This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/10/2022 at 01:52:00 (UTC).

SAAKYAN SILVA VS BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES RETAIL GROUP, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 12/28/2020 SAAKYAN SILVA filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES RETAIL GROUP. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DANIEL M. CROWLEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******9369

  • Filing Date:

    12/28/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

SILVA SAAKYAN

Defendants

BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT CA INC.

BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES RETAIL GROUP

BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES RETAIL INC. DBA GLENDALE GALLERIA

DOES 1-100 INCLUSIVE

GLENDALE I MALL ASSOCIATES LP

Not Classified By Court

GLENDALE I MALL ASSOCIATES LP ERRONEOUSLY NAMED AND SERVED AS BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES RETAIL GROUP BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES RETAIL INC DBA GLENDALE GALLERIA BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT CA INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

BYBERG GREGORY B

Defendant Attorney

AVILA MICHAEL

 

Court Documents

Complaint

12/28/2020: Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

12/28/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Civil Case Cover Sheet

12/28/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

12/28/2020: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

PI General Order

2/1/2021: PI General Order

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [PI GENERAL ORDER], STANDING ORDER RE PI PROCEDURES AND HEARING DATE

2/1/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [PI GENERAL ORDER], STANDING ORDER RE PI PROCEDURES AND HEARING DATE

Notice - NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE PER SE

3/12/2021: Notice - NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE PER SE

Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING ON DEMURRER

4/13/2021: Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING ON DEMURRER

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLI...)

4/12/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLI...)

Proof of Personal Service

4/9/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service

4/9/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

5/21/2021: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT (1ST)

4/29/2021: Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT (1ST)

1 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/26/2023
  • Hearing12/26/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2022
  • Hearing06/27/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2022
  • Hearing06/13/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2021
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by SAAKYAN SILVA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2021
  • DocketAmended Complaint ( (1st)); Filed by SAAKYAN SILVA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling (on Demurrer); Filed by Glendale I Mall Associates, LP (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2021
  • Docketat 3:30 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Defendant's Demurrer to Plaintiff's Cause of action for Negli...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by SAAKYAN SILVA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by SAAKYAN SILVA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2021
  • DocketNotice (of Demurrer and Demurrer to Third Cause of Action for Negligence Per Se); Filed by Glendale I Mall Associates, LP (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([PI General Order], Standing Order re PI Procedures and Hearing Date); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2021
  • DocketPI General Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by SAAKYAN SILVA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by SAAKYAN SILVA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by SAAKYAN SILVA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCV49369    Hearing Date: April 12, 2021    Dept: 28

Demurrer without Motion to Strike

Having considered the demurring papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On December 28, 2020, Plaintiff Silva Saakyan (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Glendale I Mall Associates, LP (erroneously named and served as Brookfield Properties Retail Group, Brookfield Properties Retail Inc, DBA Glendale Galleria, and Brookfield Properties Management (CA) Inc.) (“Defendant”).  Plaintiff alleges negligence, premises liability, and negligence per se in the complaint arising from a trip-and-fall that occurred on December 28, 2019.

On March 12, 2021, Defendant filed a demurrer to the complaint pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10.

Trial is set for June 27, 2022.

PARTYS REQUEST

Defendant asks the Court to sustain its demurrer to Plaintiff’s cause of action for negligence per se because negligence per se is not a recognized cause of action.

LEGAL STANDARD

Meet and Confer

Before filing a demurrer, the demurring party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to in person or by telephone 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. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41.)

Demurrer

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 p. 747.) The ultimate facts alleged in the complaint must be deemed true, as well as all facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged. (Marshall v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1397, 1403; see also Shields v. County of San Diego (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 103, 133 [stating, “[o]n demurrer, pleadings are read liberally and allegations contained therein are assumed to be true”].)

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

The Court finds Defendant has filed a code-compliant meet and confer declaration. Aliva Decl., ¶ 3.)

Demurrer

The elements for negligence are: (1) a legal duty owed to the plaintiff to use due care; (2) breach of duty; (3) causation; and (4) damage to the plaintiff. (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.)

“Ordinarily, negligence may be alleged in general terms, without specific facts showing how the injury occurred, but there are ‘limits to the generality with which a plaintiff is permitted to state his cause of action, and . . . the plaintiff must indicate the acts or omissions which are said to have been negligently performed. He may not recover upon the bare statement that the defendant’s negligence has caused him injury.’ [Citation].” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 527.) However, there is no requirement that plaintiff identify and allege the precise moment of the injury or the exact nature of the wrongful act. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

Negligence per se is not a distinct cause of action, but merely creates a presumption affecting the standard of care for negligence. (Johnson v. Honeywell Internat. Inc. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 549, 555.) § 669; Ramirez v. Nelson (2008) 44 Cal.App.4th 908, 917-918.)

Defendant asks the Court to sustain Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s negligence per se cause of action solely because it is not recognized as an independent cause of action.  Viewing the allegations in the complaint in context and liberally, the Court views Plaintiff’s negligence per se cause of action as merely another count of Plaintiff’s ordinary negligence cause of action.  The Court does not address whether Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a cause of action for negligence because Defendant does not argue such.  The demurrer is overruled.

CONCLUSION

The demurrer is OVERRULED.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Defendant is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where GLENDALE I MALL ASSOCIATES LP A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AKA GLENDALE GALLERIA is a litigant

Latest cases where BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES MANAGMENT CA INC. A DELAWARE CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases where BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES RETAIL INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BYBERG GREGORY B. ESQ.