This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/18/2021 at 08:11:48 (UTC).

ELROY HEMMANS VS SUNCOAST PROPERTIES INC

Case Summary

On 07/11/2017 ELROY HEMMANS filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against SUNCOAST PROPERTIES 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, MARK A. BORENSTEIN and SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7969

  • Filing Date:

    07/11/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

GEORGINA T. RIZK

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Petitioner, Plaintiff and Appellant

HEMMANS ELROY

Respondents and Defendants

SUCOAST PROPERTIES INC

DOES 1 TO 50

SUNCOAST PROPERTIES INC

CORDETT TRUST (DOE3)

FLORA H CORDETT (DOE2)

JERRY W. CORDETT (DOE 1)

CORDETT TRUST DOE3

FLORA H CORDETT DOE2

JERRY W. CORDETT DOE 1

CORDETT JERRY W. DOE 1

CORDETT TRUST DOE 3

DORDETT FLORA H. DOE 2

CORDETT FLORA H. DOE 2

Other

CARPENTER ZUCKERMAN & ROWLEY LLP

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

YAGHOUBTIL FARID

CARPENTER ZUCKERMAN & ROWLEY LLP

AZIZI DANIEL ESQ.

AZIZI DANIEL ESQ. ESQ.

GADDINI CHRISTOFFER M. ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

ANDERSEN SUSAN K

HALL ANN C. ESQ.

ANDERSEN SUSAN KAY

ANDERSEN SUSAN KAY ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103

8/17/2021: Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT RULING ON CORDETT MSJ

6/8/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT RULING ON CORDETT MSJ

Judgment - JUDGMENT [PROPOSED} JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEF, JERRY W. CORDETT (DOE 1)

6/25/2021: Judgment - JUDGMENT [PROPOSED} JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEF, JERRY W. CORDETT (DOE 1)

Declaration - DECLARATION EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MSJ

1/28/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MSJ

Response - RESPONSE PLAINTIFF ELORY HEMMANS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JERRY W. CORDETT (DOE L)'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AND PLAINTIFF'S ADDITIONAL MATERIAL F

4/2/2021: Response - RESPONSE PLAINTIFF ELORY HEMMANS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT JERRY W. CORDETT (DOE L)'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AND PLAINTIFF'S ADDITIONAL MATERIAL F

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 - REPTILE THEORY

4/5/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 - REPTILE THEORY

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 - EVIDENCE

4/5/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 - EVIDENCE

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 - PHOTOS

4/5/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 - PHOTOS

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF ELORY HEMMANS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JERRY W. CORDETTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 RE: EXCLUSION OF TESTIMONY AND/OR SPECULATION REGARDING PAINT AND/OR COMPOSITION OF S

4/22/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF ELORY HEMMANS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JERRY W. CORDETTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 RE: EXCLUSION OF TESTIMONY AND/OR SPECULATION REGARDING PAINT AND/OR COMPOSITION OF S

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF ELORY HEMMANS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JERRY W. CORDETTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE ANY TESTIMONY, EVIDENCE, ARGUMENT, OR COMMENT ABOUT DEFENDANT JERRY W. COR

4/22/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF ELORY HEMMANS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JERRY W. CORDETTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE ANY TESTIMONY, EVIDENCE, ARGUMENT, OR COMMENT ABOUT DEFENDANT JERRY W. COR

Reply - REPLY MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4

4/26/2021: Reply - REPLY MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: COVID-19;)

4/22/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: COVID-19;)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 03/18/2020

3/18/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 03/18/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO C...)

8/30/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO C...)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Ex-Parte Proceedings to continue trial)

2/21/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Ex-Parte Proceedings to continue trial)

Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application to continue trial

2/21/2019: Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application to continue trial

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT -

8/23/2017: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT -

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE 2. PREMISES LIABILITY

7/11/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE 2. PREMISES LIABILITY

70 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/17/2021
  • DocketAppeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103; Filed by Elroy Hemmans (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/13/2021
  • DocketAppeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2021
  • DocketAppeal - Notice of Appeal/Cross Appeal Filed; Filed by Elroy Hemmans (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2021
  • DocketMemorandum of Costs (Summary); Filed by Jerry W. Cordett, (Doe 1) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2021
  • DocketNotice (of Entry of Judgment); Filed by Jerry W. Cordett, (Doe 1) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Jury Trial (estimated at 3 to 5 days) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2021
  • Docketat 09:40 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Ruling on Submitted Matter

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Ruling on Submitted Matter Re: Motion for Reconsideration Fi...) of 06/25/2021); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Ruling on Submitted Matter Re: Motion for Reconsideration Fi...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
108 More Docket Entries
  • 08/23/2017
  • DocketAMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2017
  • DocketAMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2017
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint (Cordett Trust - Doe 3); Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2017
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint (Jerry W. Cordett - Doe 1); Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2017
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint (Flora H. Cordett - Doe 2); Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Elroy Hemmans (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Elroy Hemmans (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE 2. PREMISES LIABILITY

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC667969    Hearing Date: April 16, 2021    Dept: 29

UHemmans  vs.  Suncoast Properties, Inc.

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Legal Standard

A summary judgment may be granted where it is shown that the “action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(a).) (emphasis added).) The court must determine from the evidence presented that “there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law…” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(c).)

A defendant/cross-defendant moving for summary judgment must “show” that either:

1. one or more elements of the “cause of action … cannot be established”; OR

2. there is a complete defense to that cause of action.  

(Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(2) (emphasis added).) The result is that summary judgment lies only where the opponent has no case at all (not merely a weak case). (24 Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1199, 1215, fn. 12—summary judgment appropriate where defendants establish an affirmative defense as to all claims against them.) 

Evidentiary Objections

Plaintiff submits objections to three materials offered as evidence by Defendant. (Plaintiff’s Opposition, Evidentiary Objections, pp. 1–11.) All objections made to the three material are OVERRULED. 

Defendant submits two objections to materials offered as evidence by Plaintiff. (Defendant’s Reply, Evidentiary Objections, pp. 2–5.) All objections are SUSTAINED.

Discussion

At issue is whether Defendant has shown that there are complete defenses to Plaintiff’s causes of action for negligence and premises liability i.e., whether Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure (“Cal. Code Civ. Proc.”), section 335.1. Here, Defendant moves for summary judgment based on its assertion that there are no triable issues of material fact going to the date of Plaintiff’s alleged injury. 

Here, Defendant has shown that there are complete defenses to Plaintiff’s causes of action for negligence and premises liability. Namely, the Plaintiff has shown that the date of the alleged accident could not have occurred in October 2015 but would have occurred by April 2015 at the latest. Plaintiff’s operative Complaint alleges that he slipped and fell on stairs located at the subject property on October 9, 2015. (Complaint, ¶6.) Plaintiff’s deposition produced statements that allege the accident occurred in either October 2013 or October 2015. (Defendant’s Motion, Declaration of Susan K. Andersen (“Andersen Decl.”), Exh. A, p. 25, lines 10, 23; Id., Exh. A, p. 39, lines 9-14.) However, Plaintiff’s deposition testimony and responses to form interrogatories unambiguously stated that on the day of the alleged accident, Plaintiff reported the incident to Lynn Hanks at a time when Ms. Hanks was working as property manager of the subject property. (Id., Exh. A, p. 27, lines 2-25; Id., Exh. A, p. 39, lines 17-25; Id., Exh. E, Form Interrogatory 12.1.). Plaintiff also clarified that the accident occurred before Delvorine Burns started working as the property manager for the subject apartments. (Id., Exh. A, p. 38, lines 21-25.) 

According to the deposition testimony provided by the Defendant, who is “owner” of the subject property and is in charge of hiring those who work on the subject property, the latest that Ms. Hanks worked at the subject property was April 2015. (Defendant’s Motion, Andersen Decl., Exh. D, p. 69, lines 1–18.) The deposition testimony of Ms. Hanks provided that she was no longer working as the property manager for Defendant in October 2015. (Id., Exh. C, p. 16, lines 13–25; Id., Exh. C, p. 22, lines 12–18.) Rather, Delvorine Burns was property manager of the subject property in October 2015. (Id., Exh. D, p. 69, lines 17–18.) Ms. Burns’s declaration confirms that Ms. Burns began working as the property manager in September 2015 and was the property manager in October 2015. (Id., Burns’s Decl., ¶¶2, 4, 5.) Since it is uncontested that Plaintiff reported the alleged accident to Ms. Hanks, Defendant has shown that Plaintiff’s alleged accident would have occurred by April 2015 at the latest. 

Under Cal. Code Civ. Proc., section 335.1, an action for personal injury caused by another’s wrongful act, or negligence, must be filed within two years of the wrongful act or negligence. (Id.) Here, Plaintiff filed his original complaint on July 17, 2017, alleging personal injury due to allegations of negligence and premises liability against Defendant. (Complaint, ¶6.) However, since it is uncontested that the latest Plaintiff’s injury could have occurred was by April 2015, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. Consequently, the Defendant has shown that there are complete defenses to Plaintiff’s causes of action for negligence and premises liability.

Last, Plaintiff’s opposition did not make a prima facie showing to negate Defendant’s complete defenses because Plaintiff mainly asserted that the discovery evidence submitted by Defendant presented issues of credibility. Yet, it was an uncontested fact that Plaintiff reported the alleged accident to Ms. Hanks at a time when she was a property manager at the subject property. Furthermore, Plaintiff did not submit proof to demonstrate that Ms. Hanks was employed as a property manager of the subject property in October 2015. 

Accordingly, the Defendant has shown that there are complete defenses to Plaintiff’s causes of action for negligence and premises liability.

Conclusion

Therefore, the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Jerry W. Cordett is GRANTED.

Defendant is directed to serve and electronically submit a proposed form of Judgment.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CARPENTER ZUCKERMAN & ROWLEY LLP A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer ANDERSEN SUSAN K.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer HALL ANN C. ESQ.