This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/22/2019 at 01:00:27 (UTC).

SHIRIN SHADPOUR VS JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/26/2018 a Contract - Other Contract case was filed by SHIRIN SHADPOUR against JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC 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:

    ****9619

  • Filing Date:

    03/26/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

BARBARA M. SCHEPER

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

SHADPOUR SHIRIN

Defendants and Respondents

HORNBURG JAGUAR/LAND ROVER

JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC

DOES 1 TO 20

PENEGON WEST INC.

 

Court Documents

Notice

5/23/2019: Notice

Declaration

5/2/2019: Declaration

Opposition

4/11/2019: Opposition

Declaration

4/11/2019: Declaration

Objection

4/11/2019: Objection

Objection

4/11/2019: Objection

Motion for Attorney Fees

4/2/2019: Motion for Attorney Fees

Minute Order

9/11/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND ETC.

8/29/2018: NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND ETC.

Minute Order

8/31/2018: Minute Order

DEFENDANT PENEGON WEST, INC. DBA HORNBURG JAGUAR LAND ROVER'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY ACTION; ETC.

7/19/2018: DEFENDANT PENEGON WEST, INC. DBA HORNBURG JAGUAR LAND ROVER'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY ACTION; ETC.

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

6/28/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

7/2/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

7/11/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

DEFENDANT JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC'S ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT

5/7/2018: DEFENDANT JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC'S ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/10/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

3/26/2018: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

35 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/11/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 30, Barbara M. Scheper, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (of Settled Case) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2019
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by Shirin Shadpour (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • Request for Refund / Order; Filed by Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • Notice ( OF ENTRY OF ORDER AWARDING PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS); Filed by Shirin Shadpour (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • at 2:42 PM in Department 30, Barbara M. Scheper, Presiding; Ruling on Submitted Matter

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter) of 05/20/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Ruling on Submitted Matter)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 30, Barbara M. Scheper, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review (Re Receipt of Supplemental Documents and Submission of Motion) - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review Re Receipt of Supplemental Documen...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Brief (Defendants' Supplemental Brief In Support of Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Statutory Damages, Attorney's Fees, and Summary of Award); Filed by Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (Defendant); Penegon West, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
63 More Docket Entries
  • 05/29/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2018
  • DEFENDANT JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC'S ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Shirin Shadpour (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC699619    Hearing Date: March 13, 2020    Dept: E

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[CCP § 437c; CRC 3.1350 et seq.]

Date: 3/13/20                                   

Case: Silvia Pirali v. James C. Long, Jr. et al. (BC669619)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Flatiron Construction Corporation’s unopposed request for judicial notice is GRANTED. Plaintiff Silvia Pirali’s objections are OVERRULED.

Flatiron moves for summary judgment against Pirali on her complaint and against defendant James C. Long, Jr. on his cross-complaint, arguing that plaintiff cannot establish Flatiron was negligent because Flatiron had no operations on I-210 West before 10:40 p.m. on July 24, 2015 when the subject accident took place.

Flatiron points out that plaintiff testified she never saw active construction work in the center median of the westbound 210 before or after the collision. (Def. UMF 5-11 and evidence cited.) Long and witness William Winters also testified that they do not know where on the 210 freeway they saw the loader that purportedly dropped debris on the westbound 210 where plaintiff Pirali and defendant Long collided or who was operating the equipment. (Def. UMF 13, 18, 19 and evidence cited.) Flatiron also presents the declarations of foreperson Alan Stolze. Stolze declares that demolition and haul away of center median material on the 210 Freeway did not begin until after lane closure procedures were implemented. (Def. UMF 24 and evidence cited.) The westbound number 1 lane where defendant Long contends that a loader dropped concrete was not closed until 10:40 p.m., while the subject collision occurred before 10:00 p.m. (Def. UMF 1, 12, and 28 and evidence cited.) Construction Supervisor Joe Valencia also declared that neither Flatiron nor any project subcontractor were hauling materials at the center median around the Pennsylvania Avenue undercrossing before 10:15 p.m. on July 24, 2015. (Valencia Decl. ¶ 9.)

Based on the above-discussed evidence, Flatiron has satisfied its initial burden of production in showing that it had no involvement in the dropping of the concrete debris that caused defendant Long to collide with plaintiff. The burden shifts to plaintiff to establish involvement on the part of Flatiron.

Plaintiff presents evidence that Flatiron may have commenced construction activity in the center median prior to the stated 10:00 p.m. start of closure of the westbound number 1 and 2 lanes on Interstate 210. The deposition testimony of defendant Long, as well as witnesses Winters and Officer Andrew McAllister, establish a triable issue as to whether there was construction activity in the center median prior to 10:00 p.m. on July 24, 2015 and prior to the closure of the westbound number 1 and 2 lanes on I-210 where the subject collision occurred. (Pl. DMF [“Dispute to Def. Fact”] 25 and 28 and evidence cited.) Long testified that there was a truck placing cones in the far-left lane about five minutes prior to the accident. (Pl. DMF 15 and evidence cited.) Officer McAllister testified that the debris was located 0.25 miles east of Pennsylvania Avenue, which is where the collision occurred, and that there was no lane closure. (Pl. DMF 18 and 26 and evidence cited.)

CalTrans Transportation Engineer Bang Chau also testified in deposition that CalTrans hired Flatiron to demolish existing concrete barriers and haul away concrete debris. (Pl. AMF [“Additional Material Fact”] 8 and evidence cited.) Chau also testified that individuals associated with CalTrans, Flatiron, or Flatiron’s subcontractors were the only individuals allowed on the subject 210 project and that Flatiron and its subcontractors had control over the dump trucks, front loaders, and bobcats used for the project. (Pl. AMF 11 and 13 and evidence cited.) While Flatiron attempts to attribute the debris to co-defendant Security Paving, the Safety and Risk Manager for Security Paving testified that it contracted with CalTrans to perform work on a different part of the 210 Freeway than where the incident occurred, and that Security Paving never performed work near the Pennsylvania Avenue exit where the accident occurred in 2015. (Pl. DMF 39, AMF 12 and 14 and evidence cited.)

The time card of Flatiron employee David Leal showing that Leal began work at 9:00 p.m. on July 24, 2015, combined with the deposition testimony of Flatiron Project Manager Andrew Boswell, also indicates that Flatiron may have been draining the center median without waiting for the lane closure, which is part of the hauling work that may have resulted in debris being dropped over the West 210 Freeway where plaintiff and defendant Long collided. (Pl. AMF 15 and evidence cited.)

“In ruling on the motion, the court must consider all of the evidence and all of the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, and must view such evidence and such inferences in the light most favorable to the opposing party.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843, internal citations and quotations omitted.) While Flatiron bases this motion on its assertion that plaintiff does not have direct knowledge of Flatiron’s operation of any loader in the center median prior to the subject accident, a reasonable juror could review plaintiff’s evidence discussed above and reasonably conclude Flatiron dropped the debris on the westbound 210 Freeway, which caused the parties to collide, based on Chau’s undisputed evidence that Flatiron and its subcontractors were the only individuals with authorization to perform construction work on the center median where the subject collision occurred.

The motion for summary judgment is DENIED.