This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/08/2020 at 01:55:50 (UTC).

NATASA SULLIVAN ET AL VS LABEL 27 ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/12/2017 NATASA SULLIVAN filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against LABEL 27. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CHRISTOPHER K. LUI and DANIEL M. CROWLEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4797

  • Filing Date:

    06/12/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

SULLIVAN NATASA

SULLIVAN DAVE

Defendants, Respondents, Cross Plaintiffs, Cross Defendants and Not Classified By Court

TOPANGA COMMUNITY CLUB

LABEL 27

DOES 1 TO 100

XPERT PREMIER PROTECTIVE SERVICES INC

TOPANGA COMMUNITY CLUB INC.

SALAZAR JR. MAXIMILLON

SALAZAR JR . MAXIMILLON

SALAZAR MAXIMILLION JR. [DOE 1] AKA MAXIMILLIAN SALAZAR JR. AKA MAX SALAZAR JR. AKA MAX SALAZAR

LABEL 27 AKA LABEL27

AMIT GILAD DBA LABEL 27 AKA LABEL 27

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

GOLDMAN BARRY I.

GOLDMAN BARRY IRWIN

SWEETS DANIELLE ERIN

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Defendant Attorneys

PACKER ROBERT B. ESQ.

NORTON & MELNIK

MARICONDA KENT G. ESQ.

MARICONDA KENT GERARD ESQ.

OLSON SONALI

BEAVERS ROBERT WESLEY

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

PACKER ROBERT B. ESQ.

NORTON & MELNIK

MARICONDA KENT G. ESQ.

Defendant, Cross Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

MARICONDA KENT GERARD ESQ.

OLSON SONALI

BEAVERS ROBERT WESLEY

Other Attorneys

NORTON GEOFFREY PAUL

 

Court Documents

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)]

4/21/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)]

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF'S FROM USING A POWER POINT PRESENTATION

1/17/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF'S FROM USING A POWER POINT PRESENTATION

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE LABEL 27'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1

1/21/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE LABEL 27'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION

4/9/2019: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL MOTION TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION

Request for Refund / Order

3/25/2019: Request for Refund / Order

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

2/14/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice of Deposit - Jury

2/8/2019: Notice of Deposit - Jury

DEFENDANT XPERT PREMIER PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

8/16/2018: DEFENDANT XPERT PREMIER PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

CROSS-COMPLAINT OF AMIT GRAD DBA LABEL 27 AGAINST XPERT PREMIER PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC., TOPANGA COMMUNITY CLUE, INC. AND ROES 1-50, FOR: (1) CONTRIBUTION AND/OR COMPARATIVE EQUITABLE INDEMNITY AND

9/7/2018: CROSS-COMPLAINT OF AMIT GRAD DBA LABEL 27 AGAINST XPERT PREMIER PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC., TOPANGA COMMUNITY CLUE, INC. AND ROES 1-50, FOR: (1) CONTRIBUTION AND/OR COMPARATIVE EQUITABLE INDEMNITY AND

Association of Attorney

12/27/2018: Association of Attorney

ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL FSC AND RELATED MOTION DISCOVERY DATES PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY CENTRAL DISTRICT

9/24/2018: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL FSC AND RELATED MOTION DISCOVERY DATES PERSONAL INJURY COURTS ONLY CENTRAL DISTRICT

ANSWER OF AMIT GILAD DBA LABEL 27, AKA LABEL27 TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF TOPANGA COMMUNITY CLUB, INC.

9/7/2018: ANSWER OF AMIT GILAD DBA LABEL 27, AKA LABEL27 TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF TOPANGA COMMUNITY CLUB, INC.

SUMMONS ON AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

8/24/2018: SUMMONS ON AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

8/16/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

4/23/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL -

10/6/2017: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL -

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

8/21/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

8/21/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

63 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/07/2020
  • Hearing12/07/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) ((conditional)) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) (conditional))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Xpert Premier Protective Services Inc (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal (- Not Entered); Filed by Natasa Sullivan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Natasa Sullivan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Amit Gilad dba LABEL 27, aka LABEL 27 (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) ((conditional)) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 4A; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
100 More Docket Entries
  • 09/08/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Dave Sullivan (Plaintiff); Natasa Sullivan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Topanga Community Club (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2017
  • DocketDEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Dave Sullivan (Plaintiff); Natasa Sullivan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF PERSONAL INJURY: PREMISES LIABILITY; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC664797    Hearing Date: January 15, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Continue MSC, Trial and Related Dates

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

BACKGROUND

On June 12, 2017, Plaintiffs Natasa Sullivan and Dave Sullivan filed a complaint against Defendants Amit Gilad dba Label 27 aka Label27, Topanga Community Club, and Xpert Premier Protective Services Inc.  The complaint alleges negligence, negligent hiring and retention, and loss of consortium for Doe Defendants climbing a fence and falling on Plaintiff Natasa Sullivan on July 24, 2016.

On October 6, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Dave Sullivan.

On August 16, 2018, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Xpert Premier Protective Services Inc. filed a cross-complaint against Defendants/Cross-Defendants Amit Gilad dba Label 27 aka Label27 and Topanga Community Club and Cross-Defendant Maximillion Salazar, Jr.  This cross-complaint seeks indemnification, apportionment, and declaratory relief.

On August 24, 2018, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Xpert Premier Protective Services Inc. filed a first amended cross-complaint.

On August 29, 2018, Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Topanga Community Club filed a cross-complaint against Defendant/Cross-Defendant Amit Gilad dba Label 27 aka Label27 and Defendant/Cross-Complainant/Cross-Defendant Xpert Premier Protective Services Inc.  This cross-complaint seeks indemnification, apportionment, declaratory relief, and contribution.

On September 7, 2018, Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Amit Gilad dba Label 27 aka Label27 filed a cross-complaint against Defendant/Cross-Complainant/Cross-Defendant Xpert Premier Protective Services Inc and Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Topanga Community ClubThis cross-complaint seeks contribution, indemnification, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief.

On September 20, 2018, Plaitniff Natasa Sullivan filed an amendment to her complaint renaming Doe 1 as Defendant Maximillion Salazar, Jr., aka Maximillian Salazar, Jr., Max Salazar, Jr., and Max Salazar.

On December 11, 2019, Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Topanga Community Club filed a motion to continue the mandatory settlement conference, trial and related dates pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 and California Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050.

Trial is set for February 24, 2020.

PARTYS REQUEST

Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Topanga Community Club (“Moving Party”) asks the Court to continue a mandatory settlement conference, trial and related dates for three months so Moving Party’s motion for summary judgment may be heard.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (a), “[t]o ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.” Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (b), “[a] party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.”

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that “[a]lthough continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.”  California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (d) sets forth factors that are relevant in determining whether to grant a continuance.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 allows a court to grant leave to complete discovery proceedings.  In doing so, a court shall consider matters relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity of the discovery, (2) the diligence in seeking the discovery or discovery motion, (3) the likelihood of interference with the trial calendar or prejudice to a party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between previous trial dates.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050.)

DISCUSSION

Moving Party argues there is good cause to continue trialMoving Party argues that April 27, 2020 was the earliest date it could obtain for a hearing on a motion for summary judgment.  (Siepler Decl., ¶ 8, Motion, p. 4:4-4:11.)  Trial has been four times.  (Sweets Decl., 6.)  The first continuance was because Plaintiff’s counsel had undergone surgery due to a medical complication.  (Siepler Reply Decl., 3.)  The second continuance was because “continuing discovery issues.”  (Siepler Reply Decl., ¶ 4.)  The third continuance was because of difficulties in obtaining Maximillion Salazar’s deposition.  (Siepler Reply Decl., ¶ 5.)  And the fourth continuance was for Plaintiff to depose Mr. Salazar and for the parties to participate in mediation.

The Court finds it in the interest of justice to continue trial.  The continuances were largely because of discovery issues.  Such discovery issues must be alleviated before filing a motion for summary judgment.  The Court finds the importance of Moving Party’s motion for summary judgment outweighs any prejudice caused by a short three-month continuance.  This case is not even three years old.  As such, the motion is properly granted.

The Court notes that there is no scheduled mandatory settlement conference, despite what the moving papers state.  As such, there is no mandatory settlement conference to continue.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

The Court orders trial shall be continued to May 28, 2020 at 8:30 a.m.  The Court also orders the final status conference date shall be continued to May 14, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.  Both hearings are to be held in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. to remain in relation to the May 28, 2020 trial date.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.