Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/25/2021 at 06:40:49 (UTC).

DANIEL WOODARD, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS BCAL 101 NORTH BRAND PROPERTY, LLC, A BUSINESS, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 05/17/2019 DANIEL WOODARD, AN INDIVIDUAL filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against BCAL 101 NORTH BRAND PROPERTY, LLC, A BUSINESS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Glendale Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE, CURTIS A. KIN and SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******7357

  • Filing Date:

    05/17/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Glendale Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

CURTIS A. KIN

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

WOODARD AN INDIVIDUAL JENNIFER

WOODARD AN INDIVIDUAL DANIEL

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

BCAL 101 NORTH BRAND PROPERTY LLC A BUSINESS

AVISON YOUNG - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LTD. A BUSINESS ENTITY

DOES 1 THROUGH 100 INCLUSIVE

KARDENT A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

BEACON CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC A BUSINESS ENTITY

UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE LP DBA ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES

TURELK INC.

ABLE CONTRACT ENGINEERING LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

A-1 FENCE COMPANY

Cross Defendants

ROES 1 THROUGH 50

MOSES 1 TO 20

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

LANZETTA TOBIN M.

LANZETTA TOBIN M ESQ.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

PALTA AMIT

MURTAUGH DEVIN E.

BASILE CARL

BLACKSTONE SCOTT S.

BASILE CARL J ESQ.

MURTAUGH DEVIN EMERSON ESQ.

PALTA AMIT ESQ.

BLACKSTONE SCOTT STEPHEN ESQ.

BERGSTEN ROBERT

BERGSTEN ROBERT TROY

 

Court Documents

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

12/4/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; CASE MANAGEMENT CONFE...)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

11/16/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice of Entry of Judgment / Dismissal / Other Order

11/17/2020: Notice of Entry of Judgment / Dismissal / Other Order

Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING NOTICE OF LODGMENT OF [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

10/20/2020: Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING NOTICE OF LODGMENT OF [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW)

8/20/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW)

Objection - OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

7/17/2020: Objection - OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Response - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT

7/17/2020: Response - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF TOBIN M. LANZETTA IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE LPS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICAT

7/10/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF TOBIN M. LANZETTA IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE LPS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICAT

Answer

6/30/2020: Answer

Declaration - DECLARATION OF BASILE

5/8/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF BASILE

Motion for Summary Judgment

5/8/2020: Motion for Summary Judgment

Separate Statement

5/8/2020: Separate Statement

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

1/28/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

10/21/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Answer

11/18/2019: Answer

Answer

11/22/2019: Answer

Answer

8/5/2019: Answer

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

5/17/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

70 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/01/2021
  • Hearing11/01/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department E at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2021
  • Hearing10/21/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department E at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2021
  • Docketat 2:00 PM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2021
  • Docketat 2:00 PM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Motion to Compel an Independent Medical Examination) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/30/2020
  • DocketNotice of Entry of Judgment / Dismissal / Other Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/30/2020
  • DocketJudgment (ON KARDENT?S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT); Filed by Kardent, a California corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2020
  • DocketNotice (NOTICE OF COURT ORDER RE: TRIAL DATE); Filed by Daniel Woodard, an individual (Plaintiff); Jennifer Woodard, an individual (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
83 More Docket Entries
  • 08/05/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by BCAL 101 North Brand Property, LLC, a business (Defendant); Beacon Capital Partners, LLC, a business entity (Defendant); Avison Young - Southern California, LTD., a business entity (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Daniel Woodard, an individual (Plaintiff); Jennifer Woodard, an individual (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Daniel Woodard, an individual (Plaintiff); Jennifer Woodard, an individual (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Daniel Woodard, an individual (Plaintiff); Jennifer Woodard, an individual (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Daniel Woodard, an individual (Plaintiff); Jennifer Woodard, an individual (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Daniel Woodard, an individual (Plaintiff); Jennifer Woodard, an individual (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Daniel Woodard, an individual (Plaintiff); Jennifer Woodard, an individual (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Daniel Woodard, an individual (Plaintiff); Jennifer Woodard, an individual (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Daniel Woodard, an individual (Plaintiff); Jennifer Woodard, an individual (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STCV17357    Hearing Date: December 04, 2020    Dept: E

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[CCP § 437c; CRC 3.1350 et seq.]

Date: 12/4/20 (2:00 PM)

Case: Daniel Woodward v. BCal 101 North Brand Property, LLC (19STCV17357)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Kardent’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Defendant Kardent contends that it is entitled to summary judgment because it did not owe any duty to plaintiff. (Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998 [element of first cause of action for negligence and second cause of action for premises liability is duty; Blain v. Doctor's Co. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1048, 1067 [if negligence and premises liability causes of action fail, derivative third cause of action for loss of consortium also fails].)

“The general rule is that a person who has not created a peril is not liable in tort for failing to take affirmative action to protect another unless they have some relationship that gives rise to a duty to act. [Citation.]” (Paz v. State of California (2000) 22 Cal.4th 550, 558.) Here, Kardent presents evidence indicating that it may not have had a duty to protect plaintiff Daniel Woodard from tripping on a step at the subject property located at 101 North Brand Boulevard in the City of Glendale (“Plaza”). The step on which plaintiff Daniel Woodard tripped and fell existed before Kardent entered into a contract with the property owner regarding a renovation project in the Plaza. (UMF 1 and evidence cited.) Kardent had no role in designing or building the step or the path in which the step was located, described in Kardent’s motion as the “Paver Path.” (UMF 3 and evidence cited.) To the extent that the subject step may be found to be a dangerous condition, Kardent meets its initial burden of production in demonstrating that it bears no liability to plaintiffs because Kardent had no duty to fix the preexisting, defective condition.

“However, one who undertakes to aid another is under a duty to exercise due care in acting and is liable if the failure to do so increases the risk of harm or if the harm is suffered because the other relied on the undertaking.” (Paz v. State of California (2000) 22 Cal.4th 550, 558–59.) “[T]he negligent undertaking theory of liability requires more than simply establishing defendants' undertaking to another. Under [Restatement Second of Torts] section 324A, liability depends on whether: (a) defendants' failure to exercise reasonable care increased the risk of physical harm to the third person; or (b) defendants undertook to perform a duty the other owed to the third person; or (c) the harm was suffered because the other or the third person relied on defendants' undertaking.” (Paz, 22 Cal.4th at 560.)

Under the contract with the property owner, Kardent was charged with converting a conceptual design from a different architectural firm to construction documents, submitting the documents for approval from the City of Glendale, and observing the contractor’s progress in renovating the Plaza. (UMF 8, 9 and evidence cited.) Plaintiffs allege in discovery responses that Kardent was the architect of record and had some involvement in the property’s ingress and egress routes. (UMF 14 and evidence cited.) Plaintiffs also contend that a firefighter responding to Daniel Woodard’s injuries indicated that the step on which he tripped and fell should have been marked in yellow. (UMF 14 and evidence cited.)

Kardent presents evidence that it may not be liable under a negligent undertaking theory of liability.

With respect to the first alternative for negligent undertaking liability, Kardent presents evidence that any failure to exercise reasonable care may not have increased the risk that plaintiff Daniel Woodard would trip and fall. Kardent was not the contractor performing the renovations. (UMF 9, 11 and evidence cited.) Moreover, Kardent was not charged with ensuring the safety of pedestrian pathways at the subject property or managing the construction site. (UMF 10 and evidence cited.) Accordingly, any failure to act on the part of Kardent did not increase the alleged risk posed by the lack of a yellow contrast stripe on the step where plaintiff Daniel Woodard fell.

With respect to the second alternative for negligent undertaking liability, Kardent presents evidence that it may have owed no duty to the property owner to protect pedestrians in the Plaza from injury. Because Kardent was not responsible for performing renovations on the subject property and was not contractually responsible for ensuring the safety of pedestrians on the property, Kardent cannot be said to have assumed any duty from the property owner to ensure plaintiff’s safety as a pedestrian on the Paver Path. (UMF 9-11 and evidence cited.)

With respect to the third alternative for negligent undertaking liability, Kardent presents evidence that plaintiff Daniel Woodard’s trip and fall may not have been the result of any reliance of plaintiff or the property owner on Kardent’s undertaking. Kardent’s contractual undertaking was in furtherance of a private renovation project, not to ensure the safety of pedestrians on the property. (UMF 7-10 and evidence cited.) Accordingly, neither plaintiff nor the property owner relied on Kardent to place a contrast stripe on the step where plaintiff tripped and fell.

Defendant Kardent presents sufficient evidence to meet its initial burden of production in establishing that it did not have a duty to protect plaintiff from tripping over the subject step. Kardent’s undertaking in effectuating the renovation plans of the other architectural firm for the subject property did not include remedying any dangerous condition in the Plaza where plaintiff Daniel Woodard tripped and fell.

Based on the foregoing, the burden shifts to plaintiffs to establish a triable issue of material fact regarding whether Kardent owed a duty to plaintiff. (CCP § 437c(p)(2).) On November 20, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition. Therefore, the motion is well taken.

Accordingly, because plaintiffs have failed to raise a triable issue of material fact, defendant Kardent’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Case Number: 19STCV17357    Hearing Date: October 16, 2020    Dept: E

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

[CCP § 437c; CRC 3.1350 et seq.]

Date: 10/16/20 (2:00 pm)

Case: Daniel Woodward v. BCal 101 North Brand Property, LLC (19GDCV00705)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Universal Protection Service LP dba Allied Universal Security Services’ (“Universal”) Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

I. ISSUE NO. 1: NEGLIGENCE

With respect to Issue No. 1, defendant Universal contends that it did not owe any duty to plaintiff, that it did not breach any duty to plaintiff, and that it did not cause plaintiff’s injuries. (Peredia v. HR Mobile Services, Inc. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 680, 687.)

At 1:45 p.m. on April 24, 2018, plaintiff Daniel Woodard tripped and fell in an outdoor plaza located on the property owned by BCal 101 North Brand Property, LLC (“BCal”). (UMF 10, 11 and evidence cited.) BCal hired moving defendant Universal to monitor the interior of the building located at the property and assist visitors, tenants, couriers, and delivery vendors from the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (UMF 25 and evidence cited.) During these hours, the individual at the security console inside the lobby of the building cannot leave the console unattended. (UMF 24, 26 and evidence cited.) BCal did not retain any security guards to conduct exterior patrols, including at the outdoor plaza where plaintiff fell, at the time of the incident. (UMF 18, 19 and evidence cited.) BCal’s “Post Orders” to Universal did not include any duty to look for any pavement hazards in the pavement of the outdoor plaza at any time. (UMF 27 and evidence cited.) Accordingly, Universal had no duties concerning the outdoor plaza where plaintiff tripped and fell at the time of the incident. (UMF 23 and evidence cited.)

Defendant Universal presents sufficient evidence to meet its initial burden of production in establishing that it did not have a duty to protect plaintiff from tripping over the subject step. Universal’s undertaking in providing security services for the subject property did not include monitoring for any hazards in the outdoor plaza where plaintiff tripped and fell. (Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal.4th 224, 249 [“[T]he scope of any duty assumed [by a proprietor who hires a guard] depends upon the nature of the undertaking”].) Further, in discovery responses, plaintiffs were unable to identify any facts to support the finding of any duty, breach, or causation on the part of Universal. (UMF 6-8 and evidence cited.)

Accordingly, the burden shifts to plaintiffs to establish a triable issue of material fact concerning the first cause of action for negligence. (CCP § 437c(p)(2).) On October 2, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition and withdrew the opposition they filed on July 10, 2020.

II. ISSUE NO. 2: PREMISES LIABILITY

With respect to Issue No. 2, defendant Universal presents evidence that it did not own, lease, occupy, or control the property where plaintiff Daniel Woodard was injured. (UMF 20, 21 and evidence cited.) Nor was defendant involved in the construction, modification, or design of the outdoor plaza where plaintiff fell. (UMF 22 and evidence cited.) Accordingly, the burden shifts to plaintiffs to establish a triable issue of material fact concerning the second cause of action for premises liability. (CCP § 437c(p)(2); CACI 1000 [element of premises liability is that defendant owned, leased, occupied, or controlled property].) As stated above, plaintiffs do not oppose this motion.

III. ISSUE NO. 3: LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

With respect to Issue No. 3, because the negligence and premises liability claims fail, plaintiff Jennifer Woodard’s loss of consortium claim also fails. (Blain v. Doctor's Co. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1048, 1067.)

For the foregoing reasons, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Defendant Universal Protection Service LP dba Allied Universal Security Services is ordered to lodge a proposed judgment within one week hereof.

Case Number: 19STCV17357    Hearing Date: July 24, 2020    Dept: 29

19STCV17357 Woodward v. BCal 101 North Brand Boulevard, et al

Court Order Re: Transfer and Reassignment of Complicated Personal Injury (“PI”) Case to An Independent Calendar ("IC") Courtroom from Department 29, a PI Hub Court.

The Court's order Re: Transfer of Complicated Personal Injury Case to an Independent Calendar Court, is posted on the Court's website.

AFTER REVIEW OF THE FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER:

Department 29 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above-entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented.

At the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby ordered reassigned and transferred to the North Central District, Glendale, the Honorable CURTIS A. KIN, Judge presiding in Department E, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court.

Hearing on the above motion and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court. (NOTE:  All hearings currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are taken off calendar subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re:  New hearing dates.)

Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all parties of record.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where AVISON YOUNG - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LTD. A BUSINESS ENTITY is a litigant

Latest cases where A-1 FENCE COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases where MOSES 1 TO 20 is a litigant