This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/30/2020 at 06:49:02 (UTC).

BERTHA ANN BERUMEN VS FTN TRANSPORT & LOGISTICS LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/31/2018 BERTHA ANN BERUMEN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against FTN TRANSPORT LOGISTICS LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CHRISTOPHER K. LUI and DANIEL M. CROWLEY. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2416

  • Filing Date:

    01/31/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

BERUMAN BERTHA ANN

CUNNINGHAM AUBREY

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Defendants

FTN TRANSPORT & LOGISTICS LLC

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

HMIDAN ZAID OSAMA

MUAYADAZEM NAZEH A.

MUAYADAZEM NAZEH A

BERUMEN BERTHA ANN

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

BERUMEN BERTHA ANN

Not Classified By Court

PLAZA INDEMNITY COMPANY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

KOTTLER DOUGLAS E. ESQ.

WILLIAMS ANTOINE DEMARCOS

KOTTLER DOUGLAS EVAN ESQ.

Defendant, Respondent and Not Classified By Court Attorneys

FIELDSLAW APC

APC FIELDSLAW

BARILLA NICOLE C.

FIELDS GARY D.

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

FIELDSLAW APC

Defendant, Cross Defendant and Not Classified By Court Attorney

FIELDS GARY D.

 

Court Documents

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/16/2020

4/16/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/16/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

3/4/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO.5

12/20/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO.5

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO.6

12/20/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO.6

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO.9

12/20/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO.9

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS AND INTERVENORS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF ARGUMENT, OR, MENTION OF ANY SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS, OR, SETTLEMENT WITH OTHER PARTIES IN T

1/6/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS AND INTERVENORS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF ARGUMENT, OR, MENTION OF ANY SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS, OR, SETTLEMENT WITH OTHER PARTIES IN T

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS AND INTERVENORS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, ARGUMENT, OR, MENTION OF INSURANCE COVERAGE

1/6/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS AND INTERVENORS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, ARGUMENT, OR, MENTION OF INSURANCE COVERAGE

Notice of Joinder - NOTICE OF JOINDER (NAME EXTENSION) NOTICE OF JOINDER BY DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT BERTHA ANN BERUMEN TO DEFENDANTS/CROSS-DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENT OF

1/6/2020: Notice of Joinder - NOTICE OF JOINDER (NAME EXTENSION) NOTICE OF JOINDER BY DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT BERTHA ANN BERUMEN TO DEFENDANTS/CROSS-DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENT OF

Notice of Joinder - NOTICE OF JOINDER (NAME EXTENSION) TO BERTHA ANN BERUMEN'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11

1/7/2020: Notice of Joinder - NOTICE OF JOINDER (NAME EXTENSION) TO BERTHA ANN BERUMEN'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11

Notice of Joinder - NOTICE OF JOINDER (NAME EXTENSION) TO BERHTA ANN BERUMEN'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5

1/7/2020: Notice of Joinder - NOTICE OF JOINDER (NAME EXTENSION) TO BERHTA ANN BERUMEN'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5

Notice of Joinder - NOTICE OF JOINDER (NAME EXTENSION) TO BERTHA ANN BERUMEN'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7

1/7/2020: Notice of Joinder - NOTICE OF JOINDER (NAME EXTENSION) TO BERTHA ANN BERUMEN'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7

Notice of Joinder - NOTICE OF JOINDER (NAME EXTENSION) TO BERTHA ANN BERUMEN'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3

1/7/2020: Notice of Joinder - NOTICE OF JOINDER (NAME EXTENSION) TO BERTHA ANN BERUMEN'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3

Notice - NOTICE DEFENDANT BERTHA ANN BERUMEN'S NOTICE OF NONOPPOSITION BY PLAINTIFF AUBREY CUNNINGHAM TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 FOR AN ORDER TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF'S FUTURE MEDICAL CARE CLAI

1/13/2020: Notice - NOTICE DEFENDANT BERTHA ANN BERUMEN'S NOTICE OF NONOPPOSITION BY PLAINTIFF AUBREY CUNNINGHAM TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 FOR AN ORDER TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF'S FUTURE MEDICAL CARE CLAI

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSTION TO DEFENDANTS' AND INTERVENOR'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF ARGUMENT, OR, MENTION OF ANY SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS, OR, SETTLEMENT WITH OTHER PAR

1/13/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSTION TO DEFENDANTS' AND INTERVENOR'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF ARGUMENT, OR, MENTION OF ANY SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS, OR, SETTLEMENT WITH OTHER PAR

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT BERTHA ANN BERUMEN'S EX APPLICATI...)

12/12/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT BERTHA ANN BERUMEN'S EX APPLICATI...)

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT BERTHA ANN BERUMEN'S EX-PARTE APPLICATION MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ANTOINE D. WILLIAMS

12/12/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT BERTHA ANN BERUMEN'S EX-PARTE APPLICATION MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ANTOINE D. WILLIAMS

Answer

12/13/2019: Answer

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

5/22/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

108 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/31/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (for Failure to Prosecute) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute) of 08/31/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Trial Setting Conference) of 07/30/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2020
  • Docketat 4:00 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 04/16/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
132 More Docket Entries
  • 04/27/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Bertha Ann Beruman (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Bertha Ann Beruman (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Bertha Ann Beruman (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Aubrey Cunningham (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Bertha Ann Beruman (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC692416    Hearing Date: January 07, 2020    Dept: 4A

BACKGROUND

In BC692416, on January 31, 2018, Plaintiff Bertha Ann Berumen Nazeh Muayadazem, and Zaid Osama Hmidan.  This complaint alleges

In 19STCV06221, on February 22, 2019, Plaintiff Aubrey Cunningham filed a complaint against Defendants FTN Transport & Logistics LLC, Nazeh Muayadazem, and Zaid Osama Hmidan Berumen.  This complaint alleges motor vehicle and general negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on August 19, 2017.

In 19STCV06221, Bertha Ann Berumen Defendants/Cross-Defendants FTN Transport & Logistics LLC, Nazeh Muayadazem, and Zaid Osama Hmidan.  The cross-complaint seeks indemnity and declaratory relief.

On May 17, 2019, the Court consolidated case number BC692416 with case number 19STCV06221.

On October 18, 2019Defendant/Cross-Complainant Bertha Ann Berumen a motion for summary judgment pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.

On December 27, 2019, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Berumen’s

Trial is set for February 3, 2020.

PARTYS

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Bertha Ann Berumen (“Moving Party”) ask to grant summary judgment its Aubrey Cunningham because law.  More specifically, Moving Party argues there is no evidence showing Moving Party breached a duty owed to Plaintiff Cunningham or that Moving Party caused Plaintiff Cunningham’s injuries.

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion for summary judgment must be heard thirty days or before trial, unless the court finds there is good cause.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (a)(3).)  Due process requires a court to find good cause for a motion for summary judgment to be properly scheduled within the thirty day Robinson v. Woods (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1267.)

DISCUSSION

On October 18, 2019Moving Party filed this motion for summary judgment to be heard on January 8, 2020.  Trial is set for February 3, 2020.  The motion is, therefore, untimely.

On December 12, 2019, the Court heard arguments on an ex parte

The Court finds there is no good cause to allow this untimely motion for summary judgment to be heard for the same reasons the Court denied the December 12, 2019 ex parte Robinson.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff Cunningham is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Case Number: BC692416    Hearing Date: December 13, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion for Leave to Intervene

Having considered the moving papers and amendments thereto, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On February 22, 2019, Plaintiff Aubrey Cunningham (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against Defendants FTN Transport & Logistics LLC (“FTN”), Nazeh Muayadazem, Zaid Osama Hmidan, Bertha Ann Berumen, and Does 1-100 alleging negligence for a vehicle collision that occurred on August 19, 2017. On May 17, 2019, the Court consolidated the above case with Berumen v. FTN Transport & Logistics LLC, et al., BC692416, in which Ms. Berumen filed suit alleging injuries arising out of the same automobile accident. (See Minute Order, 5/17/19.)

On October 7, 2019, nonparty Plaza Indemnity Company (“Plaza”) filed a motion for leave to file answers-in-intervention on behalf of its insured, Defendant FTN, to complaints filed by both Berumen and Cunningham. Subsequently, on October 16, 2019, Plaza filed a motion to amend its initial motion to include the filing of a proposed answer-in-intervention to Berumen’s cross-complaint.

On November 5, 2019, Plaza rescheduled the hearing to December 13, 2019. Responding parties have not opposed the instant motion.

Trial is set for February 3, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Proposed Intervenor Plaza Indemnity Company (“Plaza”) seeks an order from the Court granting leave to file answers-in-intervention in the present action on behalf of Defendant FTN as its insurer.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure, section 387, subdivision (d)(1) provides that the court shall, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if “a provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene,” or “[t]he person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and that person is so situated that the disposition of the action may impair or impede that person’s ability to protect that interest, unless that person’s interest is adequately represented by one or more of the existing parties.” Additionally, upon timely application, a court may “permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if the person has an interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (d)(2).) A court will determine the timeliness of a motion to intervene based on the date when a nonparty “knew or should have known their interests in the litigation were not being adequately represented.” (Ziani Homeowners Assn. v. Brookfield Ziani LLC (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 274, 282.)

“An insurer’s right to intervene in an action against the insured, for personal injury or property damage, arises as a result of Insurance Code section 11580.” (Reliance Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 386.) Insurance Code section 11580, subdivision (b)(2), requires, in relevant part, that a policy insuring against losses must contain a “provision that whenever judgment is secured against the insured or the executor or administrator of a deceased insured in an action based upon bodily injury, death, or property damage, then an action may be brought against the insurer on the policy and subject to its terms and limitations, by such judgment creditor to recover on the judgment.” Further, the only manner in which an insurer may defend or exercise the powers of its insured suspended corporation is by “intervening in the action under Code of Civil Procedure section 387 and asserting any defenses on behalf of its insured.” (Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 212, 220.)

In terms of the form of the petition, California Code of Civil Procedure section 387, subdivision (c) provides that a nonparty “shall petition the court for leave to intervene by noticed motion or by ex parte application. The petition shall include a copy of the proposed complaint in intervention or answer in intervention and set forth the grounds upon which intervention rests.”

DISCUSSION

Plaza seeks to intervene in the present action to protect its interests as the general liability insurer for Defendant FTN. (Pietrok Decl., ¶ 6-8.) Further, Plaza notes in its motion that Defendant FTN is no longer licensed to do business in the State of California, and that “[e]vents have recently come to light that there is no intention to recertify its business license in California…” (Motion, p. 3:14-3:19.) Accordingly, Plaza contends that since Defendant FTN has forfeited its rights to defend a lawsuit by remaining a suspended corporation, Plaza must intervene in its own name because it cannot appear, answer, or litigate in the name of its insured. (Motion, p. 4:1-4:4.)

The Court finds that Plaza is entitled to intervene under Code of Civil Procedure section 387. First, the Court finds that Plaza’s motion is timely because it was filed within a reasonable time upon learning of Defendant FTN’s intention not to re-certify its business license in California or restore its ability to defend a lawsuit. (Pietrok Decl., ¶ 4-5.) Second, Insurance Code section 11580 grants Plaza a right to intervene under Civil Procedure section 387 because Plaza is subject to a direct action from judgment creditors in the event that judgment is secured against Defendant FTN, which may occur given Defendant FTN’s suspended corporation status. (Reliance at 386-387.) Further, as stated above, California case law demonstrates that the only manner in which an insurer such as Plaza may defend its insured as a suspended corporation such as Defendant FTN is by intervening in the action. (Kaufman at 220.) Accordingly, Plaza has sufficiently claimed an interest relating to the disposition of the present action for purposes of intervention.

In terms of the form of the petition, the Court finds that Plaza has sufficiently complied with the procedural requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 387 by (1) filing the petition for intervention via noticed motion, (2) providing copies of the proposed answers to intervention, and (3) setting forth the grounds upon which intervention rests in its moving papers. (Motion, Exh. A; Amendment to Motion, Exh. B.) The Court notes that Plaza’s filing of an amendment to its motion adding its proposed answer-in-intervention to Berumen’s cross-complaint did not satisfy the requirements for amending pleadings under California Rule of Court 3.1324 because it did not include a separate declaration accompanying its motion with the specifications required under subdivision (b) of the Rule. The Court will consider the amendment for purposes of the present motion; however, the moving party is cautioned that it must comply with each pleading requirement throughout the future proceedings in the action.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion.

Moving party is ordered to file the proposed answers-in-intervention provided in the motion and amendment to motion as required under Code of Civil Procedure section 387, subdivision (e) with the Court within 10 days of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.