This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/01/2019 at 04:27:29 (UTC).

YESENIA SKOULPHONG VS STARWOOD CAPITAL GROUP GLOBAL ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/26/2017 YESENIA SKOULPHONG filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against STARWOOD CAPITAL GROUP GLOBAL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3132

  • Filing Date:

    05/26/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

SKOULPHONG YESENIA

Defendants and Respondents

WESTFILED WEST VOVINA

WESTFIELD MALL

NATIONWIDE JANITORIAL SERVICE

STARWOOD CAPITAL GROUP GLOBAL

WEST COVINA INTERSTATE CLEANING

DOES 1 TO 50

WEST COVINA MALL

PLAZA WEST COVINA

VOVINA WESTFILED WEST

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

KHAKSHOOY BOB B. ESQ.

KHAKSHOOY BOB BABAK ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

KENNEDY JOHN M.

GARRELL PETER EDWARD ESQ.

 

Court Documents

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: (1) PREMISES LIABILITY AND (2) NEGLIGENCE

5/26/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: (1) PREMISES LIABILITY AND (2) NEGLIGENCE

SUMMONS

5/26/2017: SUMMONS

Motion for Leave

5/21/2019: Motion for Leave

Answer

4/9/2019: Answer

Substitution of Attorney

4/8/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Notice of Ruling

1/31/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order

1/30/2019: Minute Order

Answer

12/18/2018: Answer

Proof of Personal Service

12/4/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

12/4/2018: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Minute Order

11/26/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

11/9/2018: Minute Order

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/21/2019
  • DocketMotion for Leave (DEFENDANTS PLAZA WEST COVINA, LP AND NATIONWIDE JANITORIAL SERVICES, INC.?S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT AND TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JOHN M. KENNEDY; [PROPOSED] CRO); Filed by Nationwide Janitorial Service (Defendant); Starwood Capital Group Global Erroneously Sued As Plaza West Covina (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Nationwide Janitorial Service (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/08/2019
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Starwood Capital Group Global Erroneously Sued As Plaza West Covina (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/31/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Starwood Capital Group Global Erroneously Sued As Plaza West Covina (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/30/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/30/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (for Failure of Plaintiff to Serve/Prosecute) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/30/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure of Plaintiff to...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/18/2018
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Starwood Capital Group Global Erroneously Sued As Plaza West Covina (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/18/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Starwood Capital Group Global Erroneously Sued As Plaza West Covina (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/04/2018
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons; Filed by Yesenia Skoulphong (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/04/2018
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons; Filed by Yesenia Skoulphong (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/26/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/26/2018
  • DocketMinute Order ((Non-Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/09/2018
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/09/2018
  • Docketat 08:31 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference ((Taken off calendar - No POS)) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/09/2018
  • DocketMinute Order ((Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/26/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: (1) PREMISES LIABILITY AND (2) NEGLIGENCE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/26/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/26/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Yesenia Skoulphong (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: ****3132 Hearing Date: November 3, 2021 Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

YESENIA SKOULPHONG,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

STARWOOD CAPITAL GROUP GLOBAL, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: ****3132

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

November 3, 2021

1. Background

Plaintiff, Yesenia Skoulphong (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants, Starwood Capital Group Global, et al. for damages arising from a slip and fall at the Plaza West Covina Mall on May 31, 2015. The complaint alleges causes of action for premises liability and negligence.

At this time, Plaintiff moves for Summary Adjudication as to the Issue of Liability [Duty and Breach] against defendants JLK Kim & Sons, Inc., dba Tutti Frutti (“JLK KIM”), Plaza West Covina, LP (“Plaza”), and Nationwide Janitorial Services, Inc. (“NJS”). JLK Kim and Plaza and NJS filed oppositions to the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply.

2. Motion for Summary Adjudication

a. Evidentiary Objections

JLK Kim, in opposition, submitted five objections to Plaintiff’s evidence. To the extent the objections are directed at material facts in Plaintiff’s separate statement, objections to a separate statement are improper. (Cal. Rules of Code, rule 3.1354(b).) Moreover, the objections are not material to the disposition of the motion. (CCP ; 437c(q).) The court, therefore, declines to rule on the objections at this time.

b. Motion for Summary Adjudication

A party may move for summary adjudication as follows:

A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if that party contends that the cause of action has no merit or that there is no affirmative defense thereto, or that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, or both, or that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.

(CCP ; 437c(f)(1).)

Thus, “Summary adjudication motions are restricted to an entire cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for punitive damages, or an issue of duty.” (Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co. (1996) 41 Cal.App.1538, 1542 [disagreed with on different grounds in by Sentry Select Ins. Co. v. Fidelity & Guaranty Ins. Co. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 204].)

The elements of a premises liability and negligence cause of action are the same: duty, breach, causation, and damages. (Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.) “The owner of premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the management of such premises in order to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm. A failure to fulfill this duty is negligence.” (Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1619; Annocki v. Peterson Enterprises, LLC (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 32, 37.)

Here, Plaintiff seeks adjudication that all defendants are “clearly liable for the subject accident.” (Motion at p. 13.) Plaintiff argues that none of the Defendants will be able to prove they took reasonable steps to make the subject premises safe or to warn of the dangerous condition that caused the incident. However, as JLK Kim argues in its opposition, the court cannot determine liability alone.

There is authority that supports a determination as to the existence of a duty:

In a negligence action, the existence of a duty of care owed by a defendant to a plaintiff is a legal issue that is particularly amenable to resolution on summary judgment. (Parsons v. Crown Disposal Co. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 456, 464-465 [63 Cal.Rptr.2d 291, 936 P.2d 70].) A defendant in a negligence action may obtain summary judgment by demonstrating that the evidence shows it owed no duty to the plaintiff that could have been breached. (Linden Partners v. Wilshire Linden Associates (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 508, 516-522 [73 Cal.Rptr.2d 708].)

(Vournas v. Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 668, 672.) Nonetheless, Plaintiff cites no authority holding that a motion for summary adjudication is proper to establish both duty and breach of that duty. Further, Plaintiff did not address this issue in the reply papers.

In Paramount Petroleum Corporation v. Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 226, 242-43, the plaintiff moved for summary adjudication of the issue of the defendant’s liability, indicating that damages could be decided at the time of trial. The court found that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, summary adjudication could not be granted on liability alone. The court noted that section 437c was intended to stop the inefficient practice of having less than an entire cause of action decided by motion, as the cause of action would still need to be tried and much of the same evidence considered at trial. If this court were to Determine that Defendants were liable to Plaintiff, the case would still have to proceed with respect to causation and damages. Thus summary judgment is not appropriate under section 473c.

To the extent that Plaintiff argues that Plaintiff is seeking actually summary adjudication as to the existence of a duty, examination of the substance of its motion shows that is not the case. Plaintiff references a generally accepted duty to use ordinary care in managing property and a duty to discovery unsafe conditions and give warnings reasonably. As JLK Kim admits, although “[a] store owner is not the insurer of its patrons' personal safety, [it] does have a duty to exercise reasonable care to keep the premises reasonably safe for patrons.” (Peralta v. Vons Companies, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1035.) However, Plaintiff does not articulate any specific duty that Plaintiff seeks to have adjudicated as to each Defendant. Instead, Plaintiff repeatedly seeks to have the defendants adjudicated as “liable.”

As in any negligence action, whether a duty was owed under the facts is a question of law for the court. (Castaneda v. Olsher (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1205, 1213.) To determine the existence and scope of duty, courts consider the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, and the extent of the burden to the defendant of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach. (Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 113.)

In evaluating the threshold legal question of duty, the court must (i) determine the specific measures the plaintiff asserts the defendant should have taken to prevent the harm, (ii) analyze how financially and socially burdensome the proposed measures would be to the defendant, (iii) identify the nature of the third party conduct that the plaintiff claims could have been prevented had the defendant taken the proposed measures, and (iv) assess how foreseeable (on a continuum from a mere possibility to a reasonable probability) it was that this conduct would occur. (See Castaneda, supra, 41 Cal.4th at 1214.) “Once the burden and foreseeability have been independently assessed, they can be compared in determining the scope of the duty the court imposes on a given defendant. The more certain the likelihood of harm, the higher the burden a court will impose to prevent it; the less foreseeable the harm, the lower the burden a court will place.” (Id.; see also Laabs v. Southern California Edison Co. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1272 [“ ‘The foreseeability of the harm, though not determinative, has become the chief factor in duty analysis.’ [Citation.]”].)

In this case, Plaintiff does not provide sufficient argument or evidence to support finding the specific duty, if any, owed by each Defendant. Moreover, Plaintiff does not address foreseeability or any of the factors discussed above to show Defendants owed a specific duty to Plaintiff. Therefore, the court cannot adjudicate the issue of duty because Plaintiff does not submit evidence to establish what would have been reasonable in the circumstances presented in this matter. (See Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1205 [“A store owner exercises ordinary care by making reasonable inspections of the portions of the premises open to customers, and the care required is commensurate with the risks involved.”].)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication is denied.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

Dated this 3rd day of November, 2021

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court

"


b'

Case Number: ****3132 Hearing Date: August 30, 2021 Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

YESENIA SKOULPHONG,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

STARWOOD CAPITAL GROUP GLOBAL, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: ****3132

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUESTED AT DEPOSITION

Dept. 31

8:30 a.m.

August 30, 2021

1. Background

Plaintiff, Yesenia Skoulphong (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants, Starwood Capital Group Global, et al. for damages arising from a slip and fall at the Plaza West Covina Mall on May 31, 2015.

Plaintiff, at this time, moves for an order compelling non-party Professional Security Consultants (“PSC”) to produce documents requested in the deposition notice of PSC’s person most knowledgeable (“PMK”).

Plaintiff asserts PSC provided security services to the mall on the date of the incident and prepared an incident report. Plaintiff provides PSC’s PMK’s deposition was completed on June 11, 2021, but PSC’s PMK did not produce the documents requested in the deposition notice. Plaintiff contends no objections were served to the documents requested, and the documents are relevant to the claims in this action and to identifying witnesses.

As of August 25, 2021, no opposition has been filed.

2. Motion to Compel Production of Documents Requested at Deposition

If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document under its control, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production. (CCP ; 2025.480(a).) If the court determines that the answer or production sought is subject to discovery, it shall order that the answer be given or the production be made on the resumption of the deposition. (CCP ; 2025.480(i).)

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with [the discovery statutes], any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action ... if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action....” (See Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1012-13.)

Here, Plaintiff avers the requested documents are relevant to the claims at issue, whether the subject floor was cleaned, and to identify potential witnesses concerning the incident report. Plaintiff met and conferred with PSC, but the issues were not resolved, Further, Plaintiff personally served PSC with the moving papers, but no opposition was filed.

The motion to compel production of documents from PSC is granted. PSC is ordered to produce the requested documents identified in the notice of deposition for PSC’s PMK within 20 days.

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel an answer or production, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (CCP ; 2025.480(j).)

In this case, Plaintiff requests sanctions of $3,900. Given no opposition was filed, the request is unreasonable. Plaintiff is awarded three hours for preparing the moving papers, including separate statement, and one hour for appearing at the hearing all at the reasonable rate of $200 per hour, for a total attorney’s fees award of $800. Further, Plaintiff is awarded the $60 motion filing fee as costs. Sanctions are imposed against PSC; PSC is ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $860.00, within twenty days.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

Dated this 30th day of August, 2021

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court

'


Tentative Rulings - Main Menu     Home

Case Number: ****3132    Hearing Date: February 23, 2021    Dept: 31


Case Number: BC722807    Hearing Date: February 23, 2021    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

LAURENT CORSON,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

MSP PARTNERS I, LLC, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC722807

[TENTATIVE] (1) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF; (2) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S IME

Dept. 31

10:30 a.m.

February 23, 2021

  1. Background

    Plaintiff, Laurent Corson filed tis action against Defendants, MSP Partners I, LLC, et al. alleging that Plaintiff was attacked with a metal spatula by Defendant, Jose Rubio, who was employed by MSP Partners I, LLC at the time.

    Defendants, MSP Partners I, LLC and Jose Rubio (collectively, “Defendants”) now move for an order (1) to compel the deposition of Plaintiff and production of documents, and (2) to compel compliance with independent medical examination and request for sanctions.

    These matters were originally heard on 8/13/20, where they were continued to 2/23/21. The court was advised at the hearing the meet and confer meetings regarding these motions were done. (Min. Order 8/13/20.)

  2. Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition and Production of Documents, filed 6/25/20

    Defendants, MSP Partners I, LLC and Jose Rubio noticed Plaintiff’s deposition on numerous occasions. Mostly recently, Defendant scheduled the deposition for 6/10/20. To date, Plaintiff has failed to appear for Plaintiff’s deposition.

    CCP ;2025.450(b)(2) provides, “The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”

    Here, Plaintiff has failed to appear for deposition despite Defendants properly noticing such multiple times. Any opposition to the motion was due by 2/8/21. To date, no opposition has been filed. Moreover, Defendants assert there is good cause to compel production of documents included in the deposition notice because they are key to the allegations in the complaint and are required to ascertain Plaintiff’s damages and claims.

    The motion is unopposed and granted. (CCP ; 2025.450(a).) Further, Defendants establish good cause for the production of requested documents. Plaintiff Laurent Corson is ordered to appear for deposition at a date, time, and location to be noticed by Defendant. Defendant must give at least ten days’ notice of the deposition (notice extended per Code if by other than personal service). Pursuant to CCP ; 2025.310, at the election of either Plaintiff or Defendant, the deposition must be completed remotely.

    No sanctions are requested and none are imposed in connection with this motion.

  3. Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Independent Medical Examination (“IME”), filed 7/9/20

    Defendants, MSP Partners I, LLC and Jose Rubio seek to Compel Plaintiff’s IME per CCP ; 2032.240.

    CCP ; 2032.240 provides that, when a plaintiff fails to respond to a demand, the defendant may move for an order compelling a response to the demand and compelling compliance with the request for an exam. Moreover, CCP ;2032.310(b) provides, “A motion for an examination under subdivision (a) shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and the specialty, if any, of the person or persons who will perform the examination. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”

    On 6/1/20, Defendants propounded a demand for physical examination with Dr. Michel Brones for 7/6/20. The IME did not go forward on that date as Plaintiff failed to appear. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion.

    Therefore, Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff’s IME is granted.

    Plaintiff is ordered to appear for examination with Dr. Michel Brones’ located at 4835 Van Nuys Blvd., Suite 208, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403. The Court notes that Defendant has set forth the proposed scope of the examination, as well as the manner, conditions, and nature of the examination, in the prior notice of IME, and that the scope of the examination may not be expanded in connection with the compelled IME. Counsel must meet and confer to determine the date and time for the examination; if Plaintiff does not meaningfully participate in the meet and confer process, Defendants may unilaterally set the date and time for the examination with at least ten days’ notice to Plaintiff (extended per Code if by other than personal service). The court also requires that the examination be conducted in a manner compliant with all public health orders and recommendations applicable because of the pandemic.

    Defendants are ordered to give notice.

    Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

     

    Dated this 23rd day of February, 2021

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where STARWOOD CAPITOL GROUP GLOBAL is a litigant

Latest cases where Nationwide Janitorial Services, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where PLAZA WEST COVINA INC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer KENNEDY JOHN M.