This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/27/2020 at 13:55:48 (UTC).

RALPH CALVILLO VS CRAIG R WILLIMAS CONSTRUCTION

Case Summary

On 05/11/2018 RALPH CALVILLO filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CRAIG R WILLIMAS CONSTRUCTION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CHRISTOPHER K. LUI and DANIEL M. CROWLEY. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5420

  • Filing Date:

    05/11/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • 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

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

CALVILLO RALPH

Defendants and Respondents

CRAIG R. WILLIMAS CONSTRUCTION

DOES 1-90

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

MANN SCOTT ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

HOSP GILBERT BERGSTEN & HOUGH

BERGSTEN ROBERT TROY

 

Court Documents

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/21/2020

4/21/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/21/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

4/21/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

2/27/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

3/17/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Notice - NOTICE INDEX OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MSJ

11/25/2019: Notice - NOTICE INDEX OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MSJ

Separate Statement

11/25/2019: Separate Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED)

10/25/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT GRAIG R. WILLIAMS CONSTRUCTION, INC.'S EX PARTE APP...)

9/13/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT GRAIG R. WILLIAMS CONSTRUCTION, INC.'S EX PARTE APP...)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

9/13/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER CONTINUING MOTION TO DEEM ADMITTED REQUESTS FOR A...)

9/9/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER CONTINUING MOTION TO DEEM ADMITTED REQUESTS FOR A...)

Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

8/21/2019: Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

5/16/2019: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

5/16/2019: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Notice of Lien

5/21/2019: Notice of Lien

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (MOTION OF SCOTT MANN TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF) OF 06/13/2019

6/13/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (MOTION OF SCOTT MANN TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF) OF 06/13/2019

Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

6/13/2019: Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

8/1/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

6/27/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

21 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/21/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Entry of Judgment) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2020
  • DocketJudgment (Re: Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Craig R. Willimas Construction (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2020
  • Docketat 3:00 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 04/21/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
32 More Docket Entries
  • 05/16/2019
  • DocketDeclaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil; Filed by Scott, Mann, Esq. (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Ralph Calvillo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2018
  • DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT; REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Craig R. Willimas Construction (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Ralph Calvillo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2018
  • DocketPLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC705420    Hearing Date: February 27, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion for Summary Judgment, or alternatively Summary Adjudication

Having considered all documents submitted in support of the motion for summary judgment or alternatively summary adjudication, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On May 11, 2018, Plaintiff Ralph Calvillo (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Craig R. Williams Construction and Does 1 to 90 alleging general negligence for a head injury Plaintiff sustained while walking under a garage door at 841 Toulon Drive, Pacific Palisades, California when one of Defendant’s employees closed the garage door on Plaintiff’s head. On June 27, 2018, Defendant Craig R. Williams Construction, Inc., erroneously sued as Craig R. Williams Construction, (“Defendant”) filed an answer to the Complaint.

On June 21, 2019, Defendant served Request for Admission, Set One, on Plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to timely respond. On October 25, 2019, the Court deemed admitted all of Defendant’s Request for Admission, Set One.

On November 25, 2019, Defendant served this motion for summary judgment or alternatively summary adjudication on Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s opposition was due February 13, 2020. As of February 24, 2020, Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant requests the Court grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment or alternatively summary adjudication because Defendant has presented prima facie evidence that Plaintiff cannot raise a triable issue of material facto on an essential element of Plaintiff’s sole cause of action for general negligence.

LEGAL STANDARD

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to determine whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial.  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) (Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294.) exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c); Villa v. McFarren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733, 741.)

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the party moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate or establish an essential element. (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520.) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.¿(2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.) (See Leyva v. Superior Court (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 462, 475; Salesguevara v. Wyeth Labs., Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 379, 384, 387.)

Once the moving party has met the burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show via specific facts that a triable issue of material facts exists as to a cause of action or a defense thereto.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(o)(2).) (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(o)(1)-(2).)

ANALYSIS

A plaintiff in any negligence suit must demonstrate ‘a legal duty to use due care, a breach of such legal duty, and that the breach is the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.’” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1142 (brackets omitted)(quoting Beacon Residential Community Assn. v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (2014) 59 Cal.4th 568, 573).)

Here, Defendant presents prima facie evidence that Plaintiff has admitted Plaintiff cannot prove any element of Plaintiff’s negligence cause of action. Plaintiff, by his failure to timely respond to Defendant’s Request for Admission, Set One, admitted that Defendant did not owe Plaintiff any duty, and neither did Defendant’s employees or agents. (Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) 5.) Plaintiff has also admitted neither Defendant nor any of Defendant’s employees or agents breached any duty owed to Plaintiff. (UMF 6.) Plaintiff has admitted neither Defendant nor Defendant’s employees or agents caused any damages to Plaintiff. (UMF 7.) Plaintiff has admitted neither Defendant nor Defendant’s employees or agents were at fault for the incident. (UMF 8.) Plaintiff has admitted Plaintiff was not injured as a result of the incident. (UMF 9.) Plaintiff has admitted Plaintiff did not sustain any damages as a result of the incident. (UMF 10.) Plaintiff has admitted neither Defendant nor Defendant’s employees or agents were negligent in connection with the incident. (UMF 17.) Plaintiff has admitted Defendant and Defendant’s employees and agents exercised reasonable care in operating the garage door at the premises commonly known as 841 Toulon Drive, Pacific Palisades, California 90272 on May 31, 2017. (UMF 20.) The Court finds Defendant has presented prima facie evidence that Plaintiff cannot prove any element of Plaintiff’s negligence cause of action. The burden shifts to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff has failed to raise any argument or present any evidence in opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Court finds Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to raise a triable issue of material fact on the essential elements of his negligence cause of action.

Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to summary judgment having demonstrated there is no triable issue of material fact as to multiple essential elements of Plaintiff’s sole cause of action for general negligence.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Case Number: BC705420    Hearing Date: October 25, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admission

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.  No opposing papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

On May 11, 2018, Plaintiff Ralph Calvillo (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Craig R. Williams Construction (“Defendant”) for general negligence arising from an incident in which Defendant’s employee activated an automatic garage door and caused the garage door to come down on Plaintiff’s head.

On June 13, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel.

On August 21, 2019, Defendant filed the instant motion to deem admitted the requests for admission propounded on Plaintiff.

Trial is set for April 6, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant requests an order deeming admitted all matters set forth in Requests for Admission (Set One) propounded to Plaintiff pursuant to CCP section 2033.080(b).

Defendant also requests that the Court impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $844.00 against Plaintiff.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), a “party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010).”  The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

Defendant served Plaintiff with Requests for Admission (Set One) on June 21, 2019.  (Patel Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.)  Responses were due on July 26, 2019.  (Id., ¶ 4.)  To date, no responses have been received.  (Id.)

As Defendant properly served the Request for Admissions and Plaintiff failed to serve responses, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to an order establishing the truth of the matters asserted in the Request for Admissions (Set One) served on Plaintiff.

Defendant requests $844.00 ($160/hr x 4.9 hrs) in monetary sanctions.  (Patel Decl., ¶ 5.The Court finds this amount to be excessive given the motion is relatively basic and unopposed.  The Court thus awards monetary sanctions in a total amount of $320.00 ($160/hr x 2 hrs).

Based on the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED.

The Court deems the matters within Defendant’s Request for Admissions (Set One) as true against Plaintiff.

The Court also orders Plaintiff to pay Defendant $320.00 within 30 days of this order.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.