPERTIES, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: *******2827

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT FUJITEC AMERICA, INC.’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY, DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

February 16, 2022

On September 3, 2021, plaintiff Arcelia Salcido Castaneda (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Fujitec America, Inc. (“Defendant”) and Boston Properties for injuries arising from a September 11, 2019, incident inside an elevator. On October 8, 2021, Defendant served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission on Plaintiff. Having received no responses, Defendant proceeded to file these motions compelling Plaintiff to provide responses and to have the requests for admission deemed admitted. Defendant also requests monetary sanctions.

Compel Responses

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

Plaintiff did not oppose Defendant’s motions and it is undisputed that Plaintiff did not serve responses to Defendant’s written discovery requests. However, Defendant should have filed 3 motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses and paid 3 filing fees as opposed to two. Accordingly, Defendant’s motions are GRANTED on the condition that Defendant pays an additional filing fee, files proof of payment with the Court, and gives notice to Plaintiff of this payment. Within 20 days of receiving notice that the additional filing fee has been paid, Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One).

Deem Admitted

Where a party fails to timely respond to a request for admission, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., 2033.280, subd. (b).) The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants them relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., 2033.280, subds. (a)(1)-(2).) The court shall grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff did not oppose this motion and it does not appear that Plaintiff served substantially compliant responses before the date of this hearing. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to deem admitted is GRANTED.

Monetary Sanctions

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification, or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., 2030.290, subd. (c).) Where a party fails to provide a timely response to requests for admission, “[i]t is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., 2033.280, subd. (c).)

As stated above, Defendant should have filed 3 motions to compel responses instead of 2. Therefore, Defendant’s request for sanctions in connection with its motions to compel is GRANTED subject to the condition that Defendant pays an additional filing fee, files proof of payment, and serves notice of that payment on Plaintiff. Within 20 days of receiving notice that the additional filing fee has been paid, Plaintiff and counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $730 consisting of 2 hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate of $275 and $180 in filing fees.

Defendant’s request for sanctions in connection with its motion to deem admitted is GRANTED and imposed against Plaintiff and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $335, consisting of 1 hour at defense counsel’s hourly rate of $275.00 and $60.00 in filing fees, to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where BOSTON PROPERTIES is a litigant

Latest cases where FUJITEC AMERICA INC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SHAGRAMANOV VLADIMIR