KATHRYN GURLEY ET AL VS MARIO GANDELSONAS ET AL
Case Summary
On 05/30/2017 KATHRYN GURLEY filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against MARIO GANDELSONAS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is AMY D. HOGUE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details
-
Case Number:
****3217
-
Filing Date:
05/30/2017
-
Case Status:
Pending - Other Pending
-
Court:
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
-
Courthouse:
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
-
County, State:
Los Angeles, California
Judge Details
Presiding Judge
AMY D. HOGUE
Party Details
Plaintiffs and Petitioners
GURLEY KATHRYN TAYLOR
GURLEY BENJAMIN III
GURLEY KATHRYN
GURLEY JAMES BENJAMIN III
Defendants and Respondents
GANDELSONAS MARIO
AGREST DIANA
DOES 1 TO 30
HOMEAWAY INC
Attorney/Law Firm Details
Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys
BAILEY PATRICK E. ESQ.
BAILEY PATRICK EVANS ESQ.
Defendant and Respondent Attorneys
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
SABAITIS FRANK THOMAS
YEE STEVEN ROBERT ESQ.
O'DONNELL ALYSSA D.
Other Attorneys
SABAITIS FRANK T. ESQ.
Court Documents
1/30/2018: DEFENDANT HOMEAWAY.COM, INC.'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND DISMISS CLAIMS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY
2/16/2018: Minute Order
5/21/2018: Unknown
5/22/2018: PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF INITIAL DEPOSIT OF JURY FEES
8/13/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT
10/9/2018: Motion for Trial Preference
10/25/2018: Other -
11/7/2018: Order
11/7/2018: Unknown
12/12/2018: Case Management Statement
12/14/2018: Case Management Statement
1/17/2019: Minute Order
3/12/2019: Notice
5/20/2019: Declaration
11/17/2017: DECLARATION OF ALYSSA D. O'DONNELL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT HOMEAWAY.COM, INC'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND DISMISS CLAIMS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY
11/17/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE FOR DEFENDANT HOMEAWAY.COM, INC'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARHITRATION AND DISMISS CLAIMS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE STAY
10/11/2017: ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT OF MARIO GANDELSONAS AND DIANE AGREST
6/20/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
Docket Entries
- 06/06/2019
-
at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (DEFENDANTS MARIO GANDELSONAS AND DIANA AGREST'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND TO DEEM THE NEW TRIAL DATE AS THE INITIAL TRIAL DATE; DECLARATION OF FRANK T. SABAITIS)
- 06/05/2019
-
Response (to Defendants Ex Pate Application to Continue Trial); Filed by Kathryn Gurley (Plaintiff); James Benjamin Gurley, III (Plaintiff); Kathryn Taylor Gurley (Plaintiff)
- 06/03/2019
-
Notice (Defendant Homeaway.com, Inc.'s Notice of Errata Regarding Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts, and Declaration of Brittany Miers in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Homeaway, Inc (Defendant)
- 05/20/2019
-
Motion for Summary Judgment; Filed by Homeaway, Inc (Defendant)
- 05/20/2019
-
Declaration (of Brittany Miers in Support of Defendant Homeaway.Com, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Homeaway, Inc (Defendant)
- 05/20/2019
-
Declaration (of Alyssa D. O'Donnell in Support of Defendant Homeaway.com, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Homeaway, Inc (Defendant)
- 05/20/2019
-
Memorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by Homeaway, Inc (Defendant)
- 05/20/2019
-
Separate Statement; Filed by Homeaway, Inc (Defendant)
- 05/20/2019
-
Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Homeaway, Inc (Defendant)
- 05/14/2019
-
at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Status Conference - Held
- 10/03/2017
-
Answer; Filed by Mario Gandelsonas (Defendant); Diana Agrest (Defendant)
- 06/20/2017
-
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Kathryn Gurley (Plaintiff); James Benjamin Gurley, III (Plaintiff); Kathryn Taylor Gurley (Plaintiff)
- 06/20/2017
-
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
- 06/20/2017
-
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Kathryn Gurley (Plaintiff); James Benjamin Gurley, III (Plaintiff); Kathryn Taylor Gurley (Plaintiff)
- 06/20/2017
-
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
- 06/19/2017
-
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Kathryn Gurley (Plaintiff); James Benjamin Gurley, III (Plaintiff); Kathryn Taylor Gurley (Plaintiff)
- 06/19/2017
-
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
- 05/30/2017
-
SUMMONS
- 05/30/2017
-
Complaint; Filed by Kathryn Gurley (Plaintiff); James Benjamin Gurley, III (Plaintiff); Kathryn Taylor Gurley (Plaintiff)
- 05/30/2017
-
COMPLAINT FOR: (1) PREMISES LIABILITY; (2) NEGLIGENCE PER SE; ETC
Tentative Rulings
Case Number: BC663217 Hearing Date: December 17, 2019 Dept: 58
Judge John P. Doyle
Department 58
Hearing Date: December 17, 2019
Case Name: Gurley, et al. v. Gandelsonas, et al.
Case No.: BC663217
Motion: Motion for Summary Judgment
Moving Party: Defendants Mario Gandelsonas and Diana Agrest
Opposing Party: Plaintiffs James Benjamin Gurley III, Kathryn Taylor Gurley, and Kathryn Gurley
Tentative Ruling: The Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
This is an action in which Plaintiffs allege they were exposed to carbon monoxide in their rental home. On May 30, 2017, Plaintiffs filed the operative Complaint for (1) premises liability, (2) negligence per se, and (3) broker/manager negligence.
Defendants Mario Gandelsonas and Diana Agrest move for summary judgment, arguing that they cannot be liable for negligence or premises liability because they did not have actual or constructive notice of carbon monoxide exposure at the subject property prior to Plaintiffs’ stay. (See Ortega v. Kmar Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1206.)
However, there are triable issues as to whether Defendants had notice of carbon monoxide exposure and breached their duty of reasonable care as to Plaintiffs. Indeed, it appears the subject carbon monoxide exposure stems from Defendants’ stove, and Plaintiffs point to inspection documents authored by Southern California Gas Company (“SCGC”) which indicate that prior to the subject incident SCGC had noted that flames from Defendants’ stove smothered and were accompanied by an aldehyde odor. (Lovendosky Decl., Exhibits 2, 3.)[1] Aldehyde odor often indicates the presence of carbon monoxide. (Id., Exhibit 2.) Further, Defendants apparently did not thereafter service their stove. Given the foregoing evidence, the Court cannot conclude that, as a matter of law, Defendants did not breach their duty of care.
The Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
[1] SCGC’s documents qualify as business records such that they are not barred by the hearsay rule. (Lovendosky Decl., Exhibit 2; Evid. Code § 1271.) All other objections asserted are overruled as immaterial. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(q).)
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases