This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/05/2020 at 05:01:37 (UTC).

GUADALUPE ARAUJO VS SUPER KINGS MARKETS

Case Summary

On 02/06/2018 GUADALUPE ARAUJO filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against SUPER KINGS MARKETS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2901

  • Filing Date:

    02/06/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • 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 Judge

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

ARAUJO GUADALUPE

Defendants and Respondents

SUPER KING MARKETS

DOES 1 TO 100

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

ACEVEDO OSCAR

Defendant Attorney

CHENIER MAURICE L

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS; TRIAL SETTIN...)

1/13/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS; TRIAL SETTIN...)

Request - REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM MANDATORY ELECTRONIC FILING AND SERVICE

11/22/2019: Request - REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM MANDATORY ELECTRONIC FILING AND SERVICE

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MAURICE L. CHENIER

12/3/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MAURICE L. CHENIER

Objection - OBJECTION OBJECTION TO THE DECLARATION OF OSCAR ACEVEDO

12/3/2019: Objection - OBJECTION OBJECTION TO THE DECLARATION OF OSCAR ACEVEDO

Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT

12/3/2019: Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT

Objection - OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FORM MANDATORY ELECTRONIC FILING AND SERVICE

12/6/2019: Objection - OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FORM MANDATORY ELECTRONIC FILING AND SERVICE

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

11/25/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION

11/21/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION

Objection - OBJECTION TO THE DECLARATION OF OSCAR ACEVEDO IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION

11/21/2019: Objection - OBJECTION TO THE DECLARATION OF OSCAR ACEVEDO IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER)

11/22/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE FOR ORDER DEEMING COMPLAINT FILED FEBRUARY 5, 2018

11/22/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE FOR ORDER DEEMING COMPLAINT FILED FEBRUARY 5, 2018

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

11/5/2019: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO FILE DEFAULT)

11/6/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO FILE DEFAULT)

Answer

8/30/2019: Answer

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

7/23/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

CoverSheet -

2/6/2018: CoverSheet -

Summons -

2/6/2018: Summons -

Complaint -

2/6/2018: Complaint -

12 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/22/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 4B; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 27, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 27, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Trial Settin...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2020
  • DocketOrder (re: Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4B; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 4B; Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Trial Settin...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2019
  • DocketObjection (to request for exemption form mandatory electronic filing and service); Filed by B&V Enterprises Inc. Erroneously Sued As Super King Markets (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (Declaration of Maurice L. Chenier); Filed by B&V Enterprises Inc. Erroneously Sued As Super King Markets (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
14 More Docket Entries
  • 08/30/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by B&V Enterprises Inc. Erroneously Sued As Super King Markets (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2019
  • DocketStatement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death); Filed by Guadalupe Araujo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4B; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 4B; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Guadalupe Araujo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Guadalupe Araujo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Guadalupe Araujo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC692901    Hearing Date: January 13, 2020    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff states that on February 5, 2018, at approximately 7:35 p.m., Plaintiff’s counsel filed a complaint alleging a cause of action for premises liability based on a slip and fall on February 4, 2016. The court file-stamped the complaint as filed on February 6, 2018.

On November 5, 2019, Defendant Super Kings Markets (“Defendant”) filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the two year statute of limitations for personal injury cases.

On November 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application arguing that her attorney filed the complaint on time but the Court’s electronic filing system incorrectly dated the complaint as filed on February 6, 2018. The Court denied the ex parte application, explaining that Department 1 handles requests for changing the filing date of a complaint based on contentions about electronic filing. The Court directed the parties to fill out the appropriate paper work in Department 1. Plaintiff submitted the request to re-date the complaint to Department 1 on November 22, 2019. As of the December 10, 2019 hearing date, the Court had not been informed about any ruling on Plaintiff’s request. Accordingly, on December 10, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on this motion to allow Department 1 time to process Plaintiff’s request.

On December 2, 2019, Department 1 denied Plaintiff’s request to re-date the complaint as filed on February 5, 2018. Therefore, the Complaint remains filed on February 6, 2018.

II. DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that the premises liability cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1.) “A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed. [Citations.]” (Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1064.) A pleading which on its face is barred by the statute of limitations does not state a viable cause of action and is subject to judgment on the pleadings. (Hunt v. County of Shasta (1990) 225 Cal.3d 432,440.)

The complaint alleges a slip and fall on February 4, 2016, but was filed on February 6, 2018, more than two years later. It is therefore barred by the statute of limitations. The motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: BC692901    Hearing Date: December 10, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION FOR JUDGEMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

On November 5, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the statute of limitations. On November 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application arguing that he filed the complaint on time but the Court’s electronic filing system incorrectly misdated the filing of the complaint as February 6, 2018. The Court denied the ex parte application, explaining that Department 1 handles these requests for changing the filing date of a complaint based on contentions about the electronic filing system. The Court directed the parties to fill out the appropriate paper work in Department 1.

Plaintiff’s counsel states that on November 22, 2019, he submitted the paperwork to Department 1 requesting the complaint to be deemed filed on February 5, 2018. As of November 25, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel had not received a response from Department 1.

This matter is continued to January 13, 2020 at 1:30 to allow Department 1 time to process Plaintiff’s request. If Department 1 grants the request, the parties shall immediately file a statement with that information. If Defendant contends the motion is not mooted by the granting of the request, the statement shall explain why. The statement shall be no more than one page long.

Moving party to give notice.