This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/28/2019 at 01:48:58 (UTC).

PAUL ROLLINS VS RELIANT URGENT CARE ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/01/2018 a Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle case was filed by PAUL ROLLINS against RELIANT URGENT CARE in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2196

  • Filing Date:

    02/01/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

ROLLINS PAUL

Defendants and Respondents

LOS ANGELES CITY OF

DOES 1 TO 75

CARLES CHRISTOPHER R.

RELIANT URGENT CARE

 

Court Documents

Notice of Deposit

7/12/2018: Notice of Deposit

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

12/14/2018: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Request for Judicial Notice

12/14/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Request for Judicial Notice

12/14/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

12/14/2018: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Declaration

1/14/2019: Declaration

Reply

1/22/2019: Reply

Motion to Compel

3/13/2019: Motion to Compel

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

3/27/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Minute Order

4/11/2019: Minute Order

Notice

4/12/2019: Notice

Request for Judicial Notice

4/12/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Minute Order

6/14/2019: Minute Order

NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FESS

7/16/2018: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FESS

CIVIL DEPOSIT

7/17/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

ANSWER OF CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO COMPLAINT; REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

4/19/2018: ANSWER OF CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO COMPLAINT; REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

3/20/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

3/20/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

28 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/18/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2019
  • at 11:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Informal Discovery Conference (IDC))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2019
  • Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts; Filed by Reliant Urgent Care (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Continue Trial and Defendant City of Los Angeles' Motion for Summary Judgment) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial and Defenda...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • Opposition (to Ex Parte App. to Continue Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Reliant Urgent Care (Defendant); Christopher R. Carles (Defendant); Los Angeles, City of (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (to Continue Trial and Defendant City of Los Angeles' Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Paul Rollins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Reliant Urgent Care (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (To Interrogatorries) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
41 More Docket Entries
  • 04/19/2018
  • ANSWER OF CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO COMPLAINT; REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Reliant Urgent Care (Defendant); Christopher R. Carles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • ANSWER OF RELIANT IMMEDIATE CARE MEDICAL GROUP AND CHRISTOPHER R. CARLES TO COMPLAINT; REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Paul Rollins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Paul Rollins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2018
  • COMPLAINT (1) NEGLIGENCE; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Paul Rollins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC692196    Hearing Date: February 20, 2020    Dept: SWB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. B

PAUL ROLLINS,

Plaintiff,

Case No.:

BC692196

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

RELIANT URGENT CARE, et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: February 20, 2020

Moving Parties: Plaintiff Paul Rollins

Responding Party: Defendant City of Los Angeles

Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

RULING

The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to file his First Amended Complaint within five days.

BACKGROUND

On February 1, 2018, plaintiff Paul Rollins filed a complaint against Reliant Urgent Care, Christopher R. Carles, and City of Los Angeles for (1) negligence, (2) negligent entrustment, (3) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, and (3) dangerous condition of public property. Plaintiff alleges that on August 25, 2017, at approximately 8:30 p.m., plaintiff arrived at LAX in order to visit a client in NY. Plaintiff permissibly entered a crosswalk in front of the Jet Blue terminal when he was struck by a 2016 Mercedes-Benz Metris, driven by defendant Carles and owned by Reliant. Plaintiff had just stepped off the curb between two roadways at the airport terminals, entering the cross-walk at the entrance to the Jet Blue Arrival terminals. Defendant Reliant’s transportation van, due to the poor layout of the terminal, insufficient signage and stop lights protecting pedestrians’ right of way, and defendant Carles’ failure to pay attention, did not stop for plaintiff while he was in the crosswalk, causing serious injuries and property damage.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

CCP § 473(a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal. App. 3d 1045, 1047.

Under CRC Rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.

Under CRC Rule 3.1324(b), 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.

Even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, a long, unwarranted and unexcused delay in presenting it may be a good reason for denial. In most cases, the factors for timeliness are: (1) lack of diligence in discovering the facts or in offering the amendment after knowledge of them; and (2) the effect of the delay on the adverse party. If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has discretion to deny leave to amend. Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal. App. 3d 486, 490. Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 471, 486-488.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests leave to file an amended complaint to add causes of action for breach of contract against defendants Reliant and the City and negligence per se against the City for its failure to perform a mandatory duty and revoke Reliant’s permit.

Plaintiff explains that he was injured when defendant Carles, driving Reliant Urgent Care’s medi-van hit plaintiff in a cross-walk at LAX. At the time, Reliant held an exclusive contract with the City of Los Angeles to provide medical transportation services at LAX as well as operate the only urgent care facility on premises. Reliant was responsible for all LAX travelers’ medical care for minor injuries. Plaintiff asserts that the contract and the Public Utilities Code require Reliant to maintain valid liability insurance while operating at LAX.

Plaintiff contends that throughout discovery, plaintiff learned that Reliant was contractually required to maintain valid liability insurance with a minimum limit of $1,000,000, and that several days before the incident, Reliant’s insurance lapsed. Under the terms of the contract, if Reliant failed to maintain liability insurance, the City must obtain insurance on Reliant’s behalf. Plaintiff argues that because Reliant failed to maintain liability insurance and the City failed to obtain insurance on Reliant’s behalf, both defendants breached their contract to which plaintiff is a third-party beneficiary. Plaintiff also contends that Reliant performed medical transportation services on behalf of the City under the Public Utilities Code, and that defendants’ failure to maintain liability insurance violated California law, thus subjecting the City to liability for its failure to enforce its contract.

In opposition, defendant City argues that the motion was untimely served and that it did not include a supporting declaration. Further, defendant contends, plaintiff’s arguments are without merit because plaintiff is not a third-party beneficiary of the contract between Reliant and City. The City was not required to obtain insurance; only that it had the right to procure such insurance. Further, defendant argues, although plaintiff asserts that City violated Gov. Code §815.6, plaintiff does not assert any actionable mandatory duty that City violated. Defendant argues that plaintiff’s reliance on Elson v. Public Utilities Commission (1975) 51 Cal. App. 3d 577, is inapplicable. City also argues that it will be severely prejudiced because it has already filed a motion for summary judgment. Further, defendant contends, plaintiff has provided no excuse for his delay in attempting to amend as he has been aware of the facts for more than two years. Moreover, even if the proposed causes of action had merit, plaintiff failed to comply with Gov. Code §945.4, which bars matters not set forth in a government claim.

In reply, plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration from counsel to satisfy the declaration requirements under CRC Rule 3.1324.

In light of the liberal policy in allowing amendment, the motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Case Number: BC692196    Hearing Date: February 19, 2020    Dept: SWB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. B

PAUL ROLLINS,

Plaintiff,

Case No.:

BC692196

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

RELIANT URGENT CARE, et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: February 20, 2020

Moving Parties: Plaintiff Paul Rollins

Responding Party: Defendant City of Los Angeles

Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

RULING

The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to file his First Amended Complaint within five days.

BACKGROUND

On February 1, 2018, plaintiff Paul Rollins filed a complaint against Reliant Urgent Care, Christopher R. Carles, and City of Los Angeles for (1) negligence, (2) negligent entrustment, (3) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, and (3) dangerous condition of public property. Plaintiff alleges that on August 25, 2017, at approximately 8:30 p.m., plaintiff arrived at LAX in order to visit a client in NY. Plaintiff permissibly entered a crosswalk in front of the Jet Blue terminal when he was struck by a 2016 Mercedes-Benz Metris, driven by defendant Carles and owned by Reliant. Plaintiff had just stepped off the curb between two roadways at the airport terminals, entering the cross-walk at the entrance to the Jet Blue Arrival terminals. Defendant Reliant’s transportation van, due to the poor layout of the terminal, insufficient signage and stop lights protecting pedestrians’ right of way, and defendant Carles’ failure to pay attention, did not stop for plaintiff while he was in the crosswalk, causing serious injuries and property damage.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

CCP § 473(a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal. App. 3d 1045, 1047.

Under CRC Rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.

Under CRC Rule 3.1324(b), 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.

Even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, a long, unwarranted and unexcused delay in presenting it may be a good reason for denial. In most cases, the factors for timeliness are: (1) lack of diligence in discovering the facts or in offering the amendment after knowledge of them; and (2) the effect of the delay on the adverse party. If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has discretion to deny leave to amend. Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal. App. 3d 486, 490. Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 471, 486-488.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests leave to file an amended complaint to add causes of action for breach of contract against defendants Reliant and the City and negligence per se against the City for its failure to perform a mandatory duty and revoke Reliant’s permit.

Plaintiff explains that he was injured when defendant Carles, driving Reliant Urgent Care’s medi-van hit plaintiff in a cross-walk at LAX. At the time, Reliant held an exclusive contract with the City of Los Angeles to provide medical transportation services at LAX as well as operate the only urgent care facility on premises. Reliant was responsible for all LAX travelers’ medical care for minor injuries. Plaintiff asserts that the contract and the Public Utilities Code require Reliant to maintain valid liability insurance while operating at LAX.

Plaintiff contends that throughout discovery, plaintiff learned that Reliant was contractually required to maintain valid liability insurance with a minimum limit of $1,000,000, and that several days before the incident, Reliant’s insurance lapsed. Under the terms of the contract, if Reliant failed to maintain liability insurance, the City must obtain insurance on Reliant’s behalf. Plaintiff argues that because Reliant failed to maintain liability insurance and the City failed to obtain insurance on Reliant’s behalf, both defendants breached their contract to which plaintiff is a third-party beneficiary. Plaintiff also contends that Reliant performed medical transportation services on behalf of the City under the Public Utilities Code, and that defendants’ failure to maintain liability insurance violated California law, thus subjecting the City to liability for its failure to enforce its contract.

In opposition, defendant City argues that the motion was untimely served and that it did not include a supporting declaration. Further, defendant contends, plaintiff’s arguments are without merit because plaintiff is not a third-party beneficiary of the contract between Reliant and City. The City was not required to obtain insurance; only that it had the right to procure such insurance. Further, defendant argues, although plaintiff asserts that City violated Gov. Code §815.6, plaintiff does not assert any actionable mandatory duty that City violated. Defendant argues that plaintiff’s reliance on Elson v. Public Utilities Commission (1975) 51 Cal. App. 3d 577, is inapplicable. City also argues that it will be severely prejudiced because it has already filed a motion for summary judgment. Further, defendant contends, plaintiff has provided no excuse for his delay in attempting to amend as he has been aware of the facts for more than two years. Moreover, even if the proposed causes of action had merit, plaintiff failed to comply with Gov. Code §945.4, which bars matters not set forth in a government claim.

In reply, plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration from counsel to satisfy the declaration requirements under CRC Rule 3.1324.

In light of the liberal policy in allowing amendment, the motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.