This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/03/2019 at 00:01:20 (UTC).

JULIAN CASTRO VS ESTATE OF PATRICIA ANN ENOS ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/28/2017 JULIAN CASTRO filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ESTATE OF PATRICIA ANN ENOS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4769

  • Filing Date:

    11/28/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

CASTRO JULIAN

Defendants and Respondents

ENOS PATRICIA

FULLER CHRISTOPHER M.

FULLER JOHN G.

ENOS PATRICIA ANN ESTATE OF

ENOS PATRICIA A.

DOES 1 TO 100

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

VARTANIAN VARAND

Defendant Attorney

BRISLIN SANDRA K. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE, ETC

2/21/2018: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE, ETC

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1 .NEGLIGENCE 2.NEGLIGENCE PER SE; 3.COMMON LAW STRICT LIABILITY JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

3/23/2018: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1 .NEGLIGENCE 2.NEGLIGENCE PER SE; 3.COMMON LAW STRICT LIABILITY JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

6/7/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Unknown

6/8/2018: Unknown

Unknown

7/30/2018: Unknown

Ex Parte Application

3/29/2019: Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

4/2/2019: Minute Order

Opposition

4/2/2019: Opposition

Notice

4/5/2019: Notice

Notice of Ruling

4/23/2019: Notice of Ruling

Declaration

5/9/2019: Declaration

Declaration

5/9/2019: Declaration

Motion for Summary Judgment

5/9/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment

Request for Judicial Notice

5/9/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

1/9/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

1/9/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

1/22/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

5 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2019
  • Separate Statement; Filed by ENOS, PATRICIA ANN, Estate of (Defendant); CHRISTOPHER M. FULLER (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2019
  • Declaration (OF JOHN G. FULLER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT); Filed by ENOS, PATRICIA ANN, Estate of (Defendant); CHRISTOPHER M. FULLER (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2019
  • Declaration (OF CHRISTOPHER FULLER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT); Filed by ENOS, PATRICIA ANN, Estate of (Defendant); CHRISTOPHER M. FULLER (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2019
  • Motion for Summary Judgment; Filed by ENOS, PATRICIA ANN, Estate of (Defendant); CHRISTOPHER M. FULLER (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by ENOS, PATRICIA ANN, Estate of (Defendant); CHRISTOPHER M. FULLER (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • Notice (OF GRANTING DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND NOTICE OF NEW TRIAL DATE); Filed by JULIAN CASTRO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (For an order to Continue the trial date) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application For an order to Continue the ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
15 More Docket Entries
  • 02/21/2018
  • First Amended Complaint; Filed by JULIAN CASTRO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by JULIAN CASTRO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by JULIAN CASTRO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by JULIAN CASTRO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by JULIAN CASTRO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1 NEGLIGENCE 2.NEGLIGENCE PER SE; 3.COMMON LAW STRICT LIABILITY

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC684769    Hearing Date: November 07, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Spring Street Courthouse, Department 5

julian castro ,

Plaintiff,

v.

estate of patricia ann enos, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC684769

Hearing Date: November 7, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Background

Plaintiff Julian Castro (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Estate of Patrician Ann Enos and Christopher M. Fuller (collectively, “Defendants”) based on injuries Plaintiff sustained from a dog attack. Defendants move for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s complaint, or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of the causes of action for negligence, negligence per se, and common law strict liability. Plaintiff opposes the motion. The motion is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law[.]  There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)  “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.”  (Ibid.)  In ruling on the motion, “the court may not weigh the plaintiff's evidence or inferences against the defendant[’s] as though it were sitting as the trier of fact.”  (Id. at 856.)  However, the court “must . . . determine what any evidence or inference could show or imply to a reasonable trier of fact.”  (Ibid., emphasis original.)  

DISCUSSION

Defendants argue that they did not own the dog, but in fact, Plaintiff owned the dog at issue. Defendants proffer a declaration from Christopher Filler stating that he did not reside at the property where the attack occurred and that he did not own the dog. (Declaration of Christopher Fuller, ¶¶ 5, 6.) Defendants also proffer a declaration from John Fuller stating that Plaintiff was staying with him at the property where the attack occurred and that Plaintiff owned the dog that attacked him. (Declaration of John Fuller, ¶¶ 5-6.) John Fuller also states that Plaintiff’s injuries did not occurred on the property where the attack occurred, but instead happened when Plaintiff was attempting to steal a piece of lawn equipment from a neighboring property. (Declaration of John Fuller, ¶¶ 5-9.) This evidence is sufficient to satisfy Defendants’ burden, shifting the burden to Plaintiff to proffer sufficient evidence to create a triable issue.

Plaintiff fails to do so. Plaintiff proffers Christopher Fuller’s deposition, in which he testified that John Fuller owned the dog at issue. (See Declaration of Varabd Vartanian, Exhibit 1, p. 17, Exhibit 2, p. 60; Declaration of Julian Castro, ¶ 13.) That evidence is insufficient to create a triable issue that the Estate of Patricia Enos or Defendant Christopher Fuller were liable. Plaintiff’s declaration states that he heard John Fuller say, “Sick him, Misty” before he was attacked. (Declaration of Julian Castro, ¶ 6.) Again, evidence that the dog was owned by John Fuller does not create a triable issue with respect to Defendants.

Plaintiff states in his declaration that he did not own the dog at issue. (Julian Castro’s Declaration, ¶ 16.) The Court need not resolve discrepancies in the evidence whether the dog was owned by John Fuller or Plaintiff. Plaintiff proffers no evidence that the dog was owned by Defendants. All of Plaintiff’s claimed are premised on Defendants’ ownership of the dog. (See First Amended Complaint, filed March 23, 2018.) Therefore, the motion is granted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: November 6, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court