On 04/05/2018 OLIVIA TORRES filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against STATE OF CALIFORNIA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Chatsworth Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA A. SEIGLE, MELVIN D. SANDVIG and STEPHEN P. PFAHLER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Los Angeles, California
LAURA A. SEIGLE
MELVIN D. SANDVIG
STEPHEN P. PFAHLER
LOS ANGELES CITY OF
GOLDBERT JUSTIN FRANK
SALINAS ERIC ANDREWS JR.
CALIFORNIA DEPARMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CALIFORNIA STATE OF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY OF
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
SALINAS JR. ERIC ANDREWS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
GOLDBERG JUSTIN FRANK
HAFFNER JOSHUA H. ESQ.
JOHN A WRIGHT DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
SHCERER JEANNE E. CHIEF COUNSEL
WEISEL ERIC DAVID
HNATIUK NICHOLAS ALEXANDER
FEUER MICHAEL NELSON
6/22/2018: CROSS COMPLAINT - PERS. INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONG DEATH (2 PAGES) -
9/28/2020: Objection - OBJECTION PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANEGELES RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
9/30/2020: Affidavit - COMPENDIUM OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIAS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
9/16/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
7/14/2020: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES' MSJ
4/29/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER CONTINUING HEARING) OF 04/29/2020
2/5/2020: Reply - PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION SET, TWO, FROM DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
11/14/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)
9/5/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF OLIVIA TORRES BY DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS)
8/21/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)
5/2/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: SUMMONS ISSUED
6/3/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF COURT ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO INDEPENDENT COURT
5/23/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION BY DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ("CALTRANS") TO PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A COURT ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR PLAINTIFF'S M
5/15/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: BANKRUPTCY STATUS)
3/6/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information
6/6/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
6/7/2018: ANSWER OF THE DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
6/26/2018: Summons on Cross Complaint -
Hearing04/19/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department F47 at 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311; Non-Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing04/09/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department F47 at 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Hearing01/21/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department F47 at 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311; Hearing on Motion for Summary JudgmentRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Settlement; Filed by Olivia Torres (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation Erroneously Sued As State of California (Defendant); The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation Erroneously SuRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:30 AM in Department F49, Stephen P. Pfahler, Presiding; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) - Not Held - Rescheduled by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation Erroneously Sued As California Deparment of Transportation (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketAPPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVIL EX PARTERead MoreRead Less
DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketApplication ; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketAPPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM CIVILRead MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF REJECTION APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEMRead MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Olivia Torres (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Olivia Torres (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Olivia Torres (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC700996 Hearing Date: September 30, 2020 Dept: F47
Date: 9/30/20 TRIAL DATE: 4/19/21
Motion filed on 5/11/20.
MOVING PARTY: Defendant City of Los Angeles
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Olivia Torres
RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant City of Los Angeles and against Plaintiff Olivia Torres.
RULING: The motion is denied.
The parties are reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.
This action arises out of a multi-vehicle accident that occurred on 4/24/17, at about 1:20 a.m. on northbound State Route 27 (SR-27)/Topanga Canyon Boulevard near Santa Susana Pass Road. (Separate Statement (SS) 1). At the time of the accident, Defendant Salinas was traveling southbound on SR-27 when Salinas veered into the number one lane of northbound SR-27 and struck Plaintiff head-on in her vehicle. (SS 1, 2, 7). Plaintiff alleges that Topanga Canyon Boulevard was in a dangerous condition at the time of the accident and sued the State of California, the City of Los Angeles (City/Moving Party on this motion) and the County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff also sued Salinas and Goldberg, the owner of the vehicle Salinas was driving. Plaintiff’s complaint contains two causes of action: (1) negligence alleged against all defendants and (2) dangerous condition of public property alleged against the public entity defendants. The County of Los Angeles is no longer a party to the action.
The City moves for summary judgment on the grounds that: (1) Topanga Canyon Boulevard is a state highway under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State of California; (2) Plaintiff’s allegation that the City is liable for her injuries because it failed to provide adequate lighting on Topanga Canyon Boulevard is legally untenable; and (3) Plaintiff’s negligence cause of action is prohibited because Government Code 835 sets forth the exclusive remedy for injuries caused by an alleged dangerous condition of public property. Although the separate statement filed in support of the motion sets forth three issues, the City has not requested summary adjudication in the alternative to summary judgment. See CCP 437c(f); CRC 3.1350(b). Additionally, the grounds for summary judgment set forth in the notice of motion are not the verbatim issues set forth in the separate statement. See CRC 3.1350(b). Therefore, only the request for summary judgment will be considered.
The City’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted.
Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections (numbers 1-13) are overruled.
The City’s objections contained in its response to Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Additional Facts are not in proper format or supported by any authority. (See Response to PAF 16, 30, 34, 35, 36); CRC 3.1354(b). As such, they are overruled.
Although the motion is based, in part, on the ground that Topanga Canyon Boulevard is a state highway under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State of California, the reply concedes that “Topanga Canyon Boulevard, is a State Highway, which with the exception of street lighting within the jurisdictional limits of the city, is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State.” (emphasis added) (See Reply p.6:18-20). Additionally, the evidence establishes that the City has a maintenance agreement with Caltrans (the State of California) which relates to street lighting. (See Plaintiff’s Additional Facts (PAF) 19, 22-27).
While a municipality, such as the City, generally has no duty to light its streets, a duty to light, and liability for failure to do so, may arise from some peculiar condition rendering lighting necessary in order to make the streets safe for travel. See Antenor (1985) 174 CA3d 477, 483; Mixon (2012) 207 CA4th 124, 133. In this case, factors, in addition to lack of lighting, exist which establish a peculiar condition which creates a duty on the City to provide adequate lighting. Contrast Plattner (1999) 69 CA4th 1441, 1445; Huerta (2019) 39 CA5th 41, 46. Minimally, there is a question of fact as to whether the accident occurred on a portion of Topanga Canyon Boulevard that is curved (SS 5, 8; PAF 7, 8, 29). Additionally, there is evidence that the portion of Topanga Canyon Boulevard where the accident occurred has no median barriers, has no rumble strips between the northbound and southbound lanes, has heavy traffic volumes as it is used as an alternate route to the 405 freeway, and has a high speed limit and has no lighting. (PAF 28). There is also evidence of 70 accidents at or near the location of the subject accident from 2007 to 2017. (PAF 30).
Based on applicable lighting standards and the testimony of the Bureau of Streetlighting’s Person Most Knowledgeable, Evelinda Pena, a triable issue of material fact exists as to whether the City breached its duty to provide adequate lighting at the location of the accident. (See PAF 12, 32-36).
Contrary to the City’s assertion, Plaintiff’s government claim sufficiently put the City on notice of Plaintiff’s claim against it for dangerous condition of public property based on inadequate lighting. Plaintiff was merely required to provide information regarding the accident, including the date, place and other circumstances of the accident which gave rise to the claim. See Government Code 910(c). Plaintiff’s claim provides this basic information, plus additional information. (SS 3; PAF 38, 39). Plaintiff’s claim asserts, among other things, that respondents, including the City, negligently failed to maintain the subject roadway. (SS 3; PAF 38, 39). As noted above, the evidence shows that the City has a maintenance agreement with Caltrans (the State of California) which relates to street lighting. (See PAF19, 22-27). As such, the City was put on notice that litigation would proceed on a theory that the City negligently maintained the subject roadway, if the claim was denied. The fact that Plaintiff’s complaint adds further detail regarding inadequate lighting to the negligent maintenance claim is not a complete shift in the allegations. See Blair (1990) 218 CA3d 221, 225; Smith (1989) 214 CA3d 266, 276; Stevenson (1994) 24 CA4th 269, 278; Brownell (1992) 4 CA4th 787, 793.
The City’s claim that Plaintiff has failed to offer competent evidence that the portion of Topanga Canyon Boulevard where the accident occurred is within the jurisdictional limits of the City is improperly raised in the reply. The City, who has the initial burden on this motion, did not offer evidence that the accident occurred outside the jurisdictional limits of the City. (See Separate Statement, generally). Therefore, Plaintiff had no obligation to refute such a claim on this motion. See CCP 437c(p)(2); Aguilar (2001) 25 C4th 826, 850.