This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/26/2019 at 03:16:19 (UTC).

FARRAH YOUSSEFZADEH VS CVS PHARMACY INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/13/2018 FARRAH YOUSSEFZADEH filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CVS PHARMACY INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4274

  • Filing Date:

    02/13/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

YOUSSEFZADEH FARRAH

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

DK CONNECTIONS LLC

DOES 1 TO 50

CVS PHARMACY INC

SB LANDSCAPING INC [DOE 1]

Cross Defendant

ROES 1 THROUGH 20 INCLUSIVE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

AZIZI DAVID ESQ.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

JENSEN AMY K. ESQ.

LENKOV JEFFREY M. ESQ.

THE HANOVER LAW OFFICE

TRAN STEPHANIE MINH

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

LENKOV JEFFREY M. ESQ.

THE HANOVER LAW OFFICE

Cross Defendant Attorney

PENNEY BRENDAN B. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

3/23/2018: ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

5/9/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT/CROSS-DEFENDANT SB LANDSCAPING, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAFNT

6/14/2018: DEFENDANT/CROSS-DEFENDANT SB LANDSCAPING, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAFNT

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

6/18/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

Motion to Compel Discovery

11/21/2018: Motion to Compel Discovery

Motion to Compel Discovery

11/21/2018: Motion to Compel Discovery

Motion to Compel Discovery

11/21/2018: Motion to Compel Discovery

Notice

1/29/2019: Notice

Notice of Ruling

2/4/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order

2/4/2019: Minute Order

Unknown

2/13/2019: Unknown

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

5/21/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Unknown

6/1/2018: Unknown

NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

6/1/2018: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

5/22/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

CROSS-DEFENDANT SB LANDSCAPING, INC. 'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT DK CONNECTIONS, LLC'S CROSSCOMPLAINT

5/16/2018: CROSS-DEFENDANT SB LANDSCAPING, INC. 'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT DK CONNECTIONS, LLC'S CROSSCOMPLAINT

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

5/2/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

4/27/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

15 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/21/2019
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Stephanie Minh Tran (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • Notice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by CVS Pharmacy Inc (Legacy Party); DK Connections LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by SB LANDSCAPING INC [DOE 1] (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2019
  • Notice (Non-Opposition to Motions to Compel); Filed by SB LANDSCAPING INC [DOE 1] (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2018
  • Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion; Filed by SB LANDSCAPING INC [DOE 1] (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2018
  • Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion; Filed by SB LANDSCAPING INC [DOE 1] (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
29 More Docket Entries
  • 03/23/2018
  • Answer; Filed by CVS Pharmacy Inc (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2018
  • ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Farrah Youssefzadeh (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Farrah Youssefzadeh (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Farrah Youssefzadeh (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Farrah Youssefzadeh (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE 2. PREMISES LIABILITY

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC694274    Hearing Date: August 24, 2020    Dept: 32

ORDER #1 of 2

farrah youssefzadeh ,

Plaintiff,

v.

cvs pharmacy, inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC694274

Hearing Date: August 24, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Defendant CVS’s MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Background

Plaintiff Farrah Youssefzadeh (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (“Defendant”) after she tripped and fell in a parking lot adjacent to Defendant’s store. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for negligence and premises liability. Now, Defendant moves for summary judgment, which Plaintiff does not oppose. The motion is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law[.]  There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)  “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.”  (Ibid.)  In ruling on the motion, “the court may not weigh the plaintiff's evidence or inferences against the defendant[’s] as though it were sitting as the trier of fact.”  (Id. at 856.)  However, the court “must . . . determine what any evidence or inference could show or imply to a reasonable trier of fact.”  (Ibid., emphasis original.)  

DISCUSSION

The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages.  (Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.)  Those who own, possess, or control property generally have a duty to exercise ordinary care in managing the property to avoid exposing others to an unreasonable risk of harm.  (Annocki

Defendant argues that it did not control the area where Plaintiff fell. Defendant proffers its lease with DK Connections, LLC (“DK”). The lease states that the parking lot adjacent to Defendant’s store is a common area, and that DK is responsible for maintaining common areas. Additionally, the lease states that Defendant cannot alter the common areas without written permission from DK Connections.

This evidence satisfies Defendant’s burden, shifting the burden to Plaintiff to proffer sufficient evidence to give rise to a triable issue. Plaintiff fails to do so. Plaintiff does not oppose this motion, and there is no evidence in the record rebutting Defendant’s showing. Therefore, the motion is granted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: August 24, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

ORDER #2 of 2

farrah youssefzadeh ,

Plaintiff,

v.

cvs pharmacy, inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC694274

Hearing Date: August 24, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

DEFENDANT DK CONNECTIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Background

Plaintiff Farrah Youssefzadeh (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant DK Connections, LLC (“DK”) after she tripped and fell in a parking lot at DK’s shopping center. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that she tripped on a missing chunk of grass on the lawn adjacent to her parking space, asserting causes of action for negligence and premises liability. DK filed a cross-complaint against SB Landscaping, Inc. (“SB”), who was responsible for maintaining the landscaping in the shopping center’s common areas. DK asserts causes of action against SB for express indemnification, equitable indemnification, equitable contribution, and declaratory relief. Now, DK moves for summary judgment on its cross-complaint against SB, which does not oppose the motion. DK’s motion is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law[.]  There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)  “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.”  (Ibid.)  In ruling on the motion, “the court may not weigh the plaintiff's evidence or inferences against the defendant[’s] as though it were sitting as the trier of fact.”  (Id. at 856.)  However, the court “must . . . determine what any evidence or inference could show or imply to a reasonable trier of fact.”  (Ibid., emphasis original.)  

DISCUSSION

DK relies on its agreement with SB. Interpretation of this agreement is an issue of law for the court.  (De Guere v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 482, 501.) The agreement provides that, among other tasks, SB will maintain the edges of lawns on the property “to maintain a neat appearance.” (Exhibit A to Exhibit D of Index of Exhibits in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 10.) It further states, “To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, [SB] shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless [DK] . . . from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, expenses, damages, liabilities, fines and penalties . . . whether actual or alleged, arising out of or relating to: (a) [SB]’s performance of (or failure to perform)” SB’s duties under the agreement. (Exhibit A to Exhibit D of Index of Exhibits in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 5.)

DK also proffers the testimony of Sergio Rivera Garcia (“Garcia”), an employee of SB. Garcia testified that the area of Plaintiff’s fall was one maintained by SB. (Index of Exhibits in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, Exh. C, p. 62.) Garcia also testified that the missing grass “doesn’t look good . . . ,” and therefore was SB’s responsibility to repair. (Ibid.) Garcia testified that he had noticed the missing chunk of law for months prior to Plaintiff’s injury. (Id., Exh. C, pp. 28-30.)

This evidence is sufficient to satisfy DK’s burden, shifting the burden to SB to proffer sufficient evidence to give rise to a triable issue. SB has not opposed the motion, and there is nothing in the record giving rise to a triable issue. Therefore, the motion is granted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

DK Connections, LLC’s motion for summary judgment is granted. DK shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: August 24, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where DK CONNECTIONS LLC A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases where CVS Pharmacy, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer PENNEY BRENDAN B. ESQ.