This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/17/2021 at 01:25:09 (UTC).

DAMIAN PEREZ VS VICTORY OUTREACH INTERNATIONAL ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/26/2017 DAMIAN PEREZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against VICTORY OUTREACH INTERNATIONAL. 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 Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9198

  • Filing Date:

    04/26/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Appellants

PEREZ DAMIAN

ONE LEGAL

Defendants

ASTORGA RAUL

VICTORY OUTREACH INTERNATIONAL

SALINAS VICTORY OUTREACH

LANGERICA - SUMMARY JUDGMENT NICHOLAS

Respondent and Defendant

LANGERICA - SUMMARY JUDGMENT NICHOLAS

Not Classified By Court

LEE #13568 LINDA

PITTMAN #13298 ADRA L.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

TREYZON BORIS ESQ.

TREYZON BORIS

SAYRE FEDERICO

Defendant Attorneys

EGAN EUGENE J. ESQ.

LOWARY MARK E. ESQ.

HENRY KELLY

 

Court Documents

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

5/31/2019: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

5/31/2019: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Substitution of Attorney

6/3/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Declaration - DECLARATION OF DAMIAN PEREZ

10/30/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF DAMIAN PEREZ

Memorandum - MEMORANDUM OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

10/30/2019: Memorandum - MEMORANDUM OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

10/30/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

Declaration - DECLARATION OF FEDERICO SAYRE

10/30/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF FEDERICO SAYRE

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION BY PLAINTIFF TO DEFENDANT NICHOLAS LANGARICA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

10/30/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION BY PLAINTIFF TO DEFENDANT NICHOLAS LANGARICA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

11/4/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT) OF 11/04/2019

11/4/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT) OF 11/04/2019

Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT LANGARICAS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DECLARATION OF DAVID H. RYAN

11/13/2019: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT LANGARICAS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DECLARATION OF DAVID H. RYAN

Objection - OBJECTION DEFENDANT NICHOLAS LANGARICAS OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

11/13/2019: Objection - OBJECTION DEFENDANT NICHOLAS LANGARICAS OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Response - RESPONSE DEFENDANT NICHOLAS LANGARICAS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND ADDITIONAL UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY

11/13/2019: Response - RESPONSE DEFENDANT NICHOLAS LANGARICAS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND ADDITIONAL UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY

Notice of Ruling

11/13/2019: Notice of Ruling

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT) OF 11/18/2019

11/18/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT) OF 11/18/2019

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

11/18/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

11/18/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

Notice of Ruling

11/21/2019: Notice of Ruling

83 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/12/2020
  • DocketAppeal Record Delivered; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/27/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; (OSC RE Dismissal) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/21/2020
  • DocketAppeal - Notice Court Reporter to Prepare Appeal Transcript (;B304082, NOA 2/6/20;); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/16/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Nicholas Langerica - SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/30/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/16/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/16/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/10/2020
  • DocketAppeal - Reporter Appeal Transcript Process Fee Paid; Filed by Damian Perez (Appellant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/09/2020
  • DocketAppeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103; Filed by Damian Perez (Appellant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/27/2020
  • DocketAppeal - Notice of Default Issued; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
124 More Docket Entries
  • 06/20/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Damian Perez (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/19/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Victory Outreach International (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/19/2017
  • DocketDEFENDANT VICTORY OUTREACH INTERNATIONAL'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/09/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Damian Perez (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/09/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/31/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Damian Perez (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/31/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/26/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/26/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Damian Perez (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/26/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. NEGLIGENCE ;ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****9198    Hearing Date: November 18, 2019    Dept: 5

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

damian perez,

Plaintiff,

v.

victory outreach international, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: ****9198

Hearing Date: November 18, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion for summary judgment

Background

Plaintiff Damian Perez (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he is a former gang member who lived at a rehabilitation home (the “Home”) owned and operated by Defendants Victory Outreach International and Victory Outreach Salinas. Defendant Nicholas Langerica (“Defendant”) was the assistant pastor for the region of Victory Outreach International that included the home. Plaintiff alleges that he was required to perform community service work outside the residence, even though his visible tattoo made him a target for gang members, and that he was shot as a result. Defendant moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s complaint for negligence. Plaintiff opposes the motion, which is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law . . . .  There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)  “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.”  (Ibid.)  In ruling on the motion, “the court may not weigh the plaintiff's evidence or inferences against the defendant[’s] as though it were sitting as the trier of fact.”  (Id. at 856.)  However, the court “must . . . determine what any evidence or inference could show or imply to a reasonable trier of fact.”  (Ibid., emphasis original.)  

DISCUSSION

A. Summary

To state a claim for negligence, Plaintiff must show that Defendant had a duty to Plaintiff, that Defendant breached that duty, and that the breach caused damages to Plaintiff. (Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1619.)

B. Duty

The Court grants summary judgment because there is no triable issue whether Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty. In support of his motion, Defendant proffers his own declaration, which states that he did not supervise or oversee the home at the time of the shooting. (Declaration of Nicholas Langarica, ¶ 6.) Specifically, Defendant states:

I had no duties or supervisory responsibilities at the Home when [Plaintiff] was there. I would, on occasion, go to the Home as a church leader and meet with residents to provide help with their progress in adjusting to life out of prison. I did not supervise the operation of the Home and I had no involvement in its supervision, such as assigning the residents to community service.

(Ibid.) It is undisputed that Plaintiff resided at the Home voluntarily. (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts, ¶ 13.) This evidence is sufficient to satisfy Defendant’s burden, shifting the burden to Plaintiff.

In opposition, Plaintiff relies on his own declaration. Plaintiff states that Defendant told him that he “really needed to get the tattoo removed.” (Declaration of Damien Perez, ¶ 14.) Plaintiff states that Defendant “always asked what was going on with the tattoo and why [Plaintiff] still had it.” (Ibid.) According to Plaintiff, in order to have the tattoo removed, he needed a letter verifying that he had completed twenty hours of community service, and that Defendant said he would ask co-Defendant Raul Astorga to write the letter. (Declaration of Damien Perez, ¶¶ 15-16.) This evidence is insufficient to create a triable issue whether Defendant had any duty toward Plaintiff because it does not establish that Defendant had any supervisory responsibility over the house or its residents. The mere fact that Defendant offered to help Plaintiff obtain the required letter does not give rise to a duty.

Nor does this evidence suggest that Defendant has liability for the acts of a third party. “A person who has not created a peril is ordinarily not liable in tort merely for failure to take affirmative action to assist or protect another, unless there is some [r]elationship between them which gives rise to a duty to act.”  (Winkelman v. City of Sunnyvale (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 509, 512, internal quotations omitted.) Plaintiff argues that the promise of tattoo removal upon completion of twenty hours of community service gives rise to such a special relationship. Even if Plaintiff is correct, as discussed above, Defendant has proffered evidence, which Plaintiff does not controvert, that Defendant did not oversee the home at the time of the shooting. In other words, any agreement between Plaintiff and the home giving rise to a special relationship does not support liability against Defendant. Therefore, the Court grants summary judgment because there is no triable issue whether Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty.

C. Breach

In the alternative, the Court grants summary judgment because there is no triable issue whether Defendant breached any duty. As discussed, Defendant proffers evidence that he was not involved in assigning community service work. Moreover, it is undisputed that:

Plaintiff knew that residents of the Home were expected to work at various locations, with pay for their work hours going to the Home for expenses, but they volunteered to do this. Plaintiff told Astorga that there were places he did not want to do, and they did not force him to go there. He did not want to go to Chinatown and they never sent him to Chinatown to pass out flyers.

(Id., ¶ 18.) This satisfies Defendant’s burden, and Plaintiff proffers insufficient evidence to create a triable issue. At best, Plaintiff’s evidence suggests that Astorga, and not Defendant, failed to provide the letter. Assuming this was a breach of a duty, Defendant is not responsible because, as discussed, he did not supervise Astorga or the Home, and there is no evidence that he failed to speak to Astorga about providing a letter. Therefore, in the alternative, the Court grants summary judgment because there is no triable issue whether Defendant breached any duty.

D. Causation

In the alternative, the Court grants summary judgment because there is no triable issue whether Plaintiff was shot because of the gang tattoo. Defendant argues that the shooting was not related to the tattoo because the shooting occurred at night, i.e., when the tattoo was not easily visible to the shooter. (Id., ¶ 36.) Defendant also relies on Plaintiff’s admissions that: (1) He did not see any strangers or anyone matching the shooter’s description at the church service earlier that day; (2) He did not see anyone waiting in the church’s parking lot when he left; and (3) He did not see anyone follow him. (Id., ¶¶ 34-35.) This satisfies Defendant’s burden, shifting the burden to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff cannot satisfy his burden. Plaintiff states: “I have a gang tattoo, NR, on my neck, that I believe was the reason I was shot.” (Declaration of Damien Martinez, ¶ 4.) This evidence lacks foundation and is not sufficient to give rise to a triable issue on causation. Although the shooter allegedly identified Plaintiff by name, that does not mean the shooting was gang related. The mere fact that police officers “focused on the evidence which indicated a gang shooting” does not mean this was a gang shooting. Plaintiff proffers no expert testimony suggesting that the shooting was gang related. In sum, Plaintiff has nothing more than speculation supporting his theory that he was shot because of his gang tattoo. Therefore, in the alternative, the Court grants summary judgment because there is no triable issue whether the shooting was caused by the gang tattoo.

E. Assumption of Risk

Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of being shot when he chose to appear in public without covering his tattoo. The Court need not reach this issue since it is granting summary judgment based upon the failure to establish a triable issue on duty, breach, and causation.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: November 18, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court



Case Number: ****9198    Hearing Date: November 05, 2019    Dept: 5

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

damian perez,

Plaintiff,

v.

victory outreach international, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: ****9198

Hearing Date: November 5, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion for summary judgment

Plaintiff Damian Perez (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he is a former gang member who lived at a rehabilitation home that Defendants Victory Outreach International and Victory Outreach Salinas owned and operated. Defendant Nicholas Langerica (“Defendant”) was the assistant pastor for the region of Victory Outreach International that included the home. Plaintiff alleges that his performance of volunteer work was a condition of his residence in the home. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant negligently required Plaintiff to perform volunteer work outside the home, even though his visible tattoo make him a target for gang members. Plaintiff contends that he was shot as a result of Defendant’s requirement that he volunteer outside the home.

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on May 6, 2019, which was noticed for hearing on November 5, 2019. Plaintiff filed an opposition on October 30, 2019, which is only four court days before the hearing. Plaintiff has violated Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, which requires that an opposition be filed nine court days before the hearing. Therefore, the Court continues the hearing on this motion to November 18, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. Defendant may file a reply brief within statutory time periods. The Court’s clerk shall provide notice of the continuance.

DATED: November 4, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Victory Outreach International is a litigant

Latest cases where LEE LINDA E. LAW OFFICES OF is a litigant

Latest cases where ONE LEGAL is a litigant