This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/25/2020 at 02:45:12 (UTC).

LOURDES AGUILAR, ET AL. VS. GROUP XI PICO RIVERA PROPERTIES

Case Summary

On 01/23/2018 LOURDES AGUILAR filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against GROUP XI PICO RIVERA PROPERTIES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA A. MATZ, DONNA FIELDS GOLDSTEIN, OTHER DISTRICT JUDGE and CURTIS A. KIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7905

  • Filing Date:

    01/23/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LAURA A. MATZ

DONNA FIELDS GOLDSTEIN

OTHER DISTRICT JUDGE

CURTIS A. KIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

HERNANDEZ GABRIEL CARBAJAL

ALONZO MARTHA

CONTRERAS JUAN

ALONSO MARTHA

MENDOZA FRANCISCO ARIEL

PEREZ EDUARDO

ROJAS REYNADO

VIRAMONTES FIDEL

BARRIGA MARIA E.

TORRES MARISSA

MARTINEZ GUADALUPE

ORTIZ JAIME

MIRAMONTES FEDERICO

SALGUERO LOURDES

VIRAMONTES IRENE

AGUILAR LOURDES

CALDERON JENNY

ROJAS ALICIA

RAMON SEBASTIAN

Defendant

GROUP XI PICO RIVERA PROPERTIES LP.

12 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

ALLEN SEMELSBERGER & KAELIN LLP

ENDEMAN LINCOLN TUREK & HEATER LLP

ALLEN JAMES CROFTON

Defendant Attorneys

YUKEVICH/CAVANAUGH

TURNER DAVID ARTHUR

TURNER DAVID A.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW)

7/27/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW)

Separate Statement

4/21/2020: Separate Statement

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW) OF 05/22/2020

5/22/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW) OF 05/22/2020

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF OR STRIKE DOE AMENDMENT AND SUMMONS

12/2/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF OR STRIKE DOE AMENDMENT AND SUMMONS

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE 5 OF 7

12/3/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE 5 OF 7

Motion to Quash Service of Summons

11/14/2019: Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Declaration - DECLARATION OF DAVID A. TURNER IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS REQUEST UNDER C.C.P. 437C(H)

10/25/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF DAVID A. TURNER IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS REQUEST UNDER C.C.P. 437C(H)

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

9/18/2019: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE KRISTINE M. HICKS, CSR 13634

6/18/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE KRISTINE M. HICKS, CSR 13634

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF DAVID SEMELSBERGER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

5/17/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF DAVID SEMELSBERGER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv

1/23/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Proof-Service/Summons

5/4/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Proof-Service/Summons

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Reply

5/4/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Reply

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Reply

5/4/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Reply

Case Management Statement

6/18/2018: Case Management Statement

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

7/17/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service by Mail

8/13/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

Miscellaneous - CIVIL DEPOSIT

7/2/2018: Miscellaneous - CIVIL DEPOSIT

181 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/30/2020
  • Hearing11/30/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department E at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2020
  • Docketat 2:00 PM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2020
  • Docketat 2:00 PM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Non-Appearance Case Review) of 10/06/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2020
  • DocketNotice of Settlement; Filed by LOURDES AGUILAR (Plaintiff); Esparenza Aguilera (Plaintiff); Martha Alonso (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2020
  • Docketat 2:00 PM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication (of Defendants) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2020
  • Docketat 2:00 PM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2020
  • Docketat 2:00 PM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication

    Read MoreRead Less
263 More Docket Entries
  • 02/08/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Non-Appearance Case Review - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2018-02-08 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2018
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Esparenza Aguilera (Plaintiff); Martha Alonso (Plaintiff); Reynado Rojas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2018
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Esparenza Aguilera (Plaintiff); Martha Alonso (Plaintiff); Reynado Rojas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2018
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Esparenza Aguilera (Plaintiff); Martha Alonso (Plaintiff); Reynado Rojas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2018
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2016
  • DocketProof of Service; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC067905    Hearing Date: December 13, 2019    Dept: E

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Date: 12/13/19

Case: Lourdes Aguilar, et al. v. Group XI Pico Rivera Properties (EC 067905)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Group XI Pico Rivera Properties, LP and Pama Management Inc.’s Amended Motion to Quash Service of, or In the Alternative, Strike Doe Amendment and Summons to Pama Management Inc. is DENIED. The Court GRANTS the request in the moving papers and opposition for a trial continuance. The trial is continued to ________________. The discovery cut-off dates are continued in accordance with the new trial date. Any new discovery, however, is limited to discovery propounded by or on defendant Pama Management Inc., and limited to liability of that specific entity.

Defendant Group XI Pico Rivera Properties, LP’s Motion for Protective Order Re: Apex Depositions of Swarnjit Nijjar and Ryan Liu is GRANTED. While the Court harbors some doubt as to whether these deponents are the type of high-level corporate officials of a national or international corporation to which the case law relied upon applies (see Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1282), the record before this Court does not allow for a finding that these corporate officers have unique or superior personal knowledge of discoverable information. Moreover, it is also not established the information sought by plaintiffs cannot reasonably be obtained through less intrusive means, which plaintiffs have apparently not pursued with diligence. Rather, it appears that the issue of the deponents’ personal knowledge can be investigated through less intrusive methods, including requesting documents directly from defendant, directing interrogatories to the deponent or other witnesses, deposing lower-level employees with direct knowledge concerning the management of the Park, and conducting the depositions of the persons most knowledgeable for defendants with respect to the various issues involved here. (See Liberty Mutual, 10 Cal.App.4th at p. 1289.)

The protective order is issued without prejudice to plaintiffs, once less intrusive avenues have been exhausted, moving to lift the protective order, if they can make a colorable showing of good cause that the deponents possess information necessary to the case. (See id.)

Case Number: EC067905    Hearing Date: November 01, 2019    Dept: E

MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

[CCP § 437c; CRC 3.1350 et seq.]

Date: 11/1/19

Case: Lourdes Aguilar, et al. v. Group XI Pico Rivera Properties, LP (EC 067905)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Group XI Pico Rivera Properties, LP’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED.

Where the opposing party has submitted an adequate affidavit showing that essential facts may exist but cannot be presented timely, the Court must either deny summary adjudication or grant a continuance. (Dee v. Vintage Petroleum, Inc. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 30, 34-35; Frazee v. Seely (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 627, 633; CCP § 437c(h).) Here, the Declaration of David Semelsberger establishes that, since June 2019, plaintiffs have in good faith and with reasonable diligence been requesting the depositions of at least nine defendant-affiliated witnesses, including managing agent Mike Nijjar, but were not able to set any depositions until October 2019. [Semelsberger Decl. ¶¶ 3-5, 8 & Ex. 2.] Moreover, as to Nijjar and another managing agent, Ryan Liu, defendant has filed a motion for a protective order which will not be heard until December 13, 2019, thereby delaying those seemingly critical depositions even further. [Semelsberger Decl. ¶ 7]. The declaration also indicates (and the court file reflects) that plaintiffs subpoenaed business records from defendant’s affiliated companies, PAMA Management and Nijjar Realty, pertaining to the operation and management of the property at issue, but defendant delayed plaintiffs’ receipt of those documents by moving to quash those subpoenas, ultimately resulting in the Court’s order for the production of most of the requested documents by November 18, 2019, after the hearing date on the instant motion. [Semelsverger Decl. ¶ 6].

It would appear that the depositions and documents could very well produce information concerning the conduct of managing agents which could be construed as directly malicious or done in conscious disregard of the rights or safety of plaintiffs, or could raise triable issues with respect to the ratification of conduct of other employees or agents by a managing agent of defendant. Notably, the motion specifically argues that plaintiffs are “unable to offer actual proof with respect to Mr. Nijjar” concerning punitive damages and “have been unable to identify any other officer, director, or managing agent of Defendant who may have committed, authorized, or ratified any conduct of Defendant amounting to malice, oppression, or fraud.” [Mtn. at p. 6-7.] It is hard to ignore that defendant makes such arguments in a motion filed on August 16, 2019, long before plaintiffs were able to conduct any relevant discovery to meaningfully oppose them.

Finally, because the thrust of defendant’s motion is that plaintiffs’ discovery responses are “devoid of evidence” to support punitive damages, and yet defendant’s actions during the course of discovery have delayed plaintiffs’ ability to procure such evidence, denial of the motion—as opposed to a continuance of the hearing—is the more appropriate outcome under section 437c(h).