This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/29/2019 at 12:14:33 (UTC).

GUILLERMO C FRAYRE VS PARK SYCAMORE L P ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/13/2017 GUILLERMO C FRAYRE filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against PARK SYCAMORE L P. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DENNIS J. LANDIN and CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3148

  • Filing Date:

    11/13/2017

  • 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

DENNIS J. LANDIN

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

FRAYRE GUILLERMO C.

Claimants

CALIFORNIA VICTIM COMPENSATION BOARD

STATE OF CALIFORNIA/CALIFORNIA VICTIM COMPENSATION BOARD

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

PARK SYCAMORE L.P.

GALLEGOS JEFFREY

DOES 1 TO 50

BARRIO MANAGEMENT INC. DOE 1

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Defendant

GALLEGOS JEFFREY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

THE DOMINGUEZ FIRM

TAILLIEU OLIVIER ALAIN

BAGOSY JENNIFER RENEE

Claimant Attorneys

DELANI LARENDA R.

DELAINI LARENDA RAI

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

LEE TED M. ESQ.

FOZI GOLNAR JABBARI

WISEMAN THOMAS ANDREW

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

FOZI GOLNAR JABBARI

WISEMAN THOMAS ANDREW

 

Court Documents

Declaration - DECLARATION 2019-11-18 WISEMAN DECL ISO DEF OPP TO EX PARTE RE IDC

11/18/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION 2019-11-18 WISEMAN DECL ISO DEF OPP TO EX PARTE RE IDC

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MICHAEL H CORCORAN PHD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER INSPECTION OF PROPERTY AND SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM

11/18/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MICHAEL H CORCORAN PHD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER INSPECTION OF PROPERTY AND SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM

Separate Statement

11/18/2019: Separate Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW FOR SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS IN SUP...)

8/5/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW FOR SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS IN SUP...)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

8/16/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Stipulation - No Order - STIPULATION - NO ORDER STIPULATION RE: NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EXAM OF PLAINTIFF

8/16/2019: Stipulation - No Order - STIPULATION - NO ORDER STIPULATION RE: NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EXAM OF PLAINTIFF

Declaration - DECLARATION DEC. OF TOM A. WISEMAN RE SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO CASE BEING TRIAD IN DOWNTOWN L.A.

8/6/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DEC. OF TOM A. WISEMAN RE SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO CASE BEING TRIAD IN DOWNTOWN L.A.

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

8/5/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ACCOMMODATION) OF 07/19/2019

7/19/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ACCOMMODATION) OF 07/19/2019

Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING NOTICE OF LODGING DECLARATIONS UNDER SEAL

7/19/2019: Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING NOTICE OF LODGING DECLARATIONS UNDER SEAL

Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

5/29/2019: Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF TOM A. WISEMAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO BIFURCATE

5/23/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF TOM A. WISEMAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO BIFURCATE

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

12/5/2018: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

NOTICE OF LIEN

4/26/2018: NOTICE OF LIEN

MOTION TO STRIKE IMPROPER PUNITIVE DAMAGES ALLEGATIONS FROM COMPLAINT

4/30/2018: MOTION TO STRIKE IMPROPER PUNITIVE DAMAGES ALLEGATIONS FROM COMPLAINT

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:NEGLIGENCE;AND ETC.

5/17/2018: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:NEGLIGENCE;AND ETC.

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

7/17/2018: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Minute Order -

7/31/2018: Minute Order -

80 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/13/2020
  • Hearing11/13/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • Hearing03/03/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2020
  • Hearing01/17/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2020
  • Hearing01/03/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2019
  • Hearing12/11/2019 at 13:30 PM in Department 4A at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel FURTHER PREMISES INSPECTION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2019
  • Docketat 11:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2019
  • Docketat 11:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (For IDC On Motion To Compel Further Inspection Of Property And Surveillance System) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Informal Discovery Conference (IDC))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application For Informal Discovery Confe...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
129 More Docket Entries
  • 04/13/2018
  • DocketOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT PARK SYCAMOE, L.P.'S MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES ALLEGATIONS FROM PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE IMPROPER PUNITIVE DAMAGES ALLEGATIAONS FROM PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT;AND ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2018
  • DocketMotion to Strike; Filed by Park Sycamore, L.P. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Guillermo C. Frayre (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Guillermo C. Frayre (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Guillermo C. Frayre (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC683148    Hearing Date: December 11, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion to Compel Further Inspection

Having reviewed the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Guillermo C. Frayre (“Frayre”) alleges that Defendant Jeffrey Gallegos (“Gallegos”) attacked him with a baseball bat at an apartment complex owned by Defendant Park Sycamore, L.P. (“Park”). Frayre was a tenant at the time of incident. (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶ 1.) Gallegos was a convicted felon and brother of one of Defendant’s tenants. (Id. ¶¶ 3-5, 7.) Frayre alleges that Park had received notice several times that Gallegos threatened tenants, but Park took no action, thus violating its duty to maintain the apartment complex in a safe condition. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5, 7.) Because of the incident, Frayre was in a coma for 13 days and suffered a hematoma and orbital fracture. (Id. ¶ 6.)

Frayre asserts causes of action for negligence against Park and battery against Gallegos. Frayre had also asserted a cause of action for premises liability against Park, but the Court sustained Park’s demurrer to that cause of action without leave to amend on August 1, 2018.

On December 15, 2018, Frayre substituted Barrio Management, Inc. (“Barrio”), for Doe 1 as a defendant to the causes of action for negligence, premises liability, and battery.

The case is set for jury trial on January 17, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

On October 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel a further inspection of Defendant’s property and surveillance system arguing that Defendant placed improper limitation on the inspection conducted by Plaintiff and his expert.

DISCUSSION

Defendant first opposes the motion on procedural grounds, arguing that Plaintiff failed to provide adequate notice under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005. To provide notice of the motion 16 court days before the hearing on December 11, 2019, Plaintiff had to deliver the moving papers to Defendant by personal service no later than November 15, 2019. Plaintiff’s service on November 18, 2019 was, therefore, untimely. Because Defendant has timely filed an opposition to the motion to compel, the Court surmises that Defendant has suffered no prejudice from the late service of the moving papers. Further, in light of the fast approaching trial date, a ruling on this motion should be issued promptly. Accordingly, since Defendant decided against seeking ex parte relief for additional time to submit opposition, the Court finds that the minor delay in service should not preclude a ruling on the pending motion.

Raising his own procedural issue, Plaintiff contends that Defendant was required to file a motion for protective order to enforce any limitations on the scope of Plaintiff’s inspection. The Court agrees with Defendant that there is no authority requiring an affirmative motion for protective order in lieu of simply raising objections to a notice for inspection. Accordingly, the Court will address the substance of the dispute.

Plaintiff seeks an order permitting a further inspection of Defendant’s surveillance system, including the monitors connected to the security cameras, even though the current system was installed after the incident that caused Plaintiff’s injury. Plaintiff’s theory of liability includes the contention that Defendant was extremely lax about premises security and maintained nonfunctional security cameras and inadequate locks on the gates. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s post-accident efforts to secure letters from current residents attesting to the current safety of the premises based in part on its recent installation of a working security system has placed that post-incident system at issue in this lawsuit. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks access for his security expert to inspect the security monitors to assess whether the recently installed cameras are actually operational and what areas of the premises they cover. Plaintiff also contends that there is not full agreement between the parties about whether all the current security devices were installed after the incident in which Plaintiff was injured.

According to testimony by the executive director of Defendant’s parent company, the security cameras on site are operational and the monitors are located in the apartment complex’s property management office. Tenants have the ability to enter the office, and at least one tenant has viewed security camera footage on the monitor in that office. Plaintiff counters Defendant’s privacy objection by arguing that the property management office is a common area accessible to tenants and others and that the monitors for the security cameras display only common space and outdoor areas not subject to any privacy rights.

Defendant has objected to the inspection of the monitors on privacy and relevance grounds, arguing that Plaintiff and his expert should not be permitted to inspect the interior of any buildings, units or offices, including the location where Defendant’s security monitors are currently housed. Defendant rejects the notion that its security monitors are not protected by Defendant’s privacy rights. It argues that “Plaintiff’s inspection touches on protected privacy interests insofar as the surveillance and monitoring systems are located in the office where defendant conducts its business, maintains confidential and private business and tenant files and computers, which cannot be subjected to inspection by plaintiff, his counsel or experts on privacy grounds.” (Opposition, p. 6.)

Defendant also contests the suggestion that it intends to place post-attack security at issue in this case and argues that it will seek an order precluding the admission of any evidence of subsequent remedial measures, including the installation of surveillance equipment after the incident. Defendant refused to stipulate, however, that it could not raise its subsequent security measures to demonstrate its exercise of due care in this case.

Having considered all the arguments of the parties with respect to Defendant’s objections to the further inspection, the Court rules as follows.

Evidence Code section 1151 provides: “When, after occurrence of an event, remedial or precautionary measures are taken, which, if taken previously, would have tended to make the event less likely to occur, evidence of such subsequent measures is inadmissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event.” This Evidence Code section establishes the standard for admissibility of evidence at trial or in connection with a substantive motion. It does not govern discovery, which has a much broader relevance standard. A party may seek to discover information and documents that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, even though the evidence sought is not itself admissible.

Further, section 1151 “‘does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose [besides negligence], such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment.’” (McIntyre v. The Colonies-Pac., LLC (2014) 228 Cal. App. 4th 664, 673 [insertion in original; citations omitted]; see also Ault v. International Harvester Co. (1974) 13 Cal.3d 113, 118 [“Section 1151 by its own terms excludes evidence of subsequent remedial or precautionary measures only when such evidence is offered to prove negligence or culpable conduct.”]; Baldwin Contracting Co. v. Winston Steel Works, Inc. (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 565, 573 [subsequent remedial conduct cannot be considered on the issue of liability, but “is relevant and admissible” on the issues of scope of duty and the possibility or feasibility of eliminating the cause of the accident]; 1 Witkin, Cal. Evidence, Circumstantial Evidence, § 444, p. 413 [“Where evidence of subsequent precautions or repairs is independently relevant on some issue other than negligence, the policy objection is overcome....”].)

The Court finds that the inspection sought is relevant to determine what security measures were in place at the time of Plaintiff’s injury and to distinguish those measures from any security or surveillance system installed following the incident. In addition, evidence of new security devices may be relevant and admissible to prove something other than Defendant’s negligence, like the feasibility of installing effective security measures or other issues besides negligence or culpability. Accordingly, the Court overrules Defendant’s relevance objection.

Turning to Defendant’s privacy objection, the Court rules that Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the inspection of its security monitors in the property management office will necessarily invade its privacy rights as a business operation. The inspection sought by plaintiffs does not entail examination of Defendant’s business or tenant files. To the extent that Defendant’s security system is resident in its business computers, any inspection will be strictly limited to those quadrants of the computer that harbor the security programming and systems. Plaintiff and his expert shall not be permitted to examine any business or tenant files maintained on the computer, in the file cabinets or elsewhere in the office. The inspection shall be limited to Defendant’s security system.

Further, to ensure the continued efficacy of Defendant’s security system, any information gathered during the inspection shall be subject to a protective order that will limit its use and disclosure to matters related to this litigation. The parties shall meet and confer about the terms of an appropriate protective order and submit their proposed order to this Court for signature.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further inspection is GRANTED as described more fully above.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling.