Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/12/2019 at 00:01:02 (UTC).

FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE VS BEVERLY HILLS DRY CLEANERS

Case Summary

On 04/27/2017 FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against BEVERLY HILLS DRY CLEANERS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA A. SEIGLE and SAMANTHA JESSNER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9352

  • Filing Date:

    04/27/2017

  • 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

LAURA A. SEIGLE

SAMANTHA JESSNER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

SIGNMAKERS INC

BEVERLY HILLS DRY CLEANERS

DOES 1 TO 30

CLEANERS BEVERLY HILLS DRY

9000 VENICE PARTNERS LP

Defendant and Cross Defendant

CLEANERS BEVERLY HILLS DRY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

STRUMWASSER GREGG

STRUMWASSER GREGG ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

ATANOUS CLEIDIN Z.

ATANOUS CLEIDIN ZOUMALAN ESQ.

 

Court Documents

ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL FSC AND RELATED MOTION DISCOVERY DATES PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY CENTRAL DISTRICT

8/24/2018: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL FSC AND RELATED MOTION DISCOVERY DATES PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY CENTRAL DISTRICT

Other -

11/8/2018: Other -

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

12/24/2018: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Unknown

3/14/2019: Unknown

Notice of Case Management Conference

3/22/2019: Notice of Case Management Conference

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

4/30/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Amendment to Cross-Complaint

5/29/2019: Amendment to Cross-Complaint

Proof of Service by Mail

6/5/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

PLAINTIFF?S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM NAME

10/5/2017: PLAINTIFF?S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM NAME

COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE

4/27/2017: COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE

SUMMONS

4/27/2017: SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

5/2/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

5/18/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLMNT

7/31/2017: ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLMNT

SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

7/31/2017: SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR IMPLIED INDEMNITY AND TOTAL INDEMNITY; DECLARATORY RELIEF AND APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT

7/31/2017: CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR IMPLIED INDEMNITY AND TOTAL INDEMNITY; DECLARATORY RELIEF AND APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT

AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

8/23/2017: AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

8/23/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

24 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/05/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Signmakers, Inc (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Signmakers, Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Amendment to Cross-Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Signmakers, Inc (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • Amendment to Cross-Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Signmakers, Inc (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by Farmers Insurance Exchange (Plaintiff); Signmakers, Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • Notice (OF PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND CROSS COMPLAINT); Filed by Signmakers, Inc (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Signmakers, Inc (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department P; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by Signmakers, Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
40 More Docket Entries
  • 07/31/2017
  • NOTICE OF POSTTNG FURY FEES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2017
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2017
  • REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Farmers Insurance Exchange (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Farmers Insurance Exchange (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Farmers Insurance Exchange (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC659352    Hearing Date: October 06, 2020    Dept: P

 

Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Beverly Hills Dry Cleaners, Inc., Case No. BC659352

Hearing Date October 6, 2020

Ohio Security Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to Intervene/Intervenor’s Motion to Withdraw Defendant’s Amended Answer (UNOPPOSED)

NOTE: THE COURT SIGNED THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION RE CONSOLIDATION ON 10/5/20, WITH FARMERS V. BH DRY CLEANERS AS THE LEAD CASE

Defendants are alleged to have caused a fire at a property owned by third-party insureds. Plaintiff Farmers filed a complaint for negligence. Defendant Beverly Hills Dry Cleaners holds a commercial liability insurance policy with Ohio Security, which seeks to intervene and withdraw Beverly Hills’ amended answer. Both motions are unopposed.

Motion to Intervene

“Upon timely application, any person who has an interest in the matter in litigation or in the success of either of the parties may intervene in the action . . . either by joining the plaintiff . . or by uniting with the defendant . . . or demanding anything adversely to both the plaintiff and the defendant.” Code of Civ. Proc. §387. Insurers may intervene on behalf of a suspended corporation, as they may be subject to a direct action for payment if default is entered. Reliance Ins. Co. et. al. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 389. Though there is no statutory time limit for filing a motion for intervention, an unjustified delay, coupled with prejudice to any party, is a sufficient basis for denying such a motion. Noya v. A.W. Coulter Trucking (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 838, 842-844.

Ohio Security argues, as Beverly Hills’ insurer, it would be required to pay any judgment. The court takes judicial notice pursuant to Cal. Evid. Code §452(g) that Beverly Hills’ corporate status is FTB suspended. The facts here are similar to Reliance, supra, where an insurer was allowed to intervene on behalf of a suspended insured. Though Ohio Insurance delayed for approximately two years before filing this motion, there is no evidence of prejudice to either party, and the motion is unopposed. GRANTED.

Motion to Withdraw

Ohio Security moves to withdraw Beverly Hills’ amended answer, arguing counsel was unaware the company was suspended when the amendment was filed. Code of Civ. Proc. §473 section permits correction of mistakes but does not permit withdrawal of mistakenly filed pleadings. Additionally, Ohio Security provided no authority for the proposition that it has standing to withdraw a pleading filed by Beverly Hills, a separate party. DENIED. The court will entertain argument regarding the intentions of Beverly Hills to attempt to restore corporate status.

The above rulings and analysis apply equally to Ohio Security’s motions in Ohio Security Insurance Company v. Signmakers and Romano v. Beverly Hills Dry Cleaners, Inc., Cases Nos. 19STCV30137 and 19STCV31533, as the facts, law and argument are essentially identical. The court signed the stipulation to consolidate the three cases on 10/5/20.

DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR REMOTELY VIA LA COURT CONNECT.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE A SUBSIDIARY OF FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer STRUMWASSER, GREGG