This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/10/2019 at 01:23:18 (UTC).

RONALD HARNDEN VS ERIC MORENO ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/29/2018 a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury case was filed by RONALD HARNDEN against ERIC MORENO 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:

    ****2332

  • Filing Date:

    01/29/2018

  • 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

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

HARNDEN RONALD

Respondents and Defendants

MORENO ERIC

MIKE THOMPSON'S RECREATIONAL VEHICLE

DOES 1 THROUGH 25

MIKE THOMPSON RECREATIONAL VEHICLES SANTA FE SPRINGS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

MIKE THOMPSON RECREATIONAL VEHICLES SANTA FE SPRIINGS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

11/30/2018: Minute Order

Certificate of Mailing for

11/30/2018: Certificate of Mailing for

Notice of Deposit - Jury

3/13/2019: Notice of Deposit - Jury

Notice

3/13/2019: Notice

Answer

3/13/2019: Answer

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

3/13/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

3/22/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Request for Dismissal

3/29/2019: Request for Dismissal

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person

5/21/2019: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person

Notice

5/23/2019: Notice

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

6/8/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

6/8/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

6/25/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

6/25/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

6/25/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

6/25/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

SUMMONS

1/29/2018: SUMMONS

COMPLATNT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND DAMAGES 1. ASSAULT ;ETC

1/29/2018: COMPLATNT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND DAMAGES 1. ASSAULT ;ETC

6 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/23/2019
  • Notice (NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER); Filed by Eric Moreno (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District) (- FSC: 09-04-19 Trial: 09-17-19); Filed by Eric Moreno (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by Ronald Harnden (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Ronald Harnden (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • Answer (Mike Thompson's Recreational Vehicle, Fountain Valley, Inc's Answer to Pltf Complaint; Demand for Jury Trial); Filed by Mike Thompson's Recreational Vehicle, (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • Notice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Mike Thompson's Recreational Vehicle, (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • Notice (NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER); Filed by Mike Thompson's Recreational Vehicle, (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • Notice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by Mike Thompson's Recreational Vehicle, (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (Stipulation to Set Aside Default of Defendant Mike Thompson's Recreational Vehicle, Fountain Valley, Inc. and Proposed Order); Filed by Mike Thompson's Recreational Vehicle, (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2018
  • at 08:58 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
7 More Docket Entries
  • 06/25/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2018
  • Default Entered; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2018
  • REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2018
  • REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2018
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2018
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2018
  • REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2018
  • COMPLATNT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND DAMAGES 1. ASSAULT ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Ronald Harnden (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC692332    Hearing Date: February 07, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

ronald harnden,

Plaintiff,

v.

eric moreno, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC692332

Hearing Date: February 7, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE amended Complaint

Background

Plaintiff Ronald Harnden (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Mike Thompson Recreational Vehicles, Santa Fe Springs (“Defendant”) after Defendant’s then-employee, Eric Moreno (“Moreno”), attacked Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the complaint, which Defendant opposes. The motion is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) “[T]here is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.” (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296-297.)

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.132424, a motion to amend a pleading must include a copy of the proposed amendment and state the allegations that the moving party proposes to add or delete.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (a).) California Rules of Court, rule 3.124 also requires that the moving party advance a declaration stating the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff relies on the declaration of his counsel, Thomas M. Willford (“Counsel”). Counsel states that he did not realize the complaint did not specifically allege that Defendant is liable on a vicarious liability theory until Defendant’s counsel raised the issue at the pre-trial conference. (Declaration of Thomas M. Willford, ¶ 9.) In the operative complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendant is liable because it knew or should have known that Moreno was prone to violence. (Complaint, ¶ 21.) An employer is vicariously liable for an employee’s torts if the employer could reasonably have foreseen the employee’s wrongful conduct. (Alma W. v. Oakland Unified School Dist. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 133, 139.) The Court must liberally construe the complaint in Plaintiff’s favor. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) Further, the Court must ignore “[e]rroneous or confusing labels attached by the inept pleader . . . .” (Saunders v. Cariss (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 905, 908.) Thus, the Court concludes that the complaint put Defendant on adequate notice that Plaintiff sought to hold Defendant liable for Moreno’s actions on a respondeat superior basis.

The Court also finds that any prejudice to Defendant can be mitigated, favoring amendment. (See Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) Defendant requests that, as a condition of granting the motion, the Court permit Defendant to serve an amended answer to the amended complaint, conduct additional written discovery on the vicarious liability theory, and that the Court not set the trial date earlier than May 4, 2020. These requests are reasonable.

Defendant also asks the Court to order Plaintiff to pay $10,780 in attorneys’ fees, which Defendant claims it incurred in connection with preparation for the vacated trial date and opposing Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial. The Court normally could consider such a request. However, Defendant does not describe the nature of the work that was purportedly performed. Nor does Defendant offer any billing records. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not been afforded an adequate opportunity to oppose the award. Similarly, the Court does not have sufficient information to determine whether this amount is reasonable and, if not, what amount would be reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, the Court denies the request for sanctions as it is not properly supported.

Conclusion and order

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is granted. Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint within ten days. Defendant’s amended answer is due within twenty days. The Court sets the following dates:

Final Status Conference: July 8, 2020, at 10:00 a.m.

Trial: July 22, 2020, at 8:30 a.m.

The discovery and motions cut-off shall be based on the new trial date. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: February 7, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court