arrow left
arrow right
  • E.A. VS LOS ANGELES CHRISTIAN SCHOOL AND WORLD IMPACT, INC. Premise Liability (e.g., dangerous conditions of property, slip/trip and fall, dog attack, etc.) (General Jurisdiction) document preview
  • E.A. VS LOS ANGELES CHRISTIAN SCHOOL AND WORLD IMPACT, INC. Premise Liability (e.g., dangerous conditions of property, slip/trip and fall, dog attack, etc.) (General Jurisdiction) document preview
						
                                

Preview

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/28/2019 01:14 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by A. Trinh,Deputy Clerk 1 SONALI OLSON ◇ (SBN 180397) MARYAM DANISHWAR ◇ (SBN 259102) 2 OLSON LAW GROUP, APC 3 21011 Warner Center Lane, Suite C Woodland Hills, CA 91367 4 TEL (818) 960-0073 ǀ FAX (747) 444-2232 5 Attorneys for Defendants, LOS ANGELES CHRISTIAN SCHOOL and WORLD IMPACT, INC. 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE 11 E.A., a minor individual by and through his ) Case No.: 18STCV00253 Guardian Ad Litem, CARLOS ESCOBAR, ) 12 ) [Assigned to Department “SS3”] 13 Plaintiff, ) Hon. Marc D. Gross ) 14 vs. ) ) DEFENDANTS LOS ANGELES 15 ) CHRISTIAN SCHOOL AND WORLD LOS ANGELES CHRISTIAN SCHOOL, ) IMPACT, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 16 WORLD IMPACT, INC., a corporation, and ) ITS DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, ) COMPLAINT 17 ) Defendants. ) 18 Pursuant to CCP § 430.010 ) 19 ) Reservation I.D.: 333672494226 ) 20 ) Date: February 1, 2019 ) Time: 1:30 p.m. 21 ) Dept.: 3 22 ) ) Complaint Filed: October 10, 2018 23 ) Trial Date: April 8, 2020 24 25 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORDS: 26 COMES NOW defendants Los Angeles Christian School and World Impact, Inc. for their 27 reply to the opposition of plaintiff E.A., a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Carlos 28 Escobar, to defendants’ demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint (the “Opposition”). 1 DEFENDANTS LOS ANGELES CHRISTIAN SCHOOL AND WORLD IMPACT, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT