This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/27/2019 at 02:10:49 (UTC).

HOUSSEIN AMINI VS MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/15/2017 HOUSSEIN AMINI filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are PATRICIA D. NIETO and DEIRDRE HILL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0793

  • Filing Date:

    02/15/2017

  • 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

PATRICIA D. NIETO

DEIRDRE HILL

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

AMINI HOUSSEIN

Defendants, Respondents, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

JP MORGAN CHASE NATIONAL CORPORATE

MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES INC

BOMEL CONSTRUCTION CO. INC

JP MORGAN DISTRIBUTION SERVICES INC

SIMON PROPERTY GOUP INC

THE WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY

DOES 1 TO 100

FARALLON CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC

DEL AMO FASHION CTR OPERATING CO. (DOE 1)

BOMEL CONSRUCION CO INC.

DEL AMO FASHION CENTER OPERATING COMPANY L.L.C.

SIMON PROPERTY GROUP INC.

DEL AMAN FASHION CENTER OPERATING COMPANY

THE WHITING-TURNER CONTRACT COMPANY INC.

11 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

JOSEPH PIUS ESQ.

JOSEPH PIUS

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

LONG THOMAS PATRICK

DUNBAR KEVIN T. ESQ.

LUCAS TIMOTHY D

GRANT GENOVESE & BARATTA LLP

LONG T. PATRICK ESQ.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

LONG T. PATRICK ESQ.

LENKOV JEFFREY M. ESQ.

Cross Defendant Attorney

LENKOV JEFFREY MYLES ESQ.

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/16/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

BOMEL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.?S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF?S COMPLAINT

5/15/2018: BOMEL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.?S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF?S COMPLAINT

Unknown

5/16/2018: Unknown

ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

5/16/2018: ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

5/25/2018: NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE REGARDING DEFENDANT, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA.'S PROPERTY ADDRESS

5/25/2018: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE REGARDING DEFENDANT, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA.'S PROPERTY ADDRESS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

6/6/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

6/11/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

Unknown

7/3/2018: Unknown

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

7/13/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

Answer

7/27/2018: Answer

Other -

7/30/2018: Other -

Other -

7/30/2018: Other -

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

8/15/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Case Management Statement

8/27/2018: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

8/29/2018: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

3/5/2019: Minute Order

Amendment to Cross-Complaint

5/7/2019: Amendment to Cross-Complaint

42 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/08/2019
  • Amendment to Cross-Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Macy's West Stores, Inc. Erroneously Sued As Macy's Corporate Services Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2019
  • Amendment to Cross-Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Macy's West Stores, Inc. Erroneously Sued As Macy's Corporate Services Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by DEL AMAN FASHION CENTER OPERATING COMPANY (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (OSC-Failure to File Dism. or Judg.) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (OSC-Failure to File Dism. or Judg.) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Court Order Due to the unavailability of the court on 1/25/1...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
132 More Docket Entries
  • 04/16/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Houssein Amini (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Houssein Amini (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2017
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2017
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2017
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Houssein Amini (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC650793    Hearing Date: February 04, 2020    Dept: SWB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. B

HOUSSEIN AMINI,

Plaintiff,

Case No.:

BC650793

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

MACY’S CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: February 4, 2020

Moving Parties: Defendant Macy’s West Stores, Inc. (erroneously sued as Macy’s Corporate Services, Inc.)

Responding Party: None

Motion for Summary Judgment

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed.

RULING

The motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

On February 15, 2017, plaintiff Houssein Amini filed a complaint against Macy’s Corporate Services, Inc., Simon Property Group, Inc., Farallon Capital Management, LLC, JPMorgan Distribution Services Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase National Corporate Services, Inc., The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, Inc., and Bomel Construction Co., Inc. based on a trip and fall incident on February 19, 2015, located at 3525 W. Carson St., Torrance.

On January 28, 2020, plaintiff filed a request for dismissal as against Macy’s Corporate Services Inc.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 843. “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1110, 1119.

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 1510, 1519. A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” CCP § 437c(p)(2). “Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” CCP § 437c(p)(2). “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 463, 467.

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” Avivi, 159 Cal. App. 4th at 467; CCP §437c(c).

DISCUSSION

Defendant Macy’s requests summary judgment on the grounds that there are no genuine, triable issues as to any material facts and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to the complaint. In the alternative, Macy’s requests summary adjudication on the following issues:

Issue No. 1: Plaintiff’s claim for negligence fails because he cannot prove that Macy’s owed plaintiff any duty.

Issue No. 2: Plaintiff’s claim for negligence fails because he cannot establish that any act or omission on the part of Macy’s caused his injuries.

In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that he tripped and fell at 3525 W. Carson St., Torrance, on February 19, 2015, at nighttime. He was a customer at the property. He was walking from a parking lot on the premises to a Macy’s department store. There was construction ongoing near the Macy’s department store on the property at the time that plaintiff approached it. As plaintiff approached the Macy’s department store, it was dark at nighttime. The lighting near the store was inadequate to clearly reveal changes in the height of the curb of the sidewalk bordering Macy’s. There was no signage warning of changes in the height of the curb. Plaintiff tripped over the deepened curb as he attempted to step onto the sidewalk.

A landowner has a duty of ordinary care in the management of his or her premises in order to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm. Scott v. Chevron U.S.A. (1992) 5 Cal. App. 4th 510, 515; Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corporation (1989) 215 Cal. App. 3d 1611, 1619. “A person who [owns/leases/occupies/controls] property is negligent if he or she fails to use reasonable care to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition. A person who [owns/leases/occupies/controls] property must use reasonable care to discover any unsafe conditions and to repair, replace, and give adequate warning of anything that could be reasonably expected to harm others. . . .” CACI 1001.

“A defendant cannot be held liable for the defective or dangerous condition of property which it [does] not own, possess, or control. Where the absence of ownership, possession, or control has been unequivocally established, summary judgment is proper.” Donnell v. California Western School of Law (1988) 200 Cal. App. 3d 715, 720 (citation omitted). “Without the ‘crucial element’ of control over the subject premises, no duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent injury on such property can be found.” Gray v. America West Airlines, Inc. (1989) 209 Cal. App. 3d 76, 81 (citation omitted). “A person controls property that he or she does not own or lease when he or she uses the property as if it were his or her own. A person is responsible for maintaining, in reasonably safe condition, all areas he or she controls.” CACI 1002.

Defendant contends that on the night of February 19, 2015, plaintiff travelled to the Del Amo Fashion Center located at 3525 W. Carson St., Torrance, intending to eventually patronize the Macy’s store located in the north of the mall. Defendant’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“DUMF”) 1. Plaintiff walked through the parking lot, crossed the street, and headed towards the sidewalk that bordered the northern entrance into the Macy’s store. DUMF 2. There appeared to be construction going on in the street near the sidewalk adjacent to the entrance. DUMF 3. Plaintiff claims the illumination of the street and the sidewalk at the time was dim and that the height of the curb was not illuminated. DUMF 4. Plaintiff firmly planted his right foot on the top of the curb connecting the sidewalk and the street. DUMF 5. The top of the curb on the sidewalk adjacent to the Macy’s store entrance was flat. DUMF 6. As plaintiff attempted to pull his left foot onto the top of the curb to join his right foot, he believes his foot became “stuck,” causing him to fall. DUMF 7. Plaintiff expected the height differential between the street and the top of the curb to be approximately five to six inches. DUMF 8.

Defendant further contends that plaintiff claims that the height differential between the street and the top of the curb was approximately 12” at the time of his fall. DUMF 9. Plaintiff believes the larger than expected height differential caused him to trip and fall. DUMF 10. He claims that he did not notice the height of the curb because of the inadequate lighting of the curb and sidewalk. DUMF 11. The curb and street where plaintiff fell is considered “common area” on the property. DUMF 12. Common areas on the property, including the curb and street where plaintiff fell, are owned, maintained, and controlled by Del Amo. DUMF 13. Macy’s only involvement with the common area is to contribute funds towards the expenses incurred by Del Amo in maintaining and repairing the common areas. DUMF 14. Macy’s also does not control, own, possess, maintain, or repair any lights illuminating the sidewalk and streets belonging to the common areas of the mall, nor does it have such right or responsibility. DUMF 15. Macy’s did not hire, initiate, or carry out any of the construction work located at or near the curb and street where plaintiff fell. DUMF 16. See also Compendium of Exhibits in support of the separate statement.

The court finds that defendant has met its burden of showing that plaintiff cannot establish the elements for negligence or premises liability against defendant. Defendant has shown that it does not own, possess, or control the property where plaintiff fell.

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. On January 28, 2020, after the time when the opposition was due, plaintiff filed a request for dismissal without prejudice as to Macy’s. The request for dismissal was untimely filed. “A voluntary dismissal is untimely after the time allowed for opposing a summary judgment motion that effectively negates plaintiff’s claims. In such case, the outcome is ‘inevitable’ because plaintiff’s failure to oppose a meritorious motion is itself ground for summary judgment.” Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial, at 11:21.5 (citations omitted).

The motion for summary judgment is therefore GRANTED.

Defendant Macy’s is ordered to give notice of the ruling.