This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/15/2022 at 22:41:22 (UTC).

CAESAR COLORADO VS CITY OF LONG BEACH

Case Summary

On June 25, 2020, Caesar Colorado (“Plaintiff”), represented by Erik Christophe Alberts of EA Law Firm, filed a personal injury lawsuit against the City of Long Beach and DOES 1 through 10 (collectively, “Defendants”), represented by Kyle R. Bevan, Jennifer Juliet Moon, and Chelsea N. Trotter, seeking damages, medical and incidental expenses for the Defendants’ alleged negligence. This case was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of California with Judges Stephen I. Goorvitch and Mark C. Kim presiding.

In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged, “On or about late-May/early June of 2019, plaintiff CAESAR COLORADO traveled to the defendant, CITY OF LONG BEACH’s Animal Care Services office, located at 7700 E. Spring Street, Long Beach, CA 90815, and requested removal of about 13 feral cats and kittens that were becoming nuisance in the public alley adjacent to the rear-most portion of his backyard of his home”

The Plaintiff also alleged, “The agent from defendant CITY OF LONG BEACH’s Animal Care Services who took plaintiff’s complaint/request for service advised him that the department could not remove the feral cats while they were kittens. Rather, the agent ordered the plaintiff CAESAR COLORADO to feed the kittens until they were 8 weeks old, and at least two pounds in weight.”

Plaintiff then alleged, “CAESAR COLORADO fed the feral animals as ordered, although he felt he was encouraging the animals to stay and to continue to multiply. He wished them to be gone, but worried that if he removed or disposed them on his own, then he would become liable for animal cruelty.”

Plaintiff additionally alleged, “Within days plaintiff of feeding the feral cats, which were rife with fleas and flies, he became bitten by insects, likely fleas. Thereafter, he experienced terrible headaches and a fever. On approximately July 14, 2019, after driving his wife to church, plaintiff returned home and unexpectedly fell onto the floor unconscious.”

The Plaintiff further alleged, “While in the hospital, plaintiff experienced kidney failure. After numerous tests, about three weeks later in the first week of August 2019, plaintiff was informed he had contracted typhus, a serious bacterial disease contracted by insect bites from wild/feral animals.”

The Plaintiff also alleged, “At all times mentioned herein, said defendants were responsible for the care, maintenance, inspections, corrections, repairs and improvements of wild/feral animals located on public property owned and controlled by the CITY OF LOS ANGELES.”

Plaintiff further alleged, “On or about late-May/early-June 2019, defendants, and each of them, negligently, carelessly and recklessly failed to exercise due care in carrying out their duties/responsibilities as owners or controllers of the public alley behind the property identified as 3421 Walnut Avenue in Long Beach, such that Plaintiff was infected with the serious bacterial disease typhus, suffering serious injuries as a result.”

The Plaintiff then alleged, “As a proximate result of all of the Defendants’ negligence, carelessness, recklessness and unlawfulness, Plaintiff was injured in his health, strength, and activity, sustained injury to his body and shock and injury to his nervous system and person.”

The plaintiff presented one claim for relief for the alleged negligence of the Defendants.

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested the court for general damages, medical and incidental expenses, loss of earnings along with costs of the suit, and any other relief the court deems just and proper.

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******4061

  • Filing Date:

    06/25/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

MICHAEL E. WHITAKER

MARK C. KIM

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

COLORADO CAESAR

Defendant

CITY OF LONG BEACH

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

ALBERTS ERIK ALBERTS

ALBERTS ERIK CHRISTOPHE ALBERTS

Defendant Attorneys

TROTTER CHELSEA N.

MOON JENNIFER JULIET

BEVAN KYLE R.

 

Court Documents

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE (SHARON CAHN, CSR: 6210)

5/26/2022: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE (SHARON CAHN, CSR: 6210)

Order - TENTATIVE RULING AND FINAL ORDER

5/26/2022: Order - TENTATIVE RULING AND FINAL ORDER

Notice of Ruling

6/2/2022: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; CASE MANAGEMENT CONFE...)

5/26/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; CASE MANAGEMENT CONFE...)

Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

5/20/2022: Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Declaration - DECLARATION DEC OF P, CAESAR COLORADO

5/12/2022: Declaration - DECLARATION DEC OF P, CAESAR COLORADO

Declaration - DECLARATION DEC OF ERIK ALBERTS AND EXHIBITS

5/12/2022: Declaration - DECLARATION DEC OF ERIK ALBERTS AND EXHIBITS

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPP TO MSJ

5/12/2022: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPP TO MSJ

Request for Judicial Notice

5/12/2022: Request for Judicial Notice

Separate Statement

5/12/2022: Separate Statement

Separate Statement

5/12/2022: Separate Statement

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION DEFENDANT CITY OF LONG BEACH'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

6/29/2021: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION DEFENDANT CITY OF LONG BEACH'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

Notice of Ruling

6/30/2021: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATE...)

6/30/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATE...)

Notice - NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY

7/26/2021: Notice - NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY

Declaration - DECLARATION OF JENNIFER J. MOON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CITY OF LONG BEACH'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

11/17/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF JENNIFER J. MOON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CITY OF LONG BEACH'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Motion for Summary Judgment

11/17/2021: Motion for Summary Judgment

Separate Statement

11/17/2021: Separate Statement

35 More Documents Available
View All Documents

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/01/2022
  • Hearing08/01/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department S27 at 275 Magnolia, Long Beach, CA 90802; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2022
  • Hearing07/28/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department S27 at 275 Magnolia, Long Beach, CA 90802; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/02/2022
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by CITY OF LONG BEACH (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department S27; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2022
  • DocketTentative Ruling and Final Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment; Case Management Confe...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2022
  • DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore ((Sharon Cahn, CSR: 6210)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2022
  • DocketReply (to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by CITY OF LONG BEACH (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2022
  • DocketSeparate Statement; Filed by Caesar Colorado (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
50 More Docket Entries
  • 11/25/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order: ORDER TRANSFERRING COMPLICATED PERSONAL INJURY (...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2020
  • DocketOpposition (to Demurrer); Filed by Caesar Colorado (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2020
  • DocketDemurrer - without Motion to Strike; Filed by CITY OF LONG BEACH (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (Declaration of Demurring Party in Support of Automatic Extension); Filed by CITY OF LONG BEACH (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([PI General Order], Standing Order re PI Procedure and Hearing Dates); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2020
  • DocketPI General Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Caesar Colorado (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Caesar Colorado (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Caesar Colorado (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******4061    Hearing Date: April 8, 2021    Dept: S27

  1. Allegations of the Complaint

    Plaintiff, Ceasar Colorado filed this action against Defendant, City of Long Beach for personal injuries sustained as a result of an unfortunate series of events. Plaintiff alleges he became aware of thirteen feral kittens living in the public alley adjacent to his back yard. He went to the City’s Animal Care Services office and requested removal of the kittens. The employee working at the office told him the office could not remove the kittens until they were at least eight weeks old and two pounds in weight. The employee gave Plaintiff vouchers and instructed Plaintiff to use the vouchers to obtain food for the kittens and to feed them until they were old enough and big enough for City removal.

    Plaintiff did as instructed. Within days, he was bitten by fleas. Thereafter, he fell on the floor unconscious. He was transported to the hospital, where he would remain for over a month. He experienced kidney failure and typhus, which is caused by insect bites from wild animals. He has ongoing problems related to his disease and hospitalization.

    The complaint contains a sole cause of action for negligence.

  2. Demurrer

    The City demurs to the complaint. It contends the complaint is subject to demurrer because:

  1. Uncertainty

    Defendant’s first contention is that the complaint is uncertain because it lumps two theories into a single cause of action. Plaintiff concedes, in opposition to the demurrer, that he is bringing claims based on the theory of respondent superior based on a city employee’s negligent act, and also based on a theory of dangerous condition of public property. Plaintiff contends this does not create uncertainty, but does not meaningfully address how or why that would be the case. The Court sustains the demurrer for uncertainty and orders Plaintiff to plead the two theories as separate causes of action.

  2. Negligence

    Defendant argues Plaintiff has not pled duty, breach, causation, and damages. Defendant suggests Plaintiff fed the kittens of his own volition, even though the complaint alleges Plaintiff fed the kittens because he was instructed to do so by Defendant’s employee, and he was concerned he would be held liable for animal cruelty if he did not follow the instructions.

    Plaintiff, in opposition to the demurrer, cites Walker v. County of Los Angeles (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1393, a case wherein an animal control employee asked the plaintiff to assist in catching a dog, and the plaintiff was bitten during the attempt. The Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged, at the pleading stage, that Defendant, through its employee, had the duty to provide good advice, breached that duty by instructing Plaintiff to feed wild animals, and caused Plaintiff’s foreseeable damages when the feral animals carried fleas that caused illness.

    The demurrer on the ground that Plaintiff cannot state a claim for negligence because he cannot allege the elements of negligence is overruled.

  3. Dangerous Condition of Public Property

    Defendant also argues Plaintiff cannot allege a cause of action for dangerous condition of public property because he cannot allege the elements of the claim. Defendant does not state what element of the claim Plaintiff has not pled or cannot plead. Defendant argues it is not clear if the kittens were in the public alley or in Plaintiff’s personal back yard, but the complaint alleges they were in the alley. Thus, at the pleading stage, the Court overrules the demurrer to the dangerous condition of public property cause of action on the ground that Plaintiff cannot allege the elements of the claim.

  4. Gov Code ;;818.6 and 821.4

    Gov Code ;;818.6 and 821.4 provide immunity from liability for a city employee’s failure to timely inspect premises. Plaintiff’s complaint, at ¶15, alleges Defendants breached their duty to timely and reasonably inspect the alley. This is, however, only one theory of liability against the City, and therefore does not subject the complaint to demurrer; at most, Defendant could move to strike this particular allegation; Defendant has not done so. Additionally, as Plaintiff notes in opposition to the demurrer, this immunity only applies to a failure to inspect premises OTHER THAN public premises; because Plaintiff alleges a failure to inspect the public alley itself, this immunity does not appear to apply. Defendant does not address this argument in reply. The demurrer on this ground is overruled.

  5. Gov Code ;820.2

    Gov Code ;820.2 provides that a city employee is not liable for an act or injury resulting from his or her act or omission when the act or omission was the result of the exercise of discretion vested in him or her. As Plaintiff correctly notes in opposition to the demurrer, discretionary immunity relates to policy decisions, not to operational or ministerial acts. See Barner v. Leeds (2000) 24 Cal.4th 676, 685. Plaintiff has not pled any facts tending to implicate a policy decision. Defendant does not address this argument in reply. The demurrer on the ground that the complaint is barred by ;820.2 immunity is therefore also overruled.

  6. Compliance with Government Tort Claims Act

    Plaintiff submitted a government tort claim to the City. The claim is attached as Exhibit B to the demurrer. The claim states, “Consulted Long Beach Animal Care Services, to remove feral animals from my property. They failed to do so. The pest from feral animals gave me Typhus.”

    Plaintiff’s complaint, however, alleges he suffered injury due to animals in the public alley behind his house. Defendant argues this discrepancy, animals on “my property” vs animals in the public alley behind the property, defeats Plaintiff’s complaint. Pursuant to Stockett v. Association of Cal. Water Agencies Jt. Power Ins. Autho. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 411, 446-447, a government tort claim need only fairly reflect the factual basis for recovery. Defendant fails to cite any authority remotely close to on point with respect to the minor discrepancy between Plaintiff’s tort claim and his complaint. The demurrer on this ground is therefore also overruled.

  7. Conclusion

    Defendant’s demurrer on the ground that the complaint is uncertain is sustained. Plaintiff must amend his complaint to clarify that there are two legal theories and two causes of action. The demurrer on all other grounds is overruled. Plaintiff is ordered to file an amended complaint within twenty days. Defendant is ordered to file a responsive pleading within the statutory time thereafter.

    Defendant is ordered to give notice.

    Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.


  8. Case Number: *******4061 Hearing Date: May 26, 2022 Dept: S27

    1. Allegations of the Complaint

      Plaintiff, Ceasar Colorado filed this action against Defendant, City of Long Beach for personal injuries sustained as a result of an unfortunate series of events. Plaintiff alleges he became aware of thirteen feral kittens living in the public alley adjacent to his back yard. He went to the City’s Animal Care Services office and requested removal of the kittens. The employee working at the office told him the office could not remove the kittens until they were at least eight weeks old and two pounds in weight. The employee gave Plaintiff vouchers and instructed Plaintiff to use the vouchers to obtain food for the kittens and to feed them until they were old enough and big enough for City removal.

      Plaintiff did as instructed. Within days, he was bitten by fleas. Thereafter, he fell on the floor unconscious. He was transported to the hospital, where he would remain for over a month. He experienced kidney failure and typhus, which is caused by insect bites from wild animals. He has ongoing problems related to his disease and hospitalization.

      The operative FAC contains causes of action for negligence and dangerous condition of public property.

    2. Motion for Summary Judgment

      The City moves for summary judgment on the FAC, contending:

    • Summary judgment on the first cause of action is proper because Defendant had no duty to Plaintiff.

    • Summary judgment on the second cause of action is proper because Plaintiff cannot prove causation.

    • Summary judgment on the second cause of action is proper because Plaintiff cannot show Defendant had notice of the condition.

    • Defendant is immune under Gov Code 820.2 and 855.4.

    • Defendant is immune under Gov Code 818.6 and 821.4;

    1. Separate Statement

      As an initial note, Defendant argues, in reply, that Plaintiff’s separate statement is defective in two ways. First, Defendant contends Plaintiff improperly includes his own statement of additional facts, which is not permitted per the Rules of Court. While the Rules of Court do not expressly contemplate this document, the Court notes that it is a commonly filed pleading, and can be helpful in analyzing a summary judgment motion. Often some of the facts that the opposing party wishes to have considered are not directly responsive to any fact in the moving statement, such that setting them forth clearly in an additional statement can be helpful. To the extent Defendant complains that the facts in the additional statement merely re-state facts already in the original statement, the Court finds this is not a defect worthy of refusing to consider the additional statement. The Court has considered both the original statement and the additional statement in this ruling.

      Defendant also argues Plaintiff’s purported objections, found in his separate statement, are improper. The Court agrees. CRC 3.1354(b) requires objections to be set forth separately. Additionally, the objections must be to evidence, not to facts in a separate statement. The Court therefore declines to rule on the purported objections, and has considered all evidence provided by both parties in connection with the motion and opposition.

    2. Request for Judicial Notice

      Plaintiff, in connection with his opposition to the motion, seeks judicial notice of the fact that the incubation period for typhus infection is between five and twelve days. The RJN is unopposed and granted.

    3. Duty

      Defendant’s first argument is that the first cause of action for negligence fails because Plaintiff cannot show Defendant breached any duty owed to him. Defendant argue a duty cannot be created absent a “special relationship” between Plaintiff and the City, and argues no such relationship existed because the City did not promise to protect him or induce his reliance on a promise, express or implied, that it would provide him with protection.

      Plaintiff, in opposition, agrees that a special relationship is necessary in order to create a duty. He contends such a relationship was created when the City employee told him to feed the kittens and then trap them himself and bring them to the City. The parties discuss the case of Walker v. County of Los Angeles (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1393 in connection with this issue. In Walker, an animal control employee asked the plaintiff to assist in catching a dog, and the plaintiff was bitten during the attempt.

      The Court considered this issue in connection with Defendant’s demurrer to the complaint, wherein it held:

      The Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged, at the pleading stage, that Defendant, through its employee, had the duty to provide good advice, breached that duty by instructing Plaintiff to feed wild animals, and caused Plaintiff’s foreseeable damages when the feral animals carried fleas that caused illness.

      Nothing has changed between the demurrer and this motion, and the undisputed facts reflect those that were put forth in the complaint. The motion for summary judgment on this ground is therefore denied.

    4. Dangerous Condition of Public Property

      Defendant argues the second cause of action for dangerous condition of public property fails because (a) Plaintiff cannot prove causation, and (b) Defendant lacked notice. Defendant did NOT make an alternative motion for summary adjudication. Thus, even if these arguments had merit, they would not support judgment on the entire complaint, as they are only advanced in connection with the second, but not the first, cause of action. The Court therefore declines to consider them.

    5. Gov Code 820.2 and 855.4

      Defendant argued, in its demurrer to the complaint, that Gov Code 820.2 provided it immunity from Plaintiff’s claims. The Court held:

      Gov Code 820.2 provides that a city employee is not liable for an act or injury resulting from his or her act or omission when the act or omission was the result of the exercise of discretion vested in him or her. As Plaintiff correctly notes in opposition to the demurrer, discretionary immunity relates to policy decisions, not to operational or ministerial acts. See Barner v. Leeds (2000) 24 Cal.4th 676, 685. Plaintiff has not pled any facts tending to implicate a policy decision. Defendant does not address this argument in reply. The demurrer on the ground that the complaint is barred by 820.2 immunity is therefore also overruled.

      Defendant has argued nothing additional at this time, and therefore the motion on the ground that the complaint is barred by 820.2 immunity is denied.

      Defendant also, in its motion, argues it is entitled to immunity per 855.4, which provides for immunity from liability “for an injury resulting from the decision to perform or not to perform any act to promote the public health of the community by preventing disease or controlling the communication of a disease within the community if the decision whether the act was or was not to be performed was the result of the exercise of discretion vested in the public entity or the public employee, whether or not such discretion be abused.”

      The parties discuss the case of Wright v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 683 in this regard. In Wright, the City made a policy decision not to take any action to tear down an abandoned hospital building. The plaintiffs’ child entered the building on her own accord and became terminally ill with hantavirus. The court of appeals agreed with the trial court’s ruling sustaining a demurrer on the ground that the action was barred by 855.4 because the building was abandoned, the City had no duty to eradicate the mice in the abandoned building, and the City had no duty to prevent the plaintiff from entering the abandoned building and encountering the infected mice.

      This is a difficult issue. On balance, though, the case is different. This is not a case about failure to prevent the spread of disease. This is a case about receiving advice from a City employee that directly leads to infection from infected wild animals. On balance, the Court denies the motion.

    6. Gov Code 818.6 and 821.4

      Finally, Defendant argues the case is barred by Gov Code 818.6 and 821.4. On demurrer, the Court held:

      Gov Code 818.6 and 821.4 provide immunity from liability for a city employee’s failure to timely inspect premises. Plaintiff’s complaint, at 15, alleges Defendants breached their duty to timely and reasonably inspect the alley. This is, however, only one theory of liability against the City, and therefore does not subject the complaint to demurrer; at most, Defendant could move to strike this particular allegation; Defendant has not done so. Additionally, as Plaintiff notes in opposition to the demurrer, this immunity only applies to a failure to inspect premises OTHER THAN public premises; because Plaintiff alleges a failure to inspect the public alley itself, this immunity does not appear to apply. Defendant does not address this argument in reply. The demurrer on this ground is overruled.

      Defendant fails to articulate anything different in its summary judgment motion that would entitle it to judgment at this time. Defendant, in reply, argues it is entitled to judgment because Plaintiff failed to present evidence of where he was bitten. It was, however, Defendant’s burden to do so in the moving papers. At a minimum, Defendant was required to provide evidence, through factually devoid discovery responses, that Plaintiff does not know where he was bitten and cannot learn where he was bitten. Defendant appears to rely on Plaintiff’s response to SROG 21, wherein Plaintiff admitted he does not know the exact moment he contacted typhus. Nothing in this statement, however, means Plaintiff does not know where he contracted typhus. The motion on this ground is therefore also denied.

      Defendant is ordered to give notice.

      Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CITY OF LONG BEACH is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MOON, JENNIFER J

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BEVAN KYLE R.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer TROTTER CHELSEA N.