Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2019 at 10:15:59 (UTC).

ARMANDO MARTINEZ VS CITADEL OUTLETS ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/30/2017 ARMANDO MARTINEZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CITADEL OUTLETS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5817

  • Filing Date:

    03/30/2017

  • 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 Judge

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

MARTINEZ ARMANDO

STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY

WORLD OF JEANS & TOPS

TILLY'S INC.

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

CITADEL OUTLETS

CRAIG REALTY GROUP INC.

DOES 1 TO 100

EUREKA REALTY

OUTLETS CITADEL

ROES 1 THROUGH 100 INCLUSIVE

Defendant and Cross Defendant

ROES 1 THROUGH 100 INCLUSIVE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

GRAFF BETH E. ESQ.

GRAFF BETH ELLEN

SANDOVAL KATHERINE ANN

ELDRIDGE SHAWN SHERIDAN

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

EDIC WILLIAM S. ESQ.

EDIC WILLIAM S

 

Court Documents

Ex Parte Application

8/5/2019: Ex Parte Application

Motion for Leave to Intervene

9/28/2018: Motion for Leave to Intervene

Memorandum

9/28/2018: Memorandum

Notice

10/11/2018: Notice

Certificate of Mailing for

12/5/2018: Certificate of Mailing for

Minute Order

12/5/2018: Minute Order

Order

12/5/2018: Order

Order

1/30/2019: Order

Ex Parte Application

1/30/2019: Ex Parte Application

Amendment to Cross-Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

3/19/2019: Amendment to Cross-Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Summons

5/9/2019: Summons

Answer

5/9/2019: Answer

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

5/22/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM NAME

7/2/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM NAME

SUMMONS

3/30/2017: SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

5/30/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

6/8/2017: ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM NAME

7/24/2017: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM NAME

21 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/16/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2020
  • Hearingat 10:00 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (For an Order Shortening Time or in the Alternative an Order to Continue Trial) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application For an Order Shortening Time ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2019
  • DocketEx Parte Application (For an Order Shortening Time or in the Alternative an Order to Continue Trial); Filed by Tilly's Inc. (Plaintiff); World of Jeans & Tops (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2019
  • DocketAnswer (to Cross-Complaint); Filed by Tilly's Inc. (Plaintiff); World of Jeans & Tops (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Starr Indemnity & Liability Company (Plaintiff in Intervention)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by EUREKA REALTY PARTNERS, INC Erroneously Sued As Citadel Outlets (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by CRAIG REALTY GROUP CITADEL LLC Erroneously Sued As Craig Realty Group, Inc. (Defendant); Eureka Realty (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
35 More Docket Entries
  • 06/08/2017
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2017
  • DocketANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2017
  • DocketANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Armando Martinez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Armando Martinez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Armando Martinez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC655817    Hearing Date: June 30, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication

Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows. reply papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

On March 30, 2017, Plaintiff Armando Martinez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Citadel Outlets and Craig Realty Group, Inc.  The complaint alleges negligence and premises liability for a handle breaking on a roof hatch door, causing Plaintiff to fall and become injured on July 15, 2015.

On June 8, 2017, Defendants/Cross-Complainants Craig Realty Group Citadel LLC (erroneously sued and served as Citadel Outlets) and Eureka Realty Partners, Inc. d.b.a. Craig Realty Group (erroneously sued and served as Citadel Outlets) filed a cross-complaint seeking express indemnity, equitable indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.

On December 14, 2018, Plaintiff-in-Intervention Starr Indemnity & Liability Company filed a complaint-in-intervention against Defendant/Cross-Defendant Citadel Outlets and Craig Reality Group, Inc. alleging negligence, negligence per se, and premises liability.

On March 19, 2019, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Craig Realty Group Citadel LLC and Cross-Complainant Eureka Realty Partners, Inc. d.b.a. Craig Realty Group filed amendments to their cross-complaint renaming Roe 1 as Cross-Defendant Tilly’s Inc. and Roe 2 as World of Jeans & Tops.

On February 20, 2020, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Craig Realty Group Citadel LLC and Cross-Complainant Eureka Realty Partners, Inc. d.b.a. Craig Realty Group filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.

On April 16, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication to June 30, 2020.

A trial setting conference is set for June 30, 2020.

PARTYS REQUEST

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Craig Realty Group Citadel LLC and Cross-Complainant Eureka Realty Partners, Inc. d.b.a. Craig Realty Group (“Moving Parties”) ask the Court to grant summary adjudication in their favor and against Cross-Defendant World of Jeans & Tops d.b.a. Tilly’s (“Tilly’s”) with regard to Moving Parties’ express indemnity cause of action.  Moving Parties argue Tilly’s must indemnify and defend Moving Parties from Plaintiff’s action because Tilly’s expressly agreed to do so.

LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment “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. Atl. 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 plaintiff has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. Once the plaintiff has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. The defendant shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material act exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).)

“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, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 467; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

The existence of a contract creates contractual duties, which may include the duty to indemnify.  (See Campbell v. Superior Court (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1319.)

“When indemnity is expressly provided by contract, the extent of the duty to indemnify must be determined from the contract itself.”  (Hot Rods, LLC v. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1166, 1179 (citations and quotations omitted).)

Moving Parties undisputed material facts establish the following.  Plaintiff alleges he was injured when a handle on a roof hatch door broke while he was attempting to access the roof of the Citadel Outlet Shopping Center to clean the air vents above Tilly’s retail space on July 15, 2015.  (UMF Nos. 1-2.)  Plaintiff alleges the ladder he ascended before becoming injured was inside Tilly’s store.  (UMF No. 15.)  On December 23, 2010, Moving Parties entered into a lease with Tilly’s.  (UMF No. 5.)  The lease provides the following, in relevant part, in paragraph 8.03 entitled “INDEMNIFICATION AND RELEASE”:

Tenant shall defend and indemnify Landlord and shall hold Landlord harmless from and against any and all injuries, losses, claims, actions, damages, liabilities and expenses (including reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses) to persons or property arising from, related to or in connection with the use or occupancy of the Demised Premises (with the exception only of any accidents, damages or injuries to persons or property occurring in or on the Demised Premises as and to the extent that any such accidents, damages or injuries shall have been specifically occasioned by a negligent or willful act or omission on the part of Landlord and/or its officers, employees, agents or contractors) or the conduct or operation of business therein or any default in the performance of any obligation.

(UMF No. 7.)  The lease defines “Tenant” as Tilly’s and “Landlord” as Defendants/Cross-Complainants Craig Realty Group Citadel LLC.  (Ibid.)  The lease defines “Demised Premises” as “[t]he area shaded with diagonal lines on the space plan attached hereto as Exhibit ‘B.’  (Ibid.)

The Court finds Defendant/Cross-Complainant Craig Realty Group Citadel LLC has met its burden of proof.  The evidence shows Defendant/Cross-Complainant Craig Realty Group Citadel LLC and Tilly’s entered into a contract.  That contract provided Tilly’s shall expressly indemnify Defendant/Cross-Complainant Craig Realty Group Citadel LLC for harm related to the leased property.  Plaintiff alleges he was harmed in relation to the leased property because Plaintiff was injured while climbing a ladder in Tilly’s store to clean Tilly’s air vents.  As such, Tilly’s is contractually obligated to indemnify Defendant/Cross-Complainant Craig Realty Group Citadel LLC.

The Court also finds that Cross-Complainant Eureka Realty Partners, Inc. d.b.a. Craig Realty Group has not met its burden of proof.  Cross-Complainant Eureka Realty Partners, Inc. d.b.a. Craig Realty Group is not a party to the contract.  More specifically, Cross-Complainant Eureka Realty Partners, Inc. d.b.a. Craig Realty Group is not named as a beneficiary to the indemnification clause.

Tilly’s undisputed material facts establish the following.  The ladder that Plaintiff was injured on was not located within Tilly’s store.  (UMF Nos. 12, 14-17.)  Defendant/Cross-Complainant Craig Realty Group Citadel LLC’s employees had exclusive access to the ladder that Plaintiff was injured on.  (UMF No. 10.)  Defendant/Cross-Complainant Craig Realty Group Citadel LLC’s employees were responsible for repairs to the roof hatch that caused Plaintiff’s injuries.  (UMF No. 11.)  Defendant/Cross-Complainant Craig Realty Group Citadel LLC has no records that the roof hatch that injured Plaintiff was maintained, repaired, modified, or inspected.  (UMF No. 19.)  Defendant/Cross-Complainant Craig Realty Group Citadel LLC does not regularly inspect the roof hatch.  (UMF No. 20.)  Defendant/Cross-Complainant Craig Realty Group Citadel LLC repaired the roof hatch after Plaintiff was injured from it.  (UMF No. 21.)

The Court finds Tilly’s evidence that the ladder Plaintiff was injured on is not in Tilly’s store is irrelevant.  This is because the lease trigger’s Tilly’s duty to indemnify when a person is merely injured in relation to the property.  Plaintiff was using the ladder to clean Tilly’s air vents.  As such, Tilly’s duty to indemnify may still be triggered regardless of Plaintiff’s injury occurring outside Tilly’s premises.

Nevertheless, the Court finds Tilly’s evidence shows a triable issue of material fact exists as to whether Plaintiff was injured from Defendant/Cross-Complainant Craig Realty Group Citadel LLC’s negligent maintenance, repair, modification, inspection, or lack thereof of the roof hatch.  The lease provides that such negligence is an exception to Tilly’s duty to indemnify.  Defendant/Cross-Complainant Craig Realty Group Citadel LLC has not provided evidence showing it did not negligently maintain, repair, modify, or inspect the roof hatch.  Moreover, Tilly’s evidence demonstrates Defendant/Cross-Complainant Craig Realty Group Citadel LLC’s failure to keep the roof hatch in a proper working condition can be reasonably inferred to show it caused Plaintiff’s injuries.  Accordingly, the motion must be denied.

CONCLUSION

The motion is DENIED.

Moving Parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where WORLD OF JEANS TOPS INC is a litigant

Latest cases where TILLYS INC AKA is a litigant

Latest cases where Starr Indemnity & Liability Company is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer GRAFF BETH E