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 and CURTIS A. KIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Los Angeles, California
LAURA A. MATZ
DONNA FIELDS GOLDSTEIN
CURTIS A. KIN
HERNANDEZ GABRIEL CARBAJAL
MENDOZA FRANCISCO ARIEL
BARRIGA MARIA E.
GROUP XI PICO RIVERA PROPERTIES LP.
ALLEN SEMELSBERGER & KAELIN LLP
ENDEMAN LINCOLN TUREK & HEATER LLP
ALLEN JAMES CROFTON
TURNER DAVID ARTHUR
TURNER DAVID A.
7/27/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW)
4/21/2020: Separate Statement
5/22/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW) OF 05/22/2020
12/2/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF OR STRIKE DOE AMENDMENT AND SUMMONS
12/3/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE 5 OF 7
11/14/2019: Motion to Quash Service of Summons
10/25/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF DAVID A. TURNER IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS REQUEST UNDER C.C.P. 437C(H)
9/18/2019: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT
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
5/17/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF DAVID SEMELSBERGER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
1/23/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv
5/4/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Proof-Service/Summons
5/4/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Reply
5/4/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Reply
6/18/2018: Case Management Statement
7/17/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
8/13/2018: Proof of Service by Mail
7/2/2018: Miscellaneous - CIVIL DEPOSIT
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by LOURDES AGUILAR (Plaintiff); Esparenza Aguilera (Plaintiff); Martha Alonso (Plaintiff) et al.Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by LOURDES AGUILAR (Plaintiff); Esparenza Aguilera (Plaintiff); Martha Alonso (Plaintiff) et al.Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement))); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 2:00 PM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 2:00 PM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case ReviewRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Non-Appearance Case Review) of 10/06/2020); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Non-Appearance Case Review - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute order entered: 2018-02-08 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Esparenza Aguilera (Plaintiff); Martha Alonso (Plaintiff); Reynado Rojas (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Esparenza Aguilera (Plaintiff); Martha Alonso (Plaintiff); Reynado Rojas (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Esparenza Aguilera (Plaintiff); Martha Alonso (Plaintiff); Reynado Rojas (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover SheetRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil CaseRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: EC067905 Hearing Date: December 13, 2019 Dept: E
MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Case: Lourdes Aguilar, et al. v. Group XI Pico Rivera Properties (EC 067905)
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.]
Case: Lourdes Aguilar, et al. v. Group XI Pico Rivera Properties, LP (EC 067905)
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).