This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/04/2020 at 10:12:46 (UTC).

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE VS RUBICON B HACIENDA LLC

Case Summary

On 02/21/2018 LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against RUBICON B HACIENDA LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4801

  • Filing Date:

    02/21/2018

  • 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

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

RUBICON B. HACIENDA LLC

DOES 1 TO 50

SMART GRID CONSTRUCTION

Defendants, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

SMART GRID CONSTRUCTION

WORLD MECHANICAL INC

WORLD MECHANICAL INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

FITZPATRICK PETER V. ESQ.

FITZPATRICK PETER VINCENT ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

NACHIAPPAN MEENA C.

SKANE THOMAS

Cross Plaintiff Attorney

MOROVATI CHRISTINA Y

Defendant and Cross Defendant Attorney

SKANE THOMAS

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal

3/18/2020: Request for Dismissal

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF TAKING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OFF CALENDAR

3/5/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF TAKING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OFF CALENDAR

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER)

2/3/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER)

Answer

2/4/2020: Answer

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THE FIRST AMENDED ANSWER

1/22/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THE FIRST AMENDED ANSWER

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL REL...)

1/8/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL REL...)

Notice of Joinder - NOTICE OF JOINDER (NAME EXTENSION) NOTICE OF JOINDER IN RUBICON B HACIENDA MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER

1/9/2020: Notice of Joinder - NOTICE OF JOINDER (NAME EXTENSION) NOTICE OF JOINDER IN RUBICON B HACIENDA MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER

Notice of Ruling

1/9/2020: Notice of Ruling

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF SEAN LAVELLE

11/4/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF SEAN LAVELLE

Motion for Summary Judgment

11/4/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment

Separate Statement

11/4/2019: Separate Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER FOR RUBICON'S MO...)

11/15/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER FOR RUBICON'S MO...)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER FOR RUBICON'S MO...) OF 11/15/2019

11/15/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER FOR RUBICON'S MO...) OF 11/15/2019

Amended Complaint - FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

9/10/2019: Amended Complaint - FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

[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

7/1/2019: [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

Cross-Complaint

6/11/2019: Cross-Complaint

Proof of Personal Service

11/8/2018: Proof of Personal Service

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

5/4/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

36 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/18/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Liberty Mutual Insurance (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Smart Grid Construction (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2020
  • DocketNotice (NOTICE OF TAKING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OFF CALENDAR); Filed by Rubicon B. Hacienda LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Rubicon B. Hacienda LLC (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 5; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend (Motion for Leave to Amend Answer) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 5; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Rubicon B. Hacienda LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
47 More Docket Entries
  • 10/23/2018
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Liberty Mutual Insurance (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2018
  • DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2018
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Rubicon B. Hacienda LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2018
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Rubicon B. Hacienda LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Liberty Mutual Insurance (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Liberty Mutual Insurance (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC694801    Hearing Date: March 09, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

liberty mutual insurance,

Plaintiff,

v.

rubicon b hacienda, llc, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC694801

Hearing Date: March 9, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

MOTION FOR summary judgment

Background

Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance (“Plaintiff”) filed this subrogation action to recover workers compensation benefits it paid to an employee of its insured, World Mechanical, Inc. (“World Mechanical”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Rubicon B. Hacienda, LLC (“Defendant”) cut a hole in the floor and then failed to place barriers or warning cones around the hole which caused injuries to the employee, Steven Burch. Defendant now moves for summary judgment, arguing that World Mechanical waived its subrogation rights. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion, which is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law[.] There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.” (Ibid.) In ruling on the motion, “the court may not weigh the plaintiff's evidence or inferences against the defendant[’s] as though it were sitting as the trier of fact.” (Id. at 856.) However, the court “must . . . determine what any evidence or inference could show or imply to a reasonable trier of fact.” (Ibid., emphasis original.)

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues World Mechanical waived any right of subrogation. “The right of subrogation is purely derivative. An insurer entitled to subrogation is in the same position as an assignee of the insured’s claim, and succeeds only to the rights of the insured.” (Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. American Equity Ins. Co. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1151.)

In the subcontract agreement between the general contractor on the project, Smart Grid Construction, and World Mechanical, World Mechanical agreed that “[a]ll insurance coverage obtained by [World Mechanical] . . . shall waive all subrogation rights against [Defendant].” (Index of Evidentiary Exhibits, Exh. E, § 15.1.) World Mechanical further agreed that if there is a loss by fire or other casualty caused by the acts or omissions of Defendant, “ [World Mechanical] agrees that, to the extent that [World Mechanical] is compensated for such loss by insurance, [World Mechanical] shall waive all rights of recovery against [Smart Grid Construction and Defendant]; and no third party shall have any right of recovery, by way of subrogation or assignment or otherwise. (Id., Exh. E, p. 26.)

This evidence satisfies Defendant’s burden, shifting the burden to Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion, and there is no evidence in the record that gives rise to a triable issue. Therefore, the motion is granted.

Conclusion and order

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: March 9, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC694801    Hearing Date: February 03, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

liberty mutual insurance,

Plaintiff,

v.

rubicon b hacienda, llc, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC694801

Hearing Date: February 3, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE amended answer

Background

Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance (“Plaintiff”) filed this subrogation action to recover workers compensation benefits paid to the alleged victim of the accident at issue. Defendant Rubicon B Hacienda, LLC (“Defendant”) seeks leave to file a first amended answer. Plaintiff opposes the motion, which is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) “[T]here is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.” (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296-297.)

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.132424, a motion to amend a pleading must include a copy of the proposed amendment and state the allegations that the moving party proposes to add or delete.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (a).) California Rules of Court, rule 3.124 also requires that the moving party advance a declaration stating the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends that amendment is necessary so that Defendant may allege waiver as an affirmative defense. A defendant must plead waiver in the answer to assert it as an affirmative defense. (See California Academy of Sciences v. County of Fresno (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1436, 1442.) Defendant relies on a declaration from its counsel, Christina Y. Morovati (“Counsel”). Counsel states that she believes the Answer is sufficient to cover waiver, but she did not become aware of the issue until she discussed the motion for summary judgment with opposing counsel. (Declaration of Christina Y. Morovati, ¶¶ 8, 10.) Not only does Counsel’s declaration provide a basis to grant the motion, the Court finds the interests of justice support granting this motion. Cases should be decided on the merits in consideration of all pertinent issues. If there is any ambiguity whether waiver is covered by the Answer, the Court agrees that the Answer should be amended to make that issue clear.

The Court finds no true prejudice to Plaintiff. The motion for summary judgment will not be heard until March 9, 2020, meaning that Plaintiff has additional time to conduct discovery before filing opposition. The trial date is not until May 15, 2020. Nevertheless, at Plaintiff’s request, the Court will continue the hearing on the motion for summary judgment and/or the trial date to afford Plaintiff sufficient opportunity to address the issue of waiver in its opposition.

In opposition, Plaintiff cites Carranza v. Noroian . In that case, the Fifth District held that a defendant could not introduce evidence at trial to support a claim the defendant had not alleged. (Carranza v. Noroian (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 481, 488.) Here, Defendant seeks leave to amend the answer to assert the claim of waiver, so the case is not on point.

Conclusion and order

Defendant’s motion for leave to file an amended answer is granted. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: February 3, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court