What is loss of consortium?

Useful Resources for Loss of Consortium

Recent Rulings on Loss of Consortium

DAPHNE HELAIRE, ET AL. VS G6 HOSPITALITY, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Plaintiffs allege negligence, negligence per se, common law strict liability, statutory strict liability, and loss of consortium from damages arising from a dog attack that occurred on May 21, 2019, on the premises of a Motel 6 located at 535 S. China Lake Boulevard, Ridgecrest, CA 93555. On December 18, 2020, Defendants G6 Hospitality, LLC and Motel 6 Operating L.P. filed a demurrer to the complaint pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

RACHELE RIVERA, ET AL. VS JJ F&B, INC, ET AL.

Rivera alleges a derivative claim for loss of consortium. The complaint, filed October 23, 2018, alleges a single cause of action for premises liability. B. Motion on Calendar On November 16, 2020, Mrs. Rivera filed a motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Demand for Production of Documents (Supplemental). On January 4, 2021, Defendant filed an opposition brief. On January 8, 2021, Mrs. Rivera filed a reply brief. There is an Informal Discovery Conference concurrently set for this date.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DU VS JOHN MUIR HEALTH

Denied. 2. (1) Denied. (2) Granted as to the words “loss of consortium,” without leave to amend. 3. Granted, with leave to amend to meet the pleading requirements outlined in Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, 997-999. 4. Granted, without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

ROBERT FRITZ, ET AL. VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY BICYCLE COALITION, ET AL.

The court sustains LOS ANGELES COUNTY BICYCLE COALITION’s demurrer to the Loss of Consortium cause of action. “A cause of action for loss of consortium is, by its nature, dependent on the existence of a cause of action for tortious injury to a spouse.” (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at p. 746.) A cause of action for loss of consortium “stands or calls based on whether the spouse of the party alleging loss of consortium has suffered an actionable tortious injury.” (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

GREGORY WARREN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS ITV AMERICA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Victoria Warren assets a claim of loss of consortium. The Hibbs Defendants, in pro per, have demurred to the first amended complaint. In ruling on a demurrer, the court must accept the facts as pleaded in the first amended complaint as true. (Saunders v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 832, 838.) Except as to facts are subject to judicial notice, the court cannot consider facts that have not been alleged in the complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

KAMAL MCHANTAF VS ASHANTI TRAVERS, ET AL.

Co. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 625, 630–631 (“A number of cases, decided after loss of consortium was recognized as an independent tort, have considered whether a claim for loss of consortium is subject to the same per person limit of the policy as the damages to the injured spouse. Each case turns on the language of the policy at issue.”).) In their opposition, Defendants suggest, without authority, Dani Mchantaf’s claim is included in the settlement. (Opp. at p. 16 lns. 14-18.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

JOSE MUNOZ ET AL VS SBI INDUSTRIES INC ET AL

F-49 Date: 1-13-21 Case #BC678262 Calendar # 5 Trial Date: 5-3-21 PROTECTIVE ORDER MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Intelligrated Sytems, LLC RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Jose and Maria Munoz RELIEF REQUESTED Motion for Protective Orders SUMMARY OF ACTION On October 3, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their complaint for Products Liability, and Loss of Consortium.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

EMMETT RUSHING, ET AL. V. MICHAEL RYAN, MD, ET AL.

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges two causes of action for medical negligence and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that Defendants were negligent in the examination and treatment of Mr. Rushing. (Compl., ¶ 10.) Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Rushing “has been rendered sick, sore, lame, disabled and disordered, both internally and externally” as a result of Defendants’ negligent treatment. (Compl., ¶ 11.) Now before the Court is Lisa Ryan, M.D.1’s motion for summary judgment.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

BEATRIZ VALDEZ ET AL VS DOES 1 TO 200

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on February 7, 2017, and a FAC on December 24, 2019, alleging six causes of action: Negligence Strict Liability — Failure to Warn Strict Liability — Design Defect Fraudulent Concealment Breach of Implied Warranties Loss of Consortium On December 5, 2019, this Court sustained Defendant Sasol Chemicals (USA) LLC, successor-in-interest to Sasol North America Inc. (Doe 3) (“Sasol”)’s Demurrer to the Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

BEATRIZ VALDEZ ET AL VS DOES 1 TO 200

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on February 7, 2017, and a FAC on December 24, 2019, alleging six causes of action: Negligence Strict Liability — Failure to Warn Strict Liability — Design Defect Fraudulent Concealment Breach of Implied Warranties Loss of Consortium On December 5, 2019, this Court sustained Defendant Sasol Chemicals (USA) LLC, successor-in-interest to Sasol North America Inc. (Doe 3) (“Sasol”)’s Demurrer to the Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

JOHN AA DOE ET AL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET

Additionally, Plaintiffs contend that discovery into their allegations regarding “intimate” relationships is not relevant because Plaintiffs are not alleging loss of consortium. (Opposition, 6-8.) In reply, BGC contends that its motion must still be granted pursuant to the parties’ oral stipulation at an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) on December 10, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CATI ACEVEDO TORREZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS SUBARU OF AMERICA INC, A FOREIGN CORPORATION REGISTERED IN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

While Universal contends that Eduardo’s loss of consortium claim explicitly arises from or relates to Cati’s purchase of the subject vehicle, there is no evidence that Eduardo signed the arbitration agreement or otherwise agreed to its terms. Eduardo’s claim is not derivative of Cati’s claim, as “a claim for loss of consortium is an independent claim.” (Id.) Because Eduardo is pursuing his own claim based on Universal’s alleged misconduct, he is not bound by an arbitration agreement he did not sign. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

NOMER SANTOS ET AL VS AIR LIQUIDE ADVANCED MATERIALS INC ET

Lastly, Olympic asserts that Plaintiff Marilou’s claim for loss of consortium fails because it is derivative of Nomer’s claims. Plaintiffs’ Opposition Plaintiffs argue Olympic did manufacture the cart that injured Nomer. Plaintiffs assert Nomer’s employer, Boston Scientific (“Boston”), used different types of gases to make medical devices, and purchases of the gases automatically included a cart that held the gases.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

BARBARA PIETROWSKI VALDEZ ET AL VS SMITH & NEPHEW INC ET AL

Eighth Cause of Action – Ruben’s Loss of Consortium Loss of consortium requires: (1) a valid and lawful marriage between the plaintiff and injured party, at the time of the injury; (2) tortious injury to the plaintiff’s spouse; (3) loss of consortium suffered by the plaintiff; and (4) loss proximately causes by defendant’s act. (Vanhooser v. Superior Court (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 921, 927.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

RITA M CABEZA ET AL VS HUNTINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ET AL

Loss of Consortium The elements to a loss of consortium claim are: (1) a valid and lawful marriage between the plaintiff and the person injured at the time of the injury; (2) a tortious injury to the plaintiff's spouse; (3) loss of consortium suffered by the plaintiff; and (4) the loss was proximately caused by the defendant's act. (Vanhooser v. Superior Court (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 921, 927.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOAN WALLACK, ET AL. VS LYNN EVANS GLICK

Plaintiff Howard Wallack asserts a claim for loss of consortium. Now, Defendant moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages. Plaintiff filed no opposition to this motion, which is granted. LEGAL STANDARD Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a motion to strike the whole pleading or any part thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, subd. (b).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TINGTING GENG, ET AL. VS JACINTO LAM, M.D.

Her husband asserts a cause of action for loss of consortium. Medical Professional Negligence On February 7, 2019, Plaintiff presented to the Monterey Park Hospital and was admitted by Defendant for delivery. (Compl., ¶ 13.) Plaintiff gave birth on Februrary 8, 2019. (Compl., ¶ 13.) During the delivery, Defendant allegedly performed an episiotomy that extended to a 4th degree tear into the rectum but failed to recognize or diagnose the tear, only repairing the episiotomy incision. (Compl., ¶ 15.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

FRANCISCO SALAS, ET AL. VS JOE FILETO, ET AL.

On 1/6/21, the plaintiff dismissed his loss of consortium claim. As such, the demurrer on this claim is moot in light of said dismissal. Moving Defendant to answer the third amended complaint within 10 days. Moving Defendant to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

FRANCISCO SALAS, ET AL. VS JOE FILETO, ET AL.

Defendant also offers a new challenge to the loss of consortium cause of action. On the assault and battery claims, the complaint relies on allegations that the foreman of the construction site allowed defendant Fileto to repeatedly strike Plaintiff while he refused to intervene or attempt to stop the attack. [Third Amend. Comp., ¶¶ 56—64, 108-120.]

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

STEPHANIE PATTERSON V. JULIA OGDEN, ET AL.

Thus, while loss of consortium is an independent claim, it is dependent on a tortious injury to the plaintiff’s spouse. (See Id. at pp. 927-928 [injury to the spouse is an essential element of a loss of consortium claim].) In sum, an injury to the spouse is an essential element of a loss of consortium claim, but the two claims (i.e., the injured spouse’s negligence claim, and the non-injured spouse’s loss of consortium claim) are separate and distinct. (Gapusan, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th 734, 742.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND VS DAN MEKPONG, ET AL.

The complaint alleges causes of action for (1) negligence and (2) loss of consortium. SCIF now moves to consolidate the two actions. SCIF provides that at the time of the subject accident, Vaezi was acting within the course of his employment, and SCIF has and continues to pay workers’ compensation benefits to Vaezi. The motion is unopposed.

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2021

MARCO CHAVIRA, ET AL. VS ALEXANDER MENDEZ, M.D., ET AL.

Loss of Consortium Claim Kelly Chavira asserts a loss of consortium claim based upon Plaintiff’s physical injuries. A claim for loss of consortium has four elements: (1) There was a valid and lawful marriage between the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s spouse; (2) The plaintiff’s spouse was injured by a tortious act by the defendant; (3) The plaintiff suffered a loss of consortium; and (4) The loss was proximately caused by the defendant’s act. (Vanhooser v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

JOHN MUNIZ ET AL VS O H CASEY ET AL

Moreover, as to Eileen’s loss of consortium claim, “[a] cause of action for loss of consortium is, by its nature, dependent on the existence of a cause of action for tortious injury to a spouse.” (Vanhooser v. Superior Court (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 921, 927.) Thus, because Plaintiffs fail to raise a triable issue of fact concerning John’s claim for premises liability against PDI, PDI is entitled to judgment on Eileen’s loss of consortium claim.

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2021

MARCO CHAVIRA, ET AL. VS ALEXANDER MENDEZ, M.D., ET AL.

Loss of Consortium Claim Kelly Chavira asserts a loss of consortium claim based upon Plaintiff’s physical injuries. A claim for loss of consortium has four elements: (1) There was a valid and lawful marriage between the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s spouse; (2) The plaintiff’s spouse was injured by a tortious act by the defendant; (3) The plaintiff suffered a loss of consortium; and (4) The loss was proximately caused by the defendant’s act. (Vanhooser v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

GLORIA WEISCHADLE VS. ALEX VO AND SANTIAGO & JONES, ET AL.,

The Plaintiff prays for the Court and the Jury, for a judgment against the Defendant in the amount of $1,500,000 for Physical, Mental, and Emotional Distress, Bodily Harm and Injury, Loss of Consortium, Osteoporosis and other irreversible harm inflicted by the Defendant to the Plaintiff by the unnecessary surgery forced to the Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Dec 29, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 68     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.