Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/07/2019 at 11:48:25 (UTC).

NABIL MAMKAGH VS CAMERON BRIGGS ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/28/2017 NABIL MAMKAGH filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against CAMERON BRIGGS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6682

  • Filing Date:

    06/28/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MAMKAGH NABIL

Defendants and Respondents

ENTERPRISE FM TRUST LSR

BRAGG CRANE & RIGGING COMPANY

BRAGG INVESTMENT COMPANY INCORPORATION

BRIGGS CAMERON

DOES 1 TO 50

BRAGG CAMERON

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

WRIGHT ANDREW L. ESQ.

PALEY ROBIN ELIOT

Defendant Attorney

DUFFY JOHN

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

12/12/2018: Minute Order

Substitution of Attorney

12/19/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

1/30/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

1/30/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

1/30/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Demand for Jury Trial

2/25/2019: Demand for Jury Trial

Answer

2/25/2019: Answer

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

5/8/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

SUMMONS

6/28/2017: SUMMONS

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

6/28/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/08/2019
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by NABIL MAMKAGH (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Bragg Investment Company, Inc., erroneously sued as Bragg Investment Co., Inc. LSE Erroneously Sued As BRAGG INVESTMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATION, (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Bragg Investment Company, Inc., erroneously sued as Bragg Investment Co., Inc. LSE Erroneously Sued As BRAGG INVESTMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATION, (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2019
  • Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by NABIL MAMKAGH (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2019
  • Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by NABIL MAMKAGH (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2019
  • Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by NABIL MAMKAGH (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2018
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Robin Eliot Paley (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2018
  • Minute Order ((Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by NABIL MAMKAGH (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC666682    Hearing Date: July 02, 2020    Dept: 31

   

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

NABIL MAMKAGH,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

CAMERON BRIGGS, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC666682

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

July 2, 2020

I. Background and Summary of Ruling

Plaintiff, Nabil Mamkagh, filed this action against Defendants, Cameron Bragg; Bragg Crane & Rigging Co., Inc.; Bragg Investment Co., Inc. LSE; Enterprise FM Trust LSR, for damages arising out of an automobile accident involving multiple vehicles. Plaintiff alleges that he saw a gold or gray truck hit the back if his vehicle. After the accident, Mamkagh saw a white truck pull over as well. Defendant Cameron Bragg, who is an employee for Bragg Investment Company, Inc., was driving the white truck.

At this time, Defendants Bragg Investment Company, Inc. and Cameron Bragg (collectively, “Defendants”) move for summary judgment.[1] An untimely opposition was filed on June 25, 2020; the opposition does not include the required separate statement. Because the opposition was untimely, the Court has not considered it in connection with this ruling. Regardless, as set forth fully below, Defendants failed to meet their moving burden to show they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and the motion is denied due to this failure. Defendants did not show as a matter of law that Plaintiff cannot develop evidence sufficient to support his case for the reasons stated below.

II. Motion for Summary Judgment

  1. Moving Argument

Defendants argue that Mamkagh cannot establish the element of causation against Defendants because the discovery responses produced in this matter are factually devoid and do not show that Defendants harmed Mamkagh in any way. Defendants argue that Mamkagh stated at his deposition that he saw the white truck Bragg was driving for the first time when he pulled over after the accident, and merely understood that the white truck may have been involved in the accident but could not testify how the white truck was involved in the accident. (UMF 6, 8.) Defendants argue that, just because the white truck was present, does not mean that it caused the accident or that Defendants were at fault for any injuries caused to Mamkagh. Similarly, Defendants contend that it is Mamkagh’s burden to produce admissible evidence showing they did something affirmative to cause the accident, and Defendants argue that Mamkagh cannot show that Defendants caused any of his alleged damages.

b. Defendants’ Moving Burden

Defendants’ contention in connection with this motion is that Mamkagh’s discovery responses are factually devoid, such that Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the complaint. As noted above, Defendants’ sole evidence in support of their position is that Mamkagh testified at deposition that he does not know whether or how Defendants’ vehicle was involved in the accident that forms the basis of this action.

A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication must introduce admissible evidence in order to shift the burden of proof to the plaintiff. There are two ways for the moving party to make out the necessary prima facie case. A defendant may present evidence that – if uncontradicted – constitutes a preponderance of evidence that plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of its case. This approach, which requires offering evidence that negates a key element of the plaintiff’s cause of action, is known as the “tried and true” approach. See, e.g., Kids’ Universe v. In2Labs (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 870, 879.

Alternatively, a defendant may present circumstantial evidence that the plaintiff does not now possess and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence needed to establish one or more elements of a claim. This is known as the “no evidence” approach and is described in Aguilar v, Atlantic Richfield Company (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, at 854. A defendant making a “no evidence” motion must introduce admissible evidence (by declaration or otherwise) that, in response to the full panoply of discovery devices (request for production, interrogatories, depositions etc.), the plaintiff has produced factually devoid responses sufficient to support an inference that the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie case on an element of its case. In addition, a defendant making a “no evidence” motion must also establish that, by the time the case comes up for trial, the plaintiff “cannot reasonably expect to obtain” the evidence necessary to raise a triable issue of fact on the issue. Schieding v. Dinwiddie Construction Company (1999) 69 Cal.App. 4th 64, 83.

Here, as noted above, Defendants contend only that the subject discovery submitted with their motion is factually devoid of any evidence as to how Defendants’ white truck was involved in the accident or caused Mamkagh’s damages. Defendants point to Mamkagh’s deposition testimony stating that Mamkagh understood the white truck was involved in the accident, but that Mamkagh did not know how exactly the white truck was involved. (Mot. Compendium of Evidence Exhs. G and K.) This evidence does not show conclusively that Defendants’ white truck was not involved in the accident or caused Mamkagh’s damages (the traditional method of showing entitlement to summary judgment).

This motion, however, is a “factually devoid discovery responses” motion, such that Defendants need not conclusively establish lack of evidence of fault in connection with the accident. The motion on this basis is, however, insufficient for several reasons. First, Defendants did not show that they propounded the “full panoply of discovery available” on Mamkagh, and the responses remained deficient. Second, information about the white vehicle’s involvement (or lack of involvement) in the accident is more within the knowledge of Defendants than it is within the knowledge of Mamkagh, such that Defendants cannot negate liability merely by submitting Mamkagh’s deposition testimony; this is not the full spectrum of available information and discovery on the issue of the white vehicle’s involvement or lack of involvement in the accident. Third, Defendants do not establish that Mamkagh cannot expect to obtain the evidence necessary to raise a triable issue of fact on the issue of Defendants’ alleged negligence by the time the matter comes up trial. Aguilar, 25 Cal.4th at 854 (noting that a defendant seeking summary judgment “must show that the plaintiff does not possess needed evidence . . . the defendant must also show that the plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain needed evidence . . .”).

Based on the foregoing, Defendants have failed to show they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication is DENIED.

Defendants are ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely

Dated this 2nd day of July, 2020

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court


[1] Although Defendants’ notice of motion states that Defendants alternatively seek summary adjudication, Defendants do not actually identify any causes of action for which they seek summary adjudication.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where BRAGG INVESTMENT COMPANY INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where BRAGG CRANE AND RIGGING CO. is a litigant

Latest cases where ENTERPRISE FM TRUST INC. A CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer WRIGHT ANDREW LAURENCE