This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/08/2020 at 14:34:32 (UTC).

KAREN MONCRIEF VS TU ANH THANH NGUYEN ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/19/2018 KAREN MONCRIEF filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against TU ANH THANH NGUYEN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8273

  • Filing Date:

    03/19/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • 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

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MONCRIEF KAREN

Defendants and Respondents

NG PEI SUEN

DOES 1 THROUGH 50 INCLUSIVE

NGUYEN TU ANH THANH

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

WHITEHEAD RONNIVASHTI

SHEEHAN JOHN ARTHUR

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

WILSON MARCELLA I. ESQ.

RIVERA VIVIAN ISABEL

 

Court Documents

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

10/31/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

11/5/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER - DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY J...) OF 11/08/2019

11/8/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER - DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY J...) OF 11/08/2019

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER - DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY J...)

11/8/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER - DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY J...)

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF ANGELA MONIQUE BEL TY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

10/22/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF ANGELA MONIQUE BEL TY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MARK J. BURNS, BSME, JD, GC, CCBI, CXL T, CPSI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

10/22/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MARK J. BURNS, BSME, JD, GC, CCBI, CXL T, CPSI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Objection - OBJECTION PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

10/22/2019: Objection - OBJECTION PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS TU ANH THANH NGUYEN AND PEI SUEN NGS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

10/22/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS TU ANH THANH NGUYEN AND PEI SUEN NGS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Separate Statement

10/22/2019: Separate Statement

Separate Statement

8/22/2019: Separate Statement

Motion for Summary Judgment

8/22/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment

Notice - NOTICE PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY

8/7/2019: Notice - NOTICE PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

8/15/2019: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [NOTICE OF REJECTION OF ELECTRONIC FILING]

6/11/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [NOTICE OF REJECTION OF ELECTRONIC FILING]

Notice of Deposit - Jury

2/13/2019: Notice of Deposit - Jury

Answer -

6/15/2018: Answer -

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

5/7/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

Civil Case Cover Sheet -

3/19/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet -

15 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/03/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2019
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Karen Moncrief (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2019
  • Docketat 08:06 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Ruling on Submitted Matter

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2019
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Ruling on Submitted Matter - Defendants' Motion for Summary J...) of 11/08/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Ruling on Submitted Matter - Defendants' Motion for Summary J...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2019
  • DocketOpposition (to Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Tu Anh Thanh Nguyen (Defendant); Pei Suen Ng (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2019
  • DocketReply (to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Tu Anh Thanh Nguyen (Defendant); Pei Suen Ng (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2019
  • DocketObjection (to Plaintiff's Evidence In Support Of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Tu Anh Thanh Nguyen (Defendant); Pei Suen Ng (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
17 More Docket Entries
  • 06/15/2018
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Tu Anh Thanh Nguyen (Defendant); Pei Suen Ng (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Karen Moncrief (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Karen Moncrief (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Karen Moncrief (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Karen Moncrief (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC698273    Hearing Date: November 05, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion for Summary Judgment

Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On March 19, 2018, Plaintiff Karen Moncrief (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Tu Anh Thanh Nguyen and Pei Suen Ng (“Defendants”) alleging negligence, premises liability, and a failure to warn for a hand rail that gave out and caused Plaintiff to fall down stairs on July 5, 2016.

On August 22, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.

Trial is set for January 21, 2020.

PARTIES REQUESTS

Defendants ask the Court to grant summary judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff because Defendants did not have notice of the alleged dangerous condition.

OBJECTIONS

Plaintiff objects to the deposition excerpts of Plaintiff’s deposition transcript located at page 46:23 through 47:1 on the grounds that the evidence lacks foundation and is not authenticated.  Contrary to Plaintiff’s objection, Defendants submitted this evidence as Exhibit D to the separate statement.  Additionally, there is a proper foundation for this evidence because it consists of Plaintiff’s own statement of whether she complained of the loose hand rail to Defendants.  The first page of this deposition transcript clearly states it reflects Plaintiff’s testimony.  Plaintiff does not argue that this is not her testimony.  As such, it is authentic.

LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.”  (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)  “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.”  (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.)  A defendant moving for summary judgment “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(2).)  “Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.”  (Ibid.)  “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Med. Ctr. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.”  (Avivi, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 467; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

The elements for premises liability are:  duty, breach, causation, and damages. (Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.) Those who own, possess, or control property generally have a duty to exercise ordinary care in managing the property to avoid exposing others to an unreasonable risk of harm. (Annocki v. Peterson Enterprises, LLC (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 32, 37.) The existence and scope of duty are legal questions for the court. (Id. at p. 36.)  If a dangerous condition exists, the property owner is “under a duty to exercise ordinary care either to make the condition reasonably safe for their [customers’] use or to give a warning adequate to enable them to avoid the harm.” (Bridgman v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (1960) 53 Cal.2d 443, 446.)

A plaintiff alleging injuries based on a dangerous condition must prove the defendant either: (1) created the dangerous condition, or (2) knew or should have known of the dangerous condition.  (See Peralta v. Vons Companies, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1036; see also Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1206.)  “[A] defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law if the plaintiff fails to show that the dangerous condition existed for at least a sufficient time to be discovered by ordinary care and inspection.”  (Ortega, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1207.)

Defendants’ undisputed material facts establish the following.  Defendants own the property located at 5834 Lime Ave., Long Beach, California.  (UMF No. 2, p. 2:14-2:18.)  Plaintiff alleges she was injured when she fell down the apartment staircase when a hand rail became loose and gave way under Plaintiff’s weight.  (UMF No. 3, p. 2:19-2:23.)  Plaintiff did not complain of the hand rail to Defendants prior to the incident.  (UMF No. 7, p. 3:9-3:10.)  It was Defendants’ responsibility to manage, maintain, and inspect the property as well as to arrange any repairs that were required.  (UMF No. 13, p. 4:9-4:12.)  

Defendants’ undisputed material facts also establish the following.  Defendants did not notice any defects with the hand rail through periodic inspections in the year prior to the incident.  (UMF No. 14-15, p. 4:13-4:22.)  The hand rail complied with housing standards and passed inspections by the Housing Authority of the City of Long Beach on July 21, 2015, October 27, 2015, November 30, 2015, and December 21, 2015.  (UMF No. 16, pp. 4:23-5:3.)  Defendants secured the hand rail a year prior to the subject fall, which passed an inspection on by the Housing Authority of the City of Long Beach on July 21, 2015.

The Court finds Defendants have met their burden.  Defendants’ lodged evidence shows Defendants did not have notice of the loose hand rail prior to Plaintiff’s fall.  As such, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate Defendants are liable for premises liability.  The burden shifts to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff submitted the declaration of forensic engineer Mark J. Burns in support of Plaintiff’s opposition.  Mr. Burns opined that Defendants’ repair of the hand rail was insufficient.  (Burns Decl., ¶ 12.)  The ends of the hand rail were not attached to the wall.  (Burns Decl., 11.)  A hand rail is required to be attached to a wall according to the 1961 Uniform Building Code section 3305, subdivision (g).  (Ibid.)  Such an attachment would have provided direct support by adding two major contact points to the hand rail.  (Ibid.)  The failure to attach the hand rail to the wall shows the repair of the hand rail was deficient.  (Ibid.)

The Court finds Plaintiff has met its burden.  Mr. Burns’ declaration shows that Defendants’ repair of the hand rail prior to the July 21, 2015 inspection was deficient and allowed the unstable hand rail to remain as a latent defect leading to Plaintiff’s injury.  Mr. Burns’ declaration also shows the subsequent inspections were deficient because proper inspections would have revealed that the hand rail was unstable as it was not fixed to a wall.

The motion is DENIED.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.