Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
“The theory of imposition of strict liability for ultrahazardous activity is that the danger cannot be eliminated through the use of care . . . Where the activity is dangerous only if insufficient care is exercised, ordinary rules of fault are sufficient for allocation of the risk. There is no need for liability without proof of fault, because definitionally if there is damage it will have resulted from negligence and will be compensable.” (Edwards v. Post Transportation Co. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 980, 987.)
Strict liability may be imposed on one who:
(Edwards v. Post Transportation Co. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 980, 983.)
“An activity is ultrahazardous if it
(Edwards v. Post Transportation Co. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 980, 983.)
Factors bearing on whether an activity is ultrahazardous are:
(Edwards, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at p. 985.)
An activity is a matter of “common usage” if customarily carried on by the great mass of mankind or by many people in the community. (Ahrens v. Superior Court (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1134, 1143.)
Examples of ultrahazardous activities include using hydrocyanic acid gas in fumigating commercial buildings (Luthringer, supra, 31 Cal.2d at p. 498), test-firing a large, solid-fuel rocket motor (Smith v. Lockheed Propulsion Co. (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 774, 785), oil well drilling (Green v. General Petroleum Corp. (1928) 205 Cal. 328), and using explosives in the vicinity of a residential area (Balding v. D.B. Stutsman, Inc. (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 559, 564).
Whether an activity is “ultrahazardous” for strict liability purposes is a question of law for the court to decide. (Luthringer v. Moore (1948) 31 Cal.2d 489, 496.)
In fact, classification of an activity as ultrahazardous does not automatically subject one engaged in it to strict liability without regard to place or circumstances. Thus, while blasting in a developed area calls for strict liability, (Citations), blasting in an isolated area may not. (Citation.)” (Smith v. Lockheed Propulsion Co. (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 774, 786 [emphasis added].)
PADILLA VS MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP HEARING RE: DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OF LESLIE PADILLA BY MARRIOTT RESORTS HOSPITALITY CORPORATION
PSC2002747
Sep 15, 2020
Riverside County, CA
Plaintiff Leonardo Gonzalez alleges claims for premises liability, negligence, and strict liability based on ultrahazardous activity. Plaintiff Mariana Gonzalez asserts a claim for loss of consortium. Defendants seek summary adjudication on the claims for strict liability and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition.
LEONARDO GONZALEZ, ET AL. VS ANNING-JOHNSON COMPANY, ET AL.
18STCV00162
Sep 29, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Skydive Santa Barbara�s Demurrer: Defendant Skydive Santa Barbara, LLC (�Skydive�) demurs to the first and third causes of action because as a matter of law, skydiving is not an activity subject to strict liability and res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary rule, not a cause of action. 1. First Cause of Action for Strict Liability: Skydive contends that it was not involved in an ultrahazardous activity.
DANIEL CERVANTES ET AL VS SKYDIVE SANTA BARBARA LLC ET AL
1440054
Oct 27, 2014
Santa Barbara County, CA
On November 23, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their complaint for strict liability, general negligence, negligence per se, strict liability causes by domestic animal with dangerous propensities, ultrahazardous activity, trespass to property, and negligent infliction of emotional distress to a bystander. On February 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint for general negligence, strict liability causes by domestic animal with dangerous propensities, and trespass to property.
MARISOL GARCIA, ET AL. VS OLIVER CAJINA, ET AL.
20STCV44843
Aug 09, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Fourth Cause of Action – Strict Liability Defendants demur to the fourth cause of action for strict liability. Strict liability may be imposed on one who carries on ultrahazardous activity that proximately causes damage to another. (Edwards v. Post Transportation Co. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 980, 983.)
OBED ISAI QUINTANILLA CRUZ VS RANCHO VILLA LLC, ET AL.
19STCV11102
Jul 05, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Motion: Defendant moves to strike the allegations regarding ultrahazardous activity, strict liability and res ipsa loquitur. The motion to strike is moot in light of the ruling on demurrer. In the event plaintiffs decide to file an amended complaint for general negligence only, the court would strike the ultrahazardous activity and strict liability allegations as those do not belong in a general negligence cause of action.
DANIEL CERVANTES ET AL VS SKYDIVE SANTA BARBARA LLC ET AL
1440054
Jul 07, 2014
Santa Barbara County, CA
Fifth Cause of Action – Strict Liability for Ultrahazardous Activity Defendant demurs because there is no ultrahazardous activity alleged. “An activity is ultrahazardous if it (a) necessarily involves a risk of serious harm to the person, land or chattels of others which cannot be eliminated by the exercise of the utmost care....” (Luthringer v. Moore (1948) 31 Cal.2d 489, 498; see also Edwards v.
SAMI HABBAS, ET AL. VS WARNER MEDIA, ET AL.
19STCV16065
Dec 20, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Third Cause of Action – Strict Liability (Ultrahazardous Activities) (Against Santa Fe-Firestone, LLC) The doctrine of ultrahazardous activity imposes strict liability for damages proximately caused by one who carries on an ultrahazardous activity.
THOMAS O'BRIEN VS LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ET
BC586440
Jan 12, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Co. (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 83, 98, specifically held that the act of applying nutrient supplements and fungicides to crop land is not so inherently dangerous as to trigger strict liability. However, the Marin court was discussing application of the strict liability doctrine to subterranean tunneling, not spraying nutrient supplements and fungicides to crops.
NANCY OAXACA VS. DAVIS VINEYARDS INC
21CECG03554
Oct 20, 2022
Fresno County, CA
Strict Liability for Ultrahazardous Activities RULING : The demurrer is sustained with 60 days leave to amend. This is an insurance subrogation action.
FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, A CALIFORNIA INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE VS ARAM ABGARYAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
22CHCV00705
Jan 04, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Third Cause of Action – Strict Liability (Ultrahazardous Activities) (Against Santa Fe-Firestone, LLC) The doctrine of ultrahazardous activity imposes strict liability for damages proximately caused by one who carries on an ultrahazardous activity.
THOMAS O'BRIEN VS LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ET
BC586440
May 16, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
PARTIES REQUESTS Campbell asks the Court to sustain the demurrer to Plaintiffs claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and strict liability for ultrahazardous activity and grant the motion to strike Plaintiffs' punitive damage claim. Plaintiffs asks the Court to grant leave to amend the complaint. LEGAL STANDARD A.
STEVEN FRIEDMAN, ET AL. VS DANIEL ALLEN, ET AL.
22STCV11587
Feb 20, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Third Cause of Action: Strict Liability – Ultrahazardous Activity Defendants demur to the third cause of action for strict liability based on ultrahazardous activity for failure to plead sufficient facts and uncertainty. Defendants contend their farming operations do not support a cause of action for strict liability based on ultrahazardous activity because family is not an ultrahazardous activity.
NORMA ALVARADO ET AL VS WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS & ALMONDS LLC E
BC632250
Feb 17, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Post Transportation Co. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 980, 985) The theory of imposition of strict liability for ultrahazardous activity is that the danger cannot be eliminated through the use of care. Since the activity is in some sense beneficial, useful or necessary to society, the actor is not deemed negligent simply for engaging in it. Damage resulting to others, however, is taxed to the actor because he is the person who most logically should bear the cost.
REGALADO DELOS ANGELES VS. SHARP HEALTHCARE
37-2017-00025155-CU-PO-CTL
Nov 16, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Strict Liability Ultrahazardous Strict liability is imposed for damage proximately caused by one who carries on an ultrahazardous activity. Edwards v. Post Transportation Co. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 980, 983. Whether an activity is ultrahazardous is a question of law, but the nature of the decision is related to weighing facts.
ANDY KIERNAN, ET AL. VS ANDREW C. GEORGE, ET AL.
23SMCV01316
Dec 13, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Exhibit 2 is a court record of an unpublished ruling for which the court will take judicial notice. (2) Ultrahazardous Activity Plaintiffs’ second cause of action is for strict liability based upon ultrahazardous activity.
SANTA BARBARA ADVENTURE COMPANY INC VS PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE LP ET AL
17CV00551
May 01, 2017
Santa Barbara County, CA
Defendants the 1991 Lipman Family Trust, Julie Bernard, Citibrokers Real Estate Co., and Abraham Uziel's Motion for Summary Adjudication as to Plaintiff Danny Hom and Jennifer Tjon's claims for strict liability for ultrahazardous activity and breach of the warranty of habitability is GRANTED as a matter of law. Plaintiffs gave failed to meet their burden in rebuttal. = (501/RAK) - (Late Tentative)
DANNY HOM ET AL VS. ALLEN LEE PLUMBING CORPORATION ET AL
CGC12520385
Feb 18, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
Fourth Cause of Action: Strict Liability for Ultrahazardous Activities Defendant demurs to the fourth cause of action for Strict Liability for Ultrahazardous Activities on grounds that the complaint fails to allege an ultrahazardous activity. An activity is ultrahazardous if it (1) necessarily involves a risk of serious harm to others that cannot be eliminated by the exercise of due care; and (2) is not a matter of common usage. (See, e.g., Edwards v.
CHARMAINE HEADSPETH VS STAR HOOKAH LOUNGE, INC.
18STCV02009
Jan 10, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant Pieco, Inc.’s (“Pieco”) motion for judgment on the pleadings for Plaintiff Armstrong Oil, Inc.’s first cause of action for strict liability, is denied. Pieco’s request for judicial notice of Exhibit A (copy of Permit issued by the Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources) is granted.
ARMSTRONG OIL, INC. V. PIECO, INC., ET AL.
30-2016-00881376-CU-PO-CJC
Sep 28, 2018
Orange County, CA
Defendants challenge plaintiffs’ first cause of action for strict liability based upon ultrahazardous activity.
SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. V. PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, ET AL.
17CV02224
Apr 09, 2018
Santa Barbara County, CA
Treat the motion for summary adjudication as a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Second Cause of Action for Strict Liability (ultrahazardous activity), and GRANT that Motion without leave to amend. Hosting a nightclub event, even one that includes performers who may be associated with gangs, does not constitute an ultrahazardous activity.(See Edwards v. Post Transportation Co. ((1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 980, 984.) Hosting such an event does not ensure a likelihood of great harm.
VENEGAS VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.
CVRI2205454
May 24, 2023
Riverside County, CA
On January 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint alleging an additional cause of action for Strict Liability of an Ultrahazardous Activity. Defendant moves for summary judgment or in the alternative summary adjudication as to the claims of the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendant has replied.
DAVID MARTINEZ VS THE ADLEN FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ET AL
BC616314
May 30, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
CACI 460 provides the essential elements for a strict liability cause of action for ultrahazardous activates: (1) defendant was engaged in an ultrahazardous activity; (2) plaintiff was harmed; (3) plaintiff’s harm was the kind of harm that would be anticipated as a result of the risk created by the ultrahazardous activity; and (4) defendant’s ultrahazardous activity was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm.
LUIS ANTONIO ARRENDONDO CURIEL VS. BEVMO HOLDING LLC, ET AL.
EC067504
Mar 23, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
James Oil Corporation, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, alleging: (1) negligence; and (2) strict liability for ultrahazardous activity. Now, Defendants Allenco Energy, Inc., Timothy James Parker, and Clifford E. Peter (collectively, Defendants) demur to the second cause of action. Defendants also move to strike portions of Plaintiffs SAC. Legal Standard A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. ¿ ( Hahn v.
NALLELI COBO-URIARTE VS ALLENCO ENERGY INC., ET AL.
20STCV49421
Nov 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
James Oil Corporation, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, alleging: (1) negligence; and (2) strict liability for ultrahazardous activity. Now, Defendants Allenco Energy, Inc., Timothy James Parker, and Clifford E. Peter (collectively, Defendants) demur to the second cause of action. Defendants also move to strike portions of Plaintiffs SAC. Legal Standard A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. ¿ ( Hahn v.
NALLELI COBO-URIARTE VS ALLENCO ENERGY INC., ET AL.
20STCV49421
Nov 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
James Oil Corporation, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, alleging: (1) negligence; and (2) strict liability for ultrahazardous activity. Now, Defendants Allenco Energy, Inc., Timothy James Parker, and Clifford E. Peter (collectively, Defendants) demur to the second cause of action. Defendants also move to strike portions of Plaintiffs SAC. Legal Standard A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. ¿ ( Hahn v.
NALLELI COBO-URIARTE VS ALLENCO ENERGY INC., ET AL.
20STCV49421
Nov 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
James Oil Corporation, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, alleging: (1) negligence; and (2) strict liability for ultrahazardous activity. Now, Defendants Allenco Energy, Inc., Timothy James Parker, and Clifford E. Peter (collectively, Defendants) demur to the second cause of action. Defendants also move to strike portions of Plaintiffs SAC. Legal Standard A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. ¿ ( Hahn v.
NALLELI COBO-URIARTE VS ALLENCO ENERGY INC., ET AL.
20STCV49421
Nov 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
James Oil Corporation, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, alleging: (1) negligence; and (2) strict liability for ultrahazardous activity. Now, Defendants Allenco Energy, Inc., Timothy James Parker, and Clifford E. Peter (collectively, Defendants) demur to the second cause of action. Defendants also move to strike portions of Plaintiffs SAC. Legal Standard A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. ¿ ( Hahn v.
NALLELI COBO-URIARTE VS ALLENCO ENERGY INC., ET AL.
20STCV49421
Nov 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The parties did not reach an agreement regarding the issues raised within the demurrer and motion to strike Demurrer Defendant argues that there is no cause of action for strict liability because Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendant engaged in an ultrahazardous activity. Defendant further argues that it is unclear whether it should respond to a strict liability claim or a negligence claim. This argument is not persuasive.
SCHARNELL HENDY VS REINS INTERNATIONAL CALIFORNIA, INC.
20STCV15808
Jun 02, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
(Goldberg & Zipurksy, The Strict Liability in Fault and the Fault in Strict Liability (2016) 85 Fordham L. Rev. 743, 761.) Strict liability disregards the notions of fault (i.e., duty and breach) central to a negligence action. In the case of strict liability for ultrahazardous activity, liability does not arise from a plaintiffs irresponsibility for engaging in such behavior. In fact, ultrahazardous activity, used as a term of art, is not unlawful and cannot be abated . . . . (See 6 Witkin Summary Cal.
MICHAEL LAGUERRE, ET AL. VS MANHATTAN LOFT, LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, ET AL.
22STCV11954
May 15, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The demurrer to the 2nd cause of action for strict liability is OVERRULED. For purposes of a demurrer, Defendant has failed to establish as a matter of law that the facts alleged are insufficient to establish an ultrahazardous activity. The demurrer to the 3rd cause of action for trespass is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend, but without prejudice if discovery reveals that the plaintiff had exclusive possession of the property. A trespass is an invasion of the interest in the exclusive possession of land.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY VS. DUTRA CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
30-2017-00919990-CU-PO-CJC
Nov 27, 2017
Orange County, CA
Strict Liability DENIED on this ground. Defendants argue that there are three main theories which would support a claim for strict liability -- wild animals, domestic animals with a propensity for violence, or ultrahazardous activities. First, in Opposition, Plaintiff argues correctly that there are triable issues of fact as to whether Merlin Z was a domestic animal or wild animal, for purposes of this doctrine of liability.
HEBERT VS. ADAMS
30-2017-00922018-CU-PO-CJC
Aug 16, 2018
Orange County, CA
On August 4, 2023, Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company (Westchester) filed a complaint in Case No. 23BBCV01790 against UAC, GXAerospace, Parker Hannifin Corporation, Motion & Flow Control Products, Inc., Norton Sales, Inc., Triad, and Nino for: (1) negligence; (2) strict products liability; (3) strict liability for ultrahazardous activities; (4) breach of warranties; and (5) breach of contract. Westchester alleges that NTS was insured by Westchester.
JESUS SIORDIA, ET AL. VS UNITED AERONAUTICAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
22STCV31797
Nov 03, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
(Warner) demurs solely to the 4th cause of action for strict liability (ultrahazardous activity) in Sami and Sandi Habbas’ 3rd Amended Complaint. Sami is an attorney who represents both himself (in pro per) and Plaintiff Sandi. Warner concurrently moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages and associated allegations of willful misconduct, conscious disregard, malice, oppression etc.
SAMI HABBAS, ET AL. VS WARNER MEDIA, ET AL.
19STCV16065
Jun 30, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Plaintiff’s Cause of Action for Strict Liability Fails as a Matter of Law The Greenes argue that Plaintiff’s third cause of action for strict liability for ultrahazardous activity fails as a matter of law for two reasons. First, in order to state such a cause of action, the defendant must be the party engaged in the ultrahazardous activity, whereas here, Plaintiff was injured when she herself shot the crossbow. (CACI 460.)
TAMARA ELMORE V. JEFF GREENE, ET AL.
18CV-0551
Dec 11, 2019
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Strict Liability For Ultrahazardous Activity Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot state a claim for strict liability for an ultrahazardous activity because crude oil production is not only an activity that constitutes “common usage,” but crude oil production can be undertaken in a safe manner. An activity is ultrahazardous if it (1) necessarily involves a risk of serious harm to others that cannot be eliminated by the exercise of due care; and (2) is not a matter of common usage.
NALLELI COBO-URIARTE VS ALLENCO ENERGY INC., ET AL.
20STCV49421
Aug 04, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Second Cause of Action To establish strict liability for ultrahazardous activities, Plaintiffs must show: 1. That [ name of defendant ] was engaged in [ insert ultrahazardous activity ]; 2. That [ name of plaintiff ] was harmed; 3. That [ name of plaintiff ]s harm was the kind of harm that would be anticipated as a result of the risk created by [ insert ultrahazardous activity ]; and 4.
MONIQUE ALVAREZ, ET AL. VS PROLOGIS, INC., ET AL.
21STCV38929
Jun 29, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
On August 4, 2023, Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company (Westchester) filed a complaint in Case No. 23BBCV01790 against UAC, GXAerospace, Parker Hannifin Corporation, Motion & Flow Control Products, Inc., Norton Sales, Inc., Triad, and Nino for: (1) negligence; (2) strict products liability; (3) strict liability for ultrahazardous activities; (4) breach of warranties; and (5) breach of contract. Westchester alleges that NTS was insured by Westchester.
JESUS SIORDIA, ET AL. VS UNITED AERONAUTICAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
22STCV31797
Oct 27, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Further, there are no allegations that NTS purchased the MAFFS part or that it was the intended recipient of the MAFFS; rather, NTS alleges that it provided the testing chamber/space for UAC to test whether the MAFFS part worked. [1] UAC also argues that the MAFFS was not a product for the purposes of strict liability. Th e basis of strict liability is the furnishing of defective goods. ( Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1624.)
JESUS SIORDIA, ET AL. VS UNITED AERONAUTICAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
22STCV31797
Jan 12, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
On July 28, 2017, Plaintiff moved for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) to add a cause of action for strict liability for abnormally dangerous condition (“ultrahazardous activity”). Defendants filed an opposition on August 10, 2017, and Plaintiff filed a reply on August 16, 2017. Discussion Per CCP §473(a)(1), “[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading. (CCP §473(a)(1).)
MATIAS RAMOS VS LKQ CORPORATION INC ET AL
BC592798
Aug 23, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Here, SC Gas demurs to the fourth cause of action for strict liability for ultrahazardous activity for failure to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. SC Gas argues that the fourth cause of action fails as a matter of law because natural gas distribution is not recognized as an ultrahazardous activity. In response, Plaintiffs assent to the demurrer and stipulate to voluntarily dismiss the fourth cause of action against Defendants.
ANA VASQUEZ, ET AL. VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV28986
Nov 24, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Second Cause of Action, Strict Liability for Ultrahazardous Activity Defendants demur to the second cause of action, contending Plaintiffs failed to allege Defendants have ever engaged in any ultrahazardous activity. Defendants argument is that storing or releasing toxic chemicals on a property does not constitute ultrahazardous activity.
TODD BERTRANG, ET AL. VS IVORY HOLDINGS, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
21STCV42736
Jan 23, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Strict Liability for Ultra-Hazardous Activity LADWP argues that Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts because the operation of a water main system is not an ultra-hazardous activity as a matter of law. In Luthringer v.
WINNETKA VADEN VS LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER
BC713115
Feb 19, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Strict Liability for Ultra-Hazardous Activity LADWP argues that Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts because the operation of a water main system is not an ultra-hazardous activity as a matter of law. In Luthringer v.
WINNETKA VADEN VS LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER
BC713115
Feb 19, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
James Oil Corporation, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, alleging: (1) negligence; and (2) strict liability for ultrahazardous activity. Now, Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant Clifford E. Peter Alllens deposition. Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions totaling $1,985.00. Discussion Plaintiff argues that Defendants have refused to provide deposition dates for Defendant Allen.
NALLELI COBO-URIARTE VS ALLENCO ENERGY INC., ET AL.
20STCV49421
Oct 18, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
(“TXI”) Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the following three causes of action against all defendants: (1) ultrahazardous activity-strict liability, (2) premises liability, (3) negligence. On March 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint. (“FAC”) The FAC alleges three causes of action as follows: (1) ultrahazardous activity – strict liability, (2) premises liability, (3) negligence.
ZACHARY EMFINGER VS CALPORTLAND COMPANY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV21807
Jun 16, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The modern rule of strict liability without fault for injuries resulting from an ultrahazardous activity was adopted in this state by the decision in Luthringer v. Moore (1948) 31 Cal.2d 489 [190 P.2d 1].
TRI-STAR DYEING & FINISHING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS BRENNTAG PACIFIC, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION
23STCV00357
Apr 19, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court finds sufficient facts have been alleged to state a cause of action for strict liability based on Defendants Sony’s, Topanga’s, and Bernard’s engagement in an ultrahazardous activity. Defendants Sony, Topanga, and Bernard do not present authority stating Plaintiff Kenneth Johnson has to plead specific facts as to causation. Accordingly, the demurrer must be overruled as to Plaintiff Kenneth Johnson’s ultrahazardous activity cause of action.
KENNETH JOHNSON, AN INDIVIDUAL,, ET AL. VS SONY PICTURES TELEVISION, INC. A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV26270
Oct 28, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
James Oil Corporation, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, alleging: (1) negligence; and (2) strict liability for ultrahazardous activity. Now, Plaintiff moves to compel the depositions of Defendants Clifford E. Peter Allen and Timothy James Parker (collectively, Defendants). Discussion Plaintiff argues that a motion to compel is necessary because Defendants have refused good faith participation in their depositions.
NALLELI COBO-URIARTE VS ALLENCO ENERGY INC., ET AL.
20STCV49421
Nov 22, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
B. 4th Cause of Action for Strict Liability Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Rouhani engaged in the ultrahazardous activity of “installing and providing the zip line rides at a home party.” (UMF 4.) Whether an activity is considered ultrahazardous is question for law for the court to decide. (Edwards v. Post Transportation Co. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 980, 983.)
GUILLORY, ASHLEY VS NEJAT, NIMA
16K10688
Mar 14, 2018
Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi
Los Angeles County, CA
[The Court notes it appears Plaintiff is alleging a cause of action for negligence per se based on Defendant’s violation of the BSA; however, Plaintiff has captioned the cause of action as one for strict liability. Strict liability is recognized in the realm of products liability and certain ultrahazardous activities; however, Plaintiff fails to cite to authority in which strict liability applies to claims involving banking transactions.]
JOHN ARMOUR VS WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
20STCV30555
Mar 26, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
Strict Liability and Absolute Liability Santa Clarita challenges absolute liability as a non-existent cause of action, and lack of facts supporting a claim for strict liability. Santana seeks to allege a claim for strict liability based on alleged ultrahazardous activity thereby causing property damage. Neither party addresses the standard of ultrahazardous activity.
MANUEL SANTANA, AN INDIVIDUAL AND AS TRUSTEE OF AND ON BEHALF OF, THE MANUEL SANTANA FAMILY TRUST OF 1992 VS CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY
19STCV01865
Oct 12, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The complaint alleged five causes of action: (1) Civil Code § 1714.9, (2) Strict Liability (Ultrahazardous Activity), (3) Negligence, (4) Premises Liability, and (5) Punitive Damages. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff, a firefighter, sustained severe injuries while on duty at a building fire, which resulted in a massive explosion. The complaint alleges that the Defendants stored hazardous and explosive materials in an illegal and unsafe manner.
22STCV16122
Mar 16, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The complaint alleged five causes of action: (1) Civil Code § 1714.9, (2) Strict Liability (Ultrahazardous Activity), (3) Negligence, (4) Premises Liability, and (5) Punitive Damages. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff, a firefighter, sustained severe injuries while on duty at a building fire, which resulted in a massive explosion. The complaint alleges that the Defendants stored hazardous and explosive materials in an illegal and unsafe manner.
STEPHEN OSTERBERG VS STEVE SUNGHO LEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
22STCV12786
Mar 16, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
James Oil Corporation, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, alleging: (1) negligence; and (2) strict liability for ultrahazardous activity. Now, Defendants Allenco Energy, Inc., Timothy James Parkers, and Clifford E. Peter Allen (collectively, Defendants) move to bifurcate trial.
NALLELI COBO-URIARTE VS ALLENCO ENERGY INC., ET AL.
20STCV49421
Jan 25, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
As to the third cause of action for strict liability is sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiffs have failed to allege that this moving defendant engaged in an ultrahazardous activity that caused the Plaintiffs to be harmed. As to the fourth cause of action for res ipsa loquitor negligence is overruled.
LACEY T PRICE ET AL VS. NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY ET AL
TCU20-7641
Nov 21, 2020
Nevada County, CA
As to the third cause of action for strict liability, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiffs have failed to allege that this moving defendant engaged in an ultrahazardous activity that caused the Plaintiffs to be harmed. As to the fourth cause of action for res ipsa loquitor negligence, the demurrer is overruled.
LACEY T PRICE ET AL VS. NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY ET AL
TCU20-7641
Dec 11, 2020
Nevada County, CA
As to the third cause of action for strict liability is sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiffs have failed to allege that this moving defendant engaged in an ultrahazardous activity that caused the Plaintiffs to be harmed. As to the fourth cause of action for res ipsa loquitor negligence is overruled.
LACEY T PRICE ET AL VS. NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY ET AL
TCU20-7641
Nov 25, 2020
Nevada County, CA
In the opposition, Plaintiffs argued that triable issues of material fact precluded the granting of the motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication on the cause of action for strict liability for ultrahazardous activity. Plaintiff-in-Intervention, Insurance Company of the West (“Intervenor”), filed its own opposition and separate statement that largely mirrored Plaintiffs’ opposition, also on July 20, 2017.
CALDERON V. BIG VALLEY LABOR, INC.
15CECG03579
Sep 12, 2017
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
On October 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant asserting causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (3) Premises Liability; (4) Strict Liability for Ultrahazardous Activity; and (5) Punitive Damages. On 1/10/19, the Court heard a demurrer to Plaintiff’s causes of action for IIED, strict liability, and punitive damages.
CHARMAINE HEADSPETH VS STAR HOOKAH LOUNGE, INC.
18STCV02009
Mar 25, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
TR: DENY, except the unopposed motion for summary adjudication of strict liability – ultrahazardous activity. INTRODUCTION Defendant LBUSD moves for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication of all causes of action.
MARGARET WILLIAMS ET AL VS LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRIC
NC060708
Mar 05, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
None of these facts raise a triable issue of material facts as to Big Valley’s motion concerning the strict liability for hazardous activity cause of action, and the loss of consortium cause of action. It is not disputed that welding is considered an ultrahazardous activity. As noted by Big Valley, the Garcia v. Estate of Norton (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 413, 416-418, case, held that it was.
CALDERON V. BIG VALLEY LABOR, INC.
15CECG03579
Aug 02, 2017
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
A plaintiff may seek recovery in a products liability case on theories of both negligence and strict liability. (Johnson v. United States Steel Corp. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 22, 30.) To state a cause of action for negligence a plaintiff must allege: (1) duty; (2) breach of duty; (3) legal cause; and (4) damages. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 454, 463.)
GAMEZ VS SEMPRA ENERGY
37-2022-00049056-CU-PL-CTL
Feb 09, 2024
San Diego County, CA
Plaintiffs allege claims for (1) negligence, (2) negligence per se, (3) strict liability for ultrahazardous activity, and (4) breach of Carrier Terminal Access Agreement. On 4/2/21, the court deemed 21STCV10733 Jose Martinez, et al. v. David James Manning Trucking, Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminal, LLC (“the Martinez action” filed 3/19/21) related to this action (‘the Kinder Action.”).
KINDER MORGAN LIQUIDS TERMINAL LLC, ET AL. VS DAVID JAMES MANNING, ET AL.
19CMCV00331
Aug 26, 2021
12/14/2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The complaint alleged fix causes of action: (1) Civil Code § 1714.9, (2) Strict Liability (Ultrahazardous Activity), (3) Negligence, (4) Premises Liability, and (5) Punitive Damages. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs, firefighters, sustained severe injuries while on duty at a building fire, which resulted in a massive explosion. The complaint alleges that the Defendants stored hazardous and explosive materials in an illegal and unsafe manner.
KENNETH FRASER, ET AL. VS STEVE SUNGHO LEE, ET AL.
22STCV15019
Nov 16, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Whether an activity is ultrahazardous for strict liability is a question of law. ( Luthringer v. Moore (1948) 31 Cal.2d 489, 496.)
VICTOR AGUIRRE, ET AL. VS STEVE SUNGHO LEE, ET AL.
21STCV34010
Dec 11, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
James Oil Corporation, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, alleging: (1) negligence; and (2) strict liability for ultrahazardous activity. Now, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles (RCALA) moves to strike portions of Plaintiffs SAC. Legal Standard Motions to strike are used to reach defects or objections to pleadings that are not challengeable by demurrer, such as words, phrases, and prayers for damages. ( See Code Civ Proc., §§ 435-437.)
21STCV49421
Jan 11, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1049 [strict liability, breach of express and implied warranties, fraud, and joint and several liability versus several liability]; Carlin v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4 th 1104 [strict liability and breach of warranty]; Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413 [strict liability]; Pierce v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 68 [strict liability, ultrahazardous activity, and breach of implied warranty]; Merrill v. Navegar, Inc.
JUUL LABS PRODUCT CASES
JCCP5052
Apr 13, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The complaint in the OCSC Case alleges causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) strict products liability; and (3) strict liability for ultrahazardous activities. (See Mot. at OCSC Case Complaint.) In support of the motion, Zurich and Interstate provide the declaration of their counsel Barrett Kiernan. Mr.
JESUS SIORDIA, ET AL. VS UNITED AERONAUTICAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
22STCV31797
Jun 30, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The complaint alleged fix causes of action: (1) Civil Code § 1714.9, (2) Strict Liability (Ultrahazardous Activity), (3) Negligence, (4) Premises Liability, and (5) Punitive Damages. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff, a firefighter, sustained severe injuries while on duty at a building fire, which resulted in a massive explosion. The complaint alleges that the Defendants stored hazardous and explosive materials in an illegal and unsafe manner.
STEPHEN OSTERBERG VS STEVE SUNGHO LEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
22STCV12786
Jul 08, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
James Oil Corporation, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, alleging: (1) negligence; and (2) strict liability for ultrahazardous activity. Now, Defendants Allenco Energy, Inc., Timothy James Parker, and Clifford E. Peter Allen (collectively, Moving Defendants) move for a stay of proceedings, pending the outcome of the ongoing parallel criminal matter.
NALLELI COBO-URIARTE VS ALLENCO ENERGY INC., ET AL.
20STCV49421
Sep 18, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Occasion On November 23, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their complaint for Trespass, Private Nuisance Continuing, Public Nuisance Continuing, Negligence, Inverse Condemnation, Strict Liability for Ultrahazardous Activity, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Fraudulent Concealment. On May 3, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint. On July 29, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their 261 paragraph second amended complaint. On January 10, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint.
KATARINA FORD, ET AL. VS FIVE POINT HOLDINGS, LLC, ET AL.
20STCV44809
Sep 26, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
(“TXI”) Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the following three causes of action against all defendants: (1) ultrahazardous activity-strict liability, (2) premises liability, (3) negligence. Calportland now moves to strike punitive damages from Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff opposes the motion.
ZACHARY EMFINGER VS CALPORTLAND COMPANY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV21807
Feb 24, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
On October 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant asserting causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (3) Premises Liability; (4) Strict Liability for Ultrahazardous Activity; and (5) Punitive Damages.
CHARMAINE HEADSPETH VS STAR HOOKAH LOUNGE, INC.
18STCV02009
Jun 10, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
LBUSD contends that it cannot be liable for under a theory of strict liability/ultrahazardous activities because it is a government entity. Government liability is only allowed via express statutory provisions. (Gov’t Code §815) “Strict products liability is a unique, court-fashioned doctrine. In an action based on the doctrine, negligence or culpability is not a necessary ingredient; the plaintiff may recover on proof that the product was defective.
MARGARET WILLIAMS ET AL VS LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRIC
NC060708
Jan 08, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
The causes of action in the complaint are: 1) premises liability, 2) general negligence, 3) products liability (strict liability, negligence, and breach of implied and express warranties; and 4) negligence per se. Kaufman has since added former “Doe” defendants Rockber Partners, LLC (later dismissed); Daketta Los Carneros, LLC; Hurst Enterprises, Inc.; Meridian Group Real Estate Management, Inc.; Beyond Heating and Air, Inc.
RYAN KAUFMAN VS APEEL TECHNOLOGY INC ET AL
17CV03060
Jun 13, 2018
Santa Barbara County, CA
The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) negligence per se; (3) trespass; (4) permanent private nuisance; (5) permanent public nuisance; (6) continuing private nuisance; (7) continuing public nuisance; (8) unfair competition; and (9) strict liability for ultrahazardous materials. Prospective Intervenor moves the Court to intervene and for a stay to file a Complaint against Defendant. Defendant opposes the motion. The Court has considered the motion and opposition.
NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY VS TRIMAC TRANSPORTATION SOUTH, INC.
19STCV15408
Nov 05, 2020
Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Based on the foregoing, on 8/30/22, Plaintiff filed its complaint for equitable subrogation for damages to property alleging causes of action for: (1) negligence, (2) negligence per se, (3) gross negligence and (4) strict liability for ultrahazardous activities.
FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, A CALIFORNIA INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE VS ARAM ABGARYAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
22CHCV00705
Feb 02, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants base their demurrer as to plaintiffs’ cause of action for strict liability for ultra-hazardous activity exclusively on a respondent superior theory, alleging that because the plaintiffs failed to identify the individual employee who was responsible for the negligent spraying of Vulcan pesticide, that they have inadequately pled a cause of action for strict liability for ultra-hazardous activity.
GRUENBACHER V. PATTERSON ENTERPRISES LP
VCU 275009
Jan 15, 2019
Tulare County, CA
The complaint, filed on September 28, 2022, alleges causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) strict products liability; (3) strict liability for ultrahazardous activities; (4) breach of warranties; (5) breach of contract; (6) right of survivorship; and (7) punitive damages. On January 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint naming Doe 1 as JCC California Properties, LLC (JCC CP). On January 30, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed without prejudice Defendant ETCR, Inc.
JESUS SIORDIA, ET AL. VS UNITED AERONAUTICAL CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
22STCV31797
Oct 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
.; and (5) Strict Liability Ultrahazardous Activity against Defendants, American Dark Fiber, LLC, HP Communications, Inc., S&B Construction Services, Inc., Steven Anstead, and DOES 1 through 100. On February 14, 2023, S&B propounded written discovery on Plaintiff comprised of Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. S&B notes that Plaintiffs responses were initially due on March 20, 2023.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES VS CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
22TRCV00467
May 26, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
BACKGROUND On April 5, 2022, Plaintiffs Steven Friedman and Janis Friedman filed this action against Defendants Daniel Allen (Allen), Dana Campbell, 21st Century Company, and Does 1-100 for negligence (including negligence per se), infliction of emotional distress, strict liability for ultrahazardous activity, and declaratory relief.
STEVEN FRIEDMAN, ET AL. VS DANIEL ALLEN, ET AL.
22STCV11587
Jan 02, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
On November 23, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their complaint for Trespass, Private Nuisance Continuing, Public Nuisance Continuing, Negligence, Inverse Condemnation, Strict Liability for Ultrahazardous Activity, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Fraudulent Concealment. On May 3, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint. On July 29, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their 261 paragraph second amended complaint.
KATARINA FORD, ET AL. VS FIVE POINT HOLDINGS, LLC, ET AL.
20STCV44809
May 27, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
On November 23, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their complaint for Trespass, Private Nuisance Continuing, Public Nuisance Continuing, Negligence, Inverse Condemnation, Strict Liability for Ultrahazardous Activity, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Fraudulent Concealment. On May 3, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint. On July 29, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their 261 paragraph second amended complaint. On January 10, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint.
KATARINA FORD, ET AL. VS FIVE POINT HOLDINGS, LLC, ET AL.
20STCV44809
Mar 23, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Well-Pict's Request for Summary Judgment is Denied Plaintiff's Complaint asserts four causes of action against Defendant Well-Pict: the first cause of action for negligence, the third cause of action for strict liability based on ultrahazardous activity, the fifth cause of action for willful misconduct, and the seventh cause of action for premises liability.
MORALES VS WELL-PICT
56-2016-00481672-CU-TT-VTA
Dec 06, 2016
Ventura County, CA
Such a rule would, quite anomalously, equate natural conditions with dangerous animals, ultrahazardous activities, or defective products, for which strict liability is reserved. [Citations.] On the contrary, as we shall explain, where injury is allegedly caused by a natural condition, the imposition of liability on a nuisance theory, as a practical matter, requires a finding that there was negligence in dealing with it.”)
JONES VS TZEN-WEN
MSC17-01167
Sep 08, 2017
Contra Costa County, CA
Twenty-sixth cause of action strict liability Defendant contends that strict liability does not apply because it is a landlord, not a manufacturer or seller of any product. In their opposition, Plaintiffs argue that they are proceeding on an ultrahazardous theory of liability through the allegations of a defective elevator.
MICHAEL LAGUERRE, ET AL. VS MANHATTAN LOFT, LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, ET AL.
22STCV11954
Jan 11, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
James Oil Corporation, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, alleging: (1) negligence; and (2) strict liability for ultrahazardous activity. Now, Defendant Archdiocese of Los Angeles (Defendant) moves for summary judgment of Plaintiffs Complaint.
NALLELI COBO-URIARTE VS ALLENCO ENERGY INC., ET AL.
20STCV49421
Oct 24, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court granted BATO’s motion for summary adjudication as to Plaintiff’s claim for Strict Liability – Ultrahazardous Activity; and the Court treated BATO’s arguments pertaining to Fraudulent Concealment and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress as a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings—which was GRANTED with 30 days leave to amend.
THOMAS O'BRIEN VS LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ET
BC586440
Jul 09, 2020
Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales
Los Angeles County, CA
Strict Liability Ultrahazardous Activity 6. Assault 7. Battery 8. Public Nuisance 9. IIED 10. NIED The crux of Plaintiffs’ complaint is that the individual plaintiff suffered arsenic poisoning in connection with the clean-up of an LBUSD site, and the entity plaintiff incurred economic damages as a result of the toxic site. Plaintiffs’ operative complaint is the Third Amended Complaint, filed on 7/11/18.
MARGARET WILLIAMS ET AL VS LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRIC
NC060708
Feb 04, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
“It has also been indicated that liability in nuisance may result from intentional acts, from negligence, or from strict liability as a result of engagement in ultrahazardous activity.” (Tint v. Sanborn (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1225, 1228.) Here, Plaintiffs have pled this as an intentional act—not mere negligence. Thus, it is not duplicative. Even so, duplicative claims are not a basis to sustain a demurrer. (Blickman Turkus, LP v.
BAADE VS GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY II HOLDINGS, L.P.
CVRI2201044
Jul 12, 2022
Riverside County, CA
“It has also been indicated that liability in nuisance may result from intentional acts, from negligence, or from strict liability as a result of engagement in ultrahazardous activity.” (Tint v. Sanborn (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1225, 1228.) Here, Plaintiffs have pled this as an intentional act—not mere negligence. Thus, it is not duplicative. Even so, duplicative claims are not a basis to sustain a demurrer. (Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 858, 889-890.)
['CVRI2201044', 'CVRI2201044', 'CVRI2201044', 'CVRI2201044']
Jul 12, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Strict Liability Ultrahazardous Activity 6. Assault 7. Battery 8. Public Nuisance 9. IIED 10. NIED The crux of Plaintiffs’ complaint is that the individual plaintiff suffered arsenic poisoning in connection with the clean-up of an LBUSD site, and the entity plaintiff incurred economic damages as a result of the toxic site. Plaintiffs’ operative complaint is the Third Amended Complaint, filed on 7/11/18.
MARGARET WILLIAMS ET AL VS LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRIC
NC060708
Oct 27, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs assert 10 causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) strict liability for ultrahazardous activities; (3) continuing private nuisance; (4) permanent private nuisance; (5) continuing public nuisance; (6) permanent public nuisance; (7) inverse condemnation; (8) dangerous condition of public property; (9) fraudulent concealment; and (10) trespass. Here, LA City demurs to the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and tenth causes of action.
MONIQUE ALVAREZ, ET AL. VS PROLOGIS, INC., ET AL.
21STCV38929
May 24, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
BACKGROUND Plaintiff Jeffrey Cremeans (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Southern California Edison Company (“Defendant”) on July 16, 2018, alleging causes of action for: negligence; strict liability for ultrahazardous activities; strict products liability; and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
JEFFREY CREMEANS VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY ET AL
BC714247
Jun 22, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
On January 10, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint (TAC) with additional plaintiffs totaling 161, against Defendants for (1) Trespass; (2) Private Nuisance Continuing; (3) Public Nuisance Continuing; (4) Negligence; (5) Inverse Condemnation; (6) Strict Liability for Ultrahazardous Activities; (7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (8) Fraudulent Concealment.
KATARINA FORD, ET AL. VS FIVE POINT HOLDINGS, LLC, ET AL.
20STCV44809
Nov 29, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.