On 03/01/2018 ATZIM MENDEZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Product Liability lawsuit against PINES ENGINEERING CO 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 GEORGINA T. RIZK, MARGARET M. BERNAL and MARGARET MILLER BERNAL. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
GEORGINA T. RIZK
MARGARET M. BERNAL
MARGARET MILLER BERNAL
MENDEZ MARIA DEL CARMEN
ART THOMAS MACHINERY CO. INC
PRECISION TUBE BENDING
DOES 1 TO 100
PINES ENGINEERING CO. INC
ENCARNACION MARCOS A. (DOE 1)
ENCARNACION MARCOS A. DOE 1
PRECISION TUBE BENDING INC
ART THOMAS MACHINERY CO INC
PINES ENGINEERING CO. INC.
ENCARNACION MARCOS A
STAINLESS STEEL PRODUCTS INC.
BRYMAN & APELIAN
BRYMAN ANDREW CHARLES
BRYMAN ANDREW C. ESQ.
BRYMAN ANDREW C. ESQ.
SCHUMANN KIM. ESQ.
SONNETT ANTHONY E. ESQ.
SCHUMANN RALLO & ROSENBERG LLP
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
BRYMAN & APELIAN
SARGOY CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL
BRYMAN ANDREW CHARLES
SCHUMANN KIM ESQ.
3/17/2021: Stipulation - No Order - STIPULATION - NO ORDER STIPULATION REGARDING THE AMOUNT OF DEFENDANT'S CLAIMED COSTS
2/18/2021: Request for Dismissal - REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO PINES ENGINEERING CO., INC.; PRECISION TUBE BENDING; ART THOMAS MACHINERY CO., INC., FROM FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, DATED 10/13/20
11/5/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE; POST-ARBITRATION STATUS CONFERENCE ...)
11/6/2020: Motion for Summary Judgment - MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANT DIANE WILLIAMS DBA D&D LEASING
10/8/2020: Notice of Ruling
9/17/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION (AMENDED) OF BRENDEN M. NORTON, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
7/24/2020: Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MSJ
8/28/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service
5/13/2019: Notice of Ruling
9/24/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE
2/21/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition to Compel Arbitration)
10/30/2018: Other - - plaintiff's demand for arbitratiion
5/7/2018: ANSWER OF DEFENDANT PINES ENGINEERINC CO. INC. TO PLAINTIFFS' UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
7/9/2018: Motion to Quash Service of Summons -
7/16/2018: PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION;MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;AND ETC.
3/1/2018: SUMMONS -
DocketAppeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketStipulation - No Order (Stipulation Regarding The Amount of Defendant's Claimed Costs); Filed by ATZIM MENDEZ (Plaintiff); MARIA DEL CARMEN MENDEZ (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketAppeal - Notice of Appeal/Cross Appeal Filed; Filed by ATZIM MENDEZ (Appellant); MARIA DEL CARMEN MENDEZ (Appellant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:30 AM in Department F; Trial Setting Conference - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
DocketRequest for Dismissal (Without Prejudice as to Pines Engineering Co., Inc.; Precision Tube Bending; Art Thomas Machinery Co., Inc., from First Amended Complaint, dated 10/13/20); Filed by ATZIM MENDEZ (Plaintiff); MARIA DEL CARMEN MENDEZ (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketStipulation and Order (STIPULATION BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT, DIANE WILLIAMS DBA D&D LEASING, REGARDING [PROPOSED] AMENDED ORDER ON DIANE WILLIAMS DBA D&D LEASING?S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR ADJUDICATION); Filed by ATZIM MENDEZ (Plaintiff); MARIA DEL CARMEN MENDEZ (Plaintiff); D&D Leasing (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketStipulation - No Order (STIPULATION BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT WILLIAMS, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.1700(b)(3), EXTENDING THE TIME FOR PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AND SERVE THEIR MOTION TO TAX OR STRIKE COSTS); Filed by ATZIM MENDEZ (Plaintiff); MARIA DEL CARMEN MENDEZ (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMemorandum of Costs (Summary); Filed by D&D Leasing (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:30 AM in Department C; Hearing on Motion for Leave (PLAINTIFFS? NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketAmendment to Complaint; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketAMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT (FICTITIOUS /INCORRECT NAME)Read MoreRead Less
DocketAmendment to Complaint; Filed by ATZIM MENDEZ (Plaintiff); MARIA DEL CARMEN MENDEZ (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketAmendment to Complaint; Filed by Carmen Mendez (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by ATZIM MENDEZ (Plaintiff); MARIA DEL CARMEN MENDEZ (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaintRead MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1) NEGLIGENCE ;ETCVRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by ATZIM MENDEZ (Plaintiff); Carmen Mendez (Plaintiff); MARIA DEL CARMEN MENDEZ (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by ATZIM MENDEZ (Plaintiff); MARIA DEL CARMEN MENDEZ (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC696035 Hearing Date: October 07, 2020 Dept: C
MENDEZ v. PINES ENGINEERING CO. INC.
CASE NO.: BC696035
JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES
[Remote appearances are encouraged and will be given priority.]
Plaintiffs A. and M. Mendez’s motion for leave to amend complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to immediately file and serve their first amended complaint.
Moving Parties to give NOTICE.
Plaintiffs move for leave to amend the complaint pursuant to CCP § 473.
“A court may, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.” (CCP § 473(a)(1).)
Attorney Bryman has submitted his declaration of fault, attesting that it was his mistake to have dismissed Williams from the Strict Liability cause of action. (Bryman Decl., ¶ 3-4.)
The court accepts counsel’s declaration of fault. In the interest of justice, the matter should be resolved on the merits.
Defendant’s authorities do not support denial of leave to amend “as a matter of law.” Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties in the same lawsuit. Thus, the courts discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendments of the pleadings. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) Trial has not yet been set in this action, and the court finds that Defendant is not prejudiced because he is able to conduct discovery on the new claim.
Defendant also contends the FAC does not state facts sufficient to support a strict liability claim. However, courts generally do not consider the validity of proposed amendments to a pleading. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (Marker, U.S.A. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) The better method is to allow the amendment and permit the opposing party to demurrer or file a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2006) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760.)
The court finds that judicial efficiency favors resolving all of the parties’ disputed matters in the same lawsuit. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to immediately file and serve their first amended complaint.
Case Number: BC696035 Hearing Date: February 25, 2020 Dept: SEC
MENDEZ, et al. v. PINES ENGINEERING CO. INC., et al.
CASE NO.: BC696035
JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES
Defendant Diane Williams’s motion to strike portions of the complaint is DENIED.
Plaintiff to give NOTICE.
Defendant Diane Williams move to strike portions of the complaint seeking pre-judgment interest pursuant to CCP § 435.5.
The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading or strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (CCP § 436.) The grounds for a motion to strike must appear on the face of the pleading under attack, or from matter which the court may judicially notice (e.g., the court's own files or records). (CCP § 437.)
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that while working on a Pines Tube Pipe Bending Machine power press, Plaintiff’s right hand became trapped in the pressure die area causing serious injuries. The Complaint asserts a single cause of action for Negligence (after dismissal of other claims through the meet and confer process).
CC § 3287(a) provides, “A person who is entitled to recover damages certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation, and the right to recover which is vested in the person upon a particular day, is entitled also to recover interest thereon from that day."
CC § 3288 provides, "In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, and in every case of oppression, fraud, or malice, interest may be given, in the discretion of the jury."
In a wrongful death action against an airline company to recover for the death of a passenger killed in an air crash, the trial court erred in denying prejudgment interest to plaintiffs for past economic losses. Although the amount of damages awarded in a wrongful death case which are designed to compensate noneconomic losses are akin to those awarded for pain and suffering and emotional distress, and do not support prejudgment interest, plaintiffs were entitled to prejudgment interest under CC § 3288, on those damages attributable to an ascertainable economic value, such as loss of household services or earning capacity, as well as funeral and related expenses. Interest on interim earnings from the time that they would have been earned to the time of verdict was necessary to compensate plaintiffs fully for their injuries. However, to the extent the award of damages was for future earnings after the day of verdict, plaintiffs could not recover prejudgment interest. (Canavin v. Pacific Southwest Airlines (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 512, overruling Fox v Pacific Southwest Airlines (1982) 133 Cal App 3d 565, to the extent it holds that prejudgment interest for past economic losses may not be recovered under CC § 3288.)
Here, Plaintiffs claim pre-judgment interest on past medical expenses (¶ 16), past economic damages (¶ 17), and past earning capacity (¶ 18.) Such past economic damages are allowed under Canavin v. Pacific Southwest Airlines (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 512.
Accordingly, the motion to strike is DENIED.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases