On 07/19/2019 MARTHA FLORES filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A PUBLIC ENTITY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE, MARK A. BORENSTEIN and SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Spring Street Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE
MARK A. BORENSTEIN
SERENA R. MURILLO
DOES 1 TO 30 INCLUSIVE.
THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES A PUBLIC ENTITY
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
ABM INDUSTRIES INC.
ABM AVIATION INC.
HW MAINTENANCE LAX LLC
HARTLEY JURA ANDREW
BERGMAN PENELOPE PARK
HARTLEY JURA ANDREW ESQ.
KABANI ZEESHAN ESQ.
WAYNE ERIC J.
KARREN BRENT M.
2/3/2021: Proof of Service by Substituted Service
12/31/2020: Substitution of Attorney
10/19/2020: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)
10/30/2020: Proof of Personal Service
11/23/2020: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT
12/3/2020: [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
11/4/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF ZEESHAN KABANI IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER
11/12/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE - ...)
9/20/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF ZEESHAN KABANI IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
10/2/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT
10/8/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING HEARING OF DEMURRER TO NOVEMBER 12, 2019, OR A DATE THEREAFTER CONVENIENT FOR THE COURT
7/31/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [PI GENERAL ORDER], STANDING ORDER RE PI PROCEDURES AND HEARING DATES
7/19/2019: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT
7/19/2019: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)
Hearing07/15/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: DismissalRead MoreRead Less
Hearing10/15/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing10/01/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by HW Maintenance LAX, LLC (Cross-Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by ABM Aviation, Inc. (Cross-Complainant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by ABM Aviation, Inc. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by ABM Aviation, Inc. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docket[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by City of Los Angeles (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT; Filed by Martha Flores (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDemurrer - without Motion to Strike (to Plaintiff's Complaint); Filed by City of Los Angeles (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration (Of Zeeshan Kabani In Support of Defendant City of Los Angeles' Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint); Filed by City of Los Angeles (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPI General Order; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([PI General Order], Standing Order re PI Procedures and Hearing Dates); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Martha Flores (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Martha Flores (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Martha Flores (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: 19STCV25097 Hearing Date: November 12, 2019 Dept: 2
Flores v. City of Los Angeles, et al.
Defendant City of Los Angeles’ Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed on 9/20/2019, is OVERRULED. Defendant is ordered to answer the Complaint within 10 days.
Plaintiff brings a cause of action under Government Code section 835 against Defendant City of Los Angeles. That section 835 provides: “Except as provided by statute, a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and that either:
“(a) A negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or
“(b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”
Accordingly, “[a] cause of action for dangerous condition of public property must allege:
(1) a dangerous condition of public property;
(2) a proximate causal connection between the condition and the injury sustained;
(3) a reasonably foreseeable risk that the kind of injury that occurred would result from the dangerous condition; and
(4) the entity either created the condition, or had actual notice or constructive notice of its existence, and there was sufficient time before the injury for it to have taken remedial action.” People ex rel. Dept of Transportation v. Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal. App. 4th 1480, 1485; see also Gov. Code § 835; Dominguez v. Solano Irrigation Dist. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1098, 1102.
Here, the Complaint alleges, among other things, that a wet and slippery floor in the stairwell of a parking structure outside of Terminal 2 at LAX constituted a dangerous condition; that as a result of that dangerous condition, Plaintiff slipped and fell down the stairs and was injured; that there was a reasonably foreseeable risk that an injury of the kind suffered by Plaintiff would occur as a result of the wet and slippery floor; and that the negligence of LAX employees caused the condition and that the City of Los Angeles had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition in sufficient time prior to Plaintiff’s injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant “created the condition, failed to remedy the condition, failed to barricade the area, and failed to warn of the condition.”
Defendant demurs to the Complaint, claiming that the facts have not alleged with sufficient particularity. Defendant’s argument fails. The facts are sufficiently alleged to meet the standard that applies to claims under section 835. See, e.g., Dahlquist v. State (1966) 243 Cal. App. 2d 208, 212 (complaint sufficiently alleged that narrow lanes and other conditions on a bridge constituted a dangerous condition; more specific allegations regarding the condition were not required and other elements were properly alleged through general allegations); Vedder v. County of Imperial (1974) 36 Cal. App. 3d 654, 661 (complaint adequately alleged that the airport lacked adequate fire suppression systems).
The cases relied upon by Defendant do not compel a different result. Defendant cites Searcy v. Hemet Unified School District (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 792 for the general proposition a claim against a government entity must be pleaded with particularity, including the existence of a statutory duty. In that case, the plaintiff was a six-year-old girl who was struck by an automobile as she walked home from school. The accident did not occur on school property. Plaintiff sued, among other defendants, the school district, claiming that the district had an affirmative duty to provide a crossing guard at the location of the accident or otherwise protect plaintiff. The Court held that facts alleged were not sufficient to give rise to a duty under any statutory enactment, and thus the claim was subject to demurrer. The case did not concern the degree of detail that must be provided to identify a dangerous condition.
Similarly, in Susman v. City of Los Angeles (1969) 269 Cal. App. 2d 803, plaintiffs alleged that their property was damaged during riots in the City. The Court held that there were no facts alleged that would give rise to an affirmative obligation for the City to act for the protection of the plaintiffs under any statute imposing mandatory duties.
Here, by contrast, the Complaint specifically identifies the statute that gives rise to the duty at issue – Government Code section 835. The Complaint identifies a particular condition that Plaintiff alleges to be dangerous – a wet and slippery floor on a staircase of the parking structure outside of Terminal 2. The Court concludes that the facts here are alleged with sufficient particularity to meet the heightened standard that applies to claims under section 835.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases