This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/24/2022 at 11:24:20 (UTC).

DAVID PARRY VS ANDREW MARC CHRISTENSEN ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/09/2017 DAVID PARRY filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ANDREW MARC CHRISTENSEN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are STEPHANIE M. BOWICK and SAMANTHA JESSNER. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2854

  • Filing Date:

    11/09/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

STEPHANIE M. BOWICK

SAMANTHA JESSNER

 

Party Details

Appellant and Plaintiff

PARRY DAVID

Claimant

REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE

Respondents and Defendants

RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

KROGER CO.

CHRISTENSEN ANDREW MARC

SOUTHERN GLAZER'S WINE AND SPIRITS LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

PURCELL BYRON MICHAEL

SAMSON MARINA

VAYVAYAN SHANT LEON

Claimant Attorney

JOHNSEN GREGORY FRANCIS ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

BABAKHANIAN ANTHONY

AREVALO ERIC

BRAUN MARLYS KINNEL

GOLDSTEIN CHARLES

SANDERS JUSTIN

 

Court Documents

Notice - NOTICE RESPONDENT'S NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL

6/2/2021: Notice - NOTICE RESPONDENT'S NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL

Separate Statement

10/9/2020: Separate Statement

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

10/9/2020: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Request for Judicial Notice

10/9/2020: Request for Judicial Notice

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

10/9/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Declaration - DECLARATION OF CHARLES H. GOLDSTEIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

10/9/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF CHARLES H. GOLDSTEIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

Motion re: - MOTION RE: TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

10/15/2019: Motion re: - MOTION RE: TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

7/1/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT 2ND

9/16/2019: Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT 2ND

Request for Dismissal

5/12/2022: Request for Dismissal

Notice - NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF LIEN

5/9/2022: Notice - NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF LIEN

Notice of Ruling

4/26/2022: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

4/25/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

3/18/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

Memorandum of Costs on Appeal

3/14/2022: Memorandum of Costs on Appeal

Appeal - Remittitur - Appeal Dismissed - APPEAL - REMITTITUR - APPEAL DISMISSED B312863

2/2/2022: Appeal - Remittitur - Appeal Dismissed - APPEAL - REMITTITUR - APPEAL DISMISSED B312863

Appeal - Remittitur - Appeal Dismissed - APPEAL - REMITTITUR - APPEAL DISMISSED B315513

2/2/2022: Appeal - Remittitur - Appeal Dismissed - APPEAL - REMITTITUR - APPEAL DISMISSED B315513

Appellate Order Dismissing Appeal - APPELLATE ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL B315513; NA9/8/21

2/2/2022: Appellate Order Dismissing Appeal - APPELLATE ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL B315513; NA9/8/21

186 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/20/2022
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 19; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/12/2022
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by David Parry (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/09/2022
  • DocketNotice (OF WITHDRAWAL OF LIEN); Filed by Redwood Fire and Casualty Insurance (Claimant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/26/2022
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by David Parry (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/25/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 19, Stephanie M. Bowick, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/25/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement))); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/18/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 19, Stephanie M. Bowick, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/18/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement))); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/14/2022
  • DocketMemorandum of Costs on Appeal; Filed by Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits, LLC (Respondent)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/18/2022
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 19, Stephanie M. Bowick, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
240 More Docket Entries
  • 01/29/2018
  • DocketMinute Order

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/29/2018
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2018-01-29 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/08/2018
  • Docketat 08:31 AM in Department 97; (Order ReRelated Cases; Court makes order) -

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/08/2018
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2018-01-08 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/08/2018
  • DocketMinute Order

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/17/2017
  • DocketNotice of Related Case; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/17/2017
  • DocketNotice of Related Cases

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/09/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1) BATTERY; ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/09/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by David Parry (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/09/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****2854    Hearing Date: March 16, 2021    Dept: 19

After consideration of the briefing filed, Plaintiff David Parry’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint is DENIED.

Counsel for Defendants Ralph Grocery Company and The Kroger Co. to give notice. First, Plaintiff also moves pursuant to CCP ; 426.50, which deals with Compulsory Cross-Complaints and the Court finds is inapplicable here.  Second, the Court agrees with The Ralphs Defendants that permitting Plaintiff to file the Proposed Third Amended Complaint (the “Proposed TAC”) would in effect overturn and relitigate the Court’s November 8, 2019 ruling sustaining, without leave to amend, their demurrer to the Fifth Causes of Action for Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage as well as the Court’s February 5, 2021 order granting the Ralphs Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Sixth and Seventh Causes of Action because, by adding Al Carrillo, an employee of the Ralphs Defendants during all relevant times, the Proposed TAC would seek to hold the Ralphs Defendants vicariously liable since Labor Code section 2802 would require the Ralphs Defendants to indemnify Al Carrillo for a judgment entered against him. Third, the Court agrees with The Ralphs Defendants  that the causes of action alleged against Mr. Carrillo in the Proposed TAC are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.  Since the statute of limitations for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, intentional interference with contractual relations, and negligent interference with prospective economic relations claims are two years pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 339, the limitations period for these claims expired no later than February 5, 2018.  With respect to the defamation per se claim sought to be alleged against Mr. Carrillo, that claim is subject to a one-year limitations period pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 340 and is therefore also time-barred. Plaintiff fails to acknowledge that the Ralphs Defendants would be obligated to indemnify Mr. Carrillo for any judgment entered against him were he to be found liable pursuant to the Proposed TAC. (See Labor Code, ;; 2800 et seq.)

The Court considers that the premises liability claim was dismissed against The Ralphs Defendants pursuant to the Court’s Order granting of their Motion for Summary Judgment and is thus barred by the doctrine of res judicata. (Id.)

The Court also considers that Plaintiff’s request for leave to file the Proposed TAC is seeking to add Mr. Carrillo as a named defendant almost five (5) years after the alleged acts and conduct forming the basis of the proposed amendments occurred. Even if the statements made by Mr. Carrillo at his deposition were vital to Plaintiff’s decision to file the instant Motion, Plaintiff thereafter waited over two months to seek leave to amend since Mr. Carrillo’s deposition occurred in November 2020, showing a lack of diligence. It is also unclear why Mr. Carrillo's deposition was not taken sooner in this litigation.   The Court finds that Plaintiff knew or should have known of Mr. Carrillo’s possible liability at the time Plaintiff filed suit against the Ralph Defendants on November 9, 2017, because Plaintiff has maintained that Mr. Carrillo was present when the alleged altercation occurred in the Ralphs Store # 1 and was a key decision maker in the decision to ban Plaintiff from the store. 

Further, Plaintiff has argued throughout this case, including in his opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, that Mr. Carrillo is an employee of the Ralphs Defendants, and concedes as such in his declaration filed concurrently with this Motion. (See Purcell Decl. at ¶¶ 10, 12; see, generally, Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment.) Although not raised by the Ralph Defendants in their Opposition, the Court finds the inclusion of Defendant Southern as a named defendant in the Proposed TAC at this late date along with the failure to provide a valid basis for its inclusion to be a separate, independent ground for denying the Motion.

Finally, Plaintiff seeks to allege claims for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, intentional interference with contractual relations claims, negligent interference with prospective economic relations, and defamation per se against new defendants, those claims would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (See Code Civ. Proc., ; 339 [prescribing two-year limitations period for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, intentional interference with contractual relations claims, and negligent interference with prospective economic relations claims]; Code Civ. Proc., ; 340 [prescribing one-year limitations period for an action for libel or slander].) Plaintiff fails to address the statute of limitations arguments raised by the Ralphs Defendants, essentially conceding to their merits. (See, generally, Reply.)In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiff waited far too long to seek leave for the proposed amendments and it would be unduly prejudicial to allow the amendments at this time.

For all of the reasons articulated above, the Motion is denied in its entirety.



Case Number: ****2854    Hearing Date: January 25, 2021    Dept: 19

On the Court's own motion, the hearing on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is CONTINUED TO February 9, 2021, at 8:30 a.m.

The Court needs additional time to finalize its ruling on the motion.

If the Court has any additional questions for the parties, it will post a tentative ruling by 12 noon on February 8, 2021. Otherwise, the final ruling will be announced on February 9, 2021.

Moving party to give notice.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where REDWOOD FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY ADMINISTERED BY BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES is a litigant

Latest cases where RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases where SOUTHERN GLAZER'S WINE & SPIRITS LLC. is a litigant

Latest cases where The Kroger Co is a litigant