This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/03/2019 at 01:23:59 (UTC).

MARK WEBB VS PREFERRED HOTEL GROUP INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 07/25/2018 MARK WEBB filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against PREFERRED HOTEL GROUP INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5323

  • Filing Date:

    07/25/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

WEBB MARK

Defendants and Respondents

MAJESTIC REALTY CARE CALIFORNIA CORPORAT-

PACIFIC PALMS LTD.

DOES 1 - 40

PREFERRED HOTEL GROUP INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorney

JENSEN PAUL ROLF ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

SAMUELS DAVID MICHAEL

 

Court Documents

SUMMONS

7/25/2018: SUMMONS

NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT

7/25/2018: NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT

PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF DAMAGES

7/25/2018: PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF DAMAGES

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

7/25/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

Answer

1/4/2019: Answer

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

12/26/2018: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Request for Dismissal

1/17/2019: Request for Dismissal

Proof of Personal Service

12/12/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service

12/12/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service

12/12/2018: Proof of Personal Service

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/17/2019
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by Mark Webb (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Preferred Hotel Group, Inc. (Defendant); Pacific Palms, Ltd. (Defendant); Majestic Realty Care California Corporat- (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2018
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Mark Webb (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2018
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Mark Webb (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2018
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Mark Webb (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2018
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Mark Webb (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Mark Webb (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2018
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2018
  • PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****5323    Hearing Date: November 25, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion to Set Aside Dismissal

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

On July 25, 2018, Plaintiff Mark Webb (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Preferred Hotel Group, Inc., Pacific Palms, Ltd., and Majestic Reality Co. alleging premises liability and negligence for falling into a hole in the ground after stepping off a curb on February 8, 2017.

On December 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed an amendment to his complaint renaming Doe 1 as Majestic Industry Hills, LLC dba Pacific Palms Resort.

On January 17, 2019, the Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

On October 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the January 17, 2019 dismissal pursuant to California Code Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8).

PARTYS REQUEST

Plaintiff asks the Court to set aside the January 17, 2019 dismissal because the Court mistakenly dismissed the entire complaint.

LEGAL STANDARD

“The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.”  (Code Civ. Proc. ; 473, subd. (d).)  The court may set aside an entry of default or default judgment that is void due to improper service.  (See Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544; see also Brown v. Williams (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 182, 186, n. 4.)

Under Evidence Code section 647, “[t]he return of a process server registered pursuant to Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 22350) of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code upon process or notice establishes a presumption, affecting the burden of producing evidence, of the facts stated in the return.” Under Evidence Code section 604, “[t]he effect of a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence is to require the trier of fact to assume the existence of the presumed fact unless and until evidence is introduced which would support a finding of its nonexistence, in which case the trier of fact shall determine the existence or nonexistence of the presumed fact from the evidence and without regard to the presumption. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the drawing of any inference that may be appropriate.”

DISCUSSION

On January 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal to dismiss the complaint as to Defendants Preferred Hotel Group, Inc., Pacific Palms, Ltd., and Majestic Reality Co. Jensen Decl., ¶ 7-8, Exh. 2.)

The Court finds it necessary to correct the January 17, 2019 dismissal to relate only to Defendants Preferred Hotel Group, Inc., Pacific Palms, Ltd., and Majestic Reality Co.

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

The Court deems the January 17, 2019 dismissal to relate only to Defendants Preferred Hotel Group, Inc., Pacific Palms, Ltd., and Majestic Reality Co.  

The Court sets aside the the January 17, 2019 dismissal with respect to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Majestic Industry Hills, LLC dba Pacific Palms Resort who is still a party in this action.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.


Case Number: ****5323    Hearing Date: October 23, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion for Trial Preference

Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On July 25, 2018, Plaintiff Mark Webb (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Preferred Hotel Group, Inc., Pacific Palms, Ltd., and Majestic Realty Co.  Plaintiff alleges premises liability and negligence for stepping off a curb and unexpectedly falling waist-deep into a hole on February 8, 2017.

On December 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed an amendment to his complaint renaming Doe 1 as Defendant Majestic Industry Hills, LLC dba Pacific Palms Resort.

On January 17, 2019, the Court dismissed the complaint as to Defendants Preferred Hotel Group, Inc., Pacific Palms, Ltd., and Majestic Realty Co. without prejudice.

On November 25, 2019, the Court deemed the January 17, 2019 dismissal to only relate to Defendants.

On June 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for trial preference pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (e).

On June 15, 2020, the Court scheduled Plaintiff’s motion for trial preference to be heard on October 23, 2020.

A trial setting conference is scheduled for October 23, 2020.

PARTYS REQUEST

Plaintiff asks the Court to set a preferential trial date because Plaintiff’s original trial date of January 27, 2020 was taken off-calendar.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 36 states, in relevant part: (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court may in its discretion grant a motion for preference that is supported by a showing that satisfies the court that the interests of justice will be served by granting this preference. (f) Upon the granting of such a motion for preference, the court shall set the matter for trial not more than 120 days from that date. . . .”

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues the Court should preferentially set trial because “Plaintiff was unfairly stripped” of his initial January 27, 2020 trial date.  (Motion, p. 4:4-4:6.)

The Court finds trial preference is not properly granted.  Plaintiff is not somehow positioned in a vulnerable state similar to other plaintiffs who would qualify for a preferential trial date based on California Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivisions (a)-(d).  Moreover, Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the Court’s mistaken dismissal of Plaintiff’s action does not seem to justify the continuance constraints codified in California Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (f).  Lastly, the Court’s mistaken dismissal of Plaintiff’s action on January 14, 2019, which the court corrected on November 25, 2019, could have been corrected sooner had Plaintiff addressed the issue sooner than June 2020.  As such, Plaintiff’s delayed trial date is not entirely outside Plaintiff’s control.  In sum, the motion is properly denied.

CONCLUSION

The motion for a preferential trial date is DENIED.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where PREFERRED HOTEL GROUP INC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SAMUELS DAVID M.