On 02/27/2018 DAVID GREENSTEIN filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against PREFERRED HOTEL GROUP INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GEORGINA T. RIZK, KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE, SERENA R. MURILLO, JILL FEENEY and MARK A. BORENSTEIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
GEORGINA T. RIZK
KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE
SERENA R. MURILLO
MARK A. BORENSTEIN
THE HUNTLEY HOTEL
PREFERRED HOTEL GROUP INC
DOES 1 TO 100
SECOND STREET CORPORATION (DOE 1)
SECOND STREET CORPORATION DOE 1
SECOND STREET CORPORATION DOE 1 DBA THE HUNTLEY HOTEL
THE HUNTLEY HOTEL ANSWERED AS SECOND STREET CORPORATION DBA THE HUNTLEY HOTEL ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS THE HUNTLEY HOTEL DBA THE HUNTLEY HOTEL
DWORK JONATHAN ESQ.
PURCELL CHRISTOPHER EGAN ESQ.
CRAWFORD SHELBY B. ESQ.
CRAWFORD SHELBY BROOKE
CRAWFORD SHELBY BROOKE ESQ.
1/12/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE 3 TO EXCLUDE DEFENDANT FROM INTRODUCING TESTIMONY, OR REPORTS PREPARED BY NON-DESIGNATED EXPERT DEREK SLABOSZ
1/12/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE 2 TO EXCLUDE NON-DESIGNATED EXPERTS FROM TESTIFYING AT TIME OF TRIAL
1/12/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT SECOND STREET CORPORATION DBA THE HUNTLEY HOTELS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE 5 TO PRECLUDE PREVIOUSLY UNIDENTIFIED AND UNDISCLOSED EXPERT WITNES
1/12/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE4 TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF MARK BLANCHETTE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF MARK BLANCHETTE
12/7/2021: Notice of Ruling
10/22/2021: Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts
10/26/2021: Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts
11/16/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE 1 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO ANDOR USE OF THE TERM VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
11/16/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR UNDERTAKING
11/16/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC))
11/17/2021: Notice - NOTICE OF TAKING EX PARTE APPLICATION OFF CALENDAR
11/17/2021: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANTS EXPERT MARK BLANCHETTE, PHD; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO BRING
11/19/2021: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANTS REPLY MEMORANDUM TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR UNDERTAKING
11/24/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF LAURA A. FREE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT SECOND STREET CORPORATION DBA THE HUNTLEY HOTELS MOTIONS IN LIMINE
11/24/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT SECOND STREET CORPORATION DBA THE HUNTLEY HOTELS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE 4 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY CONCERNING DEFENDANTS WEBSITE O
11/24/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT SECOND STREET CORPORATION DBA THE HUNTLEY HOTELS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE 1 TO PRECLUDE PRECONDITIONING DURING VOIR DIRE AND TO EXCLUDE EVIDE
11/24/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT SECOND STREET CORPORATION DBA THE HUNTLEY HOTELS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE 2 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES NOT PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED OR PR
11/24/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANT SECOND STREET CORPORATION DBA THE HUNTLEY HOTELS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE 3 TO PRECLUDE OPINIONS FROM UNDISCLOSED EXPERTS, LIMIT TESTIMONY OF
Hearing02/07/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 30 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing01/24/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 30 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Hearing01/14/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 30 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 30, Jill Feeney, Presiding; Jury Trial (Estimated at 5-7 days) - Not Held - Continued - Court's MotionRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 30, Jill Feeney, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Order (Filed by the Defendant for Order Requiring Plaintiff to Post An Undertaking (CCP 1030)) - Not Held - Continued - Party's MotionRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Second Street Corporation (DOE 1) (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 30, Jill Feeney, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Order (Filed by the Defendant for Order Requiring Plaintiff to Post An Undertaking (CCP 1030)) - Held - Motion DeniedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 30, Jill Feeney, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (-Final Status Conference; -Hearing on Motion for Order File...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by Second Street Corporation (DOE 1) (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by David Greenstein (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketAMENDMENT TO COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
DocketAmendment to Complaint; Filed by David Greenstein (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT BY SECOND STREET CORPORATION DBA THE HUNTLEY HOTEL AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALRead MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by Second Street Corporation Erroneously Sued As The Huntley Hotel (answered as Second Street Corporation dba The Huntley Hotel erroneously sued as The Huntley Hotel) (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketReceipt; Filed by Second Street Corporation Erroneously Sued As The Huntley Hotel (answered as Second Street Corporation dba The Huntley Hotel erroneously sued as The Huntley Hotel) (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by David Greenstein (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC695620 Hearing Date: December 1, 2021 Dept: 30
\r\n\r\nDepartment\r\n30, Spring Street Courthouse\r\n
Defendant’s Motion Requiring Plaintiff to Post an\r\nUndertaking\r\n\r\n
Defendant’s motion for\r\nundertaking is denied.\r\n\r\n
Moving\r\nparty is ordered to give notice.\r\n\r\n
On February 27, 2018, Plaintiff\r\nDavid Greenstein filed a complaint and then amended his complaint April 30,\r\n2018 against Defendants Preferred Hotel Group, Inc. and Second Street\r\nCorporation dba The Huntley Hotel.\r\n\r\n
Plaintiff alleges that on August\r\n12, 2017, Plaintiff was in the gym at Defendant’s property, when he tipped his\r\nwheelchair and fell while attempting to navigate through the narrow pathways.\r\nPlaintiff alleges causes of action for premises liability and negligence.\r\n\r\n
On November 3, 2021, Defendant\r\nSecond Street Corporation dba The Huntley Hotel (“Defendant”) filed the pending\r\nmotion for an order requiring Plaintiff to post an undertaking.\r\n\r\n
Final status conference is set\r\nfor December 1, 2021. Trial is set for December 8, 2021.\r\n\r\n
Summary of Arguments\r\n\r\n
Defendant seeks an order requiring Plaintiff to\r\npost an undertaking of $65,000. Defendant argues it\r\nis clear Plaintiff resides out of state and that Defendant has a reasonable\r\npossibility of success in this action. Defendant points out Plaintiff’s\r\ndiscovery responses reflect that Plaintiff is a resident of New York. Defendant\r\nargues it has a reasonable possibility of success in the subject action because\r\nPlaintiff’s claims lack factual support. Specifically, Defendant contends there\r\nis no evidence that the defendant breached its duty of care to Plaintiff or\r\nthat it created a dangerous condition in gymnasium where the incident occurred.\r\nDefendant also argues that even if Defendant is found to have breached its\r\nduty, it is not clear that breach was a substantial factor in causing\r\nPlaintiff’s injuries due to Plaintiff’s own actions leading up to the incident.\r\n\r\n
Plaintiff\r\nargues Defendant relies on speculation of what the jury will conclude rather\r\nthan presenting evidence showing Defendant has a reasonable possibility of\r\nprevailing. Plaintiff also argues that even if the speculation was considered\r\nevidence it would be insufficient to conclude Defendant has a reasonable\r\npossibility of prevailing. Plaintiff also argues the amount for the undertaking\r\nDefendant seeks is excessive because the bulk of the costs Defendant lists are\r\nanticipated costs without providing support for these costs.\r\n\r\n
Defendant\r\nargues it has met the reasonable possibility standard and that Plaintiff’s\r\narguments to contrary are flawed because they conflate possibility with probability.\r\nDefendant also argues that the requested amount of $65,000 is not excessive and\r\nthat the requested amount can be both anticipatory and a reasonable estimate.\r\n\r\n
“When the plaintiff\r\nin an action or special proceeding resides out of the state, or is a foreign\r\ncorporation, the defendant may at any time apply to the court by noticed motion\r\nfor an order requiring the plaintiff to file an undertaking.” (Code Civ. Proc.,\r\n§ 1030(a).) The plaintiff, however, will not be required to file an undertaking\r\nunless “there is a reasonable possibility that the moving defendant will obtain\r\njudgment in the action or special proceeding.” (Id., § 1030(b).) The motion must be accompanied by an affidavit\r\nstating the nature and amount of costs and attorney’s fees the defendant has\r\nincurred and expects to incur. (Id.)\r\n\r\n
If the motion is\r\ngranted and the plaintiff fails to file the undertaking within the time\r\nallowed, the plaintiff’s action or special proceeding shall be dismissed as to\r\nthe defendant in whose favor the order requiring the undertaking was made.\r\n(Code Civ. Proc., §1030(d).) “The determinations of\r\nthe court under this section have no effect on the determination of any issues\r\non the merits of the action or special proceeding and may not be given in\r\nevidence nor referred to in the trial of the action or proceeding.” (Id., §1030(f).)\r\n\r\n
Defendant\r\nSecond Street Corporation dba The Huntley Hotel moves for a security\r\nundertaking to be posted by Plaintiffs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure\r\nsection 1030 in the sum of $65,000.\r\n\r\n
It\r\nis undisputed that Plaintiff is a resident of New York. (See Opp., p.\r\n1.) Thus, the focus of this motion is whether Defendant has shown there is a\r\nreasonable possibility that the moving defendant will obtain judgment in the\r\nsubject action.\r\n\r\n
Defendant\r\nfails to show there is a reasonable possibility that Defendant will obtain a\r\nfavorable judgement in this action.\r\n\r\n
The\r\nlaw is clear that the burden of showing a reasonable possibility of obtaining\r\njudgment rests with the moving defendant. (Baltayan v. Estate of Getemyan\r\n(2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1427, 1432.) To meet this burden, case law supports the\r\nview that a defendant must make a sufficient evidentiary showing. (See\r\nShannon v. Sims Serv. Ctr., Inc. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 907, 914\r\n(“respondent carried its burden of proof of showing, by declaration, a\r\nreasonable possibility of prevailing by proper reference to the results of the\r\nearlier arbitration hearing.”); Baltayan, 90 Cal.App.4th at 1432\r\n(“[Respondents] satisfied this burden by directing the court to the arbitration\r\naward, the arbitrator's letter, and the police report.”); Gabriel Techs.\r\nCorp. v. Qualcomm Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2010) 2010 WL 3718848, at *5 (“To satisfy\r\nthe requirements of section 1030, Defendants must produce sufficient evidence\r\nto demonstrate they have a ‘reasonable possibility’ of defeating each of\r\nPlaintiffs' claims.… [T]his burden requires Defendants to do more than simply\r\nraise possible defenses.”).)\r\n\r\n
In\r\narguing there is a substantial possibility that Defendant will secure a favorable\r\njudgement, Defendant relies on Plaintiff’s Complaint, surveillance footage from\r\na nearby hotel camera, the Deposition of Saud Sadiq, M.D. (Plaintiff’s doctor),\r\nand the Deposition of Plaintiff. (See Exhibits attached to Motion.)\r\n\r\n
To\r\nestablish there is a reasonable possibility Defendant will prevail on breach\r\nand on whether Defendant created a dangerous condition in the gymnasium,\r\nDefendant mainly asserts there is no evidence unfavorable to Defendant on these\r\nmatters. Defendant also points out that Plaintiff has had multiple sclerosis\r\nfor many years and, aware of his condition, still went into the gym\r\nunaccompanied. How this shows Defendant did not breach its duty or create a\r\ndangerous condition on its premises, Defendant does not say. Defendant has not\r\nmade a sufficient showing that there is a reasonable possibility it will\r\nprevail on breach and the creation of a dangerous condition in its gymnasium.\r\n\r\n
Next, Defendant argues that even if is found to have breached\r\nits duty, it is not clear that breach was a substantial factor in causing\r\nPlaintiff’s injury due to Plaintiff’s own actions leading up to the incident.\r\nTo make this argument, Defendant analyzes and supplies its own interpretation\r\nof the circumstances of the incident. The\r\ncircumstances Defendant cites and their relation to Plaintiff’s fall are open\r\nto interpretation. Defendant’s interpretation presents one possible way the\r\nincident could have occurred, but Defendant does not show its interpretation has\r\na plausibility beyond that of a hypothesis. Thus, without more, Defendant\r\nestablishes there is a mere possibility, rather than a reasonable possibility,\r\nthat Defendant will prevail on the issue of whether Defendant’s potential\r\nbreach was a substantial factor in Plaintiff’s injury.\r\n\r\n
Defendant’s\r\nmotion for undertaking is denied.\r\n\r\n
Moving\r\nparty is ordered to give notice.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Case Number: BC695620 Hearing Date: January 14, 2021 Dept: 29
Greenstein vs. Preferred Hotel Group, Inc.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Compelling Attendance of Defendants Second Street Corp. dba The Huntley Hotel’s PMK Deponent and Production of Documents at Deposition and Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED. The denial is without prejudice to a subsequent motion if a more narrowly tailored notice is served as outlined below.
In the complaint, Plaintiff David Greenstein alleges that he was lawfully on the premises of a hotel gym that was owned, operated or controlled by, among others, Defendant Second Street Corporation dba The Huntley Hotel (“Huntley”). Plaintiff contends that the condition of the gym was dangerous to wheelchair users such as himself and that the dangerous condition of the property caused Plaintiff’s wheelchair to tip and Plaintiff to fall. Plaintiff further contends that the gym’s layout violated the ADA and it was the violation of the ADA that caused or contributed to the fall. Plaintiff alleges a single cause of action for premises liability.
In the present motion, Plaintiff seeks to compel the attendance of Defendant Huntley at a PMK deposition regarding the content and development of Huntley’s webpage.
On May 6, 2019, Plaintiff noticed the deposition of Defendant Huntley on the following topics: (1) the circumstances of Plaintiff’s incident; (2) the regular or systematic maintenance or inspections of the accident location for the three months leading up to the incident, including the day of the incident; (3) the duties and responsibilities undertaken by Defendant for the safety and maintenance of the accident location, including any ADA compliance, for the three months leading up the incident; (4) any investigation of Plaintiff’s accident or any response taken by Defendant. The notice also sought the production of all documents that related to those topics.
The General Manager of the Huntley Hotel was produced as a PMK witness on June 20, 2019. The record does not reflect the topics for which the witness was designated. The witness was asked whether he had “an understanding that ADA compliance also extends into the fitness center or the gym facility,” and the witness testified that she did not understand that.
The witness testified that she had received training in ADA compliance in regards to hiring practices, ADA compliance in guest rooms; the percentage of rooms that are supposed to be ADA compliant; what and what ADA compliance in guest rooms entails; ADA guidance regarding pets; and policies on parking for ADA.
The witness further testified that she was not aware of any document setting forth an inspection, maintenance or cleaning schedule or procedure for the gym.
The witness affirmed that she was offered as the person most knowledgeable regarding the duties and responsibilities taken by the hotel for the safety and maintenance of the accident location, including any ADA compliance for the three months leading up to the incident. She testified that he provided all information he had regarding that category. The record does not reflect what she said in that regard, beyond what is summarized above.
In a notice dated October 21, 2020, Plaintiff again noticed the deposition of Huntley, seeking to take the deposition of the person most knowledgeable on the following topics: (1) the hotel’s compliance, practice and procedures to ensure the hotel is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act; and (2) any and all advertising or marketing of the hotel as being handicap friendly and/or compliant with the ADA. The notice also sought the production of all documents related to those matters.
Although the record is not entirely clear, it appears that Huntley objected to this notice, but the objection is not contained in the record. It does not appear that any witness was produced in response to this notice.
On November 20, 2020, Plaintiff served a third notice for Huntley’s deposition, seeking the deposition of Huntley’s PMK(s) on the following topics:
1. “the content and information on any and all websites for the Huntley Hotel, including but not limited to, marketing of the hotel, hotel amenities, facilities and customer service, for the period of 6 months prior to and including the day of the incident.”
2. “the construction, design, optimization and maintenance of the site www.thehuntleyhotel.com for the one year leading up to and including the day of the incident.”
The deposition notice also sought the production of the following categories of documents (the categories are summarized here): all documents reflecting the persons who designed the hotel’s websites; all documents representing contracts with any person regarding the design of the website; all documents reflecting any person hired in relation to the construction of the website; all documents reflecting any person consulted regarding the construction of the website or who acted as a content advisor with respect to the website; all documents that related to any content review process for the website or that relate to any review of the website before publication.”
Huntley objected to the deposition notice on the following grounds: (1) the date was unilaterally set; (2) the topics are not relevant to the subject matter of the this action; (3) Plaintiff had already taken Defendant’s deposition and “explored” ADA issues; (4) the notice failed to describe the topics with sufficient particularity; and (5) various other procedural objections. Huntley also objected to the document requests on various grounds, primarily that they are overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Plaintiff seeks to compel Huntley to produces a witnesses and documents in response to the November 20, 2020 deposition notice. The court sustains the objections on overbreadth grounds. The topics and document requests are not sufficiently tailored to the issues in the case.
The court disagrees with Huntley that issues regarding ADA compliance are irrelevant to this action. The complaint is expressly based on the theory that the ADA supplied the applicable standard of care and that the violation of the ADA standard constituted the relevant breach. Defendant cannot obtain summary judgment on that theory by opposing a motion to compel. Discovery into Huntley’s ADA compliance in the hotel’s gym – including statements in advertising touting such compliance – is relevant to the subject matter of the litigation and is discoverable.
Had the requests been more narrowly tailored – for example, demanding that Huntley produce the person most knowledgeable about how certain, identified statements regarding the ADA accessibility of Huntley’s gym made it into Huntley’s advertising and why such statements were included – the court would likely grant such a motion to compel. The court would also likely compel the production of limited document discovery on that topic as well, so long as the requests were narrowly tailored. But given that the purported statements on the website are not part of the record here, the court declines to attempt to fashion a more narrowly tailored list of PMK topics and/or requests for production in response to this motion.
The court also disagrees that a narrowly tailored PMK notice directed at statements in Huntley’s advertisement that the hotel’s gym was ADA accessible would be duplicative of the prior notice.
While the court denies the motion to compel at issue here, the parties are encouraged to meet and confer to agree on a set of narrowly defined topics expressly directed at discovery regarding statements in advertising regarding the accessibility of the gym.
The court declines to award sanctions, concluding that it would not be in the interests of justice to do so.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases