This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/26/2022 at 07:13:36 (UTC).

DOROTEA HENRIQUEZ VS WALMART CLAIMS SERVICES, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 07/09/2021 DOROTEA HENRIQUEZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against WALMART CLAIMS SERVICES, INC , A CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WILLIAM A. CROWFOOT. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******5428

  • Filing Date:

    07/09/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

WILLIAM A. CROWFOOT

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

HENRIQUEZ DOROTEA

Defendants

LORRAINE HERRERA

WALMART CLAIMS SERVICES INC. A CORPORATION

WALMART INC. A CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

SHAPIRO SUTTON ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

COLBERT MICHAEL

 

Court Documents

Answer

11/17/2021: Answer

Demand for Jury Trial

11/17/2021: Demand for Jury Trial

Notice of Ruling

10/20/2021: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE)

10/20/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE)

Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER

10/13/2021: Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT WALMART, INC.S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

10/6/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT WALMART, INC.S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Proof of Personal Service

7/14/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service

7/14/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

7/20/2021: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MICHAEL F. COLBERT PURSUANT TO CCP SECTION 430.41 IMPOSING AN AUTOMATIC 30-DAY EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

8/13/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MICHAEL F. COLBERT PURSUANT TO CCP SECTION 430.41 IMPOSING AN AUTOMATIC 30-DAY EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Declaration - DECLARATION OF MICHAEL F. COLBERT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT WALMART INC.'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

9/9/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF MICHAEL F. COLBERT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT WALMART INC.'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

9/9/2021: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

9/9/2021: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Complaint

7/9/2021: Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

7/9/2021: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Civil Case Cover Sheet

7/9/2021: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

7/12/2021: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

PI General Order

7/13/2021: PI General Order

7 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/05/2024
  • Hearing07/05/2024 at 08:30 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/06/2023
  • Hearing01/06/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/23/2022
  • Hearing12/23/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2021
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Walmart Inc., a corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2021
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Walmart Inc., a corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 27, William A. Crowfoot, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Walmart Inc., a corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • DocketReply (Reply to Opposition to Demurrer); Filed by Walmart Claims Services, Inc., a corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2021
  • DocketOpposition (PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT WALMART, INC.S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES); Filed by Dorotea Henriquez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
3 More Docket Entries
  • 08/13/2021
  • DocketDeclaration (Declaration of Michael F. Colbert pursuant to CCP Section 430.41 Imposing an Automatic 30-Day Extension to Respond to Complaint); Filed by Walmart Inc., a corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Dorotea Henriquez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Dorotea Henriquez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Dorotea Henriquez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([PI General Order], Standing Order re PI Procedures and Hearing Dates); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2021
  • DocketPI General Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Dorotea Henriquez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Dorotea Henriquez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Dorotea Henriquez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 21STCV25428 Hearing Date: October 20, 2021 Dept: 27

\r\n\r\n

SUPERIOR\r\nCOURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

\r\n\r\n

FOR\r\nTHE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n

DOROTEA\r\n HENRIQUEZ,

\r\n

Plaintiff,

\r\n

vs.

\r\n

\r\n

WALMART CLAIMS SERVICES, INC., et al.,

\r\n

\r\n

Defendant.

\r\n
\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n

)

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n CASE NO.: 21STCV25428

\r\n

\r\n

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT WALMART\r\n INC.’S DEMURRER

\r\n

\r\n

Dept. 27

\r\n

1:30 p.m.

\r\n

October 20, 2021

\r\n
\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. INTRODUCTION

\r\n\r\n

On July 9, 2021, Plaintiff Dorotea Henriquez filed this action against\r\nDefendant Walmart, Inc. (“Defendant”) (erroneously sued as “Walmart Claims\r\nServices, Inc.”) arising from a June 30, 2021, slip and fall. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant “failed to\r\nclean up and maintain the bathroom floors of the Subject Premises, allowing\r\nPlaintiff to slip and fall.” (Compl., ¶\r\n2.) Plaintiff asserts 3 causes of action\r\nfor: (1) negligence, (2) premises liability, and (3) res ipsa loquitur. Defendant demurs to the third cause of action\r\non the grounds that Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action for res ipsa\r\nloquitur.

\r\n\r\n

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

\r\n\r\n

A\r\ndemurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and will be sustained\r\nonly where the pleading is defective on its face. (City\r\nof Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1998) 68\r\nCal.App.4th 445, 459.) “We treat the\r\ndemurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded but not contentions,\r\ndeductions or conclusions of fact or law. \r\nWe accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and also\r\nconsider matters which may be judicially noticed. [Citation.]” \r\n(Mitchell v. California Department\r\nof Public Health (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1007; Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d\r\n593, 604 [“the facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however\r\nimprobable they may be”].) Allegations\r\nare to be liberally construed. (Code\r\nCiv. Proc., § 452.) In construing the\r\nallegations, the court is to give effect to specific factual allegations that\r\nmay modify or limit inconsistent general or conclusory allegations. (Financial\r\nCorporation of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3rd 764, 769.)

\r\n\r\n

III. DISCUSSION

\r\n\r\n

Before\r\nfiling a demurrer, the demurring party shall meet and confer with the party who\r\nhas filed the pleading and shall file a declaration detailing their meet and\r\nconfer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., §\r\n430.41, subd. (a).)

\r\n\r\n

Defense counsel declares that on August 12, 2021, he\r\nconversed with Plaintiff’s counsel over the telephone regarding the cause of\r\naction for res ipsa loquitur. (Colbert\r\nDecl., ¶ 3.) The parties did not reach an\r\nagreement. (Id., ¶ 4.) Defense counsel’s declaration satisfies the\r\nmeet and confer requirement.

\r\n\r\n

Defendant demurs to the third cause of action for “res\r\nipsa loquitur.” Res ipsa loquitur is not\r\na separate tort cause of action. Rather,\r\nit is a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence. (Evid. Code, § 646, subd. (b).) The doctrine of resipsa loquitur authorizes an\r\ninference of negligence in the absence of a showing to the contrary, and once\r\nthe inference attaches, the defendant bears the burden to produce evidence that\r\nthey were in fact not negligent. (Roddiscraft,\r\nInc. v. Skelton Logging Co. (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 784, 793.) The doctrine is only applied if the following\r\nconditions are met: (a) the accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does\r\nnot occur in the absence of someone’s negligence, (b) it must be caused by an\r\nagency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant, and\r\n(c) it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the\r\npart of the plaintiff.) (Ibid.)

\r\n\r\n

Therefore,\r\nDefendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. However, although res ipsa loquitur is rarely\r\napplied to a slip and fall case, courts have not held that it can never apply\r\nto a slip and fall. (Brown v. Poway\r\nUnified School Dist. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 820, 826 [“Experience teaches\r\nthat slips and falls are not so likely to be the result of negligence as to\r\njustify a presumption to that effect.”]) \r\nTherefore, Plaintiff’s allegations as to the doctrine of res ipsa\r\nloquitur may remain in the pleading to the extent Plaintiff intends to rely on\r\nthe doctrine to prove her underlying negligence cause of action.

\r\n\r\n

IV. CONCLUSION

\r\n\r\n

Defendant’s\r\nDemurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving\r\nparty to give notice.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Parties\r\nwho intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org\r\nindicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions\r\nprovided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.

\r\n\r\n'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Walmart Claims Services, Inc is a litigant

Latest cases where WALMART is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer COLBERT MICHAEL