Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/12/2021 at 12:24:52 (UTC).

JOSEPHINE LIVINGSTON VS FRANCES JONES ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/15/2017 JOSEPHINE LIVINGSTON filed a Personal Injury - Other Product Liability lawsuit against FRANCES JONES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GEORGINA T. RIZK, MARK A. BORENSTEIN, KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE and SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4153

  • Filing Date:

    03/15/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Product Liability

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

GEORGINA T. RIZK

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

LIVINGSTON JOSEPHINE

Defendants and Respondents

JONES FRANCES

MCDONALDS

DOES 1 TO 100

MCDONALD'S CORPORATION

JONES FRANCES DBA MCDONALDS

MCDONALD'S

JONES MANAGEMENT - LA TIJERA INC.

Not Classified By Court

DEFENDANT-IN-INTERVENTION JONES MANAGEMENT - LA TIJERA INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

PERLSTEIN JOHN J. ESQ.

YOUNG DARREN S.

EKPENISI MACAULEY ISIOMA ESQ.

EKPENISI MACAULEY

RICHARDSON MICHAEL DANTON ESQ.

AMIRKHANYAN TINA

AMIRKHANYAN TATEVIK TINA ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

ZIMMERMAN BRIAN F. ESQ.

KAHANOWITCH RICHARD MICHAEL ESQ.

BUEHLER MARK

BUEHLER MARK BERNARD ESQ.

Defendant and Not Classified By Court Attorneys

BUEHLER MARK

BUEHLER MARK BERNARD ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

2/17/2021: Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

3/4/2021: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Association of Attorney

10/21/2020: Association of Attorney

Separate Statement

10/9/2020: Separate Statement

Declaration - DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO MSJ

10/9/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO MSJ

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: COVID-19;) OF 06/19/2020

6/19/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: COVID-19;) OF 06/19/2020

Reply - REPLY REPLY AS TO OPPOSITION TO OUR MSJ

6/19/2020: Reply - REPLY REPLY AS TO OPPOSITION TO OUR MSJ

Opposition - OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MSJ

6/11/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MSJ

Declaration - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MSJ

6/12/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MSJ

Declaration - DECLARATION TINA AMIRKHANYAN IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE

6/15/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION TINA AMIRKHANYAN IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE

Objection - OBJECTION IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE

6/15/2020: Objection - OBJECTION IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE

Motion for Summary Judgment

2/26/2020: Motion for Summary Judgment

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

8/8/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

6/26/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

3/27/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

11/5/2018: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY-CIVIL

3/12/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY-CIVIL

JONES MANAGEMENT-LA TIJERA, INC.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

4/11/2017: JONES MANAGEMENT-LA TIJERA, INC.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

65 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/12/2021
  • Hearing04/12/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2021
  • Hearing04/12/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2021
  • Hearing04/12/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Order , Filed by Plaintiff, for Extension of Time to Seek New Counsel and/or File Responsive Motion(s) to Defendant's Memorandum of Costs.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (for Plaintiff, Files by M. Danton Richardson, Esq./Law Offices of Tina Amirkhanyan) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (for Plaintiff, Filed by Tina Amirkhanyan, Esq./Law Offices of Tina Amirkhanyan) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (Filed by Plaintiff, for Extension of Time to Seek New Counsel and/or File Responsive Motion(s) to Defendant's Memorandum of Costs.) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Josephine Livingston (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2021
  • Docketat 4:37 PM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order Re: Continuance of the March 19, 2021 and March 2...) of 03/17/2021); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Re: Continuance of the March 19, 2021 and March 2...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
102 More Docket Entries
  • 03/12/2018
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Josephine Livingston (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2017
  • DocketPartial Dismissal (w/o Prejudice); Filed by Josephine Livingston (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2017
  • DocketREQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2017
  • DocketJONES MANAGEMENT-LA TIJERA, INC.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Frances Jones (Defendant); McDonald's (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Josephine Livingston (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Josephine Livingston (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC654153    Hearing Date: April 13, 2021    Dept: 29

JOSEPHINE LIVINGSTON vs FRANCES JONES, ET AL.

Continued from April 12, 2021 to allow Counsel to present argument (requested by Plaintiff)

TENTATIVE

The unopposed Motions to Be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff is DENIED without prejudice. Counsel have not complied with California Rules of Court 3.1362.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Permit Plaintiff to Seek Counsel and/or File Responsive Motions to Defendant’s Memorandum of Costs is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s counsel requests an extension of time to permit Plaintiff to seek new counsel and/or file responsive motions to Defendant’s memorandum of costs. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(b), “Any notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum. If the cost memorandum was served by mail, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. If the cost memorandum was served electronically, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(4).” However, “[t]he party claiming costs and the party contesting costs may agree to extend the time for serving and filing the cost memorandum and a motion to strike or tax costs. This agreement must be confirmed in writing, specify the extended date for service, and be file with the clerk. In the absence of an agreement, the court may extend the times for serving and filing the cost memorandum or the notice of motion to strike or tax costs for a period not to exceed 30 days.” Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1700(b)(3).

Here, the Memorandum of Costs was electronically served by Defendant on Plaintiff on February 17, 2021. Therefore, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(b) (15 days after service) and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1010.6(a)(4)(B) (2 court days), any opposition to the Memorandum of Costs was due by March 8, 2021. Even if the Court were to extend the opposition due date by 30 days (the maximum under Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1700(b)(3)), the extended due date would be April 7, 2021 – a date prior to the April 12, 2021 hearing date on this motion.

Therefore, the motion to extend time is denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC654153    Hearing Date: April 12, 2021    Dept: 29

Livingston  vs.  Jones, et. al.

TENTATIVE

BC654153 JOSEPHINE LIVINGSTON vs FRANCES JONES, ET AL.

The unopposed Motions to Be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff is DENIED without prejudice. Counsel have not complied with California Rules of Court 3.1362.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Permit Plaintiff to Seek Counsel and/or File Responsive Motions to Defendant’s Memorandum of Costs is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s counsel requests an extension of time to permit Plaintiff to seek new counsel and/or file responsive motions to Defendant’s memorandum of costs. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(b), “Any notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum. If the cost memorandum was served by mail, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. If the cost memorandum was served electronically, the period is extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(4).” However, “[t]he party claiming costs and the party contesting costs may agree to extend the time for serving and filing the cost memorandum and a motion to strike or tax costs. This agreement must be confirmed in writing, specify the extended date for service, and be file with the clerk. In the absence of an agreement, the court may extend the times for serving and filing the cost memorandum or the notice of motion to strike or tax costs for a period not to exceed 30 days.” Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1700(b)(3).

Here, the Memorandum of Costs was electronically served by Defendant on Plaintiff on February 17, 2021. Therefore, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(b) (15 days after service) and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1010.6(a)(4)(B) (2 court days), any opposition to the Memorandum of Costs was due by March 8, 2021. Even if the Court were to extend the opposition due date by 30 days (the maximum under Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1700(b)(3)), the extended due date would be April 7, 2021 – a date prior to the April 12, 2021 hearing date on this motion.

Therefore, the motion to extend time is denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC654153    Hearing Date: March 26, 2021    Dept: 29

Livingston  vs.  Jones, et. al.

Court Order Re: Continuance of the March 19, 2021 and March 29, 2021 Hearings to  April 12, 2021;

On the Court's own motion, the following hearings are continued to April 12, 2021 at 8:30 a.m.:

-  Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff, Filed by Tina Amirkhanyan, Esq./Law Offices of Tina Amirkhanyan scheduled for 03/26/2021,

- Hearing on Motion  Filed by Plaintiff, for Extension of Time to Seek New Counsel and/or File Responsive Motion(s) to Defendant's Memorandum of Costs, scheduled for 03/26/2021, and

- Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff, Filed by M. Danton Richardson, Esq./Law Offices of Tina Amirkhanyan scheduled for 03/29/2021

are CONTINUED  to 04/12/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at Spring Street Courthouse.

Moving Party(ies) ordered to give notice and file proof of service of said notice.

Case Number: BC654153    Hearing Date: October 26, 2020    Dept: 29

The Court does not intend to issue a tentative ruling. The parties should be prepared to address the following issues (among others):

A. CONDITION PRECEDENT

The agreement provides in relevant part: “The Plaintiff(s) shall hold the Defendant(s) harmless for any and all liens that may exist in the litigation . . . . [] The settlement is contingent upon . . . the satisfaction by Plaintiff of any claims for attorneys’ fees and costs by John Perlstein and B&D Law Group.”

1. Does the undisputed evidence establish that this language imposes not only a condition to Defendants’ performance, but also imposes an affirmative obligation on Plaintiff to satisfy Perlstein’s and B&D Law Group’s claims?

(See Witkin, Summary of California Law, Contracts, § 801 [failure of a condition to happen, alone, merely excuses the other party's performance; breach of covenant, alone, merely gives the other party a right of action for damages [or specific performance]; but the same fact or act may be both a condition and a promise, resulting in both an excuse of counterperformance and a right of action for damages [or specific performance].”].)

2. Alternatively, can the language be fairly read as making the settlement contingent on Plaintiff’s negotiation of a satisfactory resolution to the claims for attorneys’ fees? If so, does this preclude summary judgment?

(Please note that the court’s tentative view is that there is at least a triable issue as to whether counsels’ agreement regarding the allocation of settlement proceeds to pay attorneys’ fees is binding on Plaintiff. Plaintiff presents evidence that she did not agree to the allocation and did not give her attorney the authority to resolve the claims for attorneys' fees on her behalf. (See Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal. 4th 578, 583 [the “law is settled that an attorney must be specifically authorized” by the client “to settle and compromise a claim”]). Thus, the court is not persuaded by the argument that the condition precedent was met.)

3. If the language is ambiguous, can the court nonetheless determine the contract interpretation issue on summary judgment? Or is there a triable issue of fact?

4. Would any issue regarding the purported condition precedent be resolved if Defendants paid the fees to Perlstein and B&D in the amounts to which they agreed, thus waiving the condition precedent and thus precluding any argument that those claims have not been satisfied?

Case Number: BC654153    Hearing Date: June 26, 2020    Dept: 29

Livingston v. Frances Jones dba McDonald’s Corporation BC654153

MOTION TO INTERVENE

Motion by Jones Management-LA Tijera, Inc. (“JM”) to File an Answer-In-Intervention is GRANTED. Intervenor is ordered to file its Answer-in-Intervention forthwith.

Intervention is proper where the intervenor shows an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and disposition of that action may as a practical matter impair or impede that person’s ability to protect the interest. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 387(b).

Intervenor has an interest in this litigation in that it contends it owns the premises where the accident occurred and which is the subject of this action. Exhibit 4, Response to Special Interrogatory #1. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were responsible for the maintenance, care and condition of the premises, wherein Plaintiff was allegedly sold food containing a foreign object. Complaint, page 4.

Intervention may take place where the nonparty intervenor becomes a party to the action between other persons by “[u]niting with a Defendant in resisting the claims of a plaintiff.” Cal Code Civ Procedure § 397(b).

Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, the motion does not seek dismissal of Defendant Frances Jones dba McDonald’s. Whether or not she is a proper party to this action or liable for any of the alleged misconduct is an issue of fact that cannot be determined by way of this motion.

Plaintiff’s request to reopen discovery is improperly sought by way of opposition. Such a request would be considered only upon a proper motion demonstrating the relevant factors necessary to warrant that order. Cal Code Civ Procedure § 2024.050.

Intervenor must give sufficient statutory notice to join in the motion for summary judgment, as set forth below. At the time the motion was filed on 2/26/20, JM was not appropriately joined as a defendant in this action.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Motion by Defendants Frances Jones and Jones Management-LA Tijera, Inc. (“JM”), for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative for Summary Adjudication, is continued to 10/26/2020 at 1:30 p.m. to permit JM to file an Answer-in-Intervention. JM is ordered to timely file a joinder and separate statement of facts with sufficient statutory notice to Plaintiff if it intends to join in the Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication filed by Defendant, Frances Jones. (See Frazee v. Seely (2002) 95 Cal. App. 4th 627, 636 (in a different factual context, stating that a defendant joining a summary judgment motion must have its own separate statement)). Plaintiff’s opposition and Defendant’s reply thereto shall be filed according to statutory deadlines.

The Answer filed on 4/11/17 by Defendant Jones Management-LA Tijera, Inc. “(erroneously sued as Frances Jones dba McDonald’s)” is stricken as it improperly attempts to join a party. Cal Code Civ Procedure § 436(b).

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where McDonald's is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BUEHLER MARK