Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/13/2021 at 17:06:51 (UTC).

PATRICK GABB VS DMC MANAGEMENT COMPANY ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/27/2017 PATRICK GABB filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against DMC MANAGEMENT COMPANY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GEORGINA T. RIZK, MARK A. BORENSTEIN, KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE and SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5368

  • Filing Date:

    03/27/2017

  • 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

GEORGINA T. RIZK

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

GABB PATRICK

Defendants, Respondents and Not Classified By Court

DMC MANAGEMENT COMPANY

MOTIE APARTMENTS

F FRAME COMPANY

DOES 1-100

LARRABURE FRAMING INC. (DOE 1)

LARRABURE FRAMING INC. (DOE 2)

BLF INC. (DOE 2)

LARRABURE FRAMING INC. DOE 2

BLF INC. DOE 2

LARRABURE FRAMING INC. DOE 1

CALIFORNIA TRUSFRAME LLC DOE 3

BLF INC. DOE 2 DBA LARRABURE FRAMING

MOTIF APARTMENTS

ABER FENCE AND SUPPLY COMPANY INC.

BLF INC. DOE 2 DBA LARRABURE FRAMING INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

ABER FENCE AND SUPPLY COMPANY INC. [DOE 4]

RAVEN CONSTRUCTION INC. DBA AS DMC RAVEN CONSTRUCTION INC. DBA

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

BLF INC. DOE 2 DBA LARRABURE FRAMING

BLF INC. DOE 2 DBA LARRABURE FRAMING INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Cross Defendant

ROES 1 THROUGH 50

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN H. MITCHELL

MITCHELL JOHN HODGSON

MITCHELL JOHN HODGSON ESQ.

MITCHELL JOHN

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

LARIN MICHAEL J. ESQ.

LARIN MICHAEL JAY

STEFFY JUDITH J

LOUREIRO KARL ROBERT ESQ.

TAYLOR KENNETH ORVILLE III ESQ.

LARIN MICHAEL JAY ESQ.

PETERSON RICK L.

 

Court Documents

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

3/27/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

Request for Dismissal

3/17/2021: Request for Dismissal

[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

2/3/2021: [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

Reply - REPLY REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA TRUSFRAME, LLCS DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF KENNETH O. TAYLOR III IN SUPPORT THEREOF

2/4/2021: Reply - REPLY REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA TRUSFRAME, LLCS DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF KENNETH O. TAYLOR III IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: CONTINUANCE OF THE FEBRUARY 11, 2021 HEARING ...)

2/9/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: CONTINUANCE OF THE FEBRUARY 11, 2021 HEARING ...)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: CONTINUANCE OF THE FEBRUARY 11, 2021 HEARING ...) OF 02/09/2021

2/9/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: CONTINUANCE OF THE FEBRUARY 11, 2021 HEARING ...) OF 02/09/2021

[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

5/6/2020: [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

Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service

5/23/2019: Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service

Request for Dismissal

5/15/2019: Request for Dismissal

Ex Parte Application - JOINT EX PARTE APPLICATION BY PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING THE TRIAL DATE PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR SER

2/11/2019: Ex Parte Application - JOINT EX PARTE APPLICATION BY PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING THE TRIAL DATE PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR SER

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

1/2/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Notice - Notice of Errata

9/10/2018: Notice - Notice of Errata

DEFENDANT, BLF, INC. D/B/A LARRABURE FRAMING'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF, PATRICK GABB

9/11/2018: DEFENDANT, BLF, INC. D/B/A LARRABURE FRAMING'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF, PATRICK GABB

DEFENDANT, LARRABURE FRAMING, INC.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF, PATRICK GABB

9/5/2018: DEFENDANT, LARRABURE FRAMING, INC.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF, PATRICK GABB

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) -

9/6/2018: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) -

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint -

7/16/2018: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint -

29 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/02/2021
  • Hearing08/02/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2021
  • Hearing06/23/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2021
  • Hearing06/11/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2021
  • DocketMotion to Quash Service of Summons (TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS UPON RAVEN CONSTRUCTION, INC. (ERRONEOUSLY NAMED AND SERVED AS RAVEN CONSTRUCTION INC., WHICH DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS DMC RAVEN CONSTRUCTION) FOR UNTIMELY SERVICE OF PROCESS:); Filed by Raven Construction, Inc. dba as DMC Raven Construction, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Patrick Gabb (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2021
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Patrick Gabb (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (- Doe Defendant 3 - California Trusframe, LLC's Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint (CCP Section 430.10(e)-(f))) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2021
  • Docketat 3:30 PM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (- Doe Defendant 3 - California Trusframe, LLC's Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint (CCP Section 430.10(e)-(f))) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
59 More Docket Entries
  • 09/05/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by LARRABURE FRAMING, INC. (DOE 1) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2018
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint (Fictitious Name)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2018
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint; Filed by Patrick Gabb (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2018
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2018
  • DocketREQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Patrick Gabb (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2018
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Patrick Gabb (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC655368    Hearing Date: February 25, 2021    Dept: 29

Patrick Gabb v. DMC Management Co., et al.

Demurrer filed by Defendant California TrusFrame, LLC

TENTATIVE:

SUSTAIN the demurrer with leave to amend within 20 days.

ANALYSIS:

Legal Standard

Meet and Confer

Before filing a demurrer or motion to strike, the demurring and moving party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading sought to be stricken or demurred to, in person or telephonically, for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (CCP §§ 430.41.) The Court finds that Demurring Defendants have filed code-compliant meet and confer declarations. (Taylor Decl., ¶¶ 4-6; CCP § 430.41(a)(3)(B).)

Demurrer

Defendant can demur within the same period of time it has to answer the complaint, i.e., 30 days after service, unless extended by stipulation or court order. (CCP § 430.40(a).) However, an untimely demurrer may be considered by the court in its discretion. (Jackson v. Doe (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 742, 750.)

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

Sufficient facts are the essential facts of the case "with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficiently specific to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source, and extent of his cause of action.” (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 643-644.) "Whether the plaintiff will be able to prove the pleaded facts is irrelevant to ruling upon the demurrer." (Stevens v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 605, 609–610.)

A general demurrer may be taken to a complaint where “[t]he pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (CCP § 430.10(e).) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Wilson v. Transit Authority of City of Sacramento (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 716, 720-21.)

A demurrer may also be sustained if a complaint is “uncertain.” (CCP § 430.10(f).) Uncertainty exists where a complaint’s factual allegations are so confusing that they do not sufficiently apprise a defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.)

Discussion

1. Timeliness

As a preliminary matter, the parties dispute whether the demurrer is filed timely. Both parties agree that Plaintiff granted Demurring Defendant a 30-day extension to file a responsive pleading, which expired on December 20, 2020. (Taylor Reply Decl., ¶ 3.; Mitchell Decl., ¶ 6.) With respect to the timeliness of the demurrer, Demurring Defendant argues that the time to file a responsive pleading, i.e., demurrer, is extended or tolled by initiating a meet and confer between the parties. (Reply, 2:11-26.) Demurring Defendant does not provide any authority to support this proposition. The Court is not convinced by the argument.

Alternatively, Plaintiff contends that Demurring Defendant was in default by 30 days when it filed a demurrer to the complaint. Plaintiff asserts that his substantial rights have been prejudiced and that he has a right to take a default. Plaintiff does not explain how or what, if any, substantial rights have been prejudiced. Neither is the Court convinced by Plaintiff’s argument.

Even assuming Demurring Defendant failed to file timely responsive pleadings, here, the demurrer, within the extension granted by Plaintiff, the relevant rule specifically affords the Court discretion to consider the late demurrer. (See CCP § 430.40(a) [“A person against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may, within 30 days after service of the complaint or cross-complaint, demur to the complaint or cross-complaint.” (emphasis added).] The Court still retains its discretionary authority to consider the demurrer even if it was filed 30 days past due. (Jackson, supra, at 750. [“The trial court may exercise this discretion so long as its action does ‘not affect the substantial rights of the parties.’” (McAllister v. County of Monterey(2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 253, 281-82.)].) Accordingly, the Court will consider the “late” filing and issue a ruling on its merits.

2. General Demurrer to Both Causes of Action

The elements of a negligence cause of action are the existence of a duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury. (Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917-18.) The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. (Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) (26 Cal.4th 1200, 1205.) To establish that a defendant owed a duty to a plaintiff in a premises liability claim, the plaintiff must allege facts to show that the defendant owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the subject property. (Staats v. Vintner’s Golf Club, LLC (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 826, 832.)

Here, following is the extent of what the complaint alleges:

At all times herein mentioned, defendants, and each of them, were the agent, employee or principal of the remaining defendants, and in doing the acts herein alleged, acted within such capacity.

Defendants and each of them negligently failed to keep the work area free of objects on the floor at the bottom of the stairwell. Defendants and each of them had a duty to keep the area free from objects on the floor at the bottom of stairwells.

(Compl. p. 4.)

The complaint lacks any allegation that Demurring Defendant owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the subject property. Plaintiff argues that Demurring Defendant’s statements in the moving papers are sufficient to support the cause of action. However, this is not the standard on which the Court relies. In analyzing a demurrer to the complaint, the Court looks to defects on the face of the complaint, not any other extrinsic matters. (SKF Farms, supra, at 905.)

Since Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to show that Demurring Defendant owed a duty of care to Plaintiff in the complaint, the demurrer must be sustained in its entirety.

The Court will not examine whether the complaint is uncertain pursuant to CCP § 430.10(f) because the demurrer must be sustained based solely on Plaintiff’s failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Conclusion

Defendant California TrusFrame, LLC’s demurrer is SUSTAINED in its entirety with leave to amend within 20 days.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC655368    Hearing Date: February 11, 2021    Dept: 29

Gabb  vs.  DMC Management Co. et. al.

Court Order Re: Continuance of the February 11, 2021 Hearing to February 25, 2021;

On the Court's own motion, the Hearing Doe Defendant 3 - California Trusframe, LLC's Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint (CCP Section 430.10(e)-(f)) scheduled for 02/11/2021 is CONTINUED to 02/25/2021 at 01:30 PM in Department 29 at Spring Street Courthouse.

Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where DMC MANAGEMENT COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases where ABER FENCE AND SUPPLY COMPANY INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where MOTIE APARTMENTS is a litigant

Latest cases where BLF INC is a litigant