This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2019 at 09:20:15 (UTC).

KATHERINE SCOTT ET AL VS LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTA

Case Summary

On 12/15/2017 KATHERINE SCOTT filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6911

  • Filing Date:

    12/15/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

NELLIGAN ANNE MARIE

SCOTT KATHERINE

Defendants, Respondents, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

MCCOY GUYEISH LISA

LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION A

LAY BILLY

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

THAI COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CENTER

DOES 1 TO 50

LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

SCOTT MARY CATHERINE

BOBCAT PROPERTIES LLC

SCOTT ROE 1 LONNIE M.

11 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

CLIFFORD JOHN S. ESQ.

Defendant and Cross Defendant Attorneys

LEE TED M. ESQ.

PRECIADO ARTHUR C.

CLIFFORD JOHN STEWART ESQ.

MACDONALD SCOTT LEE

Cross Plaintiff Attorney

MAWHINNEY RONALD ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Case Management Statement

8/1/2019: Case Management Statement

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

1/22/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

1/22/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

CIVIL DEPOSIT

2/8/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

ANSWER BY THAI COMMUNITY I)EVELOPMENT CENTER TO COMPLAINT

4/6/2018: ANSWER BY THAI COMMUNITY I)EVELOPMENT CENTER TO COMPLAINT

ANSWER BY BILLIE LAY (ERRONEOUSLY SUED HEREIN AS ?BILLY LAY?) TO COMPLAINT

4/6/2018: ANSWER BY BILLIE LAY (ERRONEOUSLY SUED HEREIN AS ?BILLY LAY?) TO COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF DISMISSAL AND PROOF OF SERVICE

4/27/2018: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF DISMISSAL AND PROOF OF SERVICE

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

5/18/2018: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

MARY CATHERINE SCOTT ANSWER . TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORATION AUTHORITY CROSS-COMPLAINT

5/18/2018: MARY CATHERINE SCOTT ANSWER . TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORATION AUTHORITY CROSS-COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT GUYEISH LISA MCCOY'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS'

6/7/2018: DEFENDANT GUYEISH LISA MCCOY'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS'

ANSWER BY THAI COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CENTER (ERRONEOUSLY SUED HEREIN AS ?THAI COMMUNITY CENTER?);ETC

7/12/2018: ANSWER BY THAI COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CENTER (ERRONEOUSLY SUED HEREIN AS ?THAI COMMUNITY CENTER?);ETC

SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

9/26/2018: SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

Answer

11/29/2018: Answer

Answer

1/2/2019: Answer

Answer

2/6/2019: Answer

Reply

4/19/2019: Reply

Minute Order

4/26/2019: Minute Order

Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6)

5/13/2019: Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6)

62 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/31/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 74 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 74 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2019
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Billy Lay (Defendant); Thai Community Development Center (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2019
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2019
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Bobcat Properties, LLC (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2019
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Anne Marie Nelligan (Plaintiff); Katherine Scott (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/15/2019
  • DocketNotice (of Case Management Conference); Filed by Anne Marie Nelligan (Plaintiff); Katherine Scott (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • DocketMotion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint; Filed by Billy Lay (Cross-Defendant); Thai Community Development Center (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
110 More Docket Entries
  • 01/22/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by Anne Marie Nelligan (Plaintiff); Katherine Scott (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2018
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by Anne Marie Nelligan (Plaintiff); Katherine Scott (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Katherine Scott (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Anne Marie Nelligan (Plaintiff); Katherine Scott (Plaintiff)

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

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

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Anne Marie Nelligan (Plaintiff); Katherine Scott (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE/NEGLIGENCE PER SE; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC686911    Hearing Date: January 29, 2020    Dept: 74

BC686911 SCOTT vs LOS ANGELES MTA

Defendant’s Demurrer to First Amended Cross-complaint

TENTATIVE RULING: The demurrer is overruled. Cross-defendants Katherine Scott and Anne Marie Nelligan are to file an answer to the cross-complaint within 20 days. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Seventh Cause of Action for Breach of Contract by Third Party Beneficiary

The elements for a breach of contract cause of action are: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) plaintiffs’ performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendants’ breach or anticipatory breach; and (4) resulting damage to plaintiffs. (Reichert v. General Insurance Company (1968) 68 Cal.2d 822, 830.) An express third-party beneficiary may maintain a breach of contract claim. (Civ. Code § 1559.)

On a demurrer for breach of contract, the court must consider the sufficiency of the allegations, including any parol evidence allegations, to determine whether the contract is reasonably susceptible to the plaintiff’s alleged interpretation. (George v. Automobile Club of So. Cal. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1128.) A pleader’s legal characterization of a contract is not controlling, particularly when the contract is attached to the pleading. (Morris v. Redwood Empire Bancorp (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1314, citing Barnett v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 500, 505.) However, courts will defer to plaintiffs’ reasonable interpretations. (Performance Plastering v. Richmond American Homes of Cal., Inc. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 659, 672 [lack of essential terms in agreement not properly resolved on demurrer where related to complainants’ reasonable interpretations]; Aragon-Haas v. Family Security Services, Inc. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 232, 239; Davies v. Sallie Mae, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1086, 1091.)

Here, Cross-Complainant alleged all the facts for a breach of contract cause of action. It alleged the existence of the Agreement. (FAXC, ¶¶ 33-34.) The Agreement was executed by Lonnie Scott, on behalf of Bobcat, and agreed to hold harmless TCDC and Cross-Complainant. (Id. at ¶ 33.) Lonnie Scott and Mary Scott were agents of Bobcat. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Alternatively, Cross-Complainant alleged that Bobcat was an alter ego of Lonnie Scott and Mary Scott. (Id. at ¶¶ 38-42.) It pled that Cross-Complainant performed or was excused from performance because TCDC tendered its defense and indemnity. (Id. at ¶ 36.) Bobcat breached the Agreement when it denied and/or ignored TCDC’s tender. (Id. at ¶ 37.) Finally, it pled that it was damaged by Bobcat’s breach. (Id. at ¶ 43.) Cross-Complainant is also an express third-party beneficiary to the Agreement, and therefore can enforce the Agreement. (Id. at ¶ 35.)

Accordingly, the demurrer to the seventh cause of action is OVERRULED.

Eighth Cause of Action for Contractual Indemnity

The elements for contractual indemnity are: (1) the existence of a contract defining the obligation for one party to make good as to a loss another party incurred; and (2) the occurrence of loss the other party incurred or of some other legal consequence of conduct of another party. (Civ. Code § 2772; McCrary Construction Co. v. Metal Deck Specialists, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1528, 1536.)

“Indemnity either imposes the entire loss on one of two or more tortfeasors or apportions it on the basis of comparative fault.” (Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1372, 1378.) It requires a determination of fault on the part of the alleged indemnitor. (Id.) Where a right of indemnity exists, there can be no right of contribution. (CCP §875(f).) A right of contribution can come into existence only after rendition of a judgment declaring more than one defendant jointly liable to the plaintiff. (CCP §875(c).)

Cross-Complainant also alleged all the facts for a contractual indemnity cause of action. It pled the existence of the Agreement. (FAXC, ¶¶ 45-46.) The Agreement was executed by Lonnie Scott, on behalf of Bobcat, and agreed to indemnify TCDC and Cross-Complainant. (Id. at ¶¶ 33, 45.) Lonnie Scott and Mary Scott were agents of Bobcat. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Alternatively, Cross-Complainant alleged that Bobcat was an alter ego of Lonnie Scott and Mary Scott. (Id. at ¶¶ 38-42.) It also pled that it and TCDC performed under the Agreement. (Id. at ¶ 47.) Cross-Complainant also pled facts showing an occurrence of loss or of some other legal consequence of conduct within the meaning of the Agreement. (Id. at ¶ 48.) Finally, it pled the damages it sustained. (Id. at ¶ 49.) While there is currently no rendition of a judgment declaring Cross-Complainant liable to the plaintiff yet, Cross-Complainant alleges this cause of action in anticipation and as insurance for if and when judgment is rendered against Cross-Complainant.

Accordingly, the demurrer to the eighth cause of action is OVERRULED

Case Number: BC686911    Hearing Date: January 22, 2020    Dept: 74

BC686911 KATHERINE SCOTT VS LOS ANGELES MTA

Cross-Defendants Mary Catherine Scott, Lonnie Scott, and Bobcat Properties’ Demurrer to the Cross Complaint

TENTATIVE RULING: The demurrer is OVERRULED. Cross Defendants shall file an answer within 20 days.

Seventh Cause of Action for Breach of Contract by Third Party Beneficiary

The elements for a breach of contract cause of action are: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) plaintiffs’ performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendants’ breach or anticipatory breach; and (4) resulting damage to plaintiffs. (Reichert v. General Insurance Company (1968) 68 Cal.2d 822, 830.) An express third-party beneficiary may maintain a breach of contract claim. (Civ. Code § 1559.)

On a demurrer for breach of contract, the court must consider the sufficiency of the allegations, including any parol evidence allegations, to determine whether the contract is reasonably susceptible to the plaintiff’s alleged interpretation. (George v. Automobile Club of So. Cal. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1128.) A pleader’s legal characterization of a contract is not controlling, particularly when the contract is attached to the pleading. (Morris v. Redwood Empire Bancorp (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1314, citing Barnett v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 500, 505.) However, courts will defer to plaintiffs’ reasonable interpretations. (Performance Plastering v. Richmond American Homes of Cal., Inc. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 659, 672 [lack of essential terms in agreement not properly resolved on demurrer where related to complainants’ reasonable interpretations]; Aragon-Haas v. Family Security Services, Inc. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 232, 239; Davies v. Sallie Mae, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1086, 1091.)

Here, Cross-Complainant alleged all the facts for a breach of contract cause of action. It alleged the existence of the Agreement. (FAXC, ¶¶ 33-34.) The Agreement was executed by Lonnie Scott, on behalf of Bobcat, and agreed to hold harmless TCDC and Cross-Complainant. (Id. at ¶ 33.) Lonnie Scott and Mary Scott were agents of Bobcat. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Alternatively, Cross-Complainant alleged that Bobcat was an alter ego of Lonnie Scott and Mary Scott. (Id. at ¶¶ 38-42.) It pled that Cross-Complainant performed or was excused from performance because TCDC tendered its defense and indemnity. (Id. at ¶ 36.) Bobcat breached the Agreement when it denied and/or ignored TCDC’s tender. (Id. at ¶ 37.) Finally, it pled that it was damaged by Bobcat’s breach. (Id. at ¶ 43.) Cross-Complainant is also an express third-party beneficiary to the Agreement, and therefore can enforce the Agreement. (Id. at ¶ 35.)

While Cross-Defendant argues that the court should disregard the declaration filed concurrently with Cross-Complainant’s Opposition, the court does not even need to resort to this finding because the FAXC already contains sufficient facts to put Cross-Defendants on notice about Cross-Complainant’s claims against them. There are no defects apparent on the face of the pleading to warrant the court sustain the demurrer to this cause of action, and Crosss-Complainant’s interpretation of the Agreement being signed by Lonnie Scott on behalf of Bobcat is reasonable.

Accordingly, the demurrer to the seventh cause of action is OVERRULED.

Eighth Cause of Action for Contractual Indemnity

The elements for contractual indemnity are: (1) the existence of a contract defining the obligation for one party to make good as to a loss another party incurred; and (2) the occurrence of loss the other party incurred or of some other legal consequence of conduct of another party. (Civ. Code § 2772; McCrary Construction Co. v. Metal Deck Specialists, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1528, 1536.)

“Indemnity either imposes the entire loss on one of two or more tortfeasors or apportions it on the basis of comparative fault.” (Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1372, 1378.) It requires a determination of fault on the part of the alleged indemnitor. (Id.) Where a right of indemnity exists, there can be no right of contribution. (CCP §875(f).) A right of contribution can come into existence only after rendition of a judgment declaring more than one defendant jointly liable to the plaintiff. (CCP §875(c).)

Cross-Complainant also alleged all the facts for a contractual indemnity cause of action. It pled the existence of the Agreement. (FAXC, ¶¶ 45-46.) The Agreement was executed by Lonnie Scott, on behalf of Bobcat, and agreed to indemnify TCDC and Cross-Complainant. (Id. at ¶¶ 33, 45.) Lonnie Scott and Mary Scott were agents of Bobcat. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Alternatively, Cross-Complainant alleged that Bobcat was an alter ego of Lonnie Scott and Mary Scott. (Id. at ¶¶ 38-42.) It also pled that it and TCDC performed under the Agreement. (Id. at ¶ 47.) Cross-Complainant also pled facts showing an occurrence of loss or of some other legal consequence of conduct within the meaning of the Agreement. (Id. at ¶ 48.) Finally, it pled the damages it sustained. (Id. at ¶ 49.) While there is currently no rendition of a judgment declaring Cross-Complainant liable to the plaintiff yet, Cross-Complainant alleges this cause of action in anticipation and as insurance for if and when judgment is rendered against Cross-Complainant.

Accordingly, the demurrer to the eighth cause of action is OVERRULED.