Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/08/2020 at 10:39:08 (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, Stanley Mosk 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:

    ****7969

  • Filing Date:

    07/11/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

GEORGINA T. RIZK

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

HEMMANS ELROY

Defendants and Respondents

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

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

YAGHOUBTIL FARID

CARPENTER ZUCKERMAN & ROWLEY LLP

AZIZI DANIEL 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

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

8/6/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

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

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE, TRIAL DATE AND ALL RELATED DATES

2/13/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE, TRIAL DATE AND ALL RELATED DATES

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

10/25/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO C...)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL

10/25/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL

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...)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL

8/30/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL

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

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Perso

11/13/2018: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Perso

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

2/16/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY WITHIN FIRM AND CHANGE OF ADDRESS

3/9/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY WITHIN FIRM AND CHANGE OF ADDRESS

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT -

8/23/2017: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT -

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT -

8/23/2017: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT -

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

8/24/2017: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

SUMMONS -

7/11/2017: SUMMONS -

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE 2. PREMISES LIABILITY

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

23 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/18/2021
  • Hearing05/18/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2021
  • Hearing05/03/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order Re: COVID-19;) of 04/22/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Re: COVID-19;)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
54 More Docket Entries
  • 08/23/2017
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2017
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

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

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2017
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

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

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

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    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.