This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/28/2021 at 00:38:22 (UTC).

ERICA PRIETO VS SAND-SEA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/01/2018 ERICA PRIETO filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against SAND-SEA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 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 LAURA A. SEIGLE, WILLIAM A. CROWFOOT and EDWARD B. MORETON. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6597

  • Filing Date:

    03/01/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LAURA A. SEIGLE

WILLIAM A. CROWFOOT

EDWARD B. MORETON

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

PRIETO ERICA

Respondents and Defendants

LUCAS SCOTT DAVID

SAND-SEA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC.

DOES 1 TO 50

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

FORTINI LAING JACLYN E.

DOUCETTE JASON REILLY

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

HURLEY BETH ESQ.

MUHAR GEORGE ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ...)

9/28/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ...)

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4

9/28/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4

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

9/28/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6

9/28/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8

9/28/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7

9/28/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO.2

9/28/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO.2

Notice - NOTICE OF VIDEO DEPOSITION TESTIMONY

9/28/2021: Notice - NOTICE OF VIDEO DEPOSITION TESTIMONY

Exhibit List

9/28/2021: Exhibit List

Jury Instructions

9/28/2021: Jury Instructions

Statement of the Case

9/28/2021: Statement of the Case

Witness List

9/28/2021: Witness List

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

9/28/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO.1

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

9/28/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5

Notice of Ruling

9/29/2021: Notice of Ruling

Notice - NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS' RECORDS SUBPOENAS

9/29/2021: Notice - NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS' RECORDS SUBPOENAS

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10

10/5/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11

10/5/2021: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11

71 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/11/2022
  • Hearing01/11/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2021
  • Hearing12/28/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 27 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2021
  • DocketOpposition (to Plaintiffs Motion in Limine No 10); Filed by Sand-Sea Property Management, Inc. (Defendant); Scott David Lucas (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 27, William A. Crowfoot, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Quash (Records Subpoenas) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 27, William A. Crowfoot, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Quash (Records Subpoenas) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 27, William A. Crowfoot, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling (re final status conference); Filed by Erica Prieto (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 27, William A. Crowfoot, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2021
  • DocketMotion in Limine (No. 11 PRECLUDING DEFENSE COUNSEL FROM ARGUING DEFENDANT HAD A DELEGABLE DUTY); Filed by Erica Prieto (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
100 More Docket Entries
  • 06/19/2018
  • DocketAssociation of Attorney; Filed by Sand-Sea Property Management, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2018
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Erica Prieto (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2018
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Sand-Sea Property Management, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2018
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2018
  • DocketGENERAL DENIAL TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2018
  • DocketGeneral Denial; Filed by Sand-Sea Property Management, Inc. (Defendant); Scott David Lucas (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Erica Prieto (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Erica Prieto (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC696597    Hearing Date: January 22, 2021    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

ERICA PRIETO,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

SAND-SEA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

BC696597

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL SITE INSPECTION

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

January 22, 2021

On Mach 1, 2018, Plaintiff Erica Prieto filed this action against defendants Sand-Sea Property Management, Inc. (“Sand-Sea Property Management”) and Scott David Lucas (“Lucas”) arising from a June 24, 2017 slip and fall on the walkway of a triplex in which Plaintiff lived. d the triple at the time of the incident.  Lucas was and remains the owner of the triplex.  At the time of the incident, the walkway was rubberized, though it was later removed by Sand-Sea Property Management.  Photographs recently produced by Lucas showed that the rubberized coating still exists on the walkway that is now exposed by trimmed bushes

On September 24, 2019, Plaintiff served a demand for site inspection on Defendants requesting to evaluate what remains of the the rubberized coating on the walkway.  Defendants objected and refused to provide available dates.  Plaintiff served another request on February 26, 2020.  Defendants again served objections.  On July 14, 2020, counsel agreed to an inspection on the September 1, 2020 but on August 12, 2020, Defendant served objections.  On August 31, 2020, Plaintiff filed this Motion to compel Lucas to permit the site inspection. 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010 allows a party to demand any other party allow entrance onto any land or property and to inspect and measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the land or other property, or any designated object or operation on it.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010, subd. (d).)   Plaintiff argues inspecting the walkway is required to determine with the rubberized coating was a dangerous condition.  Plaintiff’s expert seeks to examine the walkway to determine the rubberized coating’s coefficient of friction.  

The burden to justify an objection to a discovery request is on the party asserting the objection.  (See Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.Defendant opposes this Motion on the grounds that permitting a site inspection at this time would be unreasonably dangerous to defense counsel and experts.  Defendant rejects Plaintiff’s suggested precautionary measures, stating that even if individuals stayed six feet away from each other, there is no “scientific data which guarantees that being 6 ft apart will absolutely prevent exposure to a deadly pathogen that has already killed more than 400,000 people in the United States and over 14,000 deaths in Los Angeles County alone.”  (Opp., 3:2-7.)  Defendant submits no evidence in support of its position that no precautions are sufficient, such as wearing personal protective equipment and staying six feet apart

Defendant also states that the inspection will not yield admissible evidence because the “rubberized coating” is not in an area that she slipped on and the coating is not in the same condition as the coating that she slipped on “because it was subjected to completely different environmental factors.”  “[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) Defendant emphasizes that the incident occurred nearly 4 years ago and the area that Plaintiff wants to test has had “significant natural weathering” and other factors that will skew any measurement of the co-efficient of friction.  However, these are arguments that Defendant can make to attack the credibility of Plaintiff’s expert opinion.  If a sample of the rubberized coating is available, Plaintiff should be able to examine, photograph, and test it; the evidence is probative of whether a dangerous condition existed.  Defendant should not be able to bar Plaintiff from examining the coating while simultaneously asserting that it is not dangerous.  

Accordingly, Defendant has not met his burden to justify his objections.   Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED and Defendant is ordered to permit a site inspection to occur within 15 days of the date of this Order. 

Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320(c).  However, a sanctions order under this provision requires a party’s failure to comply with an existing order.  No order has been issued yet compelling Defendant’s compliance.  Accordingly, sanctions under this provision are not allowed.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.  

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  

22nd day of January 2021

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where SAND-SEA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer DOUCETTE JASON REILLY