This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/26/2020 at 11:19:13 (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 and MARK A. BORENSTEIN. 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

 

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 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

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

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

Notice - APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ISO MSJ

1/14/2020: Notice - APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ISO MSJ

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 Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service

3/15/2019: Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service

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 -

113 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/01/2021
  • Hearing03/01/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department F47 at 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2021
  • Hearing02/19/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department F47 at 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2021
  • Hearing01/07/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department F47 at 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; (OSC RE Dismissal) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ((Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment; Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2020
  • DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by LUNDGREN MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2020
  • DocketObjection (to Evidence Submitted by Plaintiff); Filed by LUNDGREN MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2020
  • DocketReply (ISO Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by LUNDGREN MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
173 More Docket Entries
  • 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 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
  • 07/14/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

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

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

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

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.