This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/27/2020 at 05:25:54 (UTC).

LISA GOODRICH VS GUILLERMO EDUARDO PADILLA JR ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/21/2018 LISA GOODRICH filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against GUILLERMO EDUARDO PADILLA JR. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GEORGINA T. RIZK, KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE, MARK A. BORENSTEIN and WILLIAM D. STEWART. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9002

  • Filing Date:

    03/21/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

GEORGINA T. RIZK

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

WILLIAM D. STEWART

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Cross Defendants

GOODRICH LISA

GOODRICH ERIC

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

GREENWOOD MOTOR LINES INC.

DOES 1-25

PADILLA GUILLERMO EDUARDO JR.

R+L CARRIERS

CARRIERS R+L

GREENWOOD MOTOR LINES INC. DBA R+L CARRIERS A SOUTH CAROLINA CORPORATION

Other

ALDERLAW PC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

GLOTZER LAW PC

GLOTZER JOSHUA WILLIAM ESQ.

FOLINSKY MARNI B. ESQ.

DESANTIS DANIEL SHELDON ESQ.

ALDER C MICHAEL ESQ.

MCELROY STEPHEN K

MCELROY STEPHEN KELLY ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

SHIMKIN DAVID A. ESQ.

SHIMKIN DAVID ALLEN ESQ.

Cross Defendant Attorneys

WAINFELD GABRIEL HORACE

WAINFELD GABRIEL HORACE ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: TRANSFER AND REASSIGNMENT OF COMPLICATED PERS...) OF 09/29/2020

9/29/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: TRANSFER AND REASSIGNMENT OF COMPLICATED PERS...) OF 09/29/2020

Reply - REPLY DEFENDANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; DECLARATION OF DAVID A. SHIMKIN

8/25/2020: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; DECLARATION OF DAVID A. SHIMKIN

Opposition - OPPOSITION THIRD-PARTY DEPONENT ERIK S. VELIES OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS GUILLERMO EDUARDO PADILLAS AND GREENWOOD MOTOR LINES, INC. D/B/A R+L CARRIERS MOTION TO COMPEL ERIK VELIE, ESQ.

8/20/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION THIRD-PARTY DEPONENT ERIK S. VELIES OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS GUILLERMO EDUARDO PADILLAS AND GREENWOOD MOTOR LINES, INC. D/B/A R+L CARRIERS MOTION TO COMPEL ERIK VELIE, ESQ.

Joinder to Motion - JOINDER TO MOTION NOTICE OF JOINDER IN THIRD PARTY DEPONENT ERIKS. VELIE'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS/CROSSCOMPLAINANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL ERIKS. VELIE TO PROVIDE FURTHER ANSWER TO DE

8/21/2020: Joinder to Motion - JOINDER TO MOTION NOTICE OF JOINDER IN THIRD PARTY DEPONENT ERIKS. VELIE'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS/CROSSCOMPLAINANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL ERIKS. VELIE TO PROVIDE FURTHER ANSWER TO DE

Objection - OBJECTION OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE IN REPLY TO OPPOSITIONS TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

7/17/2020: Objection - OBJECTION OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE IN REPLY TO OPPOSITIONS TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

6/16/2020: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Motion for Summary Adjudication

5/4/2020: Motion for Summary Adjudication

Separate Statement

5/4/2020: Separate Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: CONTINUANCE OF THE 04/29/2020 HEARING ON MOT...)

4/15/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: CONTINUANCE OF THE 04/29/2020 HEARING ON MOT...)

Substitution of Attorney

2/24/2020: Substitution of Attorney

Declaration - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT

2/10/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT

Separate Statement

2/10/2020: Separate Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FILED BY CROSS-DEFENDANTS, LI...)

12/4/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FILED BY CROSS-DEFENDANTS, LI...)

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO EX-PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

12/3/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO EX-PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Answer

9/11/2019: Answer

Notice - NOTICE DEMAND TO EXCHANGE EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION

7/15/2019: Notice - NOTICE DEMAND TO EXCHANGE EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION

Cross-Complaint

6/26/2019: Cross-Complaint

Reply - REPLY REPLY ISO MOTION FOR LEAVE

6/19/2019: Reply - REPLY REPLY ISO MOTION FOR LEAVE

94 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/23/2021
  • Hearing03/23/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2021
  • Hearing02/05/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2021
  • Hearing01/15/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2021
  • Hearing01/15/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Reassigned Judge and Scheduling of Hearing Dates); Filed by Greenwood Motor Lines, Inc. (Defendant); Guillermo Eduardo Padilla, Jr. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • Docketat 10:43 AM in Department B; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 10/21/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Greenwood Motor Lines, Inc. (Defendant); Guillermo Eduardo Padilla, Jr. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • Docketat 2:05 PM in Department B; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
127 More Docket Entries
  • 05/21/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Greenwood Motor Lines, Inc. (Defendant); Guillermo Eduardo Padilla, Jr. (Defendant); R+L Carriers (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Greenwood Motor Lines, Inc. (Defendant); Guillermo Eduardo Padilla, Jr. (Defendant); R+L Carriers (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Lisa Goodrich (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1. (MOTOR VEHICLE - PERSONAL INJURIES AND PROPERTY DAMAGE)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Lisa Goodrich (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC699002    Hearing Date: September 30, 2020    Dept: 29

Goodrich  v.  Padilla

Court Order Re: Transfer and Reassignment Of Complicated Personal Injury (“PI”) Case To An Independent Calendar ("IC") Courtroom From Department 29, A PI Hub Court;

The Court's order Re: Transfer of Complicated Personal Injury Case to an Independent Calendar Court, is posted on the court's website.

AFTER REVIEW OF THE FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER:

Department 29 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above-entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented.

At the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby ordered reassigned and transferred to the NORTH CENTRAL District, the Honorable WILLIAM D. STEWART, Judge presiding in Department "A" of the BURBANK Superior Court, for all purposes except trial.  Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court.

Any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court.  (NOTE:  ALL hearings currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are taken off calendar subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re:  New hearing dates.)

Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all Parties of record.

Case Number: BC699002    Hearing Date: January 21, 2020    Dept: 29

Goodrich v. Padilla, et al.

Motion by Cross-Defendants for Separate Trials on the Cross-Complaint is DENIED.

In the complaint, Plaintiff Lisa Goodrich alleges that she was injured in a car collision caused by the negligence of Defendant Guillermo Eduardo Padilla, Jr., who, at the time of the accident, was acting in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant Greenwood Motor Lines, Inc. d/b/a/ R&L Carriers (“R&L Carriers”). Lisa Goodrich was a passenger in the car at the time of the accident. 

Padilla and R&L Carriers have filed a cross-complaint against Lisa Goodrich and Erik Goodrich, the driver of the car, alleging that the accident was caused by Erik Goodrich’s negligence and Lisa Goodrich’s negligent entrustment of her vehicle. The cross-complainants also allege claims for express contractual indemnity, equitable indemnity, and contribution against Erik Goodrich, and declaratory relief against Lisa Goodrich and Erik Goodrich. (Cross-complainants spell Mr. Goodrich’s name “Eric”; the Court uses the spelling in Mr. Goodrich’s papers).

The cross-defendants have moved for a separate trial on the cross-complaint pursuant to section 1048, subd. b of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that the cross-complaint consists “almost entirely of equitable causes of action which should be disposed of in a motion for summary adjudication.” Cross-defendants further argue that the “basis for the equitable causes of action in the cross-complaint arise out of the language of the release signed by Mr. Goodrich when he settled with R&L.”

The cross-complainants oppose the motion. They first argue that the Court has already decided the issue by denying the ex parte application on 12/4/2019. Cross-complainants are incorrect. The Court’s minute order states: “The Court finds that Cross-Defendants’ Ex Parte Application for Separate Trial on the Cross-Complaint should be addressed by a properly noticed motion.” The Court thus considers the merits here.

Section 1048, subd. b provides: “The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint . . . “

Here, the cross-defendants have not established that separate trials would further convenience or judicial economy or are necessary to avoid prejudice. The claims all arise out of a single car accident. The claims in the complaint and the claims for negligence, equitable indemnity, contribution and declaratory relief in the cross-complaint all turn on a determination of who was at fault for the accident and to what extent the parties were at fault. Such issues must necessarily be determined in a single trial.

Nor would a separate trial on the express contractual indemnity claim further judicial economy. It is more efficient for the Court to determine the entire action in a single trial. With respect to prejudice, cross-defendants merely state, in a conclusory manner, that allowing the contractual indemnity claim to be tried with the rest of the case would “mislead and confuse’ the jury, but they do not explain why that would be the case. Any potential confusion can be addressed through jury instructions.

Cross-defendants also argue that the cross-complaint presents equitable issues for the Court to decide and presents causes of action for which cross-defendants expect to obtain summary adjudication. This is not a basis for ordering separate trials.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.