Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/17/2021 at 11:19:37 (UTC).

JOSE DE JESUS DIAZ MATA ET AL VS NEWHALL UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST

Case Summary

On 07/14/2017 JOSE DE JESUS DIAZ MATA filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against NEWHALL UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Chatsworth Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GEORGINA T. RIZK, MELVIN D. SANDVIG, MARK A. BORENSTEIN and STEPHEN P. PFAHLER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8642

  • Filing Date:

    07/14/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Chatsworth Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

GEORGINA T. RIZK

MELVIN D. SANDVIG

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

STEPHEN P. PFAHLER

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Cross Defendants

ARROYO MARIA DEL ROSARIO

MATA JOSE DE JESUS DIAZ

Defendants, Respondents, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

IMPACT CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

LUNDGREN MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

NEWHALL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

DOES 1 TO 100

LOPEZ DOE 51 HECTOR DBA HN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

LOPEZ HECTOR

MATA JOSE DE JESUS DIAZ

HN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES DBA

MOES 1-25

STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

MESA UNDERWRITERS SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

ROBINS III BILL

POLLACK KEVIN M

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

LAUBY KIRK A. ESQ.

CHOI PETER JIN YOUNG

KOHLER RYAN J.

MCCUNE & HARBER LLP

YOUNGERMAN STEPHEN

DALEY TODD ANDREW

BUI CARLSON KRISTINA

YOUNGERMAN STEPHEN GARY

Cross Defendant Attorney

NIELSEN JAMES CHRISTIAN

Other Attorneys

YOUNGERMAN & MCNUTT LLP

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION OF DEFENDANT NEWHALL SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR SU...)

6/5/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION OF DEFENDANT NEWHALL SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR SU...)

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: (1) DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY (CAL. GOV. CODE, 835, ET SEQ.) ;ETC

7/14/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: (1) DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY (CAL. GOV. CODE, 835, ET SEQ.) ;ETC

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE MTC HEARING DATES

11/19/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE MTC HEARING DATES

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

11/5/2020: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Stipulation - No Order - JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING MESAS DEMURRERS TO CROSSCOMPLAINT OF HECTOR LOPEZ DBA HN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

10/18/2019: Stipulation - No Order - JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING MESAS DEMURRERS TO CROSSCOMPLAINT OF HECTOR LOPEZ DBA HN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ADVANCED FROM 3/30/20))

3/20/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ADVANCED FROM 3/30/20))

ANSWER BY CROSS-DEFENDANT HECTOR LOPEZ D.B.A. HN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES TO CROSS-COMPLAINT BY IMPACT CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

6/27/2018: ANSWER BY CROSS-DEFENDANT HECTOR LOPEZ D.B.A. HN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES TO CROSS-COMPLAINT BY IMPACT CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL -

7/3/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL -

DECLARATION OF RONALD SAVONA OF IMPACT CONSTRUCTION

9/24/2018: DECLARATION OF RONALD SAVONA OF IMPACT CONSTRUCTION

Notice - Notice Of Ruling

11/16/2018: Notice - Notice Of Ruling

Objection - Objection Evidentiary objections to declaration

1/16/2019: Objection - Objection Evidentiary objections to declaration

Request for Judicial Notice

1/16/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Declaration - Declaration Declaration of Kristina Bui Carlson in Support of Reply and Evidence

1/25/2019: Declaration - Declaration Declaration of Kristina Bui Carlson in Support of Reply and Evidence

Motion for Summary Judgment - Defendant Newhall Unified School District's Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication of Issues in Plaintiff's Complai

2/22/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment - Defendant Newhall Unified School District's Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication of Issues in Plaintiff's Complai

Request for Dismissal

3/7/2019: Request for Dismissal

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

5/2/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Reply - DEFENDANT NEWHALL SCHOOL DISTRICT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

5/31/2019: Reply - DEFENDANT NEWHALL SCHOOL DISTRICT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

SUMMONS -

7/14/2017: SUMMONS -

156 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/18/2022
  • Hearing01/18/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department F47 at 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2022
  • Hearing01/07/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department F47 at 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2021
  • DocketNotice (of Entry of Order Re Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial and Reset All Dates); Filed by JOSE DE JESUS DIAZ MATA (Plaintiff); MARIA DEL ROSARIO ARROYO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application ( to Continue Trial and Reset all Dates) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RESET A...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) (Amended); Filed by JOSE DE JESUS DIAZ MATA (Plaintiff); MARIA DEL ROSARIO ARROYO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2021
  • DocketDeclaration in Support of Ex Parte Application; Filed by JOSE DE JESUS DIAZ MATA (Plaintiff); MARIA DEL ROSARIO ARROYO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by JOSE DE JESUS DIAZ MATA (Plaintiff); MARIA DEL ROSARIO ARROYO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
226 More Docket Entries
  • 09/12/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by JOSE DE JESUS DIAZ MATA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by JOSE DE JESUS DIAZ MATA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by JOSE DE JESUS DIAZ MATA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by JOSE DE JESUS DIAZ MATA (Plaintiff); MARIA DEL ROSARIO ARROYO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2017
  • DocketSTATEMENT OF DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: (1) DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY (CAL. GOV. CODE, 835, ET SEQ.) ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC668642    Hearing Date: January 19, 2021    Dept: F47

Dept. F-47

Date: 1/19/21 TRIAL DATE: 8/2/21

Case #BC668642

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Request for Production of Documents, Set 2

&

Supplemental Request for Production of Documents)

Motion filed on 11/5/20.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Newhall School District

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Jose De Jesus Diaz Mata

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Plaintiff Jose De Jesus Diaz Mata to provide further verified responses to Defendant Newhall School District’s Request for Production of Documents, Set 2, numbers 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 and Supplemental Pre-Trial Requests for Production of Documents, within 14 days of the ruling on this motion.

Additionally, Newhall requests sanctions against Mata and his attorney, Manuel D. Balam of Robins Cloud, LLP, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,050.00, to be paid within 14 days of the hearing on this motion.

RULING: The motion is granted. Within 30 days, Plaintiff Jose De Jesus Diaz Mata is ordered to provide further responses to Requests 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 in Defendant Newhall School District’s Request for Production of Documents, Set 2, and to Request 1 in Defendant Newhall School District’s Supplemental Pre-Trial Request for Production of Documents. Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff Jose De Jesus Diaz Mata and his attorney, Manuel D. Balam of Robins Cloud, LLP, in the amount of $1,050.00, payable within 30 days.

This action arises from an incident that occurred on 6/13/16 at the Old Orchard Elementary School in Valencia, California. In June of 2015, Defendant Newhall Unified School District (Newhall) hired Defendant Lundgren Management Corporation to provide construction management services for the Old Orchard Elementary Permanent School Classroom Project. Plaintiffs allege that Plaintiff Jose De Jesus Diaz Mata (Mata) was in the process of dismantling, removing, and/or transporting a modular classroom when the walls and/or roof collapsed onto him. Plaintiffs allege that defendants negligently and carelessly controlled, inspected, and operated the project and/or created a dangerous condition (the modular classroom and surrounding areas); failed to protect/guard against or warn of the dangerous condition; failed to ensure the safety of Mata; and/or failed to act with reasonable care all of which Plaintiffs allege caused a modular classroom to collapse onto Mata. On 6/3/16, Defendant Impact Construction Services, Inc. (Impact) entered into a contract with Newhall whereby Impact was to purchase 4 modular classroom units and 1 modular restroom unit (collectively “the modular classrooms”) located at the project from Newhall. Impact, Newhall and Lundgren contend that Impact subcontracted with Cross-Defendant Hector Lopez dba HN Construction Services (HN), a licensed contractor, for the removal of the modular classrooms. Mata was an employee of HN and Plaintiff Maria Del Rosario Arroyo (Arroyo) is Mata’s spouse.

On 2/27/20, Newhall propounded on Mata the subject Request for Production of Documents, Set 2, and Supplemental Pre-Trial Requests for Production of Documents. On 4/2/20, Mata responded with objections to all of the requests. Over the next six months, the parties engaged in meet and confer efforts and, ultimately, agreed to extend the deadline to file the instant motion to 11/30/20. Mata failed to provide further responses to the requests. Therefore, on 11/5/20, Newhall filed the instant motion which seeks an order compelling Mata to provide further verified responses to Newhall’s Request for Production of Documents, Set 2, numbers 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 and Supplemental Pre-Trial Requests for Production of Documents, within 14 days of the ruling on this motion. Additionally, Newhall requests sanctions against Mata and his attorney, Manuel D. Balam of Robins Cloud, LLP, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,050.00, to be paid within 14 days of the hearing on this motion.

Mata has failed to establish the Requests at issue are the same as previously propounded requests and that Newhall propounded the Requests because it failed to timely move to compel further responses to discovery responses served in June 2018. While Requests 30 and 31 at issue in this motion are similar to requests included in Newhall’s first set of requests for production of documents, they are not exactly the same. While documents responsive to Requests 32, 33, 34 and 35 may have also been responsive to previously propounded discovery requests, the requests are not the same and could include additional documents. As such, Mata’s self-defined “Vidal Sassoon Objection” is without merit.

Mata has failed to adequately justify his self-defined “COVID Objection.” Mata’s counsel has failed to adequately explain why he could not/cannot communicate with his client over the telephone. Similarly, while Mata’s counsel claims that his client has limited technological resources and skill, neither he nor his client state that neither Mata nor any member of his household have/use a smartphone which would allow for Mata and counsel to meet virtually. While COVID has created challenges for everyone, there has been no stay of this action as a result. Therefore, Newhall has the right to conduct discovery necessary to prepare for the current 8/2/21 trial date.

Mata’s remaining self-defined categories of objections: “Vagueness/Breath [sic] Objection,” “Relevancy Objection,” “Privacy Objection,” Privilege/Work Production Objection,” “Collateral Source Rule Objection,” and “Secondary Evidence Rule Objection,” are also without merit. The subject requests are not vague or overbroad. Additionally, the requests seek information relevant to Mata’s claims and/or Newhall’s defenses in this action. Mata has failed to establish how the requests violate his, or unidentified third parties’, right to privacy. With regard to his objection based on privilege, Mata was required to provide a privilege log which he failed to do. CCP 2031.240(c)(1). As a public entity, Newhall may discover evidence regarding collateral source payments. Government Code 985. Mata has failed to establish that Newhall will not accept copies of the requested documents to support his objection based on the Secondary Evidence Rule.

Based on the foregoing, Newhall is entitled to further responses to the Requests at issue. See CCP 2031.310(a)(3). Due to Mata’s and his counsel’s failure to comply with their discovery obligations, Newhall is also entitled to an order imposing sanctions against Mata and his attorney in the amount of $1,050.00. See CCP 2031.310(h).

Date: 1/19/21 TRIAL DATE: 8/2/21

Case #BC668642

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Special Interrogatories, Set 2

Supplemental Pre-Trial Interrogatories)

Motion filed on 11/5/20.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Newhall School District

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Jose De Jesus Diaz Mata

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Plaintiff Jose De Jesus Diaz Mata to provide further verified responses to Defendant Newhall School District’s Special Interrogatories, Set 2, numbers 40, 41, 42, 43, 45 and 46 and Supplemental Pre-Trial Interrogatories, within 14 days of the ruling on this motion. 

Additionally, Newhall requests sanctions against Mata and his attorney, Manuel D. Balam of Robins Cloud, LLP, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,050.00, to be paid within 14 days of the hearing on this motion. 

RULING: The motion is granted.  Within 30 days, Plaintiff Jose De Jesus Diaz Mata is ordered to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories 40, 41, 42, 43, 45 and 46 in Defendant Newhall School District’s Special Interrogatories, Set 2, and to Special Interrogatory 1 in Defendant Newhall School District’s Supplemental Pre-Trial Interrogatories.  Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff Jose De Jesus Diaz Mata and his attorney, Manuel D. Balam of Robins Cloud, LLP, in the amount of $1,050.00, payable within 30 days.

This action arises from an incident that occurred on 6/13/16 at the Old Orchard Elementary School in Valencia, California.  In June of 2015, Defendant Newhall Unified School District (Newhall) hired Defendant Lundgren Management Corporation to provide construction management services for the Old Orchard Elementary Permanent School Classroom Project. Plaintiffs allege that Plaintiff Jose De Jesus Diaz Mata (Mata) was in the process of dismantling, removing, and/or transporting a modular classroom when the walls and/or roof collapsed onto him.  Plaintiffs allege that defendants negligently and carelessly controlled, inspected, and operated the project and/or created a dangerous condition (the modular classroom and surrounding areas); failed to protect/guard against or warn of the dangerous condition; failed to ensure the safety of Mata; and/or failed to act with reasonable care all of which Plaintiffs allege caused a modular classroom to collapse onto Mata.  On 6/3/16, Defendant Impact Construction Services, Inc. (Impact) entered into a contract with Newhall whereby Impact was to purchase 4 modular classroom units and 1 modular restroom unit (collectively “the modular classrooms”) located at the project from Newhall.  Impact, Newhall and Lundgren contend that Impact subcontracted with Cross-Defendant Hector Lopez dba HN Construction Services (HN), a licensed contractor, for the removal of the modular classrooms.  Mata was an employee of HN and Plaintiff Maria Del Rosario Arroyo (Arroyo) is Mata’s spouse.

On 2/27/20, Newhall propounded on Mata the subject Special Interrogatories, Set 2, and Supplemental Pre-Trial Interrogatories.  On 4/2/20, Mata responded with objections to all of the interrogatories.  Over the next six months, the parties engaged in meet and confer efforts and, ultimately, agreed to extend the deadline to file the instant motion to 11/30/20.  Mata failed to provide further responses to the interrogatories.  Therefore, on 11/5/20, Newhall filed the instant motion which seeks an order compelling Mata to provide further verified responses to Newhall’s Special Interrogatories, Set 2, numbers 40, 41, 42, 43, 45 and 46 and Supplemental Pre-Trial Interrogatories, within 14 days of the ruling on this motion.  Additionally, Newhall requests sanctions against Mata and his attorney, Manuel D. Balam of Robins Cloud, LLP, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,050.00, to be paid within 14 days of the hearing on this motion. 

Mata has failed to establish the Special Interrogatories at issue are the same as previously propounded interrogatories and that Newhall propounded the Interrogatories because it failed to timely move to compel further responses to discovery responses served in June 2018.  As such, Mata’s self-defined “Vidal Sassoon Objection” is without merit. 

Mata has failed to adequately justify his self-defined “COVID Objection.”  Mata’s counsel has failed to adequately explain why he could not/cannot communicate with his client over the telephone.  Similarly, while Mata’s counsel claims that his client has limited technological resources and skill, neither he nor his client state that neither Mata nor any member of his household have/use a smartphone which would allow for Mata and counsel to meet virtually.  While COVID has created challenges for everyone, there has been no stay of this action as a result.  Therefore, Newhall has the right to conduct discovery necessary to prepare for the current 8/2/21 trial date.  

Mata’s remaining self-defined categories of objections: “Vagueness/Breath [sic] Objection,” “Relevancy Objection,” “Privacy Objection,” Privilege/Work Production Objection” and “Collateral Source Rule Objection” are also without merit.  The subject interrogatories are not vague or overbroad.  Additionally, the interrogatories seek information relevant to Mata’s claims and/or Newhall’s defenses in this action.  Mata has failed to establish how the interrogatories  violate his, or unidentified third parties’, right to privacy.  Mata has failed to establish how information responsive to the interrogatories, rather than documents, are protected by any privilege.  As a public entity, Newhall may discover evidence regarding collateral source payments.  Government Code 985. 

Based on the foregoing, Newhall is entitled to further responses to the Special Interrogatories at issue.  See CCP 2030.300(a)(3).  Due to Mata’s and his counsel’s failure to comply with their discovery obligations, Newhall is also entitled to an order imposing sanctions against Mata and his attorney in the amount of $1,050.00.  See CCP 2030.300(d).

Case Number: BC668642    Hearing Date: July 01, 2020    Dept: F47

Dept. F-47

Date: 7/1/20

Case #BC668642

SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Motion filed on 1/14/20.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Defendant Lundgren Management Corporation

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Jose De Jesus Diaz Mata and Maria Del Rosario Arroyo

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting summary or, in the alternative, summary adjudication, in favor of Defendant Lundgren Management Corporation and against Plaintiffs on the complaint filed by Plaintiffs.

RULING: The motion is denied.

This action arises from an incident that occurred on 6/13/16 at the Old Orchard Elementary School in Valencia, California. In June of 2015, Defendant Newhall Unified School District (Newhall) hired Defendant Lundgren Management Corporation (Lundgren/moving party on this motion) to provide construction management services for the Old Orchard Elementary Permanent School Classroom Project. Plaintiffs allege that Plaintiff Jose De Jesus Diaz Mata (Mata) was in the process of dismantling, removing, and/or transporting a modular classroom when the walls and/or roof collapsed onto him. Plaintiffs allege that defendants negligently and carelessly controlled, inspected, and operated the project and/or created a dangerous condition (the modular classroom and surrounding areas); failed to protect/guard against or warn of the dangerous condition; failed to ensure the safety of Mata; and/or failed to act with reasonable care all of which Plaintiffs allege caused a modular classroom to collapse onto Mata.

On 6/3/16, Defendant Impact Construction Services, Inc. (Impact) entered into a contract with Newhall whereby Impact was to purchase 4 modular classroom units and 1 modular restroom unit (collectively “the modular classrooms”) located at the project from Newhall. Impact, Newhall and Lundgren contend that Impact subcontracted with Cross-Defendant Hector Lopez dba HN Construction Services (HN), a licensed contractor, for the removal of the modular classrooms. Mata was an employee of HN and Plaintiff Maria Del Rosario Arroyo (Arroyo) is Mata’s spouse.

Plaintiffs have alleged the following causes of action against Lundgren: Negligence (4th), Negligence – Retained Control (5th), Negligence – Non-Delegable Duties (6th) and Loss of Consortium (7th).

Lundgren has failed to properly request or support its alternative request for summary adjudication. The notice of motion does not set forth separate issues to be adjudicated as required. See CRC 3.1350(b). Nor are any issues set forth in the separate statement. CRC 3.1350(b), (h). Rather, the notice of motion sets forth grounds for the motion, without specifying as to whether the grounds relate to the request for summary judgment or the alternative request for summary adjudication, and the separate statement merely lists the causes of action alleged against Lundgren by Plaintiffs before all of the facts in the separate statement. (See Notice of Motion p.2:14-23; Lundgren’s Sep. Statement p.2:6-9). Therefore, the court considers the motion as one requesting summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ complaint as against Lundgren. As such, if one triable issue of material fact exists with regard to Plaintiffs’ claims against Lundgren, the motion must be denied. Versa Technologies, Inc. (1978) 78 CA3d 237, 240.

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party’s evidence must be strictly construed while the opposing party’s evidence must be liberally construed. Schachter (2009) 47 C4th 610, 618. Any doubts as to the propriety of granting a motion for summary judgment must be resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion. Johnson (2006) 143 CA4th 297, 304.

In lieu of filing written objections to evidence, Plaintiffs reserve their right to assert oral objections at the hearing. (See Opp. p.26:2-5 citing Reid (2010) 50 C4th 512, 525-533; CRC 3.1352(2); CCP 437c(b)(5), (q)).

Lundgren’s objections to the Declaration of Manuel D. Balam (numbers 1-15) are overruled. Lundgren’s objection to the Declaration of Hector Lopez (number 16) is overruled.

Pursuant to the Agreement for Construction Management Services entered between Newhall and Lundgren, Lundgren agreed to “[p]rovide construction management supervision, administration, oversight and coordination of the Project [where the incident which is the subject of this action occurred] and all contracts associated with the Project, including, but not limited to…Safety Programs: Ensure contracts require each contractor to develop, provide and fully implement safety programs, as required by law, including, but not limited to, CAL-OSHA requirements…” (emphasis added) (See Ex.A to Lundgren Decl., Ex.B, p.B-1, I(a)(4)).

The contract between Newhall and Impact for the purchase of the modular buildings was a contract associated with the Project. Lundgren concedes that HN checked in with Lundgren when HN started work at the site as required by Impact’s contract with Newhall. (See Motion p.9:5-6; Balam Decl., Ex.B). As such, Lundgren had a duty to supervise and oversee the safety program of HN. Lundgren concedes that other than checking HN in when it started work at the site, Lundgren had no interaction with HN or the work it performed at the Project. (See Motion p.9:5-7; Sep. Stmnt. 16-21).

The doctrine set forth in Privette (1993) 5 C4th 689 and its progeny also does not establish that Lundgren cannot be held liable. Privette and its progeny stand for the proposition that the hirer of an independent contractor cannot be held liable for injuries to an employee of an independent contractor where the hirer did not cause the injuries. Id. at 702. The holding in Privette is based on the reasoning that the rule of workers’ compensation exclusivity, which protects an independent contractor who pays workers’ compensation premiums from further liability to its employees for on-the-job injuries, should also protect the property owner who, in hiring the contractor, is indirectly paying for the cost of such coverage, which the contractor presumably calculated into the contract price. Id. at 699, 701. Here, neither Lundgren nor Newhall hired Impact or HN to dismantle or remove the modular classrooms. Rather, Newhall entered into a contract with Impact whereby Impact was to pay Newhall for the classrooms. As such, Lundgren has not established that it directly or indirectly paid for the cost of workers’ compensation coverage as was the case in Privette and its progeny.

Based on the foregoing, Lundgren has failed to establish that it did not owe a duty of care to Mata which was not breached causing Plaintiffs’ damages. Therefore, the request for summary judgment is denied. As noted above, since Lundgren failed to properly request or support its alternative request for summary adjudication, the entire motion fails.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where HN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES DBA is a litigant

Latest cases where MESA UNDERWRITERS SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases where IMPACT CONSTRUCTION SERVICES is a litigant

Latest cases where LUNDGREN MANAGEMENT CORPORATION is a litigant