On 02/15/2017 TASHAY LENZY filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against DOES 1 TO 50. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CURTIS A. KIN and JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
CURTIS A. KIN
JON R. TAKASUGI
DOES 1 TO 50
THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION DOE 1
RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY DOE 2
MILLER DELANEY L.
SCHWIMER MICHAEL EVAN ESQ.
OCAMPO RAUL JESUS
OLSEN CHRISTOPHER TED ESQ.
STONE GREGORY EDWARD
LEWIS AMY WINTCH
1/10/2018: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND NOTICE OF JURY FEE DEPOSIT
5/3/2018: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
5/10/2018: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)
6/18/2018: NOTICE OF DEMURRER, DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION OF AMY W. LEWIS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
7/20/2018: NOTICE OF RULING
7/31/2018: CROSS-COMPLAINT OF RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY DBA RALPHS FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF; EXPRESS AND IMPLIED INDEMNITY; CONTRIBUTION AND APPORTIONMENT
2/15/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)
5/24/2017: Substitution of Attorney
10/10/2017: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)
11/13/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
11/28/2017: Proof of Personal Service
12/1/2017: THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
12/1/2017: CROSS-COMPLAINT OF THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION
at 08:30 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
at 1:30 PM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Notice (Of Case Management Conference); Filed by Tashay Lenzy (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 11:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
at 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses) of 01/28/2019); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Order (By the Court transferring case to Independent Calendar as a complicated PI case); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Reply ( to Defendants Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel); Filed by Tashay Lenzy (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Proof of Personal ServiceRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Tashay Lenzy (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Tashay Lenzy (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious Name)Read MoreRead Less
Substitution of AttorneyRead MoreRead Less
Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Tashay Lenzy (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Tashay Lenzy (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC650652 Hearing Date: November 13, 2019 Dept: P
Los Angeles County Superior Court, Dept. P
Tashay Lenzy v. Does 1-50
Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Hearing: November 13, 2019
Plaintiff was injured by an elevator while working at a Ralphs store. She filed and settled a worker compensation claim. She sued Ralphs in Superior Court; Ralphs moves for summary judgment under workers’ compensation exclusivity of remedy. Cal. Lab Code §3600.
All evidentiary objections OVERRULED.
Workers Compensation Exclusivity
When the “conditions of compensation” set forth in Cal. Lab Code §3600 are present, workers compensation is an employee’s sole and exclusive remedy for an on-the-job injury. Defendant argues the exclusive remedy rule precludes this action. Plaintiff does not dispute the existence of the WCAB settlement, but claims it was between plaintiff and The Kroger Co., defendant’s parent company (Ralphs is a subsidiary of Kroger). Plaintiff argues Kroger, not defendant Ralphs Grocery Company, was her employer, and Ralphs cannot “piggyback” on its parent company’s settlement payment to avoid liability.
Defendant’s Exhibit E is an “Application for Adjudication of Claim” filed with the WCAB; it identifies plaintiffs’ employer as “Ralphs.” Defendant’s exhibit E at pg. 99. Additionally, the “Order Approving Compromise & Release” issued by the WCAB names “The Kroger Company, dba Ralph’s Grocery Co.” as the employer and settling defendant. Plaintiff’s Exhibit A at pg. 1. The declaration of Kroger’s corporate counsel Nathan Brown states the Kroger Co. does not employ any individuals at the Ralphs where plaintiff was injured.
Plaintiff does not substantively refute defendant’s evidence, instead disputing admissibility. The WCAB documents are admissible public records. Brown’s declaration is based on his personal knowledge of Kroger’s operations. Defendants’ evidence is unrefuted. Plaintiff was paid workers compensation benefits. She is therefore barred from further litigation against Ralphs under the workers compensation exclusivity statute. GRANTED.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases