This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/04/2022 at 17:16:46 (UTC).

PAUL MARTIGNETTI VS PROSPECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS INC

Case Summary

On 04/21/2017 PAUL MARTIGNETTI filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against PROSPECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are SERENA R. MURILLO, MARK A. BORENSTEIN and JILL FEENEY. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8958

  • Filing Date:

    04/21/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

SERENA R. MURILLO

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

JILL FEENEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

MARTIGNETTI PAUL

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

DOE ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER

PROSPECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS INC

LIFTECH ELEVATOR SERVICE INC. DOE 2

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS INC. [DOE 1]

KONE INC. [DOE 3]

SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION

Cross Defendants and Defendants

LIFTECH ELEVATOR SERVICE INC. DOE 2

ROE ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

AZIZI DAVID ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

DANNER MICHAEL JOHN ESQ.

O'DAY DALLAS JOHN ESQ.

RAMSEY LAWRENCE ROBERT ESQ.

Cross Plaintiff Attorney

HOFFMAN BRIAN LEE ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Judgment - JUDGMENT FINAL JUDGMENT GRANTING DEFENDANT SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

11/1/2021: Judgment - JUDGMENT FINAL JUDGMENT GRANTING DEFENDANT SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Judgment - JUDGMENT FINAL JUDGMENT GRANTING DEFENDANT KONE INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

11/1/2021: Judgment - JUDGMENT FINAL JUDGMENT GRANTING DEFENDANT KONE INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

11/2/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Request for Dismissal

12/27/2021: Request for Dismissal

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

12/28/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

[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

2/9/2021: [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

Notice of Ruling

10/14/2020: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (- HEARING ON DEFENDANT KONE, INC. (DOE 3)'S MOTION FOR SUMMA...)

6/25/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (- HEARING ON DEFENDANT KONE, INC. (DOE 3)'S MOTION FOR SUMMA...)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: CONTINUING THE 06/22/2020 HEARING ON DEFENDA...) OF 06/15/2020

6/15/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: CONTINUING THE 06/22/2020 HEARING ON DEFENDA...) OF 06/15/2020

Notice - NOTICE OF NON-FILING OR RECEIPT OF OPPOSITION PAPERS RE KONE INC. MSJ

6/15/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF NON-FILING OR RECEIPT OF OPPOSITION PAPERS RE KONE INC. MSJ

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: CONTINUING THE 06/22/2020 HEARING ON DEFENDA...)

6/15/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: CONTINUING THE 06/22/2020 HEARING ON DEFENDA...)

Notice - NOTICE OF NON-RECEIPT AND NON-FILING OF OPPOSITION TO SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

6/17/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF NON-RECEIPT AND NON-FILING OF OPPOSITION TO SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: COVID-19;) OF 06/19/2020

6/19/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: COVID-19;) OF 06/19/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: COVID-19;)

6/19/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: COVID-19;)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL)

3/6/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL

3/6/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL

Notice of Ruling

3/9/2020: Notice of Ruling

Separate Statement

4/3/2020: Separate Statement

42 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/08/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 30, Jill Feeney, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/05/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 30, Jill Feeney, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/28/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 30, Jill Feeney, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/28/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/27/2021
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Paul Martignetti (Plaintiff); Liftech Elevator Service Inc. (DOE 2) (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/18/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 30, Jill Feeney, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/02/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 30, Jill Feeney, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/02/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/01/2021
  • DocketJudgment (Final Judgment Granting Defendant KONE Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Kone, Inc. [Doe 3] (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/01/2021
  • DocketJudgment (Final Judgment Granting Defendant Schindler Elevator Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
82 More Docket Entries
  • 06/02/2017
  • DocketREQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/02/2017
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Paul Martignetti (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/02/2017
  • DocketPartial Dismissal (w/o Prejudice); Filed by Paul Martignetti (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/23/2017
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint; Filed by Paul Martignetti (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/23/2017
  • DocketAMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/03/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/03/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Paul Martignetti (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/21/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE 2. PREMISES LIABILITY 3. STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/21/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Paul Martignetti (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/21/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****8958    Hearing Date: June 26, 2020    Dept: 29

Martignetti v. Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. et al.

Defendant Schindler Elevator Corporation’s (Doe 4) Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Defendant Kone Inc.’s (Doe 3) Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication is also GRANTED. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. ; 437c(p)(2). Summary judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Schindler Elevator Corporation and Kone, Inc. and against Plaintiff Paul Martignetti.

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on December 31, 2015, Plaintiff was exiting an elevator at his workplace when the elevator malfunctioned, causing severe injuries. Plaintiff asserts three causes of action against Defendants Schindler and Kone (along with other defendants): negligence; premises liability; and strict products liability. Schindler and Kone have moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff has not opposed the motions

SCHINDLER’S MOTION

Plaintiff contends that while he was exiting the elevator in question, the elevator’s sensors failed to detect the presence of his foot, and closed on his foot, crushing it. Schindler presents the declarations of Denis Davis, Schindler’s general manager, and John Donnelly, an elevator expert. Plaintiff has not objected to either declaration. The declarations recite the following facts. The elevator was originally manufactured and installed by Montgomery Elevator Company in approximately 1970. Since that time, the elevator has been modernized, including the replacement and updating of the components involved in this incident. According to Mr. Donnelly, those components include the GAL door operator assembly and CEDES light curtain device. Neither of those components were designed or manufactured by Schindler or any predecessor corporation and Schindler was not under any contractual duty to service, maintain or repair the elevators at the time of the incident. Schindler had not had a contract to service, maintain or repair the elevator for at least 14 years prior to the incident. Schindler does not own or control the property on which the incident occurred.

As to the negligence and premises liability claims, Schindler has met its initial burden of establishing that it did not owe any duty to Plaintiff to prevent the incident at issue here. To prove premises liability, the plaintiff must show that the defendant owned or controlled the premises in question. (Sprecher v. Adamson Companies (1981) 30 Cal.3d 358, 368.) Schindler did not own or control the building or elevator here and was not involved in the operation, maintenance or service of the elevator at the relevant time. The burden thus shifted to the Plaintiff, who has not responded and thus has not controverted any fact or raised any viable theory of duty. Schindler is thus entitled to judgment on these claims.

Schindler has also met its initial burden with respect to the products liability claim. Tort liability is imposed on “a manufacturer, distributor or retailer . . . if a defect in the manufacture or design of its product causes injury while the product is being used in a reasonably foreseeable way.” (Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 548, 560.) A manufacturer, distributor or retailer can be held strictly liable for defects in the design, manufacture or warnings of its products. (Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 987, 995. Here, Schindler presented evidence that Schindler did not manufacture, design or install the original elevator or the updated component parts that were involved in the incident. The burden thus shifted to Plaintiff to present controverting evidence (or to object to or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s evidence). Plaintiff failed to respond. Schindler is thus entitled to judgment on the products liability claim as well.

In sum, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of Schindler and against Plaintiff.

KONE’S MOTION

Defendant Kone, Inc. moves for summary judgment on similar grounds. Kone relies on a declaration of its retained elevator expert Davis L. Turner. Plaintiff has not objected to this declaration and thus the Court does not consider whether the declaration is subject to objection pursuant to People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal. 4th 665 or on any other grounds. Based on a review of relevant records and his inspection of the subject elevator, Mr. Turner recites the following facts and opinions: The elevator was manufactured and installed by Montgomery Elevator Company, the predecessor company to Kone, Inc. The components involved in this incident, however, had been changed since the original installation. Specifically, the original door operator, door reversal device and operational and motion controllers had been upgraded and replaced. These components were not designed, manufactured or installed by Kone. Kone had no control over the elevator for over twenty years prior to the date of the alleged incident.

For the reasons stated above in connection with Schindler’s motion, Kone has met is initial burden. Kone did not own or control the premises and had had no involvement with the elevator for more than two decades prior to the incident. Kone thus did not owe Plaintiff a duty under either a general negligence or premises liability theory.

With respect to the products liability claim, a plaintiff must prove that that the defect existed when it left the defendant’s possession. (CACI 1201; Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1384). A defendant is not liable for an injury caused by a defective product where the product has been altered and is no longer in the same condition as when it left the defendant’s possession. (Putensen v. Clay Adams, Inc. (1970) 12 Cal. App. 3d 1062, 1072.)

Here, Kone met its initial burden in establishing that the component parts involved in the incident had been changed since the elevator’s original installation and Plaintiff has not raised a triable issue of fact.

In sum, the Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Kone and against Plaintiff.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where KONE INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE SYSTEM INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where PROSPECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where Schindler Elevator Corporation is a litigant