This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/07/2020 at 03:06:34 (UTC).

HE HUA CHEN VS NORJULAW LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/13/2017 HE HUA CHEN filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against NORJULAW LLC. 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:

    ****3366

  • 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 Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

CHEN HE HUA

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

NORJULAW LLC

TSENG JANET

LIU JIE

DOES 1 TO 50

TSENG IVAN

ZHU YUEMIN

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Defendant

LIU JIE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BECKER TODD B. ESQ.

BECKER TODD BENJAMIN ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

SANTA CRUZ BROWNWOOD & CANNON

HURLEY BETH LOUISE

HURLEY BETH

MYERS JEFFREY CABOT

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

HURLEY BETH LOUISE

HURLEY BETH

MYERS JEFFREY CABOT

 

Court Documents

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

11/13/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

7/10/2020: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

3/30/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

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

1/24/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2

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

1/24/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

1/29/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER: DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

12/2/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER: DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

11/21/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

11/21/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Substitution of Attorney

11/6/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ...)

6/21/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ...)

Notice - NOTICE VOLUME OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MSJ

6/17/2019: Notice - NOTICE VOLUME OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MSJ

Motion for Summary Judgment

6/17/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment

Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION OF BETH HURLEY

6/20/2019: Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION OF BETH HURLEY

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

6/20/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

12/5/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

12/19/2018: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

7/30/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

41 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/28/2021
  • Hearing04/28/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2021
  • Hearing04/14/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2020
  • Hearing11/13/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; : OSC RE Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial (- NFC) - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2020
  • Docket[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by HE HUA CHEN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial (- NFC) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2020
  • Docketat 3:50 PM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
62 More Docket Entries
  • 04/26/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2018
  • DocketNotice; Filed by NORJULAW, LLC (Defendant); IVAN TSENG (Defendant); JANET TSENG (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2018
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by NORJULAW, LLC (Cross-Complainant); JANET TSENG (Cross-Complainant); IVAN TSENG (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2018
  • DocketGeneral Denial; Filed by NORJULAW, LLC (Defendant); IVAN TSENG (Defendant); JANET TSENG (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2018
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by NORJULAW, LLC (Defendant); IVAN TSENG (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2018
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by NORJULAW, LLC (Defendant); IVAN TSENG (Defendant); JANET TSENG (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by NORJULAW, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by HE HUA CHEN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC683366    Hearing Date: December 17, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

he hua chen,

Plaintiff,

v.

norjulaw, llc, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC683366

Hearing Date: December 17, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Defendants’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff He Hua Chen (“Plaintiff”) allegedly fell when a dog owned by Cross-Defendant Jie Liu (“Liu”) ran towards her while she was walking her own dog. Defendants Norjulaw, LLC, Ivan Tseng (“Ivan”), and Janet Tseng (collectively, “Defendants”) owned the rental property in which Liu and his dog resided. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for negligence and premises liability against Defendants. Now, Defendants move for summary judgment. Plaintiff opposes the motion, which is denied.

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.)  

DISCUSSION

A property owner has a duty to exercise ordinary care in managing the property in order to avoid exposing others to an unreasonable risk of harm. (Annocki v. Peterson Enterprises, LLC (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 32, 37.) A property owner has a duty of care to prevent dog bites when the it has actual knowledge that a dangerous animal is on the premises, and it has the right to remove the animal. (Uccello v. Laudenslayer (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 504, 514.)

Defendants fail to satisfy their burden on summary judgment. Tellingly, Defendants do not proffer their own declarations or deposition testimony stating that they did not know a dangerous animal was on their premises. The absence of such evidence preclude summary judgment.

Instead, Defendants rely on Liu’s deposition, citing Page #101 to Page #105, but Defendants did not file a copy of the transcript with Beth Hurley’s declaration. Plaintiff does not appear to dispute that Liu never informed Defendants about any complaints or a prior incident in which the dog had attacked another dog. (Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, ¶ 6.) Regardless, this does not satisfy Defendants’ burden because the mere fact Liu never reported any complaints or incidents does not mean Defendants were not aware that a dangerous dog was living on the property.

Finally, Defendants proffer their lease agreement with Liu, which states that “no animal or pet shall be kept on or about the Premises without Landlord’s prior written consent . . . ,” and does not list any exceptions. (Notice of Exhibits in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit A.) This does not support Defendants’ motion for summary judgment because there is no evidence that Defendants were unaware of the dog’s residence at the property. For example, there are no declarations or deposition transcripts from Defendants indicating that they never gave permission for the dog to reside at the property. Indeed, Ivan Tseng’s deposition testimony establishes that he gave Liu permission to keep the dog at the property.

Taken together, Defendants’ evidence does not satisfy their burden on summary judgment. Even if so, however, Plaintiffs proffer sufficient evidence to give rise to a triable issue. Plaintiff relies on Ivan Tseng’s deposition, during his he testified that, in fact, he knew Liu had a dog when Liu moved into the property. (Declaration of Jason Boyer in Support of Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, Exh. B, p. 18.) Ivan Tseng testified that he viewed the dog as security for the property because it barked at strangers. (Id., Exh. B, p. 31.)

Q: So was the dog like -- in your eyes was the dog a security dog?

A: Yes.

Q: And if some stranger would approach, would the dog bark to give security?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you feel when the dog would bark, that it could keep strangers away?

A: Yes.

(Ibid.) Ivan Tseng testified that he permitted Liu to build a doghouse for the dog on the property, meaning that he knew the dog would be outside at times. (Id., Exh. B, pp. 26-27.) Finally, Ivan Tseng testified that he knew the gate at the property did not secure the yard in which the dog lived. (Id., Exh. B., pp. 40-41.)

Even had Defendants satisfied their burden, Plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient to establish that Defendants permitted the dog to reside at the property, knowing that: (1) The dog lived in the yard; (2) The yard was not secure; and (3) The dog was aggressive toward strangers. This evidence is sufficient to create a triable issue.

Defendants did not address Janet Tseng or Norjulaw, LLC separately from Ivan Tseng. For example, Defendants proffer no evidence that Janet Tseng was unaware of the dog’s existence or nature. Nor do Defendants proffer any evidence that Norjulaw, LLC is not owned and/or controlled by Ivan Tseng. Therefore, the Court denies Defendants’ motion in its entirety.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: December 17, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC683366    Hearing Date: December 05, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

he hua chen,

Plaintiff,

v.

norjulaw, llc, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC683366

Hearing Date: December 5, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Defendant’s MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff He Hua Chen (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she sustained injuries when a dog owned by Cross-Defendant Jie Liu (“Liu”) ran towards her while she was walking her own dog, causing her to fall. Defendants Norjulaw, LLC, Ivan Tseng, and Janet Tseng (“Defendants”) owned the rental property where Liu resided with his dog. Defendants move for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s complaint. While Defendants have filed a Volume of Evidence in support of their motion, Defendants have not attached the exhibits to that document. Nor have Defendants attached the exhibits to the declaration of Beth Hurley, which purports to authenticate them. Therefore, the Court continues the hearing on this motion to December 17, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. Defendants are ordered to file the exhibits no later than December 5, 2019. The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.

DATED: December 2, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court