This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/06/2019 at 04:40:03 (UTC).

JESSICA VU VS 2447 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/17/2017 JESSICA VU filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against 2447 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY 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 DENNIS J. LANDIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0966

  • Filing Date:

    02/17/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

DENNIS J. LANDIN

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

VU JESSICA

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Defendants

DFS FLOORING INC

ARRIS BUILDERS INC

2447 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY LLC

DOES 1 TO 100

MAR VENTURES INC

THE PALOS CO. INC. (DOE 1)

PACIFIC STEEL INDUSTRIES INC. DOE 2

ARRIS BUILDERS INC.

MAR VENTURES INC.

THE PALOS CO. INC. DOE 1

FIRST STEPS FOR KIDS INC. (ROE 1)

DFS FLOORING INC.

THE PALOS CO. INC.

PACIFIC STEEL INDUSTRIES INC. (DOE 2)

PACIFIC STEEL INDUSTRIES INC. ROE 3

PACIFIC STEEL INDUSTRIES INC. (ROE 3)

PALOS CO. THE INC. (ROE 2)

PALOS CO. THE INC. ROE 2

THE PALOS CO. INC. ROE 2

Respondents, Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

ARRIS BUILDERS INC

2447 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY LLC

10 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

GELDER ALAN VAN

VANGELDER ALAN LAWRENCE

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

BRADLEY & GMELICH

LEE VICTOR A. ESQ.

PROCTER SHYER & WINTER LLP

LEE TED MATTHEW

LEE TED M. ESQ.

FERNANDEZ & LAUBY LLP

MARDEROSIAN LENA J.

KIRKPATRICK CHERYL ANN

LAUBY KIRK A. ESQ.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

PROCTER SHYER & WINTER LLP

FERNANDEZ & LAUBY LLP

Cross Defendant Attorney

HORTON OBERRECHT KIRKPATRICK & MARTHA

 

Court Documents

Unknown

2/1/2018: Unknown

STIPULATION FOR 2447 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, LLC AND MAR VENTURES, INC TO FILE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

2/26/2018: STIPULATION FOR 2447 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, LLC AND MAR VENTURES, INC TO FILE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

Unknown

3/5/2018: Unknown

Unknown

3/6/2018: Unknown

Commission to Take Deposition Outside California

3/29/2018: Commission to Take Deposition Outside California

Unknown

4/5/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

4/5/2018: Minute Order

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO OBTAIN JUDGE'S SIGNATURE FOR OUT OF STATE COMMISSIONS; DECLARATION OF KATHRYN CANALE, ESQ; DECLARATION OF BARB ROSSMEISL;

4/5/2018: EX PARTE APPLICATION TO OBTAIN JUDGE'S SIGNATURE FOR OUT OF STATE COMMISSIONS; DECLARATION OF KATHRYN CANALE, ESQ; DECLARATION OF BARB ROSSMEISL;

ANSWER OF DFS FLOORING, INC. TO FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, LLC AND MAR VENTURES, INC.; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

4/19/2018: ANSWER OF DFS FLOORING, INC. TO FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, LLC AND MAR VENTURES, INC.; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

CROSS-DEFENDANT FIRSTSTEPS FOR KIDS, INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO CROSS-COMPLAINANTS/ DEFENDANTS 2447 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, LLC'S AND MAR VENTURES, INC.'S FIRST AMEND

4/27/2018: CROSS-DEFENDANT FIRSTSTEPS FOR KIDS, INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO CROSS-COMPLAINANTS/ DEFENDANTS 2447 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, LLC'S AND MAR VENTURES, INC.'S FIRST AMEND

CROSS-DEFENDANT FIRSTSTEPS FOR KIDS, INC.?S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-DEFENDANT FIRSTSTEPS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO CROSS-COMPLAINANTS/DEFENDANTS 24

4/27/2018: CROSS-DEFENDANT FIRSTSTEPS FOR KIDS, INC.?S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-DEFENDANT FIRSTSTEPS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO CROSS-COMPLAINANTS/DEFENDANTS 24

NOTICE OF LODGMENT OF EXHIBITS ?A? THROUGH ?H? IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-DEFENDANT FIRSTSTEPS FOR KIDS, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST CROSS- COMPLAINANTS' FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR IMPL

4/27/2018: NOTICE OF LODGMENT OF EXHIBITS ?A? THROUGH ?H? IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-DEFENDANT FIRSTSTEPS FOR KIDS, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST CROSS- COMPLAINANTS' FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR IMPL

Other -

6/12/2018: Other -

PROPOSED ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC

6/15/2018: PROPOSED ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC

Opposition

6/29/2018: Opposition

PLAINTIFF JESSICA VU'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MAR VENTURES & 2447 PCH'S OPPOSITION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT FIRSTSTEPS FOR KIDS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO CROSS COMPLAINANTS/DEFENDANTS; ETC

7/6/2018: PLAINTIFF JESSICA VU'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MAR VENTURES & 2447 PCH'S OPPOSITION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT FIRSTSTEPS FOR KIDS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO CROSS COMPLAINANTS/DEFENDANTS; ETC

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL LODGMENT OF EXHIBITS ?I?S THROUGH ?P? IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-DEFENDANT FIRSTSTEPS FOR KIDS INC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST CROSS-COMPLAINANTS' FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAI

7/6/2018: NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL LODGMENT OF EXHIBITS ?I?S THROUGH ?P? IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-DEFENDANT FIRSTSTEPS FOR KIDS INC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST CROSS-COMPLAINANTS' FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAI

CROSS-DEFENDANT FIRSTSTEPS FOR KIDS, 1NC'S RFPLV TO DEFENDANTS ANT) CROSS-COMPLAINANI'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGTENT; AND DECLARATION OF DANIEL R. BERKE, ESQ.

7/6/2018: CROSS-DEFENDANT FIRSTSTEPS FOR KIDS, 1NC'S RFPLV TO DEFENDANTS ANT) CROSS-COMPLAINANI'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGTENT; AND DECLARATION OF DANIEL R. BERKE, ESQ.

97 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/24/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • Declaration ( of David Kuhn in support of MSJ); Filed by Arris Builders, Inc. (Defendant); The Palos Co., Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • Declaration ( of Cheryl Kirkpatrick in support of MSJ); Filed by Arris Builders, Inc. (Defendant); The Palos Co., Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • Declaration (of Compendium of exhibits in support of MSJ); Filed by Arris Builders, Inc. (Defendant); The Palos Co., Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • Separate Statement; Filed by Arris Builders, Inc. (Defendant); The Palos Co., Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • Declaration ( of David Palos in support of MSJ); Filed by Arris Builders, Inc. (Defendant); The Palos Co., Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • Motion for Summary Judgment; Filed by Arris Builders, Inc. (Defendant); The Palos Co., Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by HORTON OBERRECHT KIRKPATRICK & MARTHA (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • Motion for Summary Judgment; Filed by DFS Flooring, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
258 More Docket Entries
  • 03/09/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2017
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2017
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Jessica Vu (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: BC650966 Hearing Date: September 30, 2021 Dept: B

\r\n\r\n

LOS ANGELES\r\nSUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Honorable\r\nGary Y. Tanaka Thursday, September 30, 2021

\r\n\r\n

Department\r\nB Calendar No. 12

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n

\r\n\r\n

PROCEEDINGS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Jessica\r\nVu v. 2447 Pacific Coast Highway, LLC, et al. \r\n

\r\n\r\n

BC650966

\r\n\r\n
  1. DFS\r\nFlooring, Inc.’s Motion to Reopen Discovery, to Compel Plaintiff to Submit to a\r\nSecond Neurological Examination, and to Continue Trial

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

DFS\r\nFlooring, Inc.’s Motion to Reopen Discovery, to Compel Plaintiff to Submit to a\r\nSecond Neurological Examination, and to Continue Trial is granted.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Background

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff\r\nfiled her Complaint on February 17, 2017. Plaintiff alleges the following facts: On August\r\n29, 2016, Plaintiff slipped and fell down a staircase at her place of\r\nemployment (First Steps) located at 2447 Pacific Coast Highway in Hermosa\r\nBeach. Plaintiff suffered multiple orthopedic injuries as well as a traumatic\r\nbrain injury. Plaintiff alleges a sole\r\ncause of action for Negligence.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Meet and Confer

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant set forth a meet and\r\nconfer declaration in sufficient compliance with CCP § 2024.050 and CCP §\r\n2016.040. (Decl., Lena J. Marderosian, ¶¶\r\n7-15.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Motion to\r\nReopen Discovery

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050 states,\r\nin relevant part:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

“(a) On motion of any party, the\r\ncourt may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion\r\nconcerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen\r\ndiscovery after a new trial date has been set. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and\r\nconfer declaration under Section 2016.040.

\r\n\r\n

(b) In exercising its discretion to\r\ngrant or deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration any matter\r\nrelevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following:

\r\n\r\n

(1) The necessity and the reasons\r\nfor the discovery.

\r\n\r\n

(2) The diligence or lack of\r\ndiligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery\r\nmotion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the\r\ndiscovery motion was not heard earlier.

\r\n\r\n

(3) Any likelihood that permitting\r\nthe discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going\r\nto trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or\r\nresult in prejudice to any other party.

\r\n\r\n

(4) The length of time that has\r\nelapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the\r\ntrial of the action.”

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

As to the first factor, Defendant\r\nhas set forth facts showing the requisite necessity and reasons for discovery\r\nthat would justify reopening discovery. On\r\nAugust 9, 2021, Plaintiff produced to Defendant supplemental reports prepared\r\nby Plaintiff’s experts, Dr. Marisa Chang and Dr. Leonard Matheson. The supplemental\r\nreports reflected opinions made after follow-up visits conducted by Dr. Marisa\r\nChang and Dr. Leonard Matheson with Plaintiff from May 2021 to August 2021. The supplemental reports were forwarded to\r\nDefendant’s retained expert, Dr. David Lechuga. Dr. Lechuga stated that he needed to reexamine\r\nPlaintiff to provide his own supplemental opinions regarding Plaintiff’s\r\ncurrent clinical condition. (Decl., Dr.\r\nDavid Lechuga, ¶¶ 4-10.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

As to the second factor, Defendant\r\nhas established reasonable diligence in seeking this new discovery and provided\r\na reasonable explanation for not having completed a second examination earlier.\r\n The information which led to Defendant\r\nbelieving that it was important to reopen discovery only became apparent in\r\nAugust 2021. Defendant then proceeded to\r\nmeet and confer on those issues, in good faith. \r\n(Decl., Marderosian, ¶¶ 7-15.) Therefore,\r\nDefendant has established reasonable diligence in not completing this new\r\ndiscovery earlier and in making this motion at this time.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

As to the third factor, the Court\r\nnotes that the current trial date is October 5, 2021. The Court finds that reopening discovery, at\r\nthis time, may place into jeopardy whether the trial could commence on that\r\ndate. However, a short trial continuance\r\nwill not prejudice any party.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

As to the fourth factor, the trial\r\ndate was first set for August 21, 2019, then continued to January 22, 2020, then\r\ncontinued to February 5, 2020, then continued to July 8, 2020, then continued\r\nto September 8, 2020, then continued to May 17, 2021, and finally continued to\r\nthe current date of October 5, 2021. Therefore,\r\nit is now more than two years from the date the case was initially set for\r\ntrial to the current trial date. However,\r\nthe Court is mindful that the COVID-19 crisis necessitated trial continuances in\r\nthe LA Superior Court beginning in or about mid-March 2020 and throughout the\r\nremainder of 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Thus, Defendant establishes good\r\ncause to reopen discovery. Defendant’s Motion\r\nto Reopen Discovery is granted.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Motion to Compel Second\r\nNeurological Examination

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Pursuant to CCP § 2032.220, a\r\ndefendant, in a personal injury action, may demand one physical examination of\r\nplaintiff. If defendant seeks an\r\nadditional examination, defendant must establish good cause. CCP § 2032.320(a). To establish good cause the party\r\nrequesting the discovery must “produce specific facts justifying discovery and\r\nthat the inquiry [must] be relevant to the subject matter of the action or\r\nreasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Vinson\r\nv. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840. Good\r\ncause is established where a party has placed his or her physical condition in\r\ncontroversy in the action. See, Id.; See, also, Wainwright v. Superior\r\nCourt (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 262, 266.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff alleges neurological injuries as a\r\nresult of the incident. Defendant has\r\nestablished that it is entitled to more than one examination because Plaintiff has\r\nrecently submitted supplemental reports reflecting new updated visits and\r\ntreatments conducted by Plaintiff’s experts in May through August 2021. Thus, Defendant has submitted good cause to\r\nconduct its own supplemental examination. Defendant’s first examination was conducted in\r\n2018. Not allowing Defendant to conduct\r\nan updated examination would place Defendant at a disadvantage since Plaintiff\r\ncould argue that any examination conducted by Defendant are now outdated, and\r\nthen point to her own more updated information from treatments conducted as\r\nrecently as August 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff takes issue with the\r\nproposed MMP1-2RF examination contending that this test is faulty, unreliable,\r\nand excluded by a District Court in Colorado. Plaintiff provided no authority to establish\r\nthat this test cannot be administered in California or that this test has been\r\nactively criticized in California. In\r\nany event, Plaintiff may simply provide its own counter arguments against the\r\nreliability of this test at trial. The\r\nCourt is mindful that subjecting Plaintiff to additional tests will certainly\r\ninvolve an additional inconvenience and intrusion to her. However, not allowing Defendant to conduct a more\r\nrecent examination and then supplement Defendant’s report would be unduly\r\nprejudicial to Defendant.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff argues that Defendant\r\nrequests the inspection but also refuses to turn over the data from the\r\nexamination to Plaintiff. It is unclear\r\nwhat is meant by data. However, after\r\nthe examination, any supplemental reports prepared by Defendant’s expert should\r\nbe produced to Plaintiff. It would not\r\nappear appropriate that the raw data compiled by the expert be turned over, as\r\napparently Plaintiff’s expert has also not turned over this raw data.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Thus,\r\nthe Court finds that Defendant has established good cause to conduct the second\r\nneurological examination and the Motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to appear for her examination\r\nat a date, time, location, and method to be agreed upon by the parties.

\r\n\r\n

Based on the Court’s ruling to the\r\nmotion to compel, the Court finds good cause to continue the trial date.\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant is ordered to give notice\r\nof this ruling.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where PACIFIC STEEL INDUSTRIES INC. (ROE 3) is a litigant

Latest cases where MAR VENTURES INC is a litigant