This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/16/2022 at 02:04:31 (UTC).

SADIE KRAFT VS RANDOLPH HOTEL, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 08/12/2019 SADIE KRAFT filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against RANDOLPH HOTEL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DAVID J. COWAN and SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******8159

  • Filing Date:

    08/12/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DAVID J. COWAN

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

KRAFT SADIE

Defendants

NK PROPERTIES INC.

NINETTE PATEL

PATEL RANDOLPH

LIDO MOTEL INC.

PATEL MIKE

RANDOLPH HOTEL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

ROSEN JANFAZA ILAN N.

JANFAZA ILAN N. ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

BOST WHITNEY LEIGH ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

1/25/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

3/11/2021: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Personal Service

3/11/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service

3/11/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service

3/11/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

3/11/2021: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

3/11/2021: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF ILAN N. ROSEN JANFAZA

5/10/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF ILAN N. ROSEN JANFAZA

Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

5/17/2021: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

5/17/2021: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

Notice of Ruling

5/18/2021: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE; TRI...)

5/18/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE; TRI...)

Request for Dismissal

6/7/2021: Request for Dismissal

Case Management Statement

6/11/2021: Case Management Statement

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

6/11/2021: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES

6/15/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES

6/15/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES

Reply - REPLY REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE

6/21/2021: Reply - REPLY REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE

32 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/18/2022
  • Hearing01/18/2022 at 2:30 PM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2022
  • Hearing01/18/2022 at 2:30 PM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2022
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by NK Properties, Inc. (Defendant); Mike Patel (Defendant); Patel Ninette (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2022
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Sadie Kraft (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2021
  • DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by Sadie Kraft (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling (Regarding Defendants Demurrer and Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint); Filed by NK Properties, Inc. (Defendant); Mike Patel (Defendant); Patel Ninette (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2021
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department C; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) (on Behalf of Defendants NK Properties, Inc. DBA Randolph Hotel, Mike Patel, Ninette Patel and Lido Motel, Inc.) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) on B...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2021
  • DocketCourt Order/Ruling (Hearing 11-18-21); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2021
  • Docketat 09:31 AM in Department F; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
39 More Docket Entries
  • 02/08/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2019
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([PI General Order], Standing Order re PI Procedures and Hearing Dates); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2019
  • DocketPI General Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/13/2019
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/12/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/12/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Sadie Kraft (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/12/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Sadie Kraft (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/12/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Sadie Kraft (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 19STCV28159 Hearing Date: November 18, 2021 Dept: C

KRAFT v. RANDOLPH HOTEL

\r\n\r\n

CASE NO.: 19STCV28159

\r\n\r\n

HEARING: 11/18/21

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

#3

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE ORDER

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\nI. \r\nDefendants NK PROPERTIES, INC; MIKE PATEL; and\r\nNINETTE PATEL’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED without\r\nleave to amend in part; OVERRULED in part; and SUSTAINED with 30 days leave to\r\namend in part.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nDefendants NK PROPERTIES, INC; MIKE PATEL; and\r\nNINETTE PATEL’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED\r\nwith 30 days leave to amend.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving Party to give Notice.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On June 9, 2021, a Request for Dismissal as to Defendant\r\nLIDO MOTEL, INC. was entered.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

This personal injury action was filed by Plaintiff SADIE\r\nKRAFT (“Plaintiff”) on August 12, 2019. Plaintiff alleges that “[o]n or about\r\nAugust 12, 2017, Plaintiff… checked in at the hotel…. [¶] On or about August\r\n16, 2017, [Plaintiff] discovered multiple bite marks on her body, but was\r\nunsure of the cause.” (Complaint ¶¶17-18.) “On or about August 20, 2017,\r\n[Plaintiff] sought medical care… where she was diagnosed with bedbug bites….”\r\n(Complaint ¶20.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts the following causes of\r\naction: (1) Battery; (2) Negligence; (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional\r\nDistress; (4) Fraudulent Concealment; (5) Private Nuisance; and (6) Public\r\nNuisance.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants NK PROPERTIES, INC; MIKE PATEL; and NINETTE PATEL\r\n(collectively “Defendants”) generally demur to the first, third, fourth, fifth,\r\nand sixth causes of action.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

First Cause of Action – Battery

\r\n\r\n

“The essential elements of a cause of action for battery\r\nare: (1) defendant touched plaintiff, or caused plaintiff to be touched, with\r\nthe intent to harm or offend plaintiff; (2) plaintiff did not consent to the\r\ntouching; (3) plaintiff was harmed or offended by defendant’s conduct; and (4)\r\na reasonable person in plaintiff’s position would have been offended by the\r\ntouching” (So v. Shin (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 652, 668-669.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants…had prior knowledge of\r\nbedbug infestations in their hotel…. [¶] Defendants…deliberately chose not to\r\nnotify, or otherwise failed to notify Plaintiff, of the presence of Cimex\r\nlectularius in Plaintiff’s room.” (Complaint ¶¶25-26.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s allegations are devoid of factual allegations\r\nshowing how Defendant, or its employees or agents, intentionally touched or\r\nintentionally harmed Plaintiff.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In support of his battery claim, Plaintiff relies heavily on\r\na Seventh Circuit case, Mathias v. Acor Econ Lodging, Inc. (7th Cir.\r\n2003) 347 F.3d 672. However, Mathias is no more than persuasive\r\nauthority here, as it is governed by Illinois law and was not decided by\r\nCalifornia principles. Further, although Mathias involved allegations\r\nrelated to bedbug exposure, the Mathias Court did not conclude that\r\nbattery was a valid claim—rather, the issue was addressed as a hypothetical.\r\n(See Mathias v. Accor Econ. Lodging, Inc. (7th Cir. 2003) 347 F.3d 672,\r\n675. [“Its failure either to warn guests or to take effective measures to\r\neliminate the bedbugs amounted to fraud and probably to battery as\r\nwell….”].)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff does not cite any binding California authority in\r\nOpposition that would support her claim for battery. Accordingly, the demurrer\r\nto the second cause of action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Third Cause of Action – Intentional Infliction of\r\nEmotional Distress

\r\n\r\n

A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional\r\ndistress consists of three elements: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the\r\nDefendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard for the\r\npossibility of causing, emotional distress; (2) Plaintiff suffering severe or\r\nextreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional\r\ndistress by Defendant’s outrageous conduct. (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46\r\nCal.4th 1035, 1050.) Outrageous conduct is defined as conduct that is “so\r\nextreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized\r\ncommunity.” (Id. at p. 1050-1051.) An action for intentional infliction\r\nof emotional distress may be premised on a landlord or property manager’s\r\nknowing, intentional, and willful failure to correct defective conditions of\r\nthe premises. (See Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057,\r\n1069.) The failure to correct defective conditions must be “directed at the\r\nplaintiff, or occur in the presence of a plaintiff of whom the defendant is\r\naware.” (Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965,\r\n1002.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The demurrer to third cause of action is OVERRULED.\r\nPlaintiff’s allegations, liberally construed for purposes of demurrer,\r\nsufficiently plead that Defendants knew about and failed to correct the bedbug\r\ninfestation after receiving notice. Whether that conduct be considered “outrageous”\r\nor whether Plaintiff’s injuries are sufficiently “severe” enough are factual\r\nissues. Plaintiff’s ability to prove his allegations are not properly\r\nadjudicated at this time.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Fourth Cause of Action – Fraudulent Concealment

\r\n\r\n

“[T]he elements of a cause of action for fraud and deceit\r\nbased on concealment are: (1) the defendant must have concealed or suppressed a\r\nmaterial fact, (2) the defendant must have been under a duty to disclose the\r\nfact to the plaintiff, (3) the defendant must have intentionally concealed or\r\nsuppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff, (f) the plaintiff\r\nmust have been unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he did if he had\r\nknown of the concealed or suppressed fact, and (5) as a result of the concealment\r\nor suppression of the fact, the plaintiff must have sustained damage.” (Marketing\r\nWest, Inc. v. Sanyo Fisher (USA) Corp. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 603, 612-613.)\r\n“Fraud must be pleaded with specificity… [t]o withstand a demurrer, the facts\r\nconstituting every element of the fraud must be alleged with particularity, and\r\nthe claim cannot be salvaged by references to the general policy favoring the\r\nliberal construction of pleadings. (Goldrich v. Natural Y Surgical\r\nSpecialties, Inc. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 772, 782.) “This particularity\r\nrequirement necessitates pleading facts which ‘show how, when, where, to whom,\r\nand by what means the representations were tendered.’” (Stansfield v.\r\nStarkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 73.) “The requirement of specific in a\r\nfraud action against a corporation requires the plaintiff to allege the names\r\nof the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their\r\nauthority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it\r\nwas said or written.” (Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. (1991) 2\r\nCal.App.4th 153, 157.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations are insufficient. Legal\r\nconclusions or mere recitations of law do not suffice. Plaintiff must plead\r\nfacts to show that Defendants had actual knowledge of the presence of bedbugs\r\nin Plaintiff’s room at the time Plaintiff was renting the room. The demurrer to\r\nthe fourth cause of action is SUSTAINED with 30 days leave to amend.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action – Nuisance

\r\n\r\n

A nuisance is statutorily defined as anything “injurious to\r\nhealth” or “indecent, or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction of the free\r\nuse of property” that interferes “with the comfortable enjoyment of life or\r\nproperty…” (Cal. Civ. Code §3479.) “A public nuisance is one which affects at\r\nthe same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number\r\nof persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon\r\nindividuals may be unequal.” (Cal. Civ. Code §3480.) “A private nuisance is a\r\ncivil wrong based on disturbance of rights in land.” (Koll-Irvine Center\r\nProperty Owners Assn. v. County of Orange (1994) 24 Cal. App. 4th 1036,\r\n1041.) In general, “to proceed on a private nuisance theory the plaintiff must\r\nprove an injury specifically referable to the use and enjoyment of his or her\r\nland. The injury, however, need not be different in kind from that suffered by\r\nthe general public.” (Id.) “So long as the interference is substantial\r\nand unreasonable, and such as would be offensive or inconvenient to the normal\r\nperson, virtually any disturbance of the enjoyment of the property may amount\r\nto a nuisance.” (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s fails to allege facts to support a claim for\r\npublic nuisance. Specifically, Plaintiff does not allege that a “considerable\r\nnumber of persons” were affected at the same time. With respect to Plaintiff’s\r\nclaim for private nuisance, the Court finds that Plaintiff lacks standing. As\r\nalleged, Plaintiff was merely a transient “lodger” and lacks a property\r\ninterest. (see Venuto v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. (1971) 22\r\nCal.App.3d 116, 125.) The demurrer to the fifth and sixth cause of action is\r\nSUSTAINED with 30 days leave to amend.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Motion to Strike

\r\n\r\n

A motion to strike lies either when (1) there is\r\n“irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading”; or (2) to\r\nstrike any pleading or part thereof “not drawn or filed in conformity with the\r\nlaws of this state, a court rule or order of court.” (CCP §436.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The basis for punitive damages must be pled with specificity. Plaintiff\r\nmust allege specific facts showing that Defendant’s conduct was oppressive,\r\nfraudulent, or malicious. (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) Cal.App.4th\r\n1033, 1041-1042.). Given the Court’s\r\nfindings above, the motion to strike punitive damages is GRANTED with 30 days\r\nleave to amend. As alleged, Plaintiff has failed to plead specific facts to\r\nmaintain a claim for punitive damages.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\nAttorney’s fees are not recoverable unless\r\nprovided for by contract or statute. (CCP §1021; 1033.5(a)(1); City of\r\nIndustry v. Gordon (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 90, 93.) Currently, Plaintiff’s\r\nComplaint does not allege a basis for attorney’s fees. However, where\r\nPlaintiff’s nuisance allegations may support a prayer for attorney’s fees\r\npursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §1021.5, the Motion to Strike is GRANTED with 30\r\ndays leave to amend. \r\n\r\n'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where NK PROPERTIES LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer ROSEN JANFAZA ILAN N