On 05/02/2017 JOSE JUAN CASTILLO filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against JOHN ALLEN SMITH. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are PATRICIA D. NIETO, LISA K SEPE-WIESENFELD, GEORGINA T. RIZK, MARGARET MILLER BERNAL, KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE and MARK A. BORENSTEIN. The case status is Other.
****9853
05/02/2017
Other
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Norwalk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
PATRICIA D. NIETO
LISA K SEPE-WIESENFELD
GEORGINA T. RIZK
MARGARET MILLER BERNAL
KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE
MARK A. BORENSTEIN
CASTILLO JOSE JUAN
SHAWNAN CORPORATION
PETERSON TIMOTHY ALAN
KETERITE CORPORATION
SMITH JOHN ALLEN
DOES 1 TO 100
ERNESTO LEMUS JULIO
KELTERITE CORPORATION
MGDESYAN GEORGE G. ESQ.
BAGDASARYAN HRIPSIME ANI
MGDESYAN GEORGE GEVORK ESQ.
BOYADZHYAN ARAKSYA ANI ESQ.
NANETTE M. BEAUMONT
BEAUMONT NANETTE M.
BEAUMONT NANETTE MARIE ESQ.
CHAPPEL GREGORY M
CHAPPEL GREGORY MAURICE ESQ.
3/25/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL R...)
2/26/2020: Request for Dismissal - REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AS TO ENTIRE ACTION OF ALL PARTIES AND ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
11/19/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS ON FIRST AMENDE...)
9/20/2019: Brief - BRIEF COURT'S ORDER REGARDING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
8/12/2019: Brief - COURT'S ORDER REGARDING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE
7/23/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF NANETTE M BEAUMONT IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO APPEAR; AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT
6/11/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER SETTING CASE FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE/TRIAL...)
3/20/2019: Notice of Ruling
3/18/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (- FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; - HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S EX PART...)
10/16/2018: Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application to continue trial date
10/16/2018: Minute Order - (Plaintiff's ex parte application to continue trial and Final ...)
10/1/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -
11/27/2017: NOTICE OF RULING RE DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE
11/16/2017: RULING RE: DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE
11/8/2017: REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO KELTERITE CORPORATION'S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT
9/20/2017: ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER -
9/19/2017: DECLARATION OF DEMURRING PARTY IN SUPPORT OF AUTOMATIC EXTENSION
8/25/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 2, Mark A. Borenstein, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (regarding answer/responsive pleading to the operative complaint by Timothy Peterson; Kelterite Corporation; John Allen Smith) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court
DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal r...)); Filed by Clerk
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (of Kelterite Corporation to First Amended Complatin of Jose Juan Castillo) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court
DocketNotice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service; Filed by Kelterite Corporation (Defendant)
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike of Kelterite C...)); Filed by Clerk
DocketRequest for Dismissal (With Prejudice as to Entire Action of All Parties and All Causes of Action); Filed by Jose Juan Castillo (Plaintiff)
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (of Kelterite Corporation to First Amended Complatin of Jose Juan Castillo) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Kelterite Corporation (Defendant)
DocketAnswer; Filed by Lemus Julio Ernesto (Defendant)
DocketDeclaration; Filed by Keterite Corporation (Defendant)
DocketDECLARATION OF DEMURRING PARTY IN SUPPORT OF AUTOMATIC EXTENSION
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jose Juan Castillo (Plaintiff)
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jose Juan Castillo (Plaintiff)
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
DocketComplaint; Filed by Jose Juan Castillo (Plaintiff)
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES BASED ON: 1. MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE, ETC
DocketSUMMONS
Case Number: BC659853 Hearing Date: February 27, 2020 Dept: SEC
CASTILLO v. SMITH
CASE NO.: BC659853
HEARING: 02/27/2020
JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES
#6
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant KELTERITE CORPORATION’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED.
Moving Party to give Notice.
No Opposition filed as of February 25, 2020.
This personal injury action was filed by Plaintiff on May 2, 2017. On November 16, 2017, the Court OVERRULED Defendant Kelterite’s demurrer to the second cause of action for negligence, third cause of action for negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention, and fourth cause of action for vicarious liability in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and GRANTED Kelterite’s Motion to Strike punitive damages in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff was given 15 days to file an amended complaint in accordance with the Court’s ruling on the Motion to Strike.
On February 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint asserting the following causes of action: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence; (2) Negligence; (3) Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision, and Retention of Employees; and (4) Vicarious Liability.
Kelterite now demurs to Plaintiff’s second, third, and fourth causes of action pursuant to CCP §430.10(e).
As indicated above, the Court previously overruled demurrers to the second, third, and fourth causes of action. Kelterite is not permitted to again demur to those causes of action. Its only attack would have been by way of a timely motion for reconsideration. (Bennett v. Suncloud (1999) 56 Cal.App.4th 91, 96.) The demurrer to the second, third, and fourth causes of action is overruled.
Case Number: BC659853 Hearing Date: December 04, 2019 Dept: SEC
CASTILLO v. SMITH, et al.
CASE NO.: BC659853
HEARING: 12/4/19
#9
TENTATIVE ORDER
Specially appearing Defendant Timothy Peterson’s motion to quash service of summons on first amended complaint is GRANTED.
Moving Party to give NOTICE.
Specially appearing Defendant Timothy Peterson moves to quash service of summons pursuant to CCP 415,20 and 418.10.
“In lieu of personal delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint to the person to be served as specified in Section 416.10, 416.20, 416.30, 416.40, or 416.50, a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint during usual office hours in his or her office or, if no physical address is known, at his or her usual mailing address, other than a United States Postal Service post office box, with· the person who is apparently in charge thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left. When service is effected by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at a mailing address, it shall be left with a person at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof.” (CCP 415.20(a).)
At the 11/19/19 hearing on this motion, Plaintiff advised the court that an Opposition was filed in May 2019, and requests the court to consider the Opposition.
As an initial matter, the court thanks the parties for their patience during this e-filing transition process. Although the Opposition appears on the court’s docket, the system sometimes does not “relate” all documents to the actual hearing. Therefore, this court was not able to review the Opposition prior to the hearing.
Having now reviewed the opposition, the ruling remains the same.
Here, Timothy Peterson rebutted the presumption of valid service by submitting the declaration of Cindy Padillo, who declares that she is a receptionist at Sialic Contractors Corporation, located at 12240 Woodruff Avenue, Downey, CA. (Padillo Decl., ¶ 1.) Timothy Peterson was sub-served at Sialic Contractors Corporation, and Peterson is not an employee, nor does he work for Sialic in any capacity whatsoever. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Once the process server left, Padillo realized that the address of place of service incorrectly said it was 12231 Pangborn Avenue, Downey, CA. (Id. at ¶ 8.)
Plaintiff’s opposition merely insists that 12231 Pangborn Avenue is Defendant’s place of business, but does not properly address Padillo’s declaration, stating that the documents were received at a completely different address, and that Timothy Peterson does not work at that address.
Accordingly, sub-service upon Timothy Peterson was improper. The motion is GRANTED.
Case Number: BC659853 Hearing Date: November 19, 2019 Dept: SEC
CASTILLO v. SMITH, et al.
CASE NO.: BC659853
HEARING: 11/19/19
JUDGE: MARGARET M. BERNAL
#5
TENTATIVE ORDER
Specially appearing Defendant Timothy Peterson’s unopposed motion to quash service of summons on first amended complaint is GRANTED.
Moving Party to give NOTICE.
Specially appearing Defendant Timothy Peterson moves to quash service of summons pursuant to CCP 415,20 and 418.10.
“In lieu of personal delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint to the person to be served as specified in Section 416.10, 416.20, 416.30, 416.40, or 416.50, a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint during usual office hours in his or her office or, if no physical address is known, at his or her usual mailing address, other than a United States Postal Service post office box, with· the person who is apparently in charge thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left. When service is effected by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at a mailing address, it shall be left with a person at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof.” (CCP 415.20(a).)
Here, Timothy Peterson was sub-served at Sialic Contractors Corporation. Cindy Padillo declares that Timothy Peterson is not an employee, nor does he work for Sialic in any capacity whatsoever. (Padillo Decl., Par. 6.)
Accordingly, sub-service upon Timothy Peterson was improper. The motion is GRANTED.