Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/12/2019 at 13:20:59 (UTC).

NEVERIA BARROS VS COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP

Case Summary

On 07/21/2017 NEVERIA BARROS filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GREGORY KEOSIAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9621

  • Filing Date:

    07/21/2017

  • 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 Judge

GREGORY KEOSIAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

BARROS NEVERIA

Defendants and Respondents

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP.

DOES 1 TO 50

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

MAHONEY LAW GROUP APC

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

BAZAZ GINA ESQ.

MURCHISON & CUMMING LLP

 

Court Documents

Stipulation and Order

1/22/2019: Stipulation and Order

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

5/3/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Proof of Service by Mail

5/3/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Declaration

5/3/2019: Declaration

Request for Judicial Notice

5/3/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Minute Order

11/17/2017: Minute Order

REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL AND NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES OF DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

11/20/2017: REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL AND NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES OF DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

CIVIL DEPOSIT

11/20/2017: CIVIL DEPOSIT

NOTICE OF RULING RE: CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

11/17/2017: NOTICE OF RULING RE: CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Unknown

10/20/2017: Unknown

NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

10/27/2017: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

NOTICE RE; CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

11/2/2017: NOTICE RE; CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

Unknown

11/3/2017: Unknown

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

7/21/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

Unknown

7/21/2017: Unknown

SUMMONS

7/21/2017: SUMMONS

NOTICE OF DEPOSIT OF JURY FEES

7/26/2017: NOTICE OF DEPOSIT OF JURY FEES

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

8/7/2017: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

15 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/07/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 61; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Memorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by Costco Wholesale Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Declaration (Declaration of Stephen Yamas in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication); Filed by Costco Wholesale Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Notice of Lodging (Notice of Lodgment of Out-of-State Cases); Filed by Costco Wholesale Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Costco Wholesale Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Notice of Lodging (Notice of Lodgment of Exhibits); Filed by Costco Wholesale Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Notice of Motion; Filed by Costco Wholesale Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Separate Statement; Filed by Costco Wholesale Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 61; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 61; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
33 More Docket Entries
  • 07/28/2017
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2017
  • NOTICE OF DEPOSIT OF JURY FEES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2017
  • Notice; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2017
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Neveria Barros (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Neveria Barros (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2017
  • Receipt-Depository; Filed by Neveria Barros (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC669621    Hearing Date: June 23, 2020    Dept: 76

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff alleges that she suffered a slip and fall injury while filling up gas at Defendant’s gas station, when the nozzle fell out of the pump midway through the fillup and continued to spray gas, creating a slick and slippery surface.

Plaintiff moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Neveria Barros’ motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs is to file a stand-alone copy of the First Amended Complaint today. The First Amended Complaint is deemed served as of the date of this order.

ANALYSIS

Motion For Leave To File First Amended Complaint

Discussion

Plaintiffs move for leave to file a First Amended Complaint to clarify allegations that the Court addressed in denying Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

“Leave to amend is in general required to be liberally granted (citation omitted), provided there is no statute of limitations concern. Leave to amend may be denied if there is prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. (Citation omitted.)” (Kolani v. Gluska (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 402.) Where an additional theory of liability is proposed against an existing defendant, this is not prejudice which would justify the denial of leave to amend. (See Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490. See also Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761: “[I]t is irrelevant that new legal theories are introduced as long as the proposed amendments 'relate to the same general set of facts.' [Citation.]" (Citation omitted.))

Plaintiffs does not seek to add new legal theories or causes of action, but rather only clarifying factual language.

Plaintiffs has identified what allegations are proposed to be deleted and added by page, paragraph and line number, as required by CRC Rule 3.1324(a)(2) & (3).

The Declaration of Michael Swift does not address the factors set forth in CRC Rule 3.1324(b), which states:

A separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify:

(1)  The effect of the amendment;

(2)  Why the amendment is necessary and proper;

(3)  When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and

(4)  The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

(CRC Rule 3.1324(b).)

However, the memorandum of points and authorities sufficiently addressed the above factors at Pages 5 – 6. A copy of the proposed amended complaint is attached to the Swift Declaration as Exh. A.

In light of the fact that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to the original Complaint was previously denied and a new trial date is yet to be set, there does not appear to be any prejudice to Defendant resulting from granting leave to amend.

Accordingly, the motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs is to file a stand-alone copy of the First Amended Complaint today. The First Amended Complaint is deemed served as of the date of this order.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BAZAZ GINA