This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2021 at 00:10:34 (UTC).

BELINDA KIM JARVIS VS SALVADOR PEREZ

Case Summary

On 07/28/2017 BELINDA KIM JARVIS filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against SALVADOR PEREZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CHRISTOPHER K. LUI, MICHAEL P. VICENCIA, DANIEL M. CROWLEY and STEPHEN M. MOLONEY. The case status is Other.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0261

  • Filing Date:

    07/28/2017

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

MICHAEL P. VICENCIA

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

STEPHEN M. MOLONEY

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

KIM BELINDA

Respondents and Defendants

PEREZ SALVADOR

DOES 1 TO 100

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

ZAVIDOW ROBERT M. ESQ.

DOUCETTE JASON R. ESQ.

NGUYEN MINH TRI

DOUCETTE JASON REILLY

GONONG CHRISTINE JUNGCO

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

SNYDER BRADLEY A. ESQ.

SNYDER BRADLEY ALLEN ESQ.

OLIVER SUSAN LYNN

VUKOVICH DANIELLE JASMINE

SNYDER BRADLEY ALLEN

OLIVER SUSAN

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

8/10/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Request for Dismissal

8/10/2021: Request for Dismissal

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

6/28/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 06/28/2021

6/28/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 06/28/2021

Notice of Settlement

6/28/2021: Notice of Settlement

Objection - OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF CALLING WITNESSES JAIME PEREZ (DECEASED), SALVADOR PEREZ, OFFICER P. GOMEZ AND OFFICER Y. SMITH

6/4/2021: Objection - OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF CALLING WITNESSES JAIME PEREZ (DECEASED), SALVADOR PEREZ, OFFICER P. GOMEZ AND OFFICER Y. SMITH

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

6/4/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)

6/7/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)

Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter

6/7/2021: Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)

6/9/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)

Objection - OBJECTION DEFENDANTS OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS DESIGNATION OF TESTIMONY OF WITNESS RITA MARTIN AND DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY OF RITA MARTIN

6/10/2021: Objection - OBJECTION DEFENDANTS OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS DESIGNATION OF TESTIMONY OF WITNESS RITA MARTIN AND DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY OF RITA MARTIN

Notice - NOTICE PLAINTIFF BELINDA JARVIS' PAGE AND LINE DESIGNATION FOR DEPOSITION AND FORMER TESTIMONY

6/10/2021: Notice - NOTICE PLAINTIFF BELINDA JARVIS' PAGE AND LINE DESIGNATION FOR DEPOSITION AND FORMER TESTIMONY

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

6/10/2021: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

6/10/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)

6/10/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)

6/11/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

6/11/2021: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Jury Instructions - JURY INSTRUCTIONS (NOT GIVEN)

6/14/2021: Jury Instructions - JURY INSTRUCTIONS (NOT GIVEN)

191 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/10/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Belinda Kim (Plaintiff); Salvador Perez (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/10/2021
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Belinda Kim (Plaintiff); Salvador Perez (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/28/2021
  • Docketat 3:31 PM in Department S26, Michael P. Vicencia, Presiding; Court Order

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/28/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 06/28/2021); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/28/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/28/2021
  • DocketNotice of Settlement; Filed by Belinda Kim (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/14/2021
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department S26, Michael P. Vicencia, Presiding; Jury Trial - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/14/2021
  • DocketSpecial Verdict ((redacted)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/14/2021
  • DocketJury Instructions; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/14/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
265 More Docket Entries
  • 08/02/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED ANSWERS WITHOUT OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS OF $300 FROM DEFENDANT AND HIS COUNSEL;

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/25/2018
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/25/2018
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Belinda Kim (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/22/2017
  • DocketAnswer

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/22/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Salvador Perez (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/16/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Belinda Kim (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/16/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Belinda Kim (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****0261    Hearing Date: January 17, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint

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

BACKGROUND

On July 28, 2017, Plaintiff Belinda Kim Jarvis (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Salvador Perez (“Defendant”).  The complaint alleges a violation of Civil Code section 3342, negligence, and premises liability for a dog bite that occurred on January 12, 2017.

On December 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1).

Trial is set for June 17, 2020.

PARTYS REQUEST

Plaintiff asks the Court to grant leave for Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint (“FAC”) to allege intentional infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages against Defendant because of Defendant’s a bad faith bankruptcy filing.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer.  The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.”  (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)  Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature.  The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment.  (See California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281 (overruled on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390).)

Under California Rules of Court Rule, rule 3.1324, subdivision (a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located. 

Under California Rule of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (b), a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues there is good cause for leave to file the FAC to allege intentional infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages against Defendant because Defendant provided false deposition testimony and asked a witness to lie.

Defendant argues there are insufficient facts alleged to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The Court disagrees.  The FAC alleges Defendant intentionally committed perjury and sought for a witness to lie about the underlying facts, which caused Plaintiff severe emotional distress.  As such, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Defendant’s intentional outrageous conduct caused Plaintiff severe emotional distress.  (See Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050-1051.)

Defendant argues there are insufficient facts alleged to seek punitive damages.  Again, the Court disagrees.  Plaintiff’s allegation of Defendant’s commission of an intentional tort enables Plaintiff to seek punitive damages.  (See McAfee v. Ricker (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 630, 632-634.)

Defendant lastly argues he is immune from Plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action based on the litigation privilege.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff shall file and serve the proposed FAC attached as Exhibit 5 to Christine J. Gonong’s declaration within 30 days of this ruling.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer Christine Jungco Gonong

Latest cases represented by Lawyer DOUCETTE JASON REILLY

Latest cases represented by Lawyer ZAVIDOW, ROBERT M

Latest cases represented by Lawyer NGUYEN MINH T.