This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/26/2019 at 03:24:14 (UTC).

INA KOMINS VS MARSHAL SAFRON ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/05/2017 INA KOMINS filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against MARSHAL SAFRON. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8571

  • Filing Date:

    10/05/2017

  • 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

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

KOMINS INA

Defendants and Respondents

SAFRON JERRI

DOES 1 TO 30

PARKVIEW NORTH APARTMENTS

SAFRON MARSHAL

SAFRON TRUST

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

CASEY HULTIN ESQ

HULTIN CASEY ANNE

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

VELASCO GERALD B. ESQ.

VELASCO GERALD BRUCE

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

12/1/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

12/1/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

12/1/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

12/1/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

12/4/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

12/15/2017: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

SUMMONS

10/5/2017: SUMMONS

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

10/5/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • Amended Complaint (1st); Filed by Ina Komins (Plaintiff); Ina Komins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • Complaint ( (1st)); Filed by Ina Komins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2019
  • [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Ina Komins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Plaintiff to Attend & Testify at Deposition; Request for Reasonable Monetary Sanctions & Attorneys' Fees) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2019
  • Notice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by Marshall Safron Erroneously Sued As Marshal Safron (Defendant); Jerri Safron (Defendant); Safron Trust (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2019
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Marshall Safron Erroneously Sued As Marshal Safron (Defendant); Jerri Safron (Defendant); Safron Trust (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2018
  • Motion to Compel (plaintiff to attend and testify at deposition); Filed by Marshall Safron Erroneously Sued As Marshal Safron (Defendant); Jerri Safron (Defendant); Safron Trust (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2017
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
4 More Docket Entries
  • 12/01/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Ina Komins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Ina Komins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Ina Komins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Ina Komins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Ina Komins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC678571    Hearing Date: February 21, 2020    Dept: E

DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE

[CCP §430.10 et. seq.]

Date: 2/21/20

Case: Ina Komins v. Marshal Safron et al. (BC678571)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Marshal Safron’s, Jerri Safron’s, Safron Trust’s, and Parkview North Apartments’ Demurrer to the Amended Complaint for Damages, filed 11/20/19, is OVERRULED in its entirety.

With respect to the third cause of action for Failure to Accommodate a Disability in Violation of FEHA, plaintiff alleges that her disability resulted from her hip fracture, which limited her mobility. (Amended Compl. ¶¶ 30, 39, 41.) After plaintiff sought damages for the incident, defendants moved the rent check deposit box from the first floor to the second floor, which plaintiff could not access. (Id. ¶¶ 22, 39.) While defendants initially accommodated plaintiff’s disability by picking up her rent check from plaintiff’s first floor apartment, defendants reversed course in March 2019 by refusing to make this accommodation and telling plaintiff she had to find a way to deliver the rent check to the second floor. (Id. ¶ 43.) Even though defendants eventually complied with plaintiff’s counsel’s demand to accommodate plaintiff’s disability after a period of time (id. ¶ 23), defendants’ previous refusal to make this accommodation may render defendants liable for failure to accommodate under FEHA. (Auburn Woods I Homeowners Assn. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1578, 1592 [citing Gov. Code § 12927(c)].)

With respect to the fourth cause of action for Retaliation in Violation of FEHA, plaintiff alleges that, in retaliation for complaining about the location of the rent check deposit box and threatening legal action, plaintiff “experienced a significant decrease in the level of maintenance and services provided to her” by defendants. (Amended Compl. ¶ 54.) Specifically, plaintiff alleges defendants failed to adequately address plaintiff’s broken toilet on three separate occasions and ignored plaintiff’s requests for a new air conditioner during two separate heat waves, even though other tenants purportedly received new air conditioning units during that same period. (SAC ¶¶ 24, 25, 51, 53, 54.) Defendants argue that such allegations regarding the air conditioner and plumber are only minor or trivial adverse actions which are not actionable retaliation under FEHA. Notwithstanding that the cases defendants cite for this proposition are employment cases, not housing cases, more problematic for defendants’ position is that the issue of whether defendants’ alleged failure to provide a new air conditioner or competent plumber is minor or trivial is a question for the trier of fact not appropriately resolved on demurrer. (See Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028.)

Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is DENIED. Defendants seek to strike the prayer for punitive damages and any allegations in support thereof. As discussed above, the Amended Complaint alleges that, despite defendants’ knowledge of plaintiff’s disability and right to reasonable accommodation, defendants refused to make such accommodation and instead retaliated against plaintiff for her complaints about defendants’ refusal. Such allegations are sufficient to support a finding of “malice” in furtherance of defendants’ liability for punitive damages. (Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1).)

Ten (10) days to answer.

Case Number: BC678571    Hearing Date: November 05, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On October 5, 2017, Plaintiff Ina Komins (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Marshal Safron (erroneously sued and served as Marshall Safron), Jerri Safron, Safron Trust, and Parkview North Apartments (“Defendants”) alleging negligence and premises liability for a trip-and-fall that occurred on October 6, 2015.

On March 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint to allege an additional cause of action for failure to accommodate a disability in violation of California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

On October 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1).

A trial setting conference is set for November 5, 2019.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Plaintiff asks the Court to grant leave to file a first amended complaint (“FAC”) to allege failure to accommodate a disability in violation of FEHA.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer.  The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.”  (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)  Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature.  The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment.  (See California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281 (overruled on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390).)

Under California Rules of Court Rule, rule 3.1324, subdivision (a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located. 

Under California Rule of Court, rule 3.1324, subdivision (b), a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues there is good cause for leave to file the FAC because Plaintiff has learned of new facts giving rise to her cause of action for a violation of FEHA.  (Browning Decl., ¶ 4-6.)   As this litigation progressed, Defendants moved Plaintiff’s rent deposit box to the second floor, which Plaintiff could not access because of her disability.  (Browning Decl., 4.)  Additionally, Defendants refused to provide the same level of maintenance to Plaintiff as previously she received and as other tenants currently receive.  (Browning Decl., 5.)  Further, Defendants refused to replace an air conditioning unit in Plaintiff’s apartment that was more than 30 years old during heatwaves despite doing so for other tenants.  (Browning Decl., 6.)  All of these acts occurred in 2019 with the most recent occurring in September of 2019.  (Ibid.) Defendants argue the motion should be denied because two years have already passed since the commencement of this litigation and the new cause of action rests on entirely new facts.

The Court finds the motion is properly granted.  The judicial policy of trying all of these claims together is served if the motion is granted.  Further, the facts that give rise to this new cause of action are not entirely separate from this litigation because, according to Plaintiff’s allegations, this cause of action has become viable during the course of and perhaps in response to

The motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff shall file and serve the proposed FAC attached as Exhibit B to Andrew Browning, Esq.’s declaration within 30 days of this ruling.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.