This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/16/2021 at 03:56:08 (UTC).

DORELLE DEAN VS CAITLIN BUNCH, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 10/25/2018 DORELLE DEAN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against CAITLIN BUNCH. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Glendale Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GEORGINA T. RIZK, KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE and MARK A. BORENSTEIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2650

  • Filing Date:

    10/25/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

GEORGINA T. RIZK

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

DEAN DORELLE

DEAN A NATURAL PERSON DORELLE

Defendants, Cross Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

BUNCH CAITLIN

HAGER PACIFIC PROPERTIES

ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS

CBS CORPORATION

RIVAS DEISI

GALVEZ LEO

1 DOE

BUNCH CATLIN

U'BRACHA MAZEL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

AWAD RANDALL M.

AWAD RANDALL M. ESQ.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

CRISLER TED R

HAYNES-GARRETTY REETHA

WARDEN JENNA M.

HAYNES-GARRETTY REETHA ESQ.

BIESTY GARRETTY & WAYNE REETHA ESQ.

GARRETTY SEAN PATRICK

CRISLER TED R ESQ.

HAYNES-GARRETTY REETHA LENORE ESQ.

Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

WARDEN JENNA M.

HAYNES-GARRETTY REETHA ESQ.

BIESTY GARRETTY & WAYNE REETHA ESQ.

GARRETTY SEAN PATRICK

HAYNES-GARRETTY REETHA LENORE ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SERVICE A...)

4/19/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SERVICE A...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SERVICE AND SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO RUL...)

12/14/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SERVICE AND SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO RUL...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SERVICE AND SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO RUL...)

9/30/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SERVICE AND SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO RUL...)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SERVICE AND SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO RUL...) OF 09/30/2020

9/30/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SERVICE AND SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO RUL...) OF 09/30/2020

Order for Publication

7/23/2020: Order for Publication

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF DORELLE D...)

7/31/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF DORELLE D...)

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

4/3/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW COURT ORDER ADVANCING CONTINUING C...) OF 03/24/2020

3/24/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW COURT ORDER ADVANCING CONTINUING C...) OF 03/24/2020

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW NON-APPEARANCE CASE MANAGEMENT ORD...) OF 07/08/2019

7/8/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW NON-APPEARANCE CASE MANAGEMENT ORD...) OF 07/08/2019

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW NON-APPEARANCE CASE MANAGEMENT ORD...)

7/8/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW NON-APPEARANCE CASE MANAGEMENT ORD...)

Case Management Statement

7/9/2019: Case Management Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW COURT ORDER SETTING INITIAL STATUS...)

4/8/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW COURT ORDER SETTING INITIAL STATUS...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: TRANSFERRING AND CASE REASSIGNMENT TO AN I/C...)

3/11/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: TRANSFERRING AND CASE REASSIGNMENT TO AN I/C...)

Cross-Complaint

1/11/2019: Cross-Complaint

Answer

1/11/2019: Answer

Notice - Notice of Demurrer and Statement of Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint

1/14/2019: Notice - Notice of Demurrer and Statement of Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

10/25/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Complaint

10/25/2018: Complaint

51 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/02/2021
  • Hearing11/02/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Caitlin Bunch (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Order to Show Cause Re: (Sanctions Against Defendant Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 177.5 for Failure to Appear on 04/19/2021) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Order to Show Cause Re: (Service and Sanctions pursuant to Rules 3.110(b) and 3.110(f) CRC, or alternatively, service by publication) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions Against Defendant Pursuant ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Order to Show Cause Re: (Service and Sanctions pursuant to Rules 3.110(b) and 3.110(f) CRC, or alternatively, service by publication) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
85 More Docket Entries
  • 01/11/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Hager Pacific Properties (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 2, Mark A. Borenstein, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2018
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by Caitlin Bunch (Cross-Complainant); Caitlin Bunch (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2018
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Caitlin Bunch (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Caitlin Bunch (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2018
  • DocketDeclaration (of Boris Sorsher Regarding Defendant Entertainment Partners Enterprises, LLC's Unsuccessful Meet and Confer With Plaintiff Pursuant to CCP 430.41 in Support of Its Automatic 30-Day Responsive Pleading Extension); Filed by Entertainment Partners (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Dorelle Dean, a natural person (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Dorelle Dean, a natural person (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2018
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STCV02650    Hearing Date: July 31, 2020    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 19

Date: 7/31/20

Case No: 18 STCV02650 Trial Date: None Set

Case Name: Dean v. Bunch, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

(CCP § 2025.450(a); 2023.010 et seq.)

Moving Party: Defendant Caitlin Bunch

Responding Party: Plaintiff Dorelle Dean

Name of Deponent: Dorelle Dean

Status of Deponent: Plaintiff (party)

DEPO ATTENDANCE REQUIRED BY:

Formal Notice [Exhibit A]

RELIEF REQUESTED BY MOVING PARTY:

Order compelling plaintiff Dorelle Dean to appear for deposition

CHRONOLOGY

Date NOTICE OF DEPOSITION served (CCP § 2031(b)): January 15, 2020

Date of Deposition (10-day lapse): February 18, 2020 ok

Date Motion Served: March 30, 2020

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff Dorelle Dean alleges that while travelling as a passenger in a vehicle being operated by defendant Caitlin Bunch, a rear end collision involving three vehicles occurred resulting in injuries to plaintiff, who was a passenger in the lead vehicle. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Bunch and the operators of the other vehicles, defendants Deisi Rivas and Leo Galvez, carelessly and negligently operated their vehicles.

Plaintiff alleges that at the time of the accident defendant Bunch was acting within the course and scope of her duties as an employee of defendant CBS Corporation, which carelessly and negligently owned, operated and maintained the subject vehicle and negligently supervised, and permitted defendant Bunch to operate the vehicle.

This motion was originally heard on July 17, 2020. No timely opposition had been filed to the motion.

The Court on the evening of Thursday, July 16, 2020 published its tentative ruling, which was to grant the unopposed motion, order plaintiff Dorelle Dean to appear for deposition and give testimony on July 31, 2020 by video remote procedure, and to award monetary sanctions against plaintiff in the amount of $1,388.25.

At the hearing, counsel for plaintiff represented to the Court that he was not served and would have filed an opposition. The minute order states, “Court reviews and reads from Defendant’s Proof of Service by Mail then hears from counsel and continues the Motion to Compel Deposition to 7/31/2020.” Plaintiff was permitted to file an opposition by July 22, 2010, with reply due by 7/29/2020.

The Court will address the arguments raised in the newly filed papers.

ANALYSIS:

CCP section 2025.450 (a) provides that "if after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action... without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it... the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony..."

The Court notes that the court file reflects that counsel for plaintiff previously represented to the court that plaintiff was not properly served, and if counsel had been properly served, plaintiff would have filed opposition to this motion. On July 20, 2020, plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to compel, which does not argue that plaintiff was not properly served with the motion to compel, which might have been viewed to have excused the failure to file a timely opposition.

The opposition instead appears to argue that plaintiff has not refused or resisted the taking of her deposition but had confirmed her appearance and had every intent of appearing on February 18, 2020, but that the Covid-19 pandemic interfered with this intention. This argument is hardly persuasive in light of the Court’s order here that the deposition be conducted by video remote procedure. This is in keeping with Executive Order N-38-20 issued by Gavin Newsom, Governor of California on March 27, 2020, paragraph 4 (a), which declared suspended certain statutes, including “Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.310, subdivision (b), to the extent the subdivision limits a court’s authority to provide that a party deponent may appear at a deposition by telephone.”

The opposition seems to argue that plaintiff should not be compelled to appear for deposition at all in this matter, in which plaintiff seeks significant personal injury damages, because the Notice of Deposition proof of service was defective. Specifically, the opposition, without providing a copy of the Notice of Deposition itself, relies on the proof of service of the Notice of Taking Deposition of Plaintiff with Request for Production of Documents which states that the document was served on 1/15/2020, by mail, and then states that the document was executed on 1/15/19. [Awad Decl., Ex. 3]. It would appear that the statement that the proof of service was executed in 2019 was a typographical error, and the Court is not persuaded that this error, which the Court would likely be required to find was made due to mistake, invalidates the Notice of Deposition, particularly when plaintiff did not timely file objection to the notice on this ground, and does not explain why plaintiff failed to do so.

The opposition argues that when a party fails to timely object to a deposition, relief may be obtained when a party subsequently serves a response which is in substantial compliance with the requisites of a response in the first instance, in reliance on CCP section 2031.300 (a), which does not apply to depositions, but where “a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it…” Moreover, even if this section applied, the opposition does not submit to the Court any such response and has not filed a noticed motion seeking such relief, as required by that statute.

With respect to depositions, under CCP section 2025.410(a)

“(a) Any party served with a deposition notice that does not comply with Article 2 (commencing with

Section 2025.210) waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection specifying that error or irregularity at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled, on the party seeking to take the deposition and any other attorney or party on whom the deposition notice was served.”

No such objection was filed here.

Plaintiff argues that meet and confer efforts were not productive although plaintiff’s counsel made every effort to find alternatives to deposition. It appears that plaintiff has taken the position, as again taken in the opposition, that no deposition at all should be required of plaintiff, even a video remote deposition, but that plaintiff should be extended the extraordinary relief of being excused from deposition entirely and defendant limited to written discovery. There are no facts offered by plaintiff which would justify such a position or outcome.

Accordingly, the Court’s previous order will become the order of the Court, and plaintiff will be ordered to appear for deposition and give testimony by video remote procedure on a date certain within twenty days of this continued hearing.

Sanctions

The opposition also argues that sanctions are not appropriate here.

Under CCP section 2025.450 (g)(1) “if a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of that party and against the deponent...unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Section 2023.010 (d) provides that misuse of the discovery process includes failure to submit to an authorized method of discovery. CCP section 2023.030(a) authorizes the imposition of monetary sanctions against a party for misuse of the discovery processes.

The burden is on the party subject to sanctions to show substantial justification or injustice. Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990, 2nd Dist.) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436.

The opposition argues that there was substantial justification in opposing this motion because plaintiff and counsel will likely be unjustifiably burdened by improper and untimely discovery requests and defendants have responded only be an effective admission of improper exposure to risk and improper purpose. There is no improper purpose established here for a party seeking the deposition of another party in a civil action in which the party is entitled to such a deposition, particularly where no timely objection, and no timely opposition to the motion, was in fact served. This appears to be a case where there was a failure to appear, and subsequent conduct necessitated the motion, mandating sanctions under the statute. The sanctions will accordingly be awarded as requested., and as originally ordered by the court, in the sum of $1,388.25 plus costs of $60.00.

RULING:

The Court has considered the opposition and reply papers. Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Dorelle Dean is GRANTED. Plaintiff Dorrelle Dean is ordered to appear for deposition and to give testimony on August 14, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. by video remote procedure. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,388.25 [$1,778.25 requested] plus costs of $60.00 are awarded against Plaintiff Dorelle Dean, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2025.450(c), 2023.010(d) and 2023.030(a).

GIVEN THE RECENT CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, UNTIL FURTHER ORDERED, DEPARTMENT D WILL ALLOW APPEARANCES ONLY BY COURTCALL.

Please make such arrangements in advance if you wish to appear via CourtCall at (888) 882-6878 (or www.courtcall.com). Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are not to personally appear, absent a compelling emergency reason. If none of the litigants on a matter set up a CourtCall appearance, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.

Case Number: 18STCV02650    Hearing Date: July 17, 2020    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 7

Date: 7/17/20

Case No: 18 STCV02650 Trial Date: None Set

Case Name: Dean v. Bunch, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

(CCP § 2025.450(a); 2023.010 et seq.)

Moving Party: Defendant Caitlin Bunch

Responding Party: Plaintiff Dorelle Dean (No Opposition)

Name of Deponent: Dorelle Dean

Status of Deponent: Plaintiff (party)

DEPO ATTENDANCE REQUIRED BY:

Formal Notice [Exhibit A]

RELIEF REQUESTED BY MOVING PARTY:

Order compelling plaintiff Dorelle Dean to appear for deposition

CHRONOLOGY

Date NOTICE OF DEPOSITION served (CCP § 2031(b)): January 15, 2020

Date of Deposition (10 day lapse): February 18, 2020 ok

Date Motion Served: March 30, 2020

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff Dorelle Dean alleges that while travelling as a passenger in a vehicle being operated by defendant Caitlin Bunch, a rear end collision involving three vehicles occurred resulting in injuries to plaintiff, who was a passenger in the lead vehicle. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Bunch and the operators of the other vehicles, defendants Deisi Rivas and Leo Galvez, carelessly and negligently operated their vehicles.

Plaintiff alleges that at the time of the accident defendant Bunch was acting within the course and scope of her duties as an employee of defendant CBS Corporation, which carelessly and negligently owned, operated and maintained the subject vehicle and negligently supervised, and permitted defendant Bunch to operate the vehicle.

ANALYSIS:

CCP section 2025.450 (a) provides that "if after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action... without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it... the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony..."

In this case, plaintiff was served with a deposition notice setting the deposition for February 18, 2020. [Ex. A]. No objection was served to the deposition notice. [Garretty Decl., para. 4]. A reminder voicemail and email were sent to counsel for plaintiff on February 14, 2020. [Garretty Decl., para. 3; Ex. B]. Plaintiff failed to respond to those reminders, failed to object under Section 2025.410, and failed to appear at the scheduled examination. Plaintiff has therefore waived any objections and defendant is entitled to an order compelling attendance. Plaintiff appears to argue in the meet and confer correspondence that defendant was notified in advance that the deposition could not proceed as scheduled, but there are no details offered specifying how that notice was given, by whom or to whom. [Garretty Decl., paras. 7, 8; Ex. C]. This motion apparently became necessary due to the refusal of plaintiff to reimburse the expenses incurred with respect to the deposition which plaintiff failed to attend. Plaintiff appears to argue that defendant has waived the right to take the deposition by bringing this motion instead of agreeing to a rescheduled date and foregoing the payment of expenses. This argument is not a ground for waiver of the right of defendant to an order compelling attendance under the circumstances. The motion accordingly is granted.

Sanctions

Under CCP section 2025.450 (g)(1) “if a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of that party and against the deponent...unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Section 2023.010 (d) provides that misuse of the discovery process includes failure to submit to an authorized method of discovery. CCP section 2023.030(a) authorizes the imposition of monetary sanctions against a party for misuse of the discovery processes.

There is no opposition to this motion, so no indication that plaintiff has acted with substantial justification, and no evidence submitted through meet and confer supporting the argument that the deposition was in fact cancelled in advance without written objection having been served. Sanctions will accordingly be awarded. The sanctions requested are $1,778.25, which are high for a motion of this nature. The sanctions sought also include 2.5 hours at $165 per hour to prepare for the deposition, which time will not have been wasted due to the deposition being conducted at a later date so the court deletes this attorney time. The sanctions otherwise appear reasonable but are accordingly reduced to $1,388.25, which includes the court reporter fees.

RULING:

[No opposition]

UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Dorelle Dean is GRANTED. Plaintiff Dorrelle Dean is ordered to appear for deposition and to give testimony on July 31, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. by video remote procedure. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,388.25 [$1,778.25 requested] plus costs of $60.00 are awarded against Plaintiff Dorelle Dean, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2025.450(c), 2023.010(d) and 2023.030(a).

GIVEN THE RECENT CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, UNTIL FURTHER ORDERED, DEPARTMENT D WILL ALLOW APPEARANCES ONLY BY COURTCALL.

Please make such arrangements in advance if you wish to appear via CourtCall at (888) 882-6878 (or www.courtcall.com). Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are not to personally appear, absent a compelling emergency reason. If none of the litigants on a matter set up a CourtCall appearance, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.

Case Number: 18STCV02650    Hearing Date: October 25, 2019    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 17

Date: 10/25/19

Case No: 18 STCV02650 Trial Date: None Set

Case Name: Dean v. Bunch, et al.

DEMURRER

[CCP §430.10 et. seq.]

Moving Party: Defendant Entertainment Partners Enterprises

Responding Party: Plaintiff Dorelle Dean

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Sustain demurrer to Complaint

RULING:

Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND to all causes of action on the ground the causes of action appear to be barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity for the reasons stated in the moving and reply papers. Demurrer to the third cause of action for premises liability is sustained on the further ground that plaintiff in opposition appears to argue that she is not seeking to claim in this action responsibility for the warehouse accident on the part of the moving defendant. Demurrer on all other grounds is overruled.

Ten days leave to amend.

Request for Judicial Notice is only considered by the court as showing that plaintiff was an employed by moving defendant, which plaintiff by her objection does not appear to dispute.

The parties are ordered to meet and confer in full compliance with CCP § 430.41 before any further demurrer may be filed.

CAUSES OF ACTION: from (Form) Complaint

  1. Motor Vehicle

  2. General Negligence

  3. Premises Liability

  4. Injury Incurred in Course of Rescue

  5. Negligence Per Se

    SUMMARY OF FACTS:

    Plaintiff Dorelle Dean alleges that plaintiff suffered a head injury due to a dangerous condition on property owned by defendant Hager Pacific Properties, LLC and occupied by defendant CBS Corporation through its agent. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Entertainment Partner, an agent of defendant CBS Corporation, committed to rescue Plaintiff by unreasonably and negligently instructing their employee, defendant Caitlin Bunch, not to call an ambulance, but instead to drive plaintiff, who was holding her bleeding skull, to the hospital in her own personal vehicle. The complaint alleges that defendant Bunch failed to place a seatbelt on plaintiff who was incapable, and while in route to the hospital, plaintiff and Bunch were involved in a traffic collision, causing injury to plaintiff, the nature and extent of which was proximately caused by being unrestrained.

    Plaintiff also alleges a cause of action for premises liability, alleging that she was injured at a Film/TV Prop warehouse when a section of fencing, framed by metal pipe, was left unfastened and otherwise negligently placed to cause it to fall and strike plaintiff in the head.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where HAGER PACIFIC PROPERTIES is a litigant

Latest cases where ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where CBS CORPORATION FKA VIACOM INC. SUCCESSOR BY MERGER WITH CBS CORPORATION FKA WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO BF STURTEVANT is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer AWAD RANDALL M.