This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/21/2022 at 20:59:24 (UTC).

IRVING BROWN VS IMPULSE AMBULANCE INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/31/2018 IRVING BROWN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against IMPULSE AMBULANCE INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GEORGINA T. RIZK, KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE, SERENA R. MURILLO and MARK A. BORENSTEIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2347

  • Filing Date:

    01/31/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

GEORGINA T. RIZK

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

SERENA R. MURILLO

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

BROWN IRVING

Respondents, Defendants, Not Classified By Court and Cross Plaintiffs

CHU EDMUNDO

IMPULSE AMBULANCE INC.

DOES 1 TO 10

IMPULSE AMBULANCE

CHOO EDMUND

SPARKLETTS (DOE 1)

AMBULNZ HEALTH LLC

DS SERVICES OF AMERICA INC. (DOE 2)

DS SERVICES OF AMERICA INC. DOE 2

SPARKLETTS DOE 1

AMBULANCE IMPULSE

Defendants, Respondents, Cross Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

CHOO EDMUND

AMBULNZ HEALTH LLC

DS SERVICES OF AMERICA INC. DOE 2

SPARKLETTS

Respondents, Defendants and Not Classified By Court

CHU EDMUNDO

IMPULSE AMBULANCE INC.

AMBULANCE IMPULSE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner, Plaintiff and Defendant Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF TED B. WACKER

BING PETER R.

BLAIN DAVID M. ESQ.

BLAIN DAVID M

WACKER TED B

WACKER TED B ESQ.

IVIE RICKEY ESQ.

WACKER TED B. ESQ.

TROPP-THOMPSON DEBORAH S.

MEISSNER CHRISTINA NICOLE ESQ.

BING PETER R. ESQ.

KELLY PATRICK MICHAEL ESQ.

FELDER BRIAN OTIS ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

TROPP-THOMPSON DEBORAH S.

Plaintiff, Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

BING PETER R.

MEISSNER CHRISTINA NICOLE ESQ.

BING PETER R. ESQ.

KELLY PATRICK MICHAEL ESQ.

FELDER BRIAN OTIS ESQ.

SHIMKIN DAVID ALLEN ESQ.

Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

MEISSNER CHRISTINA NICOLE ESQ.

TROPP DEBORAH SUSAN

 

Court Documents

Statement of the Case

1/18/2022: Statement of the Case

Exhibit List

1/18/2022: Exhibit List

Witness List

1/18/2022: Witness List

Joinder to Motion - JOINDER TO MOTION TO PLAINTIFFS NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS, AMBULNZ HEALTH, LLC AND EDMUND CHOO, TO APPEAR AT TRIAL

1/18/2022: Joinder to Motion - JOINDER TO MOTION TO PLAINTIFFS NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS, AMBULNZ HEALTH, LLC AND EDMUND CHOO, TO APPEAR AT TRIAL

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE THAT PLAINTIFF WAS REFERRED BY HIS ATTORNEY TO MEDICAL DOCTORS

1/18/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE THAT PLAINTIFF WAS REFERRED BY HIS ATTORNEY TO MEDICAL DOCTORS

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE DEFENDANTS EXPERT GRIFF STELZNER

1/18/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE DEFENDANTS EXPERT GRIFF STELZNER

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE BEAU LEBLANCS OPINION THAT PLAINTIFF FAILED TO YIELD TO WESTBOUND 3RD STREET TRAFFIC

1/18/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE BEAU LEBLANCS OPINION THAT PLAINTIFF FAILED TO YIELD TO WESTBOUND 3RD STREET TRAFFIC

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF OR QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO PLAINTIFFS ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY

1/18/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF OR QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO PLAINTIFFS ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE MICHAEL WEINSTEIN

1/18/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE MICHAEL WEINSTEIN

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY OFFERED BY DEFENDANTS EXPERT BRIAN KING, MD

1/18/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY OFFERED BY DEFENDANTS EXPERT BRIAN KING, MD

Request - REQUEST FOR MIMI STATEMENT

1/18/2022: Request - REQUEST FOR MIMI STATEMENT

Jury Instructions

1/18/2022: Jury Instructions

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 TO LIMIT TESTIMONY OF OFFICER ANDREW WRIGHT

1/18/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 TO LIMIT TESTIMONY OF OFFICER ANDREW WRIGHT

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 14 FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF, HIS ATTORNEYS, AND PLAINTIFFS EXPERTS FROM OFFERING TESTIMONY DISPARAGING DEFENDANT AMBULNZ HE

1/18/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 14 FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF, HIS ATTORNEYS, AND PLAINTIFFS EXPERTS FROM OFFERING TESTIMONY DISPARAGING DEFENDANT AMBULNZ HE

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTSMOTION IN LIMINE NO. 13 FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFFS EXPERTS FROM TESTIFYING REGARDING SUB ROSA SURVEILLANCE; DECLARATION OF LAURA G.

1/18/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTSMOTION IN LIMINE NO. 13 FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFFS EXPERTS FROM TESTIFYING REGARDING SUB ROSA SURVEILLANCE; DECLARATION OF LAURA G.

Request for Judicial Notice

1/19/2022: Request for Judicial Notice

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

1/19/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

1/20/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

154 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/07/2022
  • Hearing02/07/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2022
  • Hearing02/01/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/20/2022
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/20/2022
  • Docketat 1:00 PM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/20/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2022
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2022
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by Irving Brown (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2022
  • DocketMotion in Limine (No. 5 TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF OR QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO PLAINTIFFS ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY); Filed by Irving Brown (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2022
  • DocketMotion in Limine (No. 7 TO LIMIT TESTIMONY OF OFFICER ANDREW WRIGHT); Filed by Irving Brown (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
206 More Docket Entries
  • 03/06/2018
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by Irving Brown (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • DocketDECLARATION OF DUE DILIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2018
  • DocketDECLARATION OF MAILING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Irving Brown (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2018
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by Irving Brown (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Irving Brown (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: BC692347\t Hearing Date: November 5, 2021 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Josh M. Greenbaum, Jr.’s application for\r\nadmission to appear as counsel pro hac vice is GRANTED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Legal Standard

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

CRC Rule 9.40 provides that an\r\nattorney in good standing in another jurisdiction may apply to appear as\r\ncounsel pro hac vice in the State of California by filing a verified\r\napplication together with proof of service by mail of a copy of the application\r\nand notice of hearing on all parties who have appeared in the case and on the\r\nState Bar of California at its San Francisco office, with payment of a $50.00\r\nfee, so long as that attorney is not a resident of the State of California, and\r\nis not regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other\r\nactivities in the State of California.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The application must state: (1)\r\nthe applicant’s residence and office addresses; (2) the courts to which the\r\napplicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission; (3) that\r\nthe applicant is a member in good standing in those courts; (4) that the\r\napplicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court; (5) the title\r\nof each court and cause in which the applicant has filed an application to\r\nappear as counsel pro hac vice in this state in the preceding two years, the\r\ndate of each application, and whether or not it was granted; and (6) the name,\r\naddress, and telephone number of the active member of the State Bar of\r\nCalifornia who is attorney of record in the local action. (Cal. Rules of\r\nCourt, rule 9.40(d).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Josh M. Greenbaum, Jr. seeks a court order\r\npermitting him to appear as counsel pro\r\nhac vice to represent Defendant DS Services, Inc.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court finds Josh\r\nM. Greenbaum, Jr.’s application complies with the requirements of CRC Rule\r\n9.40.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Conclusion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Based on the foregoing, Josh\r\nM. Greenbaum, Jr.’s application for admission to appear as counsel pro\r\nhac vice is GRANTED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give notice. ***

TENTATIVE

Paul K. Leary, Jr.’s application for admission\r\nto appear as counsel pro hac vice is GRANTED.

Legal Standard

CRC Rule 9.40 provides that an\r\nattorney in good standing in another jurisdiction may apply to appear as\r\ncounsel pro hac vice in the State of California by filing a verified\r\napplication together with proof of service by mail of a copy of the application\r\nand notice of hearing on all parties who have appeared in the case and on the\r\nState Bar of California at its San Francisco office, with payment of a $50.00\r\nfee, so long as that attorney is not a resident of the State of California, and\r\nis not regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other\r\nactivities in the State of California.

The application must state: (1)\r\nthe applicant’s residence and office addresses; (2) the courts to which the\r\napplicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission; (3) that\r\nthe applicant is a member in good standing in those courts; (4) that the\r\napplicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court; (5) the title\r\nof each court and cause in which the applicant has filed an application to\r\nappear as counsel pro hac vice in this state in the preceding two years, the\r\ndate of each application, and whether or not it was granted; and (6) the name,\r\naddress, and telephone number of the active member of the State Bar of\r\nCalifornia who is attorney of record in the local action. (Cal. Rules of\r\nCourt, rule 9.40(d).)

Discussion

Paul K. Leary, Jr. seeks a court order\r\npermitting him to appear as counsel pro\r\nhac vice to represent Defendant DS Services, Inc.

The Court finds Paul\r\nK. Leary, Jr.’s application complies with the requirements of CRC Rule 9.40.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Paul\r\nK. Leary, Jr.’s application for admission to appear as counsel pro\r\nhac vice is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

'

Case Number: BC692347    Hearing Date: January 11, 2021    Dept: 29

Plaintiff Irving Brown’s Motion to File a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 473, subd. (a); 576.) Plaintiff must file the first amended complaint forthwith; IT WILL NOT be deemed filed.

The complaint in this action was filed on January 31, 2018. Plaintiff Irving Brown alleges he was injured in an automobile accident caused by the negligence of Defendants Impulse Ambulance, Inc., Edmundo Chu and Does 1-10. The complaint further alleges that

-- Chu and Does 1-5 were the operator[s] of the motor vehicle[s] that acted negligently in causing the accident;

-- Impulse Ambulance, Inc. and Does 6-10 were the employer of Chu and Does 1-5 and that Chu and/or Does 1-5 were acting in the course and scope of the employment at the time of the incident;

-- Impulse Ambulance, Inc. and Does 6-10 were the owners of the vehicle who had given Chu permission to operate the vehicle and also negligently entrusted the vehicle to him.

Plaintiff asserts causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

In May and August 2018, the complaint was amended to substitute in Defendants Sparkletts and DS Services of America, Inc. as Does 1 and 2, respectively. DS Services of America, Inc. answered on November 2018.

In May 2018, Defendants Ambulnz Heath LLC dba Impulse Ambulance (erroneously sued and served herein as Impulse Ambulance, Inc.) and Edmund Choo (erroneously served and sued herein as Edmundo Chu) answered Plaintiff’s complaint and filed a cross-complaint against Sparkletts and Roes 1-50, for indemnity and contribution. The cross-complaint alleged that cross-defendants owned, operated and/or maintained a Sparkletts vehicle and negligently parked the vehicle in a location where the accident occurred, causing or contributing to Plaintiff’s injuries or damages. DS Services of America, Inc. was substituted in as Roe 1, and answered on February 25, 2019.

In November 2018, Defendant DS Services of America, Inc. (“DS Services”) filed a cross-complaint against Ambulnz Health LLC and Edmund Choo, seeking indemnity and contribution.

On November 18, 2020, Defendant DS Services of America, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff on the ground DS Services of America, Inc. had no duty to Plaintiff as it was not the driver or owner of the vehicle that Plaintiff hit and was not the employer of Choo. The motion further argues that Plaintiff’s complaint does not properly allege that DS Services’ Sparklett’s truck had been negligently parked, but even if, hypothetically, that had been alleged, Choo’s negligence was a superseding cause of the accident.

On December 3, 2020, Plaintiff sought leave to file an amended complaint to more clearly articulate the theory against DS Services, specifically that DS Services “was the employer of Sandro Plascencia, who, while in the course and scope of his employment, negligently operated and parked a vehicle owned by DS Services that caused the subject collision and Plaintiff’s injuries.”

The court grants leave to amend pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 473, subdivision (a) and 576. The record makes clear that the amended complaint simply articulates more clearly the theory against DS Services on which the parties had proceeded in this litigation. DS Services will not suffer prejudice from the court granting leave to amend. Indeed, the cross-complaint filed by Ambulnz Heath LLC and DS Services acknowledged in its summary judgment motion that it understood that Plaintiff’s theory against DS Services was that the Sparklett’s truck had been improperly parked. The court finds DS Services’ position wholly disingenuous.

On the court’s own motion, the court takes DS Services’ motion for summary judgment off calendar as MOOT. To the extent that DS Services needs additional time to re-file the summary judgment motion so that it may be timely heard before trial, DS Services may apply ex parte for an order continuing the trial date and specially setting the date for the hearing on the motion for summary judgment.

DS Services’ objections to the declaration of David Blain are OVERRULED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC692347    Hearing Date: February 06, 2020    Dept: 2

Brown v. Impulse Ambulance Inc. et al.

The unopposed Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Irving Brown is GRANTED. Counsel has complied with the requirements of Cal Rules of Court 3.1362. The order shall be effective upon the filing of a proof of service of the signed order on the client. Cal Rules of Court 3.1362(e).  Counsel remains counsel of record until the proof of service is filed.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC692347    Hearing Date: January 06, 2020    Dept: 2

Brown v. Impulse Ambulance Inc. et al.

The unopposed Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Irving Brown is GRANTED.  Counsel has complied with the requirements of Cal Rules of Court 3.1362. The order shall be effective upon the filing of a proof of service of the signed order on the client. Cal Rules of Court 3.1362(e).  Counsel remains counsel of record until the proof of service is filed.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where AMBULNZ HEALTH LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where IMPULSE AMBULANCE INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where DS SERVICES OF AMERICA INC. (DOE 2) is a litigant

Latest cases where SPARKLETTS (DOE 1) is a litigant