This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/13/2019 at 06:34:05 (UTC).

DAJOHN ORANGE VS ERIC & ERNIE LLC

Case Summary

On 05/19/2017 DAJOHN ORANGE filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ERIC ERNIE LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2088

  • Filing Date:

    05/19/2017

  • 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

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

ORANGE DAJOHN

Defendants and Respondents

THE ASSOCIATION

DOES 1 TO 20

ERIC & ERNIE LLC

ARNISTICE PROTECTIVE & INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

IVIE RICKEY ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

WOLF MATTHEW C. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL FSC AND RELATED MOTION DISCOVERY DATES PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY CENTRAL DISTRICT

9/4/2018: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL FSC AND RELATED MOTION DISCOVERY DATES PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY CENTRAL DISTRICT

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

9/19/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

Proof of Personal Service

3/11/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Amendment to Cross-Complaint

3/27/2019: Amendment to Cross-Complaint

Minute Order

5/6/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

5/8/2019: Notice of Ruling

Ex Parte Application

5/8/2019: Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

5/8/2019: Minute Order

DEFENDANT ERIC & ERNIE, LLC, DBA THE ASSOCIATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

11/16/2017: DEFENDANT ERIC & ERNIE, LLC, DBA THE ASSOCIATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

11/16/2017: SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

Unknown

11/16/2017: Unknown

CROSS-COMPLAINT - PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH

11/16/2017: CROSS-COMPLAINT - PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH

PREMISES LIABILITY COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

5/19/2017: PREMISES LIABILITY COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

SUMMONS

5/19/2017: SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

6/15/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

3 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (stipulation to continue trial, final status conference, and related dates) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application stipulation to continue trial...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (Joint Application re Stipulation to Continue Trial, etc.); Filed by DaJohn Orange (Plaintiff); Eric & Ernie, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Eric & Ernie, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • Amendment to Cross-Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Eric & Ernie, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by DaJohn Orange (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
7 More Docket Entries
  • 11/16/2017
  • Receipt; Filed by Eric & Ernie, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by Eric & Ernie, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Eric & Ernie, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • Answer; Filed by Eric & Ernie, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by DaJohn Orange (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2017
  • PREMISES LIABILITY COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by DaJohn Orange (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC662088    Hearing Date: December 18, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS CROSS-COMPLAINT

On May 19, 2017, Plaintiff DaJohn Orange (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Eric & Ernie, LLC dba The Association (“E&E”) asserting a cause of action for premises liability arising from a fight at a nightclub on February 28, 2016. On November 16, 2017, E&E filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Roes 1-100, asserting causes of action for indemnification, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief. On March 27, 2019, E&E added Armistice Protective & Investigative Service, Inc. as Roe 1. On August 5, 2019, E&E added X-Zero Protective Services, Inc. (“X-Zero”) as Roe 2. E&E served X-Zero by leaving a copy of the cross-complaint at its office on September 9, 2019. X-Zero filed its motion to dismiss the cross-complaint on October 31, 2019. X-Zero moves to dismiss pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410, on the grounds that E&E was not genuinely ignorant of X-Zero’s identity when it filed the cross-complaint and unreasonably delayed its prosecution of the case against X-Zero.

As an initial matter, E&E did not timely file and serve its opposition. X-Zero filed a reply brief, but if X-Zero needs additional time to respond to the opposition, it should request a brief continuance.

When a party names a new party as a Doe instead of seeking leave to amend, and that new party contends the party was dilatory and unreasonably delayed, the new party “must show specific prejudice.” (A.N. v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1058, 1069.) An alternative to naming a new party as a Doe is to seek leave to amend the pleading. A cross-complaint against a third party for indemnification is permissive. (Code Civil. Proc., § 428.10, subd. (b).) After a party answers, that party must seek leave of court to add a third party. Leave of court may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the action. (Code Civil. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (c).) The statute of limitations on an equitable indemnity claim “does not begin to run until liability is established in the original action.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 283.) A third option is filing a new action against the new party. The party alleging equitable indemnity can file a separate action, although there are “practical advantages of indemnity actions brought by way of a cross-complaint,” such as “permitting a complete determination of the dispute among all the parties by consolidating related evidence and matter of proof in a single judicial proceeding. (Id. at p. 286.)

X-Zero argues that because E&E allegedly knew X-Zero’s identity when it filed its cross-complaint and did not name X-Zero, E&E could not wait an unreasonable time to name X-Zero as a Roe. X-Zero argues that E&E delayed too long and there is not sufficient time for X-Zero to prepare for trial.

Assuming without deciding that E&E knew X-Zero’s identity earlier and that E&E unreasonably delayed, E&E has not shown specific prejudice caused by the delay. In addition, under section 428.50 the interests of justice weigh in favor of the equitable indemnity claim being tried with the rest of the case. The claims all arise from the same incident at the night club, so most if not all of the evidence will be the same. E&E could have been more diligent in investigating the dispute once it was sued, but X-Zero has not shown how it was prejudice by E&E lack of diligence. The parties did not describe the discovery that has been completed and remains to be completed. Because trial is set for May 15, 2020 and discovery remains open, there is sufficient time before trial to take discovery. Indeed, X-Zero states “[t]his is not a complex case.” (Mot. at p. 20.) If X-Zero were dismissed form this case, E&E could file a new action naming X-Zero as a defendant because the statute of limitations on an equitable indemnity claim has not yet begun to run. It is more efficient to allow a complete determination of the dispute in one action.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.