This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/05/2021 at 14:33:35 (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 and KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE. 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

 

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

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

Notice - NOTICE OF RULING RE: DEFENDANT, JONES MANAGEMENT - LA TIJERA, INC.'S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

11/14/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF RULING RE: DEFENDANT, JONES MANAGEMENT - LA TIJERA, INC.'S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

Answer

2/6/2020: Answer

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

53 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/04/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Granting of Defendants Frances Jones and Jones Management-LA Tijera, Inc. 's Motion for Summary Judgment on 10/26/2020) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2020
  • DocketJudgment (Re: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, or IN The Alternative, Summary Adjudication); Filed by Frances Jones (Defendant); Jones Management - La Tijera, Inc. (Defendant in Intervention)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2020
  • Docketat 3:28 PM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Ruling on Submitted Matter

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court order on Submitted Matter Re: Defendants, Fances Jones ...) of 10/30/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court order on Submitted Matter Re: Defendants, Fances Jones ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (of Mark B. Buehler re Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Frances Jones (Defendant); Jones Management - La Tijera, Inc. (Defendant in Intervention)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (Or In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication, Filed by Defendants, Fances Jones and Jones Management-La Tijera, Inc.) - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment Or In The Alternative,...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketAssociation of Attorney; Filed by Josephine Livingston (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
83 More Docket Entries
  • 03/12/2018
  • DocketSUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY-CIVIL

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

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

    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-Service/Summons; Filed by Josephine Livingston (Plaintiff)

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2017
  • DocketComplaint; 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

Tentative Rulings

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.