This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/14/2021 at 09:49:41 (UTC).

KIT WONG, ET AL. VS SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL.

Case Summary

On 07/21/2020 KIT WONG filed an Other - Environment lawsuit against SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS, INC . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are KENNETH R. FREEMAN, SAMANTHA JESSNER, DAVID J. COWAN and BRIAN F. GASDIA. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******7707

  • Filing Date:

    07/21/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other - Environment

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

KENNETH R. FREEMAN

SAMANTHA JESSNER

DAVID J. COWAN

BRIAN F. GASDIA

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

WONG KIT

LE TERRA

Defendants

SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS INC.

LIQUI MOLY USA INC.

O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES

WORLDPAC INC.

FCA US LLC DBA MOPAR

PETRO SOURCE REFINING CORPORATION

PPG INDUSTRIES INC.

AMTECOL INC.

STARCO ENTERPRISES INC. DBA BLUE DEVIL PRODUCTS

JX NIPPON OIL & ENERGY USA INC.

MASTER CHEMICAL CORPORATION

B C STOCKING DISTRIBUTING

WURTH USA INC.

CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.

CALSOL INC.

TECHNICAL CHEMICAL COMPANY

TOTAL PETROCHEMICALS & REFINING USA INC.

UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA

5 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

COLE EVAN ROBERT

LEWIS TRACY MARIE

Defendant Attorneys

AN LISA Y.

BONNEVILLE JENNIFER

CLARKE LAFAYETTE J.

CORLESS THOMAS C.

FOLEY PATRICK J

KATZ DEIDRE COHEN

RANKIN JENNIFER H

RUBIN G. DAVID

SUN CATHERINE

SWAN JR. EDWARD

TOBIN THOMAS J

UCHIDA DAVID M

GRAHAM ESQ MICHAEL A

GRAHAM MICHAEL ARTHUR

HURWITZ DANIEL S.

WEISS ERIC

HANSEN DAVID PAUL

Other Attorneys

LEE PAUL ROBERT

 

Court Documents

Answer

7/6/2021: Answer

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

7/6/2021: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Receipt and Acknowledgment of Order for the Deposit of Money Into Blocked Account

7/8/2021: Receipt and Acknowledgment of Order for the Deposit of Money Into Blocked Account

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL TELEPHONIC NOTICE THIS DATE 7/15/2021 INF...)

7/15/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL TELEPHONIC NOTICE THIS DATE 7/15/2021 INF...)

Substitution of Attorney

7/30/2021: Substitution of Attorney

Substitution of Attorney

8/19/2021: Substitution of Attorney

Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) - MOTION TO STRIKE (NOT INITIAL PLEADING) PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

6/29/2021: Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) - MOTION TO STRIKE (NOT INITIAL PLEADING) PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Request for Judicial Notice - REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT AMTECOL, INC.'S MOTION TO STRIKE AND DEMURRER

6/29/2021: Request for Judicial Notice - REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT AMTECOL, INC.'S MOTION TO STRIKE AND DEMURRER

Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - DEMURRER - WITH MOTION TO STRIKE (CCP 430.10) TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

6/29/2021: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - DEMURRER - WITH MOTION TO STRIKE (CCP 430.10) TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Request for Dismissal - REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AS TO DEFENDANT JX NIPPON OIL & ENERGY USA, INC., FROM FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, 3/18/21.

6/17/2021: Request for Dismissal - REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AS TO DEFENDANT JX NIPPON OIL & ENERGY USA, INC., FROM FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, 3/18/21.

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION AND ORDER

6/25/2021: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION AND ORDER

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: RE: PROOF OF DEPOSIT OF MONIES INTO B...)

6/28/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: RE: PROOF OF DEPOSIT OF MONIES INTO B...)

Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service)

5/28/2021: Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service)

Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING NOTICE OF LODGING OF DEFENDANT OREILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLCS ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

6/9/2021: Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING NOTICE OF LODGING OF DEFENDANT OREILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLCS ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING OF DEFENDANT PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

5/21/2021: Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING OF DEFENDANT PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Proof of Personal Service

5/21/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Order Approving Compromise of Disputed Claim or Pending Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgme - ORDER APPROVING COMPROMISE OF DISPUTED CLAIM OR PENDING ACTION OR DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS OF JUDGM

4/26/2021: Order Approving Compromise of Disputed Claim or Pending Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgme - ORDER APPROVING COMPROMISE OF DISPUTED CLAIM OR PENDING ACTION OR DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS OF JUDGM

Order to Deposit Money Into Blocked Account

4/26/2021: Order to Deposit Money Into Blocked Account

117 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/12/2022
  • Hearing01/12/2022 at 2:30 PM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2022
  • Hearing01/12/2022 at 2:30 PM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/06/2022
  • Hearing01/06/2022 at 1:30 PM in Department C at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2021
  • Hearing11/30/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department C at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2021
  • Hearing11/09/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department C at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2021
  • Hearing11/09/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department C at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2021
  • Hearing10/07/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department C at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2021
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by David Paul Hansen (Attorney); FCA US LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2021
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Liqui Moly USA Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2021
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department R, Brian F. Gasdia, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Reproof of deposit of monies into blocked account, non-appearance matter) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
135 More Docket Entries
  • 08/20/2020
  • Docketat 2:42 PM in Department 14, Kenneth R. Freeman, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order Re. Non-Complex Determination;) of 08/20/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Re. Non-Complex Determination;)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Kit Wong (Plaintiff); Terra Le (Plaintiff); Matthew Johnathan Le (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2020
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Kit Wong (Plaintiff); Terra Le (Plaintiff); Matthew Johnathan Le (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2020
  • DocketMotion re: (to be Appointed as Successor-in Interest to Decedent Cam Le); Filed by Kit Wong (Plaintiff); Terra Le (Plaintiff); Matthew Johnathan Le (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2020
  • DocketNotice of Rejection - Pleadings; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2020
  • DocketApplication And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem (Re Michael Johnathan Le); Filed by Kit Wong (Plaintiff); Terra Le (Plaintiff); Matthew Johnathan Le (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2020
  • DocketPlaintiffs' Initial Statement of Damages; Filed by Kit Wong (Plaintiff); Terra Le (Plaintiff); Matthew Johnathan Le (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Kit Wong (Plaintiff); Terra Le (Plaintiff); Matthew Johnathan Le (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 20STCV27707 Hearing Date: October 7, 2021 Dept: C

WONG v. SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS, INC.

\r\n\r\n

CASE NO.: 20STCV27707

\r\n\r\n

HEARING: 10/07/21

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

#4

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE ORDER

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nDefendant WORLDPAC, INC.’s Demurrer to\r\nPlaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nDefendant WORLDPAC, INC.’s Motion to Strike\r\nPortions of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is GRANTED with 20 days\r\nleave to amend in part and DENIED in part.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving Party to give Notice.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

As a procedural matter, the Court notes that in addition to\r\nthe subject Demurrer and Motion to Strike herein, there are 4 other\r\nsubstantively similar Demurrers and Motions to Strike set for hearing—2 on\r\nNovember 9, 2021; 1 on November 30, 2021; and 1 on January 6, 2022. If all\r\nparties appear for the subject hearing and stipulate to have the later\r\nscheduled demurrers and motions to strike advanced and heard on this date, the\r\nCourt can hear oral argument, vacate the future hearing dates, take the matters\r\nunder submission, and then issue an Order encompassing all 5 Demurrers and all\r\n5 Motions to Strike.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

This wrongful death action was filed on July 21, 2020. On\r\nDecember 4, 2020, the subject First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed. The\r\nFAC alleges, in pertinent part: “From about 1984 through 2018, Decedent Cam Le\r\nworked as a mechanic for various employers throughout the Greater Los Angeles\r\narea, including, but not limited to, Quality Auto Service in Los Angeles, a\r\nToyota dealership, an ARCO Station, and Mechanic Experts. Plaintiffs are\r\ninformed and believe and thereon allege that the injuries from which Decedent\r\nCam Le suffers and which are the subject of this action, were sustained in the\r\ncourse of his career as a mechanic. [¶] In the course of and throughout\r\nDecedent’s employment with various employers, Decedent worked with and was\r\nexposed to those chemical products hereinafter identified…. As a direct and\r\nproximate result of said exposure to said toxic, genotoxic, immunotoxic,\r\ngenotoxic, hematoxic, and leukemogenic chemical products, Decedent sustained\r\ninjuries to his internal organs, including AML.” (FAC ¶¶28-29.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The FAC asserts the following causes of action: (1)\r\nNegligence; (2) Strict Liability – Failure to Warn; (3) Strict Liability –\r\nDesign Defect; (4) Fraudulent Concealment; (5) Breach of Implied Warranties;\r\nand (6) Loss of Consortium.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant WORLDPAC, INC. (“Worldpac”) specially and\r\ngenerally demurs to the fourth cause of action for fraudulent concealment.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Uncertainty

\r\n\r\n

Worldpac specially demurs to the fourth cause of action, arguing that it\r\nis fatally uncertain. This argument lacks merit because “[a] special demurrer\r\nfor uncertainty is not intended to reach the failure to incorporate sufficient\r\nfacts in the pleading, but is directed at the uncertainty existing in the\r\nallegations actually made.” (Butler v. Sequeira (1950) 100 Cal.App.2d\r\n143, 145-146.) Moreover, demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and will only\r\nbe sustained where the pleading is so bad that the defendant cannot reasonably\r\nrespond, i.e., he or she cannot reasonably determine what issues must be\r\nadmitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her. (Khoury\r\nv. Maly’s of Calif. Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) A demurrer for\r\nuncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects\r\nuncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery\r\nprocedures.” (Ibid.) Here, it is clear from the Worldpac’s other\r\narguments that it understands what Plaintiff at least attempts to allege, and\r\nthere is no true uncertainty. The demurrer is not properly sustained on the\r\nbasis of uncertainty.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Fourth Cause of Action – Fraudulent Concealment

\r\n\r\n

“[T]he elements of a cause of action for fraud and deceit\r\nbased on concealment are: (1) the defendant must have concealed or suppressed a\r\nmaterial fact, (2) the defendant must have been under a duty to disclose the\r\nfact to the plaintiff, (3) the defendant must have intentionally concealed or\r\nsuppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff, (f) the plaintiff\r\nmust have been unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he did if he had\r\nknown of the concealed or suppressed fact, and (5) as a result of the\r\nconcealment or suppression of the fact, the plaintiff must have sustained\r\ndamage.” (Marketing West, Inc. v. Sanyo Fisher (USA) Corp. (1992) 6\r\nCal.App.4th 603, 612-613.) “Fraud must be pleaded with specificity… [t]o\r\nwithstand a demurrer, the facts constituting every element of the fraud\r\nmust be alleged with particularity, and the claim cannot be salvaged by\r\nreferences to the general policy favoring the liberal construction of\r\npleadings. (Goldrich v. Natural Y Surgical Specialties, Inc. (1994) 25\r\nCal.App.4th 772, 782.) “This particularity requirement necessitates pleading\r\nfacts which ‘show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the\r\nrepresentations were tendered.’” (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220\r\nCal.App.3d 59, 73.) “The requirement of specific in a fraud action against a\r\ncorporation requires the plaintiff to allege the names of the persons who made\r\nthe allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom\r\nthey spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written.” (Tarmann\r\nv. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff alleges: “Notwithstanding their knowledge of the\r\ntoxic properties of their chemical products, at all material times hereto,\r\nDefendants concealed said toxic hazards from Decedent, so that decedent would\r\nuse Defendants’ chemical products.” (FAC ¶194.) Plaintiff’s conclusory\r\nallegations are insufficient. Legal conclusions or mere recitations of law do\r\nnot suffice. Plaintiff must plead specific facts to support the\r\nfraud-based claim against each defendant. The demurrer to the fourth cause of\r\naction is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Motion to Strike

\r\n\r\n

A motion to strike lies either when (1) there is\r\n“irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading”; or (2) to\r\nstrike any pleading or part thereof “not drawn or filed in conformity with the\r\nlaws of this state, a court rule or order of court.” (CCP §436.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The basis for punitive damages must be pled with specificity. Plaintiff\r\nmust allege specific facts showing that Defendant’s conduct was oppressive,\r\nfraudulent, or malicious. (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) Cal.App.4th\r\n1033, 1041-1042.). Given the Court’s findings\r\nabove, the motion to strike punitive damages is GRANTED with 20 days leave to\r\namend. As alleged, Plaintiff has failed to plead specific facts to maintain a\r\nclaim for punitive damages.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Worldpac’s Motion to\r\nStrike the phrase “other products to be identified during discovery” is DENIED.\r\nPlaintiff has met the standard required in Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co.,\r\nInc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 71, 80. The five requirements of Bockrath are\r\nminimal pleading requirements which may be pleaded in a conclusory fashion. The\r\nSupreme Court noted at p. 80 of Bockrath, “plaintiffs may and should\r\nallege the foregoing facts succinctly and may do so in a conclusory fashion if\r\ntheir knowledge of the precise cause of injury is limited… Plaintiffs who know\r\nmore should, of course, allege additional facts that are important in apprising\r\nthe defendant of the basis for the claim.” The degree of specific argued by\r\nWorldpac is not required here.

'

Case Number: 20STCV27707    Hearing Date: October 27, 2020    Dept: C

WONG, et al. v. SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS, INC., et al.

CASE NO.:  20STCV27707

HEARING:  10/27/20 @ 9:30 AM

#2

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff Wong’s unopposed motion to be appointed as successor-in-interest to decedent Came Le is GRANTED.

Moving Parties to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Wong moves to be appointed as successor-in-interest pursuant to CCP § 377.30.

An action may be commenced by the decedent’s successor in interest only if there is no personal representative. The distribute of the cause of action in probate is the successor in interest or, if there is no distribution, the heir, devisee, trustee, or other successor has the right to proceed under this article. (CCP § 377.30.)

Decedent, Cam Le, died without a will and is survived by his spouse, Plaintiff Kit Wong. There is no opposition. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where STARCO ENTERPRISES INC. DBA BLUE DEVIL PRODUCTS is a litigant

Latest cases where AMTECOL INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where TECHNICAL CHEMICAL COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases where WURTH USA INC. is a litigant