This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/13/2020 at 03:23:36 (UTC).

BLANCA MONGE VS TIPPI HEDREN

Case Summary

On 07/03/2017 BLANCA MONGE filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against TIPPI HEDREN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7328

  • Filing Date:

    07/03/2017

  • 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

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Not Classified By Court

MONGE BLANCA

DE MELENDEZ BLANCA E.

MONGE BLANCA AKA BLANCA E. MONGE DE MELENDEZ

Defendants, Respondents, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

HEDREN TIPPI

DOES 1 TO 10

JERRY MARSHALL

EVA R. WITTERSTAETTER

WITTERSTAETTER EVA R. (DOE 2)

MARSHALL JERRY

WITTERSTAETTER EVA R.

WITTERSTAETTER EVA R. DOE 2

WITTERSTAETTER EVA R. AKA RENEE WITTERSTAETTER

MARSHALL JOHN

VICTOR QUEZADA DBA ACTON NURSERY LANDSCAPE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

ETEHAD SIMON P. ESQ.

ETEHAD SIMON P ESQ.

CARMAN DAVID A.

Defendant Attorneys

WOOD CARY L.

WOOD CARY LINN

Cross Plaintiff Attorney

SOIBELMAN ADAM J

 

Court Documents

Answer

8/25/2020: Answer

Summons - SUMMONS ON CROSS COMPLAINT

8/31/2020: Summons - SUMMONS ON CROSS COMPLAINT

Answer

8/31/2020: Answer

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF MXN FOR LEAVE

7/10/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF MXN FOR LEAVE

Reply - REPLY REPLY, BY PLAINTIFF BLANCA MONGE, TO THE OPPOSITION TO HER MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

7/17/2020: Reply - REPLY REPLY, BY PLAINTIFF BLANCA MONGE, TO THE OPPOSITION TO HER MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Notice - NOTICE OF SCHEDULING OF FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND OF TRIAL DATE

7/24/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF SCHEDULING OF FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND OF TRIAL DATE

Cross-Complaint

7/31/2020: Cross-Complaint

Separate Statement

2/18/2020: Separate Statement

Motion for Summary Judgment

2/18/2020: Motion for Summary Judgment

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

4/27/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING NOTICE OF ORDER

5/1/2020: Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING NOTICE OF ORDER

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 05/18/2020

5/18/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 05/18/2020

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT TIPPI HEDREN AND REQUEST FOR $1,390 IN MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT TIPPI HEDREN AND HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD

11/12/2019: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT TIPPI HEDREN AND REQUEST FOR $1,390 IN MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT TIPPI HEDREN AND HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD

Minute Order - Minute Order (Final Status Conference)

12/17/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Final Status Conference)

Summons - Summons on Complaint

2/19/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt

4/2/2019: Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT -

4/9/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT -

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

7/3/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

34 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/16/2021
  • Hearing09/16/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2021
  • Hearing09/02/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2020
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Victor Quezada dba Acton Nursery Landscape (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2020
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by Victor Quezada dba Acton Nursery Landscape (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Cross Complaint); Filed by Victor Quezada dba Acton Nursery Landscape (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2020
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Tippi Hedren (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Cross Complaint); Filed by Tippi Hedren (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2020
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by Tippi Hedren (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Scheduling of Final Status Conference and of Trial Date); Filed by Blanca Monge (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Scheduling of Final Status Conference and of Trial Date); Filed by Blanca Monge (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
48 More Docket Entries
  • 04/09/2018
  • DocketAMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketAMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint; Filed by Blanca Monge (Plaintiff); Blanca E. De Melendez (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint; Filed by Blanca Monge (Plaintiff); Blanca E. De Melendez (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2018
  • DocketAMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2018
  • DocketAMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2018
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint; Filed by Blanca Monge (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Blanca Monge (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC667328    Hearing Date: July 23, 2020    Dept: 32

Order #1 of 2

blanca monge,

Plaintiff,

v.

tippi hedren,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC667328

Hearing Date: July 23, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion for leave to amend

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Blanca Monge (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Tippi Hedren (“Defendant”) after Plaintiff tripped and fell on Defendant’s property. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on February 19, 2019, alleging that:

On or about September 11, 2016, while Plaintiff was lawfully on Defendants’ Premises, and during her working hours for Defendants, and while walking upon the steps at Defendants’ Premises, Plaintiff slipped and fell as a result of a dangerous and/or unsafe or designated condition of the area of the steps located in Defendants’ Premises.

(First Amended Complaint, ¶ 13.) Plaintiff was deposed on September 26, 2019, and testified that she slipped and fell on some dirt about twenty feet away from the front door. (Declaration of Alik Ekmekchyan, Exh. C, p.36.) Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on February 18, 2020, arguing that Plaintiff cannot prove any dangerous condition of the steps of the house. On April 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to file a second amended complaint to correct this issue. The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to file a second amended complaint and denies Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as moot without prejudice.

LEGAL STANDARD

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) “[T]here is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.” (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296-297.)

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.132424, a motion to amend a pleading must include a copy of the proposed amendment and state the allegations that the moving party proposes to add or delete. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (a).) California Rules of Court, rule 3.124 also requires that the moving party advance a declaration stating the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

The record establishes good cause to grant Plaintiff’s motion based upon three declarations. First, Plaintiff relies upon the declaration of Steven G. Candelas (“Candelas”), the attorney who filed the original complaint in this action. Candelas states that Plaintiff does not speak English with ease, and that he relied on a bilingual employee to communicate with Plaintiff about the facts of the case. Candelas states that he understood that Plaintiff fell on steps at Defendant’s home.

Second, Plaintiff relies upon the declaration of Steven Berkowitz (“Berkowitz”), who drafted the first amended complaint. Berkowitz states that he relied on the recitation of facts from the original complaint and did not have any further information about the location of Plaintiff’s fall at that time. Finally, Plaintiff relies upon the declaration of her current attorney, David A. Carman (“Carman”). Carman states that Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, in which Plaintiff testified that she fell in the backyard of Defendant’s home, necessitates amendment.

The above-referenced declarations provide good cause for the amendment. Defendant argues that it has filed a motion for summary judgment, but that fact does not support Defendant’s position. Defendant moved for summary judgment on February 18, 2020, solely on the basis that Plaintiff cannot prove any dangerous condition with the steps even though she knew as of September 26, 2019, that Plaintiff had made a mistake in the complaint and first amended complaint. Also, Defendant did not ask the Court to condition any grant of this motion upon Plaintiff’s payment of its costs and attorney’s fees in preparing and filing the motion. (See Code Civ Proc., §§ 473, subd. (a)(1), 576.) Finally, Defendant will be able to prepare for trial since Defendant was on notice of the correct theory of the case as of September 26, 2019, and the trial will not occur until 2021, pursuant to the Presiding Judge’s order of July 10, 2020.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claim is untimely because the fall occurred on September 11, 2016, and the new claim does not relate back to the filing date of the original complaint. The Court disagrees.

California courts have shown a liberal attitude toward allowing amendment of pleadings to avoid the harsh results imposed by statutes of limitations.  Thus, proper amendments to an original complaint ‘relate back’ to the date of the filing of the original complaint, despite the amendments being made after the statute of limitations has expired. The policy behind statutes of limitations is to put defendants on notice of the need to defend against a claim in time to prepare a fair defense on the merits. This policy is satisfied when recovery under an amended complaint is sought on the same basic set of facts as the original pleading.

(Garrison v. Board of Directors (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1670, 1677-1678, internal citations omitted.) In this case, Plaintiff has consistently alleged that she suffered injuries from a fall on Defendant’s property. These allegations are sufficient to place Defendant on notice of the nature of Plaintiff’s claim.

Defendant cites Coronet Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 342. In that case, the parents of a 17 year-old girl sued for wrongful death, claiming that the girl was electrocuted while using a defective hair dryer. After the statute of limitations elapsed, the parents amended the complaint, naming an electronics manufacturing company and alleging that a defective table lamp caused the fatality. The Second District noted: “The connection, if any, between the hair dryer and the lamp is not apparent from the pleadings.” (Coronet Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 342, 345.) Further, the Court recognized that the electronics manufacturing company had “no control over the entire premises” where the electrocution occurred, and therefore the electronics manufacturing company did not have a duty “to maintain a safe condition on the premises . . . .” (Id. at p.347.) The Court therefore held that the new claim did not relate back to the filing of the original complaint. (Ibid.) By contrast, in the instant case, Defendant was the owner and occupier of the premises, and Plaintiff has alleged consistently that Defendant had a duty to maintain the premises in a safe condition and failed to do so. The factual allegations are similar enough to relate back to the original complaint.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff delayed in seeking leave to amend. As discussed, the only prejudice to Defendant is monetary, and Defendant did not ask the Court to condition any grant of this motion on Plaintiff reimbursing Defendant’s costs and attorneys’ fees associated with the motion for summary judgment.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is granted. Plaintiff shall file her second amended complaint within ten (10) days. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied as moot without prejudice. Defendant may file a new motion for summary judgment within statutory time periods. The Court sets the following dates:

Final Status Conference: __________, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.

Trial: __________, 2021, at 8:30 a.m.

The discovery and motions cut-off shall be based on the new trial date. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

Order #2 of 2

blanca monge,

Plaintiff,

v.

tippi hedren, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC667328

Hearing Date: July 23, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

defendant’S motion for leave to file cross-complaint

Defendant Tippi Hedren (“Defendant Hedren”) seeks leave to assert a cross-complaint for indemnification and contribution against Victor Quezada, who does business as Acton Nursery Landscape (“Acton Nursery”). Per Code of Civil Procedure section 428.10, a party against whom a cause of action is asserted may file a cross-complaint to assert “[a]ny cause of action he has against a person alleged to be liable thereon, whether or not such person is already a party to the action, if the cause of action asserted in his cross-complaint (1) arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause brought against him or (2) asserts a claim, right, or interest in the property or controversy which is the subject of the cause brought against him.” (Code Civ. Proc., §428.10, subd. (b).) A party must obtain leave of court to file a cross-complaint if the party does not file the cross-complaint at the same time as the answer. The court may grant leave to file a cross-complaint in the interests of justice at any time during the course of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., §428.10, subd. (c).)

In this case, Plaintiff Blanca Monge (“Plaintiff”) alleges she tripped and fell on a pile of dirt outside Defendant Hedron’s home. Defendant Hedron contends that Acton Nursery left that dirt outside the house following a construction project. “Undoubtedly, a claim for contribution or indemnity ‘arises out of’ the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff's claim.” (Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 785, 799.) Thus, it is in the interests of justice to permit Defendant Hedron to file the proposed cross-complaint, as resolution of all issues pertaining to responsibility for Plaintiff’s damages in one action is efficient.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant Hedron’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint against Acton Nursery is granted. Defendant Hedron shall file the cross-complaint within ten (10) days. Defendant Hedron shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.