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 BENNY C. OSORIO and DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
BENNY C. OSORIO
DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB
REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE
RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY
DOES 1 THROUGH 25
CHRISTENSEN ANDREW MARC
SOUTHERN GLAZER'S WINE AND SPIRITS LLC
IVIE MCNEILL & WYATT APLC
PURCELL BYRON MICHAEL
VAYVAYAN SHANT LEON
JOHNSEN GREGORY FRANCIS ESQ.
WINTERS JENNIFER PATRICE
D'ORO FRANK JOSEPH JR
BRAUN MARLYS KINNEL
7/1/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)
8/21/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITH MOTION TO STRIKE (CCP 430.10))
9/16/2019: Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT 2ND
10/15/2019: Motion re: - MOTION RE: TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
10/16/2019: Notice of Lien - NOTICE OF LIEN AMENDED 'NOTICE OF FIRST LIEN RIGHTS OF EMPLOYER; REQUEST FOR SERVICE; NOTICE OF CREDIT RIGHTS
10/30/2019: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANTS REPLY REGARDING DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
11/6/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITH MOTION TO STRIKE (CCP 430.10))
3/1/2018: NOTICE OF FIRST LIEN RIGHTS OF EMPLOYER; REQUEST FOR SERVICE; NOTICE OF CREDIT RIGHTS (LABOR CODE ?S 3852 TO 3868)
4/19/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)
3/30/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER) OF 03/30/2021
3/10/2021: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGEMENT OR ORDER
1/7/2021: Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING NOTICE OF LODGING A FLASH DRIVE EXHIBIT G TO THE DECLARATION OF CHARLES H. GOLDSTEIN, WHICH IS THE DECLARATION OF ALEX GUEVARA, EXHIBIT 1
11/17/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 11/17/2020
11/17/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)
11/9/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
7/28/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
12/10/2019: Answer - ANSWER TO 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT
10/24/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITES; DECLARATION OF SHANT L. V
Hearing01/11/2022 at 09:30 AM in Department 19 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing01/04/2022 at 09:30 AM in Department 19 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Hearing11/15/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 19 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Post-Mediation Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Hearing06/21/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 19 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)Read MoreRead Less
Hearing06/21/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 19 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of SummonsRead MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration (of Marlys Braun); Filed by Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits, LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMotion to Strike (not initial pleading); Filed by Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits, LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDemurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10); Filed by Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits, LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketExhibit List; Filed by Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits, LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMotion to Quash Service of Summons; Filed by Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits, LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute order entered: 2018-01-29 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:31 AM in Department 97; (Order ReRelated Cases; Court makes order) -Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute order entered: 2018-01-08 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Related CasesRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Related Case; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by David Parry (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1) BATTERY; ETCRead MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC682854 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: BC682854 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.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases