On October 20, 2015 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Mcgeary Pamela,
and
Theodosopoulos David,
Theodosopoulos Matthew Doe 1,
for civil
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
@ fL
FILED
Superior Court of California
County a fas Angelds
y 03 Da
Sherri R Caries uy # Officer/Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFO) t, Deputy
Oscar Chavez
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
CASE NO.: BC598382
PAMELA MCGEARY,
ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
Plaintiff, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
vs. Dept. 98
1:30 p.m.
DAVID THEODOSOPOULOS, et al., May 3, 2017
10 Defendants.
1
12
13 On October 20, 2015, Plaintiff Pamela McGeary (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against
14 Defendants David Theodosopoulos (“David”) for alleged damages arising out of an April 29,
15 2014 vehicle collision. On June 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint naming
16 Matthew Theodosopoulos (“Matthew”) as Doe 1. David and Matthew (collectively,
17 “Defendants”) now move for summary judgment in favor of Matthew and against Plaintiff on the
18 ground that Plaintiff's action against Matthew is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
19
20 In analyzing motions for summary judgment, courts must apply a three-step analysis: “(1)}
21 identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated
22 the opponent’s claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence
a ofa triable, material factual issue.” Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th
24 289, 294. Generally, “the party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of
35 production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material
-41-
Document Filed Date
May 03, 2017
Case Filing Date
October 20, 2015
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
@ fL FILED Superior Court of California County a fas Angelds y 03 Da Sherri R Caries uy # Officer/Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFO) t, Deputy Oscar Chavez FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT CASE NO.: BC598382 PAMELA MCGEARY, ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION Plaintiff, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT vs. Dept. 98 1:30 p.m. DAVID THEODOSOPOULOS, et al., May 3, 2017 10 Defendants. 1 12 13 On October 20, 2015, Plaintiff Pamela McGeary (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against 14 Defendants David Theodosopoulos (“David”) for alleged damages arising out of an April 29, 15 2014 vehicle collision. On June 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint naming 16 Matthew Theodosopoulos (“Matthew”) as Doe 1. David and Matthew (collectively, 17 “Defendants”) now move for summary judgment in favor of Matthew and against Plaintiff on the 18 ground that Plaintiff's action against Matthew is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 19 20 In analyzing motions for summary judgment, courts must apply a three-step analysis: “(1)} 21 identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated 22 the opponent’s claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence a ofa triable, material factual issue.” Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 24 289, 294. Generally, “the party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of 35 production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material -41-