YOLANDA BONILLA VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****2754 Hearing Date: February 10, 2022 Dept: C

BONILLA v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

CASE NO.: ****2754

HEARING: 02/10/22

#8

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant BELLFLOWER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.

Opposing Party to give notice.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED. Cal. Ev. Code 452

Plaintiff YOLANDA BONILLA (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she sustained injuries after failing from Defendant BUSD’s gymnasium bleacher.

On March 7, 2019, Judge Takasugi overruled Defendant BELLFLOWER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT’s (“BUSD”) demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint, which asserted causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Premises Liability; (3) Negligence (Gov. Code 815.2); (4) Negligence (Gov. Code 820); and (5) Dangerous Condition of Public Property. The operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) filed on February 16, 2021 asserts the same causes of action.

On August 17, 2021, this Court overruled BUSD’s demurrer to the TAC directed towards the third through fifth causes of action.

Now, BUSD moves for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff’s third – fifth causes of action. The Motion is DENIED.

A Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings may be made if: “[t]he moving party has already demurred to the complaint… on the same grounds as is the basis for the motion provided for in this section and the demurrer has been overruled, provided that there has been a material change in applicable case law or statute since the ruling on the demurrer.” (CCP 438(g)(1).) Plaintiff does not argue that there has been a material change in the law since this Court’s ruling on the demurrer to the TAC.

The instant Motion is an untimely Motion for Reconsideration and is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED without prejudice to the filing of a separately noticed motion.

b'

Case Number: ****2754 Hearing Date: August 17, 2021 Dept: C

BONILLA v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

CASE NO.: ****2754

10HEARING: 8/17/21 @ 10:30 AM

#4

TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Defendant Bellflower Unified School District’s demurrer to third amended complaint is OVERRULED.

II. Defendant Bellflower Unified School District’s motion to strike is DENIED.

Defendant is ORDERED to file and serve its Answer within 10 days.

Opposing Parties to give NOTICE.

Defendant Bellflower Unified School District (“BUSD”) demurs to the 3^rd – 5^th causes of action on the ground that they fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Plaintiff Yolanda Bonilla alleges that she sustained injuries after falling from Defendant Bellflower Unified School District (“BUSD”)’s gymnasium bleacher.

On 3/7/19, Judge Takasugi overruled Defendant BUSD’s demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), which asserted causes of action for:

1. Negligence

2. Premises Liability

3. Negligence (Gov. Code ; 815.2)

4. Negligence (Gov. Code ; 820)

5. Dangerous Condition of Public Property (Gov. Code ; 835)

On 2/11/21, this court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the SAC, adding eight sentences to ¶ 12 of the general allegations. Otherwise, the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) remained the same as the SAC.

“A party demurring to a pleading that has been amended after a demurrer to an earlier version of the pleading was sustained shall not demur to any portion of the amended complaint, cross-complaint, or answer on grounds that could have been raised by demurrer to the earlier version of the complaint, cross-complaint, or answer.” (CCP ; 430.41(b).)

Defendant’s demurrer to the TAC is made on grounds that were, or could have been, raised by demurrer to the earlier version of the complaint.

In reply, Defendant contends that CCP ; 430.41(e) allows Defendant to demur to the same causes of action previously overruled because the motion for leave to file a TAC was made after the case became at issue. Defendant failed to cite any case authority for such an interpretation of CCP ; 430.41(e).

When this court ruled that Defendant “maintains its right to demur” at the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to amend, it was in the context of Defendant’s right to demur to the new allegations. Defendant did not demur to the new allegations in ¶ 12. Instead, Defendant is essentially seeking this court to reconsider another judge’s prior ruling.

Demurrer is OVERRULED.Motion to strike is DENIED. The 1^st and 2^nd causes of action are alleged against Doe Defendants and therefore is not surplusage. Further, the allegations in ¶ 12 is relevant preserve future estoppel arguments. (Sofranek v. County of Merced (2007) 146 Cal.App.4^th 1238, 1250-1251.) Defendant is ORDERED to file and serve its Answer within 10 days.

Case Number: ****2754    Hearing Date: January 07, 2021    Dept: C

BONILLA v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

CASE NO.: ****2754

HEARING: 01/07/21

#3

TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (set one) is OFF-CALENDAR pursuant to the Notice of Withdrawal filed by Plaintiff on December 30, 2020.

II. Defendant/Cross-Complainant BELLFLOWER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT’s unopposed Motion to Compel Compliance with Discovery Subpoena is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give Notice.

No Opposition filed as of January 4, 2020. Due by December 23, 2020. (CCP ;1005(b).)

Defendant BELLFLOWER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT’s (“BUSD”) Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. Cal. Ev. Code ;452.

A motion to compel compliance must be “made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition. (CCP ;2025.450(b).) Where the subject of a motion to compel is a deposition subpoena for the production of business records, as it is here, the 60-day time limit runs from the date the objections or other responses are served because the deposition record is then deemed complete. (Rutledge v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1164, 1192.) Here, Rawling’s response to the deposition subpoena at issue was sent on July 1, 2020. The instant Motion was timely filed within 60 days of Rawling’s response on August 31, 2020.

BUSD moves to compel compliance with the deposition subpoena for business records served on non-party The Rawlings Company, LLC (“Rawlings”) pursuant to CCP ;;1987.1 and 2025.480. The burden is on the party resisting discovery to justify any objections to the requests contained in the subject subpoena. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 531, 541.)

BUSD’s unopposed Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena for Medical Records is GRANTED. Non-party Rawlings is ORDERED to produce the documents sought by BUSD’s subpoena by no later than 30 days from the date of the Court’s issuance of this Order.

Case Number: ****2754    Hearing Date: August 27, 2020    Dept: C

YOLANDA BONILLA vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

CASE NO.:  ****2754 

HEARING:  08/27/2020

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

#7

TENATIVE ORDER

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (set one), Special Interrogatories (set one), Request for Production of Documents (set one), and Request for Admissions (set one) directed towards Bellflower Unified School District is TAKEN OFF CALENDAR.

Moving Party to give Notice.

A motion to compel a further response must be noticed within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing. (CCP ;; 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), 2033.290(c); see also Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409; Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 685).) Otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel further responses. (Id.)

On June 12, 2019, Plaintiff Yolanda Bonilla (“Plaintiff”) served Defendant Bellflower Unified School District (“Defendant”) Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Request for Admissions. After an IDC on August 5, 2019, Plaintiff again served Defendant identical discovery requests on the same date. Defendant initially served Plaintiff responses on September 9, 2019, containing only objections. On October 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel further responses to over 200 discovery requests. Due to the spread of COVID-19, the Court ultimately continued the instant motions to August 27, 2020.

Both Defendant and Plaintiff filed supplemental oppositions and supplemental replies on August 14 and 21, 2020, respectively. The Court notes, generally, sur-replies, supplemental oppositions, and new evidence are not permitted. (See Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4^th 1522, 1537-1538.) However, given the instant case’s exceptional circumstances, the Court shall address the parties’ arguments.

In sum, Plaintiff’s original ground to compel further responses is based on Defendant serving meritless objections. However, this is no longer the current state of discovery. On April 6 and August 5, 2020, Defendant served verified supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s above discovery requests. Albeit, the supplemental responses contain a hybrid of substantive answers and objections, which Plaintiff contends is unsatisfactory. Pursuant to CCP sections 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), and 2033.290(c), a motion to compel a further response must be noticed within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental response. Therefore, Plaintiff has 45 days to file motions to the compel further responses to Defendant’s latest verified supplemental responses—which were served on August 5, 2020.

Additionally, the Court reminds the parties of CRC, rule 3.26, which governs civility in litigation. Specifically, Appendix 3.A, subdivision (d)(1), states, “Counsel should at all times be civil and courteous in communicating with adversaries, whether in writing or orally.”

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions are TAKEN OFF CALENDAR. The Court notes Plaintiff is still within the 45-day limit to file motion to compel further responses to the above discovery requests.

Case Number: ****2754    Hearing Date: February 05, 2020    Dept: SEC

BONILLA v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

CASE NO.:  ****2754

HEARING:  02/05/2020

#13

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant BELLFLOWER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT’s Motion to Reclassify is DENIED.

Opposing Party to give Notice.

Defendant BELLFLOWER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (“BUSD”) argues that Plaintiff’s case is incorrectly classified as an unlimited jurisdiction case, and should be reclassified as a limited jurisdiction case where Plaintiff’s Government Code Claim only seeks $15,000.00 in damages.

In Opposition, Plaintiff argues that BUSD’s is untimely and that BUSD has not shown that the matter will “necessarily” result in a verdict below $25,000.00.

“If a party files a motion for reclassification after the time for that party to amend the party’s initial pleading or respond to a complaint, cross-complaint, or other initial pleading, the court shall grant the motion and enter an order for reclassification only if both the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The case is incorrectly classified. (2) The moving party shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.” (CCP ;403.040(b).)

“[N]o suit for money damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented…until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity….” (Cal. Gov. Code ;945.4.) “A claim shall be presented by the claimant…and shall show…(f) The amount claimed if it totals less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) as of the date of presentation of the claim, including the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage, or loss, insofar as it may be known at the time of the presentation of the claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed. If the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000), no dollar amount shall be included in the claim. However, it shall indicate whether the claim would be a limited civil case.” (Cal. Gov. Code ;910(f).) However, “a] statutory claim need only list ‘[t]he amount claimed…as of the date of presentation…, including the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage, or loss, insofar as it may be known….’ (;910, subd. (f).) The claims statute does not require that a plaintiff be clairvoyant or accurately predict his future damages. It is well settled that a plaintiff who suffers continuing damages may be awarded damages accruing after submission of the claim. (Amador Valley Investors v. City of Livermore (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 483, 489-490 [ ].)” (Ocean Services Corp. v. Ventura Port. Dist. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1762, 1778.)

The Court can transfer to limited jurisdiction only if “it becomes clear that the matter will ‘necessarily’ result in a verdict below the superior court jurisdictional amount.” (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262.)

BUSD’s Motion to Reclassify is denied. As indicated above, Plaintiff is not barred from seeking damages in excess from those itemized in her Government Claim. Although Plaintiff initially submitted a Government Claim seeking only $15,000 in damages, the Court finds that a verdict over $25,000.00 is not virtually unattainable based on Plaintiff’s prayer for damages and alleged injuries.

BUSD’s evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Thomas Kielty are OVERRULED.

Case Number: ****2754    Hearing Date: November 13, 2019    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

After review of the court file, the Court makes the following order:

Department 3 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented.

AT THE DIRECTION OF DEPARTMENT 1:

This case is hereby transferred and reassigned to the following Independent Calendar Court in THE SOUTHEAST DISTRICT, JUDGE BERNAL presiding in DEPT. F of the NORWALK Courthouse, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court.

The Order is signed and filed this date, and incorporated herein by reference. Any pending motions or hearings, including trial and status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar court.

Upon receipt of this notice, counsel for Plaintiff shall give notice to all parties of record.

DATED: November 7, 2019 ___________________________

Hon. Jon Takasugi

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: ****2754    Hearing Date: November 07, 2019    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

After review of the court file, the Court makes the following order:

Department 3 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented.

AT THE DIRECTION OF DEPARTMENT 1:

This case is hereby transferred and reassigned to the following Independent Calendar Court in THE SOUTHEAST DISTRICT, JUDGE BERNAL presiding in DEPT. F of the NORWALK Courthouse, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court.

The Order is signed and filed this date, and incorporated herein by reference. Any pending motions or hearings, including trial and status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar court.

Upon receipt of this notice, counsel for Plaintiff shall give notice to all parties of record.

DATED: November 7, 2019 ___________________________

Hon. Jon Takasugi

Judge of the Superior Court