On 05/24/2017 HERIBERTO GALICIA LOPEZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against EAGLE CONTRACTING 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 GEORGINA T. RIZK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
GEORGINA T. RIZK
LOPEZ HERIBERTO GALICIA
EAGLE CONTRACTING INC.
DOES 1 TO 50
GLENDALE I MALL ASSOCIATES LP
INTERSTATE CONCRETE CUTTING INC.
VELOX CONSTRUCTION INC. DOE 3
FULCRUM CONSTRUCTION INC. DOE 2
EAGLE CONTRACTING ET AL
MOES 1 THROUGH 50 INCLUSIVE
P&E CONSTRUCTION INC.
SALEH HUSSIN ESQ.
SALEH HUSSEIN HUSNI ESQ.
MEYERS MCCONNELL REISZ SIDERMAN
CHERMELA JASON RYAN ESQ.
SIDERMAN LORI ELLEN ESQ.
KAUFMAN JEFFREY S ESQ.
REINHOLTZ JACK R ESQ.
WEINSTEIN MARK ALAN ESQ.
8/14/2018: NOTICE OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT BETWEEN DEFENDANT EAGLE CONTRACTING INC.;AND ETC.
8/14/2018: Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement
9/21/2018: CROSS COMPLAINT FOR INDEMIFICATION APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT DECLARATORY RELIEF AND EXPRESS INDEMNITY
9/21/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
10/15/2018: Minute Order
10/17/2018: Proof of Personal Service
10/26/2018: Notice of Ruling
3/1/2019: Minute Order
4/16/2019: Request for Dismissal
7/17/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
10/10/2017: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Request for Dismissal; Filed by Heriberto Galicia Lopez (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Request for Dismissal; Filed by Eagle Contracting, Inc. (Cross-Complainant)Read MoreRead Less
Order (Proposed Order Determining Good Faith Settlement Between Eagle Contracting and Plaintiff); Filed by Eagle Contracting, Inc. (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
at 11:00 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by PartyRead MoreRead Less
at 1:30 PM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Challenge the Good Faith of a Settlement (CCP 877.6) - Held - Motion DeniedRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Challenge the Good Faith of a Settlement...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 11:00 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts; Filed by Interstate Concrete Cutting, Inc. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Informal Discovery Conference (IDC))); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
EAGLE CONTRACTING, INC.'S CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: (1) EQUITABLE INDEMNIFICATION; ETCRead MoreRead Less
ANSWER OF EAGLE CONTRACTING, INC. TO COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by Eagle Contracting, Inc. (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
Cross-Complaint; Filed by Eagle Contracting, Inc. (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by Eagle Contracting, Inc. (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Heriberto Galicia Lopez (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Heriberto Galicia Lopez (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC662546 Hearing Date: June 23, 2020 Dept: A
The Superior Court is re-opening under “Here for You | Safe for You” Conditions and Orders
Counsel are urged to use remote appearance technology such as Court Call or LACourtConnect )(when it becomes available on August 6 for Branch Civil)
If it is indispensable for counsel to be present in court, face masks are mandated (unless a court orders otherwise) and social distancing rules are in force.
Lopez v Eagle Contracting
Motion for Protective Order
June 23, 2020
May 24, 2017
June 15, 2020
Plaintiff Heriberto Galicia Lopez
Defendant Fulcrum Construction, Inc.
The instant action arises from a slip and fall suffered by Plaintiff Heriberto Galicia Lopez (“Plaintiff”) at 100 West Broadway, Glendale, CA 91210 (the “Property”) on or about June 13, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that the cause of the slip and fall was liquid located on the floor of the Property, which Defendants Eagle Contracting Inc. (“Eagle”); Glendale I Mall Associates, LP (“Glendale Mall”); Interstate Concrete Cutting, Inc. (“Interstate”, formerly Doe 1); Fulcrum Construction, Inc. (“Fulcrum”, formerly Doe 2); and Velox Construction, Inc. (“Velox”, formerly Doe 3, and collectively the “Defendants”) were allegedly responsible for maintaining.
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on May 24, 2017, alleging two causes of action sounding in (1) Negligence, and (2) Premises Liability.
Fulcrum filed a Cross-Complaint (“FXC”) on September 21, 2018, alleging that Eagle, Interstate, Velox, and Cross-Defendant P&E Construction, Inc. (“PEC” or “Cross-Defendant”) are liable on theories of (1) Indemnification, (2) Apportionment of Fault, (3) Declaratory Relief, and (4) Express Indemnity.
Eagle filed a Cross-Complaint (“EXC”) on October 24, 2018, alleging that Fulcrum, PEC, and Interstate are liable to it on theories of (1) Equitable Indemnification, (2) Apportionment & Contribution, and (3) Declaratory Relief.
Velox filed its own Cross-Complaint (“VXC”) on February 01, 2019, alleging that unknown cross-defendants are liable to it under theories of (1) Indemnity, (2) Contribution, and (3) Declaratory Relief.
The instant motion was filed by Plaintiff on February 26, 2020. Defendant filed opposition on March 09, 2020, and a reply brief was received on March 13, 2020. Oral arguments were originally scheduled for March 20, 2020.
On March 18, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and pursuant to the March 17, 2020, Administrative Order of the Presiding Judge, the Court continued the instant motion to April 17, 2020, with no change in the briefing schedule. Counsel for Plaintiff was informed telephonically, and directed to give notice.
On March 25, 2020, and in response to the continuing pandemic conditions, the Court continued the matter again, setting the motion for hearing on May 22, 2020. Counsel for Plaintiff was informed and directed to give notice, and a copy of the minute order was mailed to counsel.
On April 21, 2020, with the continuing pandemic conditions, the Court rescheduled the hearing date to June 23, 2020. Counsel for Plaintiff was informed and directed to give notice, and a copy of the minute order was mailed to counsel.
Plaintiff moves for a protective order regarding Plaintiff’s deposition.
Service – As an initial matter, the Court notes that the proofs of service filed with the Plaintiff’s moving papers fail to indicate any method of service. As such, the proofs of service are defective on their face.
Notice – On the Court’s review of Plaintiff’s notice of motion the Court is challenged to identify the relief sought under the four corners of the notice. In the notice, Plaintiff moves for “an order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420(b) that the deposition of Plaintiff be taken at a place other than that specified in the deposition notice.” Plaintiff fails to request where, if anywhere, they want the deposition to occur, and fail to indicate where the current deposition in noticed for the Plaintiff. Further, to the extent that Plaintiff is seeking relief under one of the 16 subsections of Code of Civ. Proc. §2025.420(b), the relevant subsection, subsection 4, requires that the moving part indicate that the new location “is within a distance permitted by Sections 2025.250 and 2025.260.” Which Plaintiff has not done, and thereby deprived Defendant the opportunity to oppose the motion on that statutory basis.
Based on these defects to service and notice, the Court could deny the instant motion without prejudice to filing a new motion for protective order that cures the instant defects.
Mootness – The Court, however, notes that the instant motion is mooted pursuant the April 06, 2020, Emergency Rule of Court, Rule 11, promulgated by the Judicial Council of California, which provides that “Notwithstanding any other law, including the Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.310(a) and (b), and rule 3.1010(c) and (d), a party or nonparty deponent, at their election or the election of the deposing party, is not required to be present with the deposition officer at the time of the deposition.”
Should the parties be incapable of finalizing Plaintiff’s deposition prior to the sunset of the Emergency Rule (90 days following the expiration of the Governor’s State of Emergency Declaration), then the parties may petition the Court for further relief at that time.
Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion without prejudice.
In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.
Plaintiff Heriberto Galicia Lopez’s Motion for Protective Order came on regularly for hearing on June 23, 2020, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:
THE MOTION IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOTED BY THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA’S APRIL 06, 2020 EMERGENCY RULE 11.
DATE: _______________ _______________________________
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases