This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/20/2020 at 23:05:58 (UTC).

JUSTIN STEAGALL VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORN

Case Summary

On 03/27/2017 JUSTIN STEAGALL filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is NANCY L. NEWMAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5418

  • Filing Date:

    03/27/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

NANCY L. NEWMAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

STEAGALL JUSTIN

Defendants

ALPHA EPSILON PI FOUNDATION INC. THE

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

COHANIM EDON

AEPI BRUINS DOE 3

THE ALPHA EPSILON PI FOUNDATION INC.

L A PHI SIGMA DELTA FOUNDATION (DOE 1)

DEUTERON UCLA AEII ALPHA EPSILON PI-XI

ALPHA EPSILON PI FRATERNITY INC. DOE 2

UCLA AEII ALPHA EPSILON PI-XI DEUTERON

L A PHI SIGMA DELTA FOUNDATION DOE 1

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY

AEPI BRUINS (DOE 3)

ALPHA EPSILON PI FRATERNITY INC. (DOE 2)

Others

STATMAN JAY

COKINOS YOUNG

Not Classified By Court

ZETA BETA TAU ? PHI SIGMA DELTA CORPORATION OF LOS ANGELES

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

TASHJIAN ARMEN

Defendant Attorneys

OSBORNE MICHAEL C.

SPIELBERGER DIANA

STATMAN JAY

TREMBLEY CHRISTOPHER K.

MCCUNE & HARBER

OSBORNE MICHAEL CLAUDE

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

4/16/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Brief - BRIEF STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED ORDERS GRANTING THEIR MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

4/21/2020: Brief - BRIEF STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED ORDERS GRANTING THEIR MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Objection - OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

5/7/2020: Objection - OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS PROPOSED ORDERS GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

5/8/2020: Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS PROPOSED ORDERS GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE CYNTHIA LAMB CSR#8349

2/20/2020: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE CYNTHIA LAMB CSR#8349

Unknown - REQUEST FOR COURT REPORTER SERVICES BY PARTY WITH FEE WAIVER

1/9/2020: Unknown - REQUEST FOR COURT REPORTER SERVICES BY PARTY WITH FEE WAIVER

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; DEFENDANT THE ALPHA EPSILON PI FR...)

1/21/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; DEFENDANT THE ALPHA EPSILON PI FR...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE (TELEPHONIC); PLACEHOLDERS: CASE MANAGEME...)

1/22/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE (TELEPHONIC); PLACEHOLDERS: CASE MANAGEME...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE (TELEPHONIC); PLACEHOLDERS: CASE MANAGEMENT...)

1/23/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE (TELEPHONIC); PLACEHOLDERS: CASE MANAGEMENT...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL; CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; FINAL STATUS CONFEREN...)

2/20/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL; CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; FINAL STATUS CONFEREN...)

Objection - OBJECTION TO NEW EVIDENCE FILED IN REPLY

12/2/2019: Objection - OBJECTION TO NEW EVIDENCE FILED IN REPLY

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUD...)

12/4/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUD...)

Separate Statement

12/23/2019: Separate Statement

Declaration - DECLARATION OF ARMEN M. TASHJIAN IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION MOTIONS

12/23/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF ARMEN M. TASHJIAN IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION MOTIONS

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO AEPI DEFENDANTS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

12/23/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO AEPI DEFENDANTS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Notice - NOTICE OF NON-SUBSTANTIVE ERRATA WITHIN THE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF ARMEN M. TASHJIAN AND A REQUEST FOR CORRECTION

12/26/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF NON-SUBSTANTIVE ERRATA WITHIN THE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF ARMEN M. TASHJIAN AND A REQUEST FOR CORRECTION

Case Management Statement

1/2/2020: Case Management Statement

Response - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED AND UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

1/3/2020: Response - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED AND UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

163 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/08/2020
  • DocketReply (to Plaintiff?s Objections to Defendants? Proposed Orders Granting Motions for Summary Judgment); Filed by AEPi Bruins (Defendant); The Alpha Epsilon Pi Foundation, Inc. (Defendant); The Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity, Inc. (Defendant) et al.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/07/2020
  • DocketObjection (to Defendants Proposed Order Granting Summary Judgment); Filed by JUSTIN STEAGALL (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/06/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department P; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/21/2020
  • DocketBrief (Statement in Support of Proposed Orders Granting Their Motions for Summary Judgment); Filed by AEPi Bruins (Defendant); The Alpha Epsilon Pi Foundation, Inc. (Defendant); The Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity, Inc. (Defendant) et al.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/16/2020
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by The Alpha Epsilon Pi Foundation, Inc. (Defendant); The Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity, Inc. (Defendant); Zeta Beta Tau - Phi Sigma Delta Corporation of Los Angeles Erroneously Sued As L A Phi Sigma Delta Foundation (Defendant) et al.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/13/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department P; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/24/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department P; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/24/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department P; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/24/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department P; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/24/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department P; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
313 More Docket Entries
  • 08/10/2017
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/10/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/10/2017
  • DocketORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/10/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE - SUMMONS & COMPLAINT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/24/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/24/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/27/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by JUSTIN STEAGALL (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/27/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/27/2017
  • DocketComplaint Filed

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/27/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: (1) NEGLIGENCE; ETC.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****5418    Hearing Date: December 04, 2020    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Steagall v. Alpha Epsilon Pi Foundation, Case No. ****5418

Hearing Date December 4, 2020

Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Costs – Supplemental Briefing

Defendants obtained judgment after prevailing on a series of motions for summary judgment and seek $15,903.83 in costs. Plaintiff moves to tax, arguing the requested costs are unreasonable. On November 3, 2020 the court issued a tentative ruling denying the motion, but gave plaintiff leave to file a further brief specifically identifying allegedly improper cost items.

A prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding. Cal. Civ. Code ;1032(b). If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show they were not reasonable or necessary. Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal. App.4th 111, 130. If an item of costs appears doubtful or improper on its face, the filing of a motion to tax costs shifts the burden of proof to the party claiming costs. Id. Therefore, when determining a motion to tax costs, the court must first determine whether the relevant statute expressly allows the claimed item and whether it appears proper on its face. Id. at 131. If so, the burden is on the objecting party to show the cost unnecessary or unreasonable. Id.

Plaintiff’s supplemental brief identifies three categories of allegedly improper cost items – motion and filing fees, deposition costs and service of process fees. Plaintiff argues the identified costs “were not necessary of the litigation but were merely a matter of convenience.” Id. pg. 3. Plaintiff provides no argument or authority to support this claim. The costs, including transportation and hotel fees incurred while taking depositions, appear reasonable, and plaintiff failed to meet his burden to show otherwise. The court’s prior tentative ruling will be the final ruling. DENIED.

DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO AVOID IN-PERSON APPEARANCES AND APPEAR VIA LA COURT CONNECT.



Case Number: ****5418    Hearing Date: November 03, 2020    Dept: P

 

Tentative Ruling

Justin Steagall v. Alpha Epsilon Pi Foundation, Case No. ****5418

Hearing Date November 3, 2020

Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Costs

Defendants each obtained judgment after prevailing on a series of motions for summary judgment. They now seek $15,903.83 in costs. Plaintiff moves to tax and argues the memorandum of costs only addresses costs incurred by Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity, Inc., so the other defendants should not be entitled to recover costs.

A prevailing party is entitled to recover costs. Cal. Civ. Code ;1032(b). If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show they were not reasonable or necessary. Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal. App.4th 111, 130. If an item of costs appears doubtful or improper on its face, the filing of a motion to tax costs shifts the burden of proof to the party claiming costs. Id. Therefore, when determining a motion to tax costs, the court must first determine whether the relevant statute allows the claimed item and whether it appears proper on its face. Id. at 131. If so, the burden is on the objecting party to show the cost unnecessary or unreasonable. Id. When multiple prevailing defendants share counsel, they may file a joint memorandum of costs. Jonkey v. Carignan Construction Co. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 20, 26.

Defendants seek $6,506.53 in filing and motion fees, $6,197.96 in deposition costs and $3,199.34 for service of process. 9/16/2020 Memorandum of costs pg. 1. These are allowed under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. ;1033.5. On the face of the memorandum, the amounts appear reasonable. Therefore, under Nelson, plaintiff has the burden of showing the costs were unreasonable. Plaintiff fails to provide evidence of unreasonableness—the motion is based largely on the incorrect assertion that defendants have the initial burden. Plaintiff’s argument that only Alpha Epsilon Pi can recover costs is also unavailing. Moving defendants were represented by the same counsel, and the memorandum of costs was filed by all defendants. See memo at pg. 1. This is proper under Jonkey. DENIED.

DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR VIA LA COURT CONNECT.



Case Number: ****5418    Hearing Date: February 20, 2020    Dept: P

 

Tentative Ruling

Justin Steagall v. The Alpha Epsilon Pi Foundation, Inc. Case No. ****5418, et al.

Hearing Date: 2/20/20

Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief re: Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment

Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty of care and are immune under social host and dram shop laws. On 12/4/2019 the court, after issuing a tentative ruling granting the motions and hearing oral argument, granted plaintiff’s request to allow additional briefing on the applicability of the Civil Code ;1714(d) exception to the dram shop law.

Under Cal. Civ. Code ;1714(c), “[e]xcept as provided in subdivision (d), no social host who furnishes alcoholic beverages to any person may be held legally accountable for damages suffered by that person, or for injury to the person or property of, or death of, any third person, resulting from the consumption of those beverages.” (d)(1) provides an exception for liability of “a parent, guardian, or another adult who knowingly furnishes alcoholic beverages at his or her residence to a person who he or she knows, or should have known, to be under 21 years of age[.]”

Plaintiff argues that since the AEPi entities are non-minor “persons” under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code ;5219, they qualify as “adults” under Civ. Code ;1714(d) and are subject to the exception. The court disagrees. The section refers to “a claim against a parent, guardian, or another adult who knowingly furnishes alcoholic beverages at his or her residence[.]” The specific reference to an “adult” rather than a “person” – as well as the fact that an entity cannot have a “residence” – indicates liability under the ;1714(d) exception is intended to apply to natural persons, not “legal person” entities.

Plaintiff also argues the AEPi entities are liable via respondeat superior through non-party fraternity member Gideon Wolder. Plaintiff provides evidence that Wolder: (1) was 21 years old, (2) was aware plaintiff was under 21, (3) was the host of the party, (4) the fraternity house was Wolder’s residence, and (5) Wolder supplied alcohol to plaintiff without restriction. Plaintiff’s separate statement at ¶¶12-19.

Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to support his respondeat superior theory of liability. Though he presents evidence Wolder was a member of AEPi Fraternity, Xi Deuteron and Sigma Zeta Chapters, plaintiff did not show the mere fact of his membership gave Wolder actual or apparent authority to act on behalf of the fraternity. Additionally, plaintiff provides no evidence Wolder was acting within the scope of his authority as a member of the fraternity’s judicial board when he served alcohol to plaintiff. Such would be required.

A separate basis for granting the motion is that ;1714’s social host exception only allows liability when “furnishing of the alcoholic beverage may be found to be the proximate cause of resulting injuries[.]” Despite the discussion at oral argument, in the prior tentative and being given the chance to provide additional briefing, plaintiff still fails to provide evidence that providing alcohol to plaintiff was the proximate cause of his injury. If plaintiff’s theory is that providing alcohol to his assailant(s) was the cause of the injury, he provides no evidence the assailant(s) were underage. The motions are GRANTED.



Case Number: ****5418    Hearing Date: January 21, 2020    Dept: P

 

Tentative Ruling

Justin Steagall v. The Alpha Epsilon Pi Foundation, Inc. Case No. ****5418, et al.

Hearing Date: January 21, 2020

Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief re: Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment

Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty of care and are immune under social host and dram shop laws. On 12/4/2019 the court, after issuing a tentative ruling granting the motions and hearing oral argument, granted plaintiff’s request to allow additional briefing on the applicability of the Civil Code ;1714(d) exception to the dram shop law.

Under Cal. Civ. Code ;1714(c), “[e]xcept as provided in subdivision (d), no social host who furnishes alcoholic beverages to any person may be held legally accountable for damages suffered by that person, or for injury to the person or property of, or death of, any third person, resulting from the consumption of those beverages.” (d)(1) provides an exception for liability of “a parent, guardian, or another adult who knowingly furnishes alcoholic beverages at his or her residence to a person who he or she knows, or should have known, to be under 21 years of age[.]”

Plaintiff argues that since the AEPi entities are non-minor “persons” under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code ;5219, they qualify as “adults” under Civ. Code ;1714(d) and are subject to the exception. The court disagrees. The section refers to “a claim against a parent, guardian, or another adult who knowingly furnishes alcoholic beverages at his or her residence[.]” The specific reference to an “adult” rather than a “person” – as well as the fact that an entity cannot have a “residence” – indicates liability under the ;1714(d) exception is intended to apply to natural persons, not “legal person” entities.

Plaintiff also argues the AEPi entities are liable via respondeat superior through non-party fraternity member Gideon Wolder. Plaintiff provides evidence that Wolder: (1) was 21 years old, (2) was aware plaintiff was under 21, (3) was the host of the party, (4) the fraternity house was Wolder’s residence, and (5) Wolder supplied alcohol to plaintiff without restriction. Plaintiff’s separate statement at ¶¶12-19.

Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to support his respondeat superior theory of liability. Though he presents evidence Wolder was a member of AEPi Fraternity, Xi Deuteron and Sigma Zeta Chapters, plaintiff did not show the mere fact of his membership gave Wolder actual or apparent authority to act on behalf of the fraternity. Additionally, plaintiff provides no evidence Wolder was acting within the scope of his authority as a member of the fraternity’s judicial board when he served alcohol to plaintiff. Such would be required.

A separate basis for granting the motion is that ;1714’s social host exception only allows liability when “furnishing of the alcoholic beverage may be found to be the proximate cause of resulting injuries[.]” Despite the discussion at oral argument, in the prior tentative and being given the chance to provide additional briefing, plaintiff still fails to provide evidence that providing alcohol to plaintiff was the proximate cause of his injury. If plaintiff’s theory is that providing alcohol to his assailant(s) was the cause of the injury, he provides no evidence the assailant(s) were underage. The motions are GRANTED.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where The Alpha Epsilon Pi Foundation, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where The Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO is a litigant

Latest cases where THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA A PUBLIC ENTITY is a litigant