This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/25/2022 at 04:10:12 (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, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are SERENA R. MURILLO and MARK A. BORENSTEIN. 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

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

SERENA R. MURILLO

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

LIVINGSTON JOSEPHINE

Defendants

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

Defendant Attorneys

BUEHLER MARK BERNARD ESQ.

KAHANOWITCH RICHARD MICHAEL ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service by Mail

4/23/2021: Proof of Service by Mail

Declaration of Mailing

4/23/2021: Declaration of Mailing

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

4/23/2021: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Motion to Tax Costs

4/23/2021: Motion to Tax Costs

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

4/23/2021: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Request for Judicial Notice

4/26/2021: Request for Judicial Notice

Proof of Personal Service

4/28/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE COST BILL

5/6/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE COST BILL

Declaration - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE COST BILL

5/6/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE COST BILL

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF, FI...)

5/6/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF, FI...)

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

5/6/2021: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

5/6/2021: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Proof of Service by Mail

5/10/2021: Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Service - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

5/12/2021: Proof of Service - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF, FI...)

5/12/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF, FI...)

Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil - ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL-CIVIL FOR PLAINTIFF

5/12/2021: Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil - ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL-CIVIL FOR PLAINTIFF

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)

5/17/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDU...) OF 05/19/2021

5/19/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDU...) OF 05/19/2021

96 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/19/2021
  • DocketJudgment (for Costs [Proposed]); Filed by Frances Jones (Defendant); Jones Management - La Tijera, Inc. (Defendant in Intervention)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/19/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Strike (Defendants' Memorandum of Costs, or In The Alternative Strike or Tax Costs (CRC Section 3.1700(b)), Filed by the Plaintiff) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/19/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Memorandu...) of 05/19/2021); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/19/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Memorandu...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/17/2021
  • Docketat 11:23 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Nunc Pro Tunc Order

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/17/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (for Plaintiff, Filed by T. Tina Amirkhanyan and M. Danton Richardson /Law Offices of Tina Amirkhanyan) - Held - Motion Granted

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • DocketOrder Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (for Plaintiff); Filed by Tatevik Tina Amirkhanyan, Esq. (Attorney)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • DocketProof of Service - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; Filed by Josephine Livingston (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff, Fi...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
141 More Docket Entries
  • 03/12/2018
  • DocketSUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY-CIVIL

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/03/2017
  • DocketREQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/03/2017
  • DocketPartial Dismissal (w/o Prejudice); Filed by Josephine Livingston (Plaintiff)

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

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/11/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Frances Jones (Defendant); McDonald's (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/05/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Josephine Livingston (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/05/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/15/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/15/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Josephine Livingston (Plaintiff)

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

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****4153    Hearing Date: May 19, 2021    Dept: 29

Tentative Ruling:

The Motion to Tax or Strike Memo of Costs is GRANTED.

Background

On March 17, 2017, Plaintiff Josephine Livingston filed suit against Defendants Frances Jones dba McDonald’s, McDonald’s Corporation and DOES 1-100 for negligence. Plaintiff’s complaint arose out of injuries after a spring was found in Plaintiff’s McFlurry from Defendants’ McFlurry machine, unbeknownst to Plaintiff, who injured her teeth, gums, mouth, and suffered from emotional trauma after ingesting the spring.

Plaintiff and Defendants engaged in an all-day mediation. At the conclusion of the mediation, they agreed to settle the action for $40,000. Plaintiff, however, failed to accept the settlement as final, and attempted to renege on the settlement. Defendants ultimately filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court granted on 10/30/20. The Court made its summary judgment ruling contingent on Defendant paying the settlement amount of $40,000 plus attorneys’ fees. The Court ultimately entered Judgment on 12/03/20.

Defendants filed their memorandum of costs on 2/17/21. At this time, Plaintiff moves to strike or tax the costs memorandum.

Judicial Notice

Plaintiff seeks judicial notice of the Court’s Judgment on Defendants’ summary judgment motion and the parties’ mediation settlement agreement. Plaintiff’s request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452 (d) and 453.

Motion

Plaintiff moves for an order striking and taxing costs on the Defendant pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1700(b), contending Defendants are not the prevailing parties in this action. Further, Plaintiff argues Defendants’ Memorandum of Costs should be substantially reduced because it seeks items of costs not allowable under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. ; 1033.5, are not necessary, and are not reasonable.

Opposition

Defendants filed an Opposition on May 6, 2021. Defendants argue Plaintiff’s attorney cannot make this motion because counsel was terminated by the client. Second, Defendants argue they were the prevailing party. Third, Defendants argue each item of costs is recoverable.

Reply

No Reply has been filed as of May, 16, 2021. Due date for the reply motion was May 12, 2021.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Standing to Bring Motion

Defendants cite California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.6, which states, “[A] lawyer shall not represent a client, or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if: . . . (4) the client discharges a lawyer.” This is correct; however, “before withdrawing legal services, an attorney must take reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the client’s rights.” (CRPC 1.16(d).) Pursuant to Matter of Dahlz (Rev.Dept. 2001) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr. 269, 280, this rule applies whether the attorney withdraws or is fired by the client.

Plaintiff’s counsel was under the obligation at the time this motion was filed to ensure client would not be reasonably prejudiced. Therefore, the Court will decide the motion on the merits.

Determining the Prevailing Party

Plaintiff argues that Defendants are not the prevailing party. Under the Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subsection (b), “[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” Subsection (a)(4) of the same statute provides that the definition of a “prevailing party” includes the following (see attached for full statute):

1) the party with a net monetary recovery

2) a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered

3) a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and

4) a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subsection (a) (4) provides, “If any party recovers other than monetary relief and in situations other than as specified, the “prevailing party” shall be as determined by the court, and under those circumstances, the court, in its discretion, may allow costs or not and, if allowed, may apportion costs between the parties on the same or adverse sides pursuant to rules adopted under Section 1034.”

Plaintiff correctly notes Defendants do not fit into any of the above categories. Plaintiff recovered $40,000.00 pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement. Pursuant to case law, a monetary settlement is not a dismissal in Defendants’ favor. “When a defendant pays money to a plaintiff in order to settle a case, the plaintiff obtains a “net monetary recovery,” and a dismissal pursuant to such a settlement is not a dismissal “in [the defendant's] favor.” (DeSaulles v. Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula (2016), 62 Cal. 4th 1140, 1144.)

Defendants make two arguments in favor of their position that they are the prevailing party. Defendants argue DeSaulles is distinguishable because this case was decided on summary judgment. However, Defendants cite no legal authority contrary to DeSaulles.

Defendants’ second argument is that Plaintiff’s recovery was lower than Plaintiff’s final settlement offer. However, Defendants cite no legal authority for the position that this is relevant to the issue of whether or not they are prevailing parties.

This case arguably fits into the catch-all provision of 1032(a)(4), which permits the Court to apportion costs, in its discretion, in situations other than those as specified above. While Plaintiff did obtain a net monetary recovery at the conclusion of the proceedings, the procedural posture was highly unusual, and the monetary recovery was accomplished after Defendants’ successful summary judgment motion. The Court finds, however, that the most closely analogous case cited is DeSaulles, and declines to exercise its discretion and apportion costs to Defendants. Doing so would not be equitable in a case where, as here, Plaintiff ultimately obtained a $40,000 judgment plus an award of attorneys’ fees.

In light of the above, Plaintiff has shown Defendants are not the prevailing party. The motion to strike is therefore granted in its entirety.

Remaining Issues

Plaintiff makes arguments that several costs are not recoverable. However, because the motion is granted in its entirety, these issues are moot.

Conclusion

Defendants failed to show Plaintiff’s counsel lacks standing to bring the motion. Plaintiff established Defendant is not the prevailing party, and the memorandum should be stricken in its entirety. The Court declines to rule on the remaining issues. The motion is granted.

Court to give notice. 


Case Number: ****4153    Hearing Date: May 12, 2021    Dept: 29

LIVINGSTON  vs.  JONES, et. al.

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff

The Court reviewed counsel's declaration stating: "Counsel served Plaintiff again on May 6, 2021 via US mail with the corrected  Declaration MC-052 reflecting two hearing dates of 05/12/21 and 05/19/21 and corrected Order MC-053 also reflecting two hearing dates of 05/12/21 and 05/19/21 as instructed by this Court’s tentative order."Therefore, the Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff is GRANTED.

The Court finds Counsel has complied with the requirements of Cal. Rules of Court 3.1362. 

The Court's Ruling and Attorney's relief as Counsel of record for client is not effective until Proof of Service of the Order signed by the Court upon the client is filed in this action. Until then, counsel continues to be counsel of record. Cal. Rules of Court 3.1362(e). Cal. Rules of Court Section 3.1362(e).

Moving  party is ordered to give notice.



Case Number: ****4153    Hearing Date: May 6, 2021    Dept: 29

Livingston  vs.  Jones, et. al.

TENTATIVEMotion to be relieved as counsel is continued to May 12, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. 

Counsel's Declaration fails to identify a future hearing date of May 19, 2021 on the Motion to Tax Costs in Item 5 of her Declaration.  In lieu ot denying this petition outright, the court will CONTINUE the matter to allow counsel to immediately re-file the declaration on her client correctly identifying the future dates of 5/12/2021 at 8:30 a.m. for Motion to be Relieved and 5/19/2021 at 1:30 p.m.  for Motion to Tax Costs.  These hearings must also be properly identified in the Proposed Order at Items 7 and 8.Moving party to provide notice.


Case Number: ****4153    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: ****4153    Hearing Date: April 12, 2021    Dept: 29

Livingston  vs.  Jones, et. al.

TENTATIVE

****4153 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: ****4153    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: ****4153    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: ****4153    Hearing Date: June 26, 2020    Dept: 29

Livingston v. Frances Jones dba McDonald’s Corporation ****4153

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 KAHANOWITCH RICHARD ESQ.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BUEHLER MARK