Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/11/2024 11:23 AM INDEX NO. 516170/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/11/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
---------------------------------------------------X SUMMONS
DEREK ALLEN,
Index No.
Plaintiff,
Date Purchased:
-against-
Plaintiff designates KINGS
COUNTY as place of trial
CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES Basis of Venue: CPLR § 504(3)
f/k/a BUREAU OF CHILD WELFARE, NEW YORK
CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, and
CROSSROADS JUVENILE CENTER,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------X
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a
copy of your answer or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of
appearance on the plaintiff’s attorneys within twenty (20) days after service of this summons,
exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty (30) days after service is complete if this summons
is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to
appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the
complaint.
The venue and location for trial is Kings County. The basis of venue is the fact that
Plaintiffs’ causes of action arose in Kings County.
Dated: New York, New York
June 11, 2024
Yours etc.,
LEVY KONIGSBERG, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
/s/ Madeleine L. Skaller
Madeleine L. Skaller, Esq.
605 Third Avenue, 33rd Floor
New York, NY 10158
(212) 605-6200
mskaller@levylaw.com
1 of 28
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/11/2024 11:23 AM INDEX NO. 516170/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/11/2024
Defendants’ Addresses
CITY OF NEW YORK
150 William Street
New York, NY 10038
NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES
150 William Street
NEW YORK, NY 10038
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
75-20 Astoria Blvd.
East Elmhurst, NY 11370
CROSSROADS JUVENILE CENTER
17 Bristol Street
Brooklyn, NY 11212
2 of 28
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/11/2024 11:23 AM INDEX NO. 516170/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/11/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
----------------------------------------------------------------X
DEREK ALLEN, VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff, Index No.:
-against-
CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES
f/k/a BUREAU OF CHILD WELFARE, NEW YORK
CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, and
CROSSROADS JUVENILE CENTER,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
Plaintiff Derek Allen, by and through his attorneys, Levy Konigsberg LLP, alleges for his
Complaint the following:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. Crossroads Juvenile Center (“Crossroads”) is a notorious juvenile detention facility
operated by the City of New York beginning in 1998. At Crossroads, children were and
continue to be treated inhumanely in all respects, and this includes rampant sexual abuse
of juvenile detainees by correctional officers and staff members. Due to the City’s policy
of locking up children for relatively minor violations or behavioral problems, many
children who simply needed help went straight from difficult home lives into a
traumatizing, prisonlike environment where they were regularly sexually abused. Despite
widespread reports, investigations, and campaigns to close the facility, the City of New
York has allowed Crossroads’ culture of sexual abuse and brutality to continue unabated.
3 of 28
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/11/2024 11:23 AM INDEX NO. 516170/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/11/2024
2. In approximately 2003, a male staff member and a female staff member at CROSSROADS,
routinely abused the power of their position and sexually abused Plaintiff, a child under
the age of eighteen detained at CROSSROADS.
3. Plaintiff suffered physical, psychological, and other injuries as a result of conduct which
would constitute a sexual offense as defined in article one hundred thirty of the penal law
committed against a child less than eighteen years of age.
4. The emotional and psychological trauma associated with the sexual abuse he suffered at
CROSSROADS has haunted Plaintiff for his entire life. He has been and remains
traumatized and damaged as a result of the acts alleged herein. The abuse by the staff
members (“PERPETRATORS”) and the failures of Defendants to protect Plaintiff, have
left Plaintiff deeply emotionally scarred and damaged.
5. With the filing of this complaint, Plaintiff joins the dozens of other survivors of sexual
abuse at CROSSROADS who have filed, or will be filing, separate complaints under the
Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act. Each of these other plaintiffs was
sexually abused by the guards, counselors, and other staff members who were supposed to
be watching out for them. The abuse endured by these plaintiffs stretches across decades.
Sexual abuse of children at CROSSROADS and New York City’s other juvenile detention
facilities continues to this day.
6. This complaint is filed pursuant to the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection
Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 10-1101, et seq., because it pertains to intentional or negligent
acts or omissions by a person for physical, psychological, or other injuries suffered as a
result of at least one crime of violence motivated by gender.
4 of 28
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/11/2024 11:23 AM INDEX NO. 516170/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/11/2024
7. On January 9, 2022, an amendment to the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence
Protection Law, under N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 10-11-1, et. seq., was enacted by the New
York City Council. This law allows survivors of gender-motivated violence whose claims
were previously time-barred to file a lawsuit against their abusers and institutions that
directed, enabled, participated in, and/or conspired to commit a crime of violence
motivated by gender during a two-year “look-back-period” and extends the original
statutory filing period to nine years. The two-year look back window took effect on March
1, 2023. The new amendment temporarily lifts the statute of limitations on civil cases
involving gender-based violence. During the look-back window, victims and survivors of
violence perpetrated on the basis of gender can recover damages from their abusers, even
if it has been years or decades since the assault(s). This look-back window ends February
28, 2025. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s action is timely, and it is properly filed under New York
N.Y.C. Admin Code § 10-1101, et seq., (Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection
Law).
8. As set forth in greater detail below, Plaintiff asserts state law claims for Violation of the
Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law, negligence, negligent hiring,
retention, training and supervision, and breach of statutory duty to report abuse under
Social Services Law §§ 413 and 420.
9. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the injuries he has suffered, as well
as reasonable attorneys’ fees and the costs and disbursements of bringing this action.
PARTIES
10. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New Jersey.
5 of 28
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/11/2024 11:23 AM INDEX NO. 516170/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/11/2024
11. Defendant, CITY OF NEW YORK (hereinafter, “CITY”), is a political subdivision of the
State of New York. At all times relevant and material hereto, CITY was and is responsible
for the care and safety of children in juvenile detention centers within CITY. CITY is a
citizen of the State of New York.
12. Defendant, NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES
f/k/a BUREAU OF CHILD WELFARE (hereinafter referred to as “ACS”), is a department
of Defendant CITY. It is authorized by New York law to care for children in juvenile
detention in New York City. Upon information and belief, the New York City Department
of Juvenile Justice which was responsible for the CITY’s juvenile detention centers was
merged into ACS in 2010. Children in juvenile detention are in the legal custody of the
Commissioner of ACS, who is an employee/agent of CITY. Children in juvenile detention
are in the custody of the Commissioner of ACS and its predecessor agencies. ACS has a
principal place of business located at 150 William Street, New York, New York 10038.
ACS is a citizen of the State of New York.
13. Defendant, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (hereinafter
referred to as “DOC”), is a department of Defendant CITY. It is authorized by New York
law to care for incarcerated individuals in New York City including some juveniles. DOC
has a principal place of business located at 75-20 Astoria Blvd.
East Elmhurst, NY 11370. DOC is a citizen of the State of New York.
14. Defendants CITY, ACS, and/or DOC operate and/or operated the following juvenile
detention facilities that house and/or housed detained youth in the juvenile justice system:
a. Spofford Juvenile Detention Center (renamed Bridges Juvenile Detention Center in
1999), a co-ed facility located at 1221 Spofford Avenue, Bronx, NY 10474;
6 of 28
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/11/2024 11:23 AM INDEX NO. 516170/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/11/2024
b. Horizon Juvenile Center, a co-ed facility located at 560 Brook Avenue
Bronx, NY 10455;
c. Crossroads Juvenile Center, a co-ed facility located at 17 Bristol Street
Brooklyn, NY 11212;
d. Riker’s Island, which is comprised of several facilities that including Rose M.
Singer Center, an all-female facility located at 19-19 Hazen Street, East Elmhurst,
NY 11360; Anna M. Kross Center, an all-male facility located at 18-18 Hazen
Street, East Elmhurst, NY 11370; Robert N. Davoren Center, an all-male facility
located at 11-11 Hazen Street, East Elmhurst, NY 11370; Eric M. Taylor Center, a
facility located at 10-10 Hazen Street, East Elmhurst, NY 11370; and Otis Bantum
Correctional Center, a facility located at 16-00 Hazen Street, East Elmhurst, NY
11370;
e. Vernon C. Bain Correctional Center, a prison barge anchored in the East River;
15. At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendant CROSSROADS was a juvenile
detention facility located in Brooklyn, New York that was owned, operated, maintained
and controlled by the CITY by and through ACS and/or its predecessors and/or DOC.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant CITY because is a political
subdivision of the State of New York. At all times relevant and material hereto, CITY was
responsible for the care and safety of children in juvenile detention centers within CITY,
including but not limited to CROSSROADS. CITY is a citizen of the State of New York.
17. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant ACS because it is a department of
Defendant CITY. Defendant ACS is authorized by New York City to care for children in
7 of 28
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/11/2024 11:23 AM INDEX NO. 516170/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/11/2024
juvenile detention in New York City. Children in foster care are in the legal custody of the
Commissioner of ACS, who is an employee/agent of CITY. Children in juvenile detention
are in the custody of the Commissioner of ACS and its predecessor agencies. ACS has a
principal place of business located at 150 William Street, New York, New York 10038.
ACS is a citizen of the State of New York.
18. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant DOC because it is a department of
Defendant CITY. Defendant DOC is authorized by New York City to care for some
children in juvenile detention in New York City. ACS has a principal place of business
located at 75-20 Astoria Blvd., East Elmhurst, NY 11370. DOC is a citizen of the State of
New York.
19. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant CROSSROADS because it was a
juvenile detention facility located in the Brooklyn, New York that was owned, operated,
maintained and controlled by the CITY by and through ACS and/or DOC.
20. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action because the amount of damages
Plaintiff seeks exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts that would otherwise
have jurisdiction.
21. Venue is proper in Kings County pursuant to CPLR §§ 503, 504(3), and 505(a), because
all, or virtually all, of Defendants’ acts and omissions, as well as the sexual abuse of
Plaintiff, occurred in Kings County.
FACTS
A. History and Tolerance of Gender-Motivated Sexual Abuse at Juvenile Detention
Facilities Run by Defendants CITY and ACS and/or DOC.
22. For decades, children detained in juvenile detention facilities operated by CITY and ACS
and/or DOC have suffered sexual abuse at the hands of guards, counselors, and other agents
8 of 28
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/11/2024 11:23 AM INDEX NO. 516170/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/11/2024
of the CITY, ACS, and DOC all while Defendants have had knowledge of, and turned a
blind eye to, this culture of abuse.1 The sexual abuse at juvenile detention facilities operated
by the CITY, ACS, and DOC has ranged from inappropriate strip searches to rape using
violent physical force.2 The CITY, ACS, and DOC agents have had, and continue to have,
inappropriate and criminal sexual relationships with children at CITY, ACS, and DOC
facilities, oftentimes involving bribery and grooming. Children detained in CITY, ACS,
and DOC juvenile detention facilities are regularly offered contraband—such as cigarettes,
drugs, and alcohol—or privileges in exchange for sexual favors.3 The pervasive and
persistent abuse, including sexual abuse, at CITY, ACS, and DOC facilities has been
publicly reported on for decades. The culture of abuse nonetheless continues to be a reality
for children detained in CITY, ACS, and DOC facilities to this day.
23. Children who are sexually abused in CITY, ACS, and DOC juvenile detention facilities
rarely file grievances against staff due to fear of retaliation or knowing that they will not
be believed.4 Children at CITY, ACS, and DOC juvenile detention facilities know that they
cannot trust facility staff, who regularly engage in physical abuse of the children charged
to their care.5 When they do witness or learn of sexual assaults, staff members at CITY,
ACS, and DOC juvenile detention facilities look the other way and allow it to continue.6
1
See, e.g., U.S. Dep’t of Just., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities
Reported by Youth, 2008-09 (Jan. 2010), available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED508530.pdf.
2
See U.S. Dep’t of Just., Proposed National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape
Under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) at 15 (Jan. 2011), available at
https://www.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh241/files/media/document/prea_nprm_iria.pdf.
3
See, e.g., U.S. Dep’t of Just., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities
Reported by Youth, 2008-09 at 14 (Jan. 2010), https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED508530.pdf.
4
See Jana Allen et. al., ‘It’s never OK’: Sexual abuse persists in juvenile facilities despite years of reform,
Kids Imprisoned – News21, (Aug. 21, 2020) available at https://kidsimprisoned.news21.com/sexual-assault-
juvenile-detention-facilities/
5
Id.
6
Id.
9 of 28
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/11/2024 11:23 AM INDEX NO. 516170/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/11/2024
Sexual abuse at CITY, ACS, and DOC juvenile detention facilities therefore goes severely
underreported.7
24. According to a 2010 report from the U.S. Department of Justice, 13% percent of youth in
juvenile facilities are sexually abused, most often by the staff of the facility.8
25. In 2008-09, the U.S. Department of Justice conducted a study that found that 88% of youth
who reported staff sexual misconduct reported more than one incident, with 27% reporting
more than ten.9
26. In another study conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice that examined substantiated
instances of sexual abuse at juvenile detention facilities between 2013 and 2018 found that
most juvenile detention staff who sexually victimized children faced no legal repercussions
for their actions.10
27. This study found that more than 27% of children who were abused by staff were subject to
actions that could be viewed as punishment, such as being issued a disciplinary report,
losing privileges, being placed in a separate housing unit, or confined to their cell or room.11
28. The study also concluded that the majority of the cases involving staff victimizing youth
were more serious in nature: 68% involved sexual misconduct, which the study defined as
7
See Robert W. Dumond, The Impact of Prisoner Sexual Violence: Challenges of Implementing Public Law
108-79 – The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 32 J. LEGIS. 142, 147 (2006) (“To fully understand the
implications of the BJS study, one must recognize that of all categories of crime, rape and sexual violence are
known to be one of the most underreported, making an accurate assessment of its occurrence difficult.”).
8
Jeremy Travis, Reflections on Juvenile Justice Reform in New York, 56 N.Y.L.S. Law Rev. 1318 at 1322
(2011-12) available at
https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1682&context=nyls_law_review; Melissa Sickmund,
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Juveniles in Residential Placement, 1997–2008 (2010), available at
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/229379.pdf.
9
See U.S. Dep’t of Just., Proposed National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape
Under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) at 6 (Jan. 2011), available at
https://www.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh241/files/media/document/prea_nprm_iria.pdf.
10
See Emily D. Buehler, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Substantiated Incidents of Sexual Victimization Reported by
Juvenile Justice Authorities, 2013–2018 (Mar. 2023) available at https://bjs.ojp.gov/document/sisvrjja1318.pdf
11
Id.
10 of 28
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/11/2024 11:23 AM INDEX NO. 516170/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/11/2024
indecent exposure, intentionally touching sexual areas, and actions up through completed
sexual acts.
29. While the U.S. Department of Justice Report focused on substantiated reports of sexual
abuse, experts in the field note that “only a minuscule percentage of the overall incidents
of sexual abuse [are reported]; most kids in custody who endure abuse don't speak out, and
those who do usually see their reports go nowhere.”12
30. Defendants were aware that sexual abuse of children by facility staff was a persistent and
prevalent problem in their juvenile detention facilities, including CROSSROADS. For
decades, Defendants have been made aware of the ongoing sexual abuse of children in their
care through the investigations and reports by the CITY’s own task force, by the U.S.
Department of Justice, studies by third parties, allegations by children at CROSSROADS,
and criminal proceedings against their employees and agents.
31. Documented and publicized abuse, and reports of conditions known to be likely to lead to
abuse, at CROSSROADS facilities include:
a. In 2001, John Carey, a staff member at CROSSROADS, physically assaulted two
juvenile detainees. During his disciplinary hearing in 2004, the Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) found that Carey had an “extensive disciplinary record, dating almost
from his appointment.” The ALJ found Carey’s “inappropriate treatment of
residents” “seriously troubling.”13
12
See Tami Abdollah, Juvenile detention staff who sexually victimized children face few legal sanctions,
study says, USA Today, (Apr. 1, 2023) available at https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2023/04/01/most-
juvenile-detention-staff-who-abused-children-faced-no-legal-action/11571406002/
13
Dep't of Juvenile Justice v. Carey, OATH Index No. 2268/04 (Sept. 13, 2004), aff'd, NYC Civ. Serv.
Comm'n Item No. CD05-76- SA (Sept. 30, 2005),
11 of 28
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/11/2024 11:23 AM INDEX NO. 516170/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/11/2024
b. In 2002, Douglas James, a staff member at CROSSROADS sexually assaulted a
juvenile detainee three times within a one-hour period.14
c. In 2008, Dino Bodden, a staff member at CROSSROADS, was arrested after selling
marijuana to a juvenile inmate at CROSSROADS.15
d. In 2014, Jacques Edwards, a convicted murderer and counselor at CROSSROADS,
physically assaulted a 15-year-old inmate at CROSSROADS less than a year after
he was hired.16
e. In 2015, Matthews Judge, a counselor at CROSSROADS, choked a juvenile inmate
and ground his knee into the neck of a second juvenile inmate before smashing his
head against a brick wall.17
f. CROSSROADS has, throughout its history, faced severe understaffing with only
half of its youth development specialist positions actively filled and other positions
such as guards, working sixteen to eighteen hour days as of 2022.18
B. Defendants’ Duty to Plaintiff
32. At all times relevant and material hereto, the Defendant CITY was responsible for
providing for the care, protection and safety of children within New York City placed in
juvenile detention by and through the courts of New York City.
14
See Dep’t of Juvenile Justice v. James, OATH Index No. 847/06 (July 28, 2006), app. dismissed NYC CSC
Comm’n Item No. CD 07-90-D.
15
See News Staff Report, Counselor Bust, Daily News (May 29, 2008).
16
See Thomas Tracy, ACS guy’s ‘killer’ brag, Daily News (Sept. 2, 2018).
17
See Michael Gartland, City’s child-welfare agency to fire counselor, N.Y. Post (Feb. 16, 2017) available at
https://nypost.com/2017/02/16/citys-child-welfare-agency-to-fire-abusive-counselor/.
18
See Sasha Hochman, Raise the Bar on Raise the Age: Ending Child Prosecution in Adult Courts, Columbia
Undergrad. L. Rev. (Feb. 10, 2022), available at https://www.culawreview.org/journal/raise-the-bar-on-raise-the-
age-ending-child-prosecution-in-adult-courts.
12 of 28
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/11/2024 11:23 AM INDEX NO. 516170/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/11/2024
33. At all times relevant and material hereto, ACS was an agency within the CITY that had a
primary mission of promoting the development, well-being, and safety of the children in
juvenile detention facilities operated by the CITY.
34. At all times relevant and material hereto, DOC was an agency within the CITY that had a
primary mission of promoting the development, well-being, and safety of the incarcerated
individuals including some juveniles in facilities operated by the CITY, including
CROSSROADS.
35. At all times relevant and material hereto, the CITY, by and through ACS and DOC,
established and enforced policies and procedures, collaborated with other State and City
agencies, and funded and provided an array of services. The responsibilities of ACS and
DOC included the administration of juvenile detention for youth who had been remanded
to ACS and/or DOC custody by family and criminal courts.
36. At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendant CITY, by and through ACS and DOC,
administered juvenile detention centers throughout New York City, including
CROSSROADS.
37. Defendant CITY, by and through ACS and DOC, was responsible for oversight and
monitoring of juvenile detention centers to ensure compliance with applicable city, state,
and federal laws.
38. Defendant CITY, by and through ACS and DOC, was responsible for ensuring that the
rights of children placed in juvenile detention centers, such as CROSSROADS, were not
violated and that children placed in juvenile detention centers such as CROSSROADS
continued to enjoy all the fundamental rights and freedoms children have outside of
juvenile detention centers. This included the basic right to be treated with dignity, the right
13 of 28
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/11/2024 11:23 AM INDEX NO. 516170/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/11/2024
to be free of cruel and inhumane treatment, and the right to be free from physical and sexual
abuse.
39. Upon information and belief, Defendant CITY, by and through ACS and DOC, was
responsible for developing policies and procedures to prevent the sexual abuse of children
in its legal custody.
40. Upon information and belief, Defendant CITY, by and through ACS and DOC, was
responsible for performing database and/or background checks on prospective employees
of the State’s juvenile detention centers such as CROSSROADS.
41. At all times relevant and material hereto, New York Law authorized Defendants CITY,
ACS, and DOC to inspect and supervise juvenile detention centers such as CROSSROADS
in the interest of protecting the life, health, safety, and comfort of the children placed in
juvenile detention.
42. At all times relevant and material hereto, New York law authorized Defendants CITY,
ACS, and DOC to investigate all reported child abuse allegations at the juvenile detention
facilities within New York City such as CROSSROADS.
43. At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendant CITY, by and through ACS and DOC,
had a non-delegable duty to use reasonable care in the investigation, licensing, supervision
and/or monitoring of CROSSROADS and other juvenile detention centers within the City
and to develop or implement programs, guidelines, procedures and/or training to prevent
the abuse of children placed within CROSSROADS and other juvenile detention centers.
44. At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendant CITY, by and through ACS and DOC,
provided child welfare, child protective care and childcare services.
14 of 28
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/11/2024 11:23 AM INDEX NO. 516170/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/11/2024
45. At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendant CITY, by and through ACS and DOC,
was the legal guardian and/or custodian of Plaintiff and owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable
care to protect Plaintiff from foreseeable harms.
46. At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendant CITY, by and through ACS and DOC,
owed a non-delegable duty to Plaintiff to use reasonable care to protect the safety, care,
well-being and health of Plaintiff while he was under its care and custody. Defendant
CITY’s duties, by and through ACS’ and DOC’s duties, encompassed reasonable care in
the supervision of children in its agents’ custody and control, as well as reasonable care in
the selection, retention and supervision of individuals working at juvenile detention
facilities.
47. At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendant CITY, by and through ACS and DOC,
owed a non-delegable duty to exercise reasonable care in the training of employees and/or
agents in the prevention of sexual abuse and protection of the safety of children in its care,
custody and/or control.
48. At all times relevant and material hereto, the Defendant CITY, by and through ACS and
DOC, owed a non-delegable duty to establish and implement policies and procedures in
the exercise of reasonable care for the prevention of sexual abuse and protection of the
safety of children in its care, custody and/or control.
49. At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendant CITY, by and through ACS and DOC,
owed non-delegable duties to children in juvenile detention, including without limitation:
a. To evaluate and investigate all reports of child abuse and/or neglect;
b. To investigate all relevant conditions of the juvenile detention centers that might
affect the child;
15 of 28
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/11/2024 11:23 AM INDEX NO. 516170/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/11/2024
c. To ensure that children residing in a juvenile detention center are supervised at all
times by authorized adult caregivers;
d. To report and investigate all known incidents of sexual abuse or aggression
occurring in the juvenile detention center;
e. To ensure that children were not left in dangerous conditions, including being
subjected to sexual, emotional or physical abuse.
50. Defendant CITY, through ACS and DOC, is legally responsible for the acts, omissions and
negligence of its agents, employees and entities with which it retains and/or contracts with
to render juvenile detention and other custodial services, including without limitation, at
CROSSROADS.
51. Defendant CITY, through ACS and DOC, is legally responsible for the acts, omissions and
negligence of the agents, employees and entities carrying out its non-delegable duties,
including without limitation, at CROSSROADS.
C. Gender-motivated sexual abuse of Plaintiff at Crossroads Juvenile Center
52. Plaintiff was in custody at CROSSROADS beginning in approximately 2003 for around
five months, when he was around 14 years old.
53. Plaintiff was sexually abused by a male staff member and a female staff member
(collectively “PERPETRATORS”) at CROSSROADS during the time that he was
detained.19
54. PERPETRATORS would bring in nude photographs of themselves and show the
photographs to Plaintiff.
19
At all relevant times herein, the male staff member was a Black male in his early 30s with a tattoo on his
neck that said “kin” and the female staff member was an overweight, Black female in her late 40s who wore her hair
in a ponytail.
16 of 28
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/11/2024 11:23 AM INDEX NO. 516170/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/11/2024
55. PERPETRATORS forced Plaintiff to masturbate himself while he looked at the
photographs.
56. Both the male and the female staff members sexually abused Plaintiff in this manner on
several occasions.
57. PERPETRATORS also fondled Plaintiff’s buttocks and genitals underneath his clothes. In
total, PERPETRATORS sexually abused Plaintiff in this manner around four times.
58. Both PERPETRATORS forced Plaintiff to touch their genitals over their clothing.
59. On one occasion, the female staff member performed oral sex on Plaintiff.
60. PERPETRATORS threatened Plaintiff and told him that if he refused to submit to their
abuse that they would plant contraband in his room to get him into trouble.
61. At all relevant times, PERPETRATOR was a staff member at CROSSROADS and
served as an employee/agent of the Defendants.
62. The above-described sexual contact and/or acts perpetrated by PERPETRATORS was non-
consensual. At the relevant times herein, Plaintiff was a minor in the legal and physical
custody of the Defendants and could not legally consent.
63. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PERPETRATORS were sexually abusing
children at CROSSROADS, including Plaintiff.
64. At the time of the above-described sexual abuse of Plaintiff, PERPETRATORS were not
being adequately supervised, monitored, or surveilled by Defendants. Upon information
and belief, Defendants’ failure to supervise, discipline, remove, and/or otherwise
investigate these staff members directly enabled the above-described sexual abuse.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE VICTIMS OF GENDER-MOTIVATED VIOLENCE
PROTECTION ACT
17 of 28
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/11/2024 11:23 AM INDEX NO. 516170/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/11/2024
AGAINT ALL DEFENDANTS
65. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every previous allegation above
as if fully stated in this Count.
66. Defendants directed, enabled, participated in and/or conspired with PERPETRATORS in
the commission of an act or series of acts that would constitute a misdemeanor or felony
against the person as defined in state or federal law.
67. Defendants directed, enabled, participated in and/or conspired with PERPETRATORS in
the commission of a crime of violence.
68. PERPETRATORS’ sexual abuse of Plaintiff constitutes a crime of violence because it
constitutes a misdemeanor and/or felony against Plaintiff as defined in state and/or federal
law.
69. PERPETRATORS’ sexual abuse of Plaintiff is a crime of violence motivated by gender
because it was a crime of violence committed because of gender or on the basis of gender,
and due, at least in part, to an animus based on the Plaintiff’s gender.
70. PERPETRATORS’ sexual abuse of Plaintiff would constitute a sexual offense as defined
under New York Penal Code article 130.
71. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendants,
PERPETRATORS groomed and sexually abused Plaintiff, which caused Plaintiff to be
damaged. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has
suffered, and will continue to suffer, great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional
distress, discomfort, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of
self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life. Plaintiff was prevented,
and will continue to be prevented, from performing daily activities and obtaining the full
18 of 28
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/11/2024 11:23 AM INDEX NO. 516170/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/11/2024
enjoyment of life. Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, loss of earnings and
earning capacity. Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, expenses for medical
and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.
72. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff was injured solely and wholly as a result of the
negligence, carelessness and recklessness of the Defendants, without any negligence on the
part of the Plaintiff contributing thereto.
73. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to monetary relief, in the form of compensatory damages, to
remedy the bodily harm and severe pain and suffering and emotional distress suffered as a
result of PERPETRATORS’ extreme and outrageous conduct for which Defendants are
liable.
74. Defendants’ acts and/or omissions in directing, enabling, participating in and/or conspiring
in the sexual abuse of Plaintiff by PERPETRATORS were grossly negligent or reckless
conduct evincing an utter disregard for the safety or rights of others, including Plaintiff.
Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages to punish Defendants and deter Defendants and
others from engaging in similar conduct in the future.
COUNT II: NEGLIGENCE
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
75. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every previous allegation above
as if fully stated in this Count.
76. Defendants had a duty to take reasonable steps to protect Plaintiff, a child, from foreseeable
harm when Plaintiff was under their supervision and in their care, custody and control.
77. Defendants also had a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent PERPETRATORS from
using the tasks, premises, and instrumentalities of their position as employees supervised
by Defendants to target, groom and sexually abuse children, including Plaintiff.
19 of 28
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/11/2024 11:23 AM INDEX NO. 516170/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/11/2024
78. Defendants were supervising PERPETRATORS when Plaintiff was a child being detained
at CROSSROADS, during which time the Defendants had a duty to take reasonable steps
to protect Plaintiff.
79. These circumstances created a special relationship between the Defendants and the
Plaintiff, which imposed on the Defendants a duty to exercise the degree of care a parent
of ordinary prudence in comparable circumstances.
80. Defendants breached each of the foregoing duties by failing to exercise reasonable care to
prevent Plaintiff from being sexually abused by its employees.
81. In breaching these duties, including hiring, retaining, and failing to supervise
PERPETRATORS; giving PERPETRATORS access to children; entrusting tasks,
premises, and instrumentalities to them; failing to train Defendants’ personnel to notice the
signs of sexual predation and to protect children from sexual abuse and other harm; failing
to warn Plaintiff of the danger of sexual abuse; and failing to create a safe and secure
environment for Plaintiff and other children who were under Defendants’ supervision and
in their care, custody and control, the Defendants created a risk that Plaintiff would be
sexually abused by PERPETRATORS. Defendants, through their actions and inactions,
and through their agents, servants, and/or employees, created an environment that placed
Plaintiff in danger of unreasonable risks of harm under the circumstances.
82. Defendants acted willfully and with conscious disregard for the need to protect Plaintiff.
83. It was reasonably foreseeable that Defendants’ breach of these duties of care would result
in the gender-motivated sexual abuse of Plaintiff.
20 of 28
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/11/2024 11:23 AM INDEX NO. 516170/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/11/2024
84. PERPETRATORS’ sexual abuse of Plaintiff constitutes a crime of violence because it
constitutes a misdemeanor and/or felony against Plaintiff as defined in state and/or federal
law.
85. PERPETRATORS’ sexual abuse of Plaintiff is a crime of violence motivated by gen
Related Content
in Kings County
Ruling
Wolfpack Wood Recycling, Inc. vs. Winterburn
Jul 10, 2024 |
23CV-0203080
WOLFPACK WOOD RECYCLING, INC. VS. WINTERBURN
Case Number: 23CV-0203080
Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions issued on
May 21, 2024 to Plaintiff Wolfpack Wood Recycling, Inc. and counsel Carr, Kennedy, Peterson & Forst for
failure to timely serve Defendant in compliance with CRC 3.110(b). The same day the Order to Show Cause
issued, Plaintiff filed an Application to Serve by Publication which the Court granted. While Plaintiff did not file
a written response to the Order to Show Cause, the declarations filed in support of the Application provide
sufficient excuse for the delay. The Order to Show Cause is DISCHARGED.
******************************************************************************************
9:00 a.m. – Review Hearings
******************************************************************************************
Ruling
FCS057573 - PEREZ, HEIDI JUDITH VS BOOKER, WESLEY (DMS)
Jul 12, 2024 |
FCS057573
FCS057573
Motions for Contempt
TENTATIVE RULING:
Petitioner’s “motions” for contempt are denied.
No affidavit of the facts constituting any contempt has been presented to the
court. The filing of a sufficient affidavit is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a
contempt proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1211(a); Koehler v. Superior Court
(2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1169; Oil Workers Int’l Union v. Superior Court
(1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 512, 541.)
Page 1 of 1
Ruling
MARTIN RUIZ, ET AL. VS FRANK COLARUOTOLO CONSULTING, INC., ET AL.
Jul 11, 2024 |
23LBCV01593
Case Number:
23LBCV01593
Hearing Date:
July 11, 2024
Dept:
S25 Procedural Background On August 23, 2023, Plaintiff Martin and Graciela Ruiz filed a complaint against Defendants Frank Colaruotolo Consulting, Inc. (FCC), Pacific Crane Maintenance Company, LLC (PCMC), and Does 1-10. On April 11, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (FAC), alleging two causes of action: (1) Negligence against Defendants FCC, Frank Colaruotolo, and Does 2 through 10; and (2) Negligence against Defendants PCMC and Does 2 through 10. On June 11, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (SAC), adding CSI Services as a Defendant. Plaintiffs Martin Ruiz and Graciela Ruiz are the surviving biological father and mother of the decedent, respectively. (SAC ¶¶ 1, 2.) Plaintiffs are suing for the loss of their adult son, decedent Edgar Ruiz. Decedent was killed during a forklift incident on January 18, 2022. (See SAC ¶¶ 16-23.) Since the filing of Plaintiffs original complaint, Nico Ruiz filed a separate action against Defendants FCC and CSI Services, Inc., LASC No. 24LBCV00081. LASC Case No. 23LBCV01593 and LASC Case No. 24LBCV00081 (hereinafter collectively referred to as Related Cases) were deemed related by this Court. (See March 14, 2024 Notice of Ruling Re: Related Cases and Upcoming Hearing Dates in Case No. 24LBCV00081; Forouzan Decl., ¶ 6.) On May 7, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to consolidate the Related Cases. Legal Standard CCP § 1048 provides: (a) When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. (b) The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States. The purpose of consolidation is to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, avoid duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions, and avoid inconsistent results by hearing and deciding common issues together. (See Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 484-485.) Further, the granting or denial of a motion to consolidate rests in the trial court's sound discretion and will not be reversed except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. (Feliner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511.) Ruling The Court agrees the two related matters should be consolidated for the following reasons: (1) both involve the same incident and (2) include nearly identical Defendants, (3) involve identical questions of law and fact, (4) identical burdens of proof, and (5) similar if not identical witnesses. However, there appears no record of Plaintiffs filing a notice of motion to consolidate in LASC Case No. 24LBCV00081 (the Nico Ruiz case) as required by Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(1)(C). If the parties in 24LBCV00081 waive the requirement of a noticed motion, the Court will grant the Motion to Consolidate. If there is no waiver, the Motion to Consolidate is denied without prejudice for Plaintiffs to correct the procedural defects.
Ruling
ROMMEL NAVARRO, AN INDIVIDUAL VS KELLY HARREL, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
Jul 11, 2024 |
22CHCV01216
Case Number:
22CHCV01216
Hearing Date:
July 11, 2024
Dept:
F51
JULY 10, 2024
MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES
(Form Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, Special Interrogatories,
and Requests for Admission, Set One)
Los Angeles Superior Court Case #
22CHCV01216
Motions Filed:
3/12/24
MOVING PARTY:
Defendant Kelly Harrel (Moving Defendant)
RESPONDING PARTY:
Plaintiff Rommel Navarro (Plaintiff)
NOTICE:
OK
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Orders compelling Plaintiffs responses to Moving Defendants first set of Requests for Production of Documents (RFPs); Form Interrogatories; Requests for Admission (RFAs); and Special Interrogatories. Moving Defendant further requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the combined amount of $4,264.00.
TENTATIVE RULING:
The unopposed motions are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to provide objection-free responses to Moving Defendants first set of discovery requests within 20 days. Moving Defendants Requests for Admission, Set One, are deemed admitted. The Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $500.00.
Ruling
CARTER JOHN THOMAS HASBROOK VS MONICA CIONNE HASBROOK
Jul 10, 2024 |
23AHCV00370
Case Number:
23AHCV00370
Hearing Date:
July 10, 2024
Dept:
P
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA OF NON-PARTY CAROLINE BERNSTEIN
I.
BACKGROUND
On February 21, 2023, Plaintiff Carter John Thomas Hasbrook (Plaintiff) initiated this lawsuit against his former wife, Defendant Monica Cione Hasbrook (Defendant) for physical injury damages incurred during a physical attack arising out of the dissolution of their marriage. On July 14, 2023, Defendant filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff alleging that Plaintiff drugged her as she recovered at Huntington Hospital following being struck by a bus. (Gillick Decl., Exh. 1, ¶ 9.) Discovery has revealed records that Defendants sister Caroline Bernstein, a non-party to this action, called the hospital alleging that the parties were using heroin prior to the bus accident and that Plaintiff was the source of the drugs. (Gillick Decl., Exh. 3.)
Plaintiff now moves to compel non-party Bernstein to provide responses to Plaintiffs deposition subpoena and request for production of records to corroborate the allegations that he supplied heroin to Defendant.
Plaintiff argues that he served Bernstein with a valid subpoena on April 2, 2024, that required Bernstein to produce records by April 18, 2024. Plaintiff argues that no response was received, leading to Plaintiffs process server, Titan Legal Service to mail follow up letters to Bernstein demanding compliance. (Motion, p. 4.)
The motion is unopposed.
II.
MOTION TO COMPEL NON-PARTY COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA
A.
Legal Standard
A party seeking discovery from a person who is not a party to the action may obtain discovery by oral deposition, written deposition, or deposition subpoena for production of business records.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.010.)
A deposition subpoena may command: (1) only the attendance and testimony of the deponent, (2) only the production of business records for copying, or (3) the attendance and testimony of the deponent, as well as the production of business records, other documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.)
A service of a deposition subpoena shall be effected a sufficient time in advance of the deposition to provide the deponent a reasonable opportunity to locate and produce any designated documents and, where personal attendance is commanded, a reasonable time to travel to the place of deposition.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (a).)
Personal service of any deposition subpoena is effective to require a deponent who is a resident of California to: personally appear and testify, if the subpoena so specifies; to produce any specified documents; and to appear at a court session if the subpoena so specifies.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (c).)
A deponent who disobeys a deposition subpoena may be punished for contempt without the necessity of a prior order of the court directing compliance by the witness.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.240.)
A written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail or electronic service at an address or electronic service address specified on the deposition record.
(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1346.)
B.
Discussion
Plaintiff asserts that Bernstein has apparent knowledge of the situation and made claims to a hospital employee that incriminate him against Defendant. Plaintiff asserts that a licensed social worker at Huntington Hospital spoke with Bernstein over the phone on July 27, 2021, and Bernstein stated that Defendant used heroin before the accident and her ex-husband (Plaintiff) brought it to her. (Mot., p. 3.) Defendant provides proof of service showing personal service upon Bernstein with the deposition subpoena on April 2, 2024. (Gillick Decl., ¶ 5; Exh. 4.) There has been no objection filed to the subpoena for Bernsteins deposition, nor has any opposition or motion to quash been filed.
III.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted.
Third party Caroline Bernstein is ordered to comply with the subpoena served on her on April 2, 2024.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Dated this 10
th
day of July 2024
Hon. Jared D. Moses
Judge of the Superior Court
Ruling
MARIANA ACOSTA VS HECTOR EDUARDO GALBUSERA
Jul 09, 2024 |
20STCV33737
Case Number:
20STCV33737
Hearing Date:
July 9, 2024
Dept:
T Motion to Change Venue
Moving Party:
Plaintiff Mariana Accosta Responding Party:
Defendant Hector Galbusera Tentative Ruling:
Denied.
BACKGROUND
On September 03, 2020, Plaintiff Mariana Acosta (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint alleging motor vehicle action against Defendant Hector Eduardo Galbusera (Defendant) and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive. Defendant filed his Answer to the Complaint on October 20, 2020.
On May 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Transfer. Defendant filed his opposition to the motion on June 13, 2024. Plaintiff has filed a reply.
DISCUSSION
Applicable Law
Venue is determined based on the complaint on file at the time the motion to change venue is made. [Citations.] [Citation.] (Dow AgroSciences, LLC v. Superior Court (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1076.)¿¿
[I]f an action or proceeding is commenced in a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter thereof, other than the court designated as the proper court for the trial thereof, under this title, the action may, notwithstanding, be tried in the court where commenced& (Code Civ. Proc., § 396b(a).) The burden is on the moving party to establish facts justifying the transfer. (Mission Imports, Inc. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 921, 928.) Absent an affirmative showing to the contrary, the presumption is that the county in which the title of the action shows that it is brought is, prima facie, the proper county for the commencement and trial of the action. (Id.; Fontaine v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 830, 836.)
Analysis
The Complaint alleges a negligence cause of action against the Defendant for a motor = vehicle accident that occurred on the ramp of SR-60 E/B to the I-710 N/B, Los Angeles, CA 90022. (Compl.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant fell asleep while driving, causing the crash with Plaintiff, and was cited for violating California Vehicle Code section 22350 - Unsafe Speed by the California Highway Patrol. (Id. p. 5.)
Plaintiff seeks to transfer the action to a trial department in Downtown Los Angeles. (Mot. p. 2) Plaintiff argues that the lawsuit has no connection to Alhambra since the subject incident occurred downtown, neither party lives in Alhambra, and all witnesses, including first responders and Plaintiffs medical provider, live in/near or work in/near downtown Los Angeles. Plaintiff asserts that the venue is proper in the central district because the case was initially filed there and had remained there for nearly four years before being transferred to this Court.
In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to provide any statutory authority to support the motion. The Court disagrees. First, Defendant mistakes the motion for a motion for forum non-convenes. That is not the case as Plaintiff rests the motion under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 395(a), 397(c).
However, Plaintiff has not carried her burden in showing that a change in venue back to downtown is justifiable. Here, the standard is not so much about focusing on convenience but rather on the inconvenience of the venue for the action. The plaintiffs contention that witnesses are in or around downtown is simply not enough to carry her burden under the statute. While one courthouse may be more convenient to some witnesses, the level of inconvenience is not substantial and a transfer is not necessary to further the interests of justice. Further, Plaintiff argues that she would be prejudiced by a trial continuance. Because the matter is set for trial on October 14 in Department T and it is extremely unlikely that the case would be set any earlier in a downtown courthouse, denial of this motion protects Plaintiff from the perceived prejudice resulting from a trial continuance.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs Motion to Change Venue is DENIED.
Ruling
Jane Doe vs Doe 1 - School et al.
Jul 09, 2024 |
STK-CV-UNPI-2022-0010913
TENTATIVE RULING NOTICE Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing. Any party wishing to contest or argue the tentative ruling must email the court at civilcourtclerks@sjcourts.org. that they intend to appear remotely no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. The Department and Case Number must be in the header of the email. The email must include the Department, Case number, Case Name, Motion, party’s name and email, date and time of the hearing, issues they plan to argue, and that they have informed the opposing party. The party must also notify affected counsel, or unrepresented parties, that they intend to appear, no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. Unless the Court and opposing counsel have been notified, the tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the Court without oral argument. To attend the remote hearing with Judge Kronlund in Dept. 10-D: Call into (209) 992-5590, then follow the prompts and use the Bridge # and Pin # as follows: Bridge # 6940 Pin # 3782 Court is issuing one tentative ruling for both motions on calendar this date Tentative Rulings Defendant TUSD's motion to stay action is Denied, without prejudice. A court ordinarily has inherent power, in its discretion, to stay proceedings when such a stay will accommodate the ends of justice. (OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 141.) The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the cause on its docket with the economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel and for litigants. (Ibid.) Trial courts generally have inherent power to stay proceedings in the interest of justice and to promote judicial efficiency. (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489; see also Cottle v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1376-79; Code Civ. Proc. §§ 128(a)(3) ["Every court shall have the power to do all of the following: To provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it, or its officers."] and (a)(5) ["Every court shall have the power to do all of the following: To control in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter pertaining thereto."]. Both parties acknowledge this Court’s discretion in considering this Motion. However, the parties differ about the applicable standards that should govern this discretion. This case was filed in November of 2022, and we have only had one CMC so far, and Defendant TUSD is only now filing an answer. The Court has until November of 2027 to get this case to trial. Defendant TUSD's 2 requests for judicial notice (RFJN) are denied, except as to the fact of a Writ Petition being filed with the 6th DCA on another similar case from Monterey regarding the constitutionality of AB 218, and the filing in the 1st DCA of an appeal on the same issue in yet another case. None of the rest of the documents included in the RFJNs are relevant to this motion. Defendants object to Plaintiff's Counsel's declaration which essentially seeks judicial notice of numerous other cases' orders and filings; these are not relevant and have no precedential value in this case. Likewise, these authorities are not properly subject to judicial notice. The Court can not say that a stay in this action, of unknown duration, would serve the interests of justice or judicial efficiency or economy under all of the circumstances. Defendant City's motion for joinder is Granted. Barbara A. Kronlund
Ruling
JENNIFER BRUSICK, ET AL. VS LOS ANGELES DODGERS, ET AL.
Jul 09, 2024 |
21STCV26757
Case Number:
21STCV26757
Hearing Date:
July 9, 2024
Dept:
28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On July 21, 2021, Plaintiffs Jennifer Brusick, Richard Brusick, individually and as guardian ad litem for Peyton Brusick, and Jake Brusick filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles Dodgers, Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC, Los Angeles Dodgers Holding Company LLC, Guggenheim Baseball Group, Frank McCourt, and Does 1-50 for negligence, negligence-premises liability, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium.
On July 29, 2021, the Court appointed Richard Brusick to serve as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff Peyton Brusick.
On January 12, 2022, Defendants Los Angeles Dodgers LLC and Los Angeles Dodgers Holding Company LLC filed an answer.
On June 7, 2024, Defendant
Los Angeles Dodgers LLC
(Defendant) filed a motion to compel Plaintiffs depositions and for sanctions, to be heard on July 9, 2024.
Plaintiffs did not file an opposition.
Trial is currently scheduled for July 15, 2024.
PARTY'S REQUESTS
Defendant asks the Court to compel Plaintiffs to appear for depositions and to impose sanctions on Plaintiffs.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 provides in part:
(a) If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponents attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.
(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following:
(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.
(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.
* * *
(g) (1) If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.
(2) On motion of any other party who, in person or by attorney, attended at the time and place specified in the deposition notice in the expectation that the deponents testimony would be taken, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of that party and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. . . .
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (a), (b), (g).)
DISCUSSION
Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020, subdivision (a), provides:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).)
On January 12, 2024, the Court continued the trial from February 28, 2024 to July 15, 2024 based on the parties stipulation.
The Court ordered that all deadlines and cut-off dates would be governed by the new trial date.
Based on Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020, subdivision (a), and the Courts January 12, 2024 order, the last day for the Court to hear a motion concerning discovery was 15 days before July 15, 2024.
Defendants motion to compel Plaintiffs depositions is set for hearing 6 days before July 15, 2024.
Therefore, the Court cannot hear Defendants motion.
The Court denies the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Defendant
Los Angeles Dodgers LLCs motion to compel Plaintiffs depositions and for sanctions.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.
Document
Anna Gallina AS THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF GASPARE GALLINA, DECEASED v. Adam Landskowsky M.D., Yan Lupyan M.D., Mark Tsinker M.D., Bay Ridge Medical Imaging, P.C, New York Methodist Hospital
Sep 04, 2007 |
Veronica G. Hummel
|
Torts - Medical, Dental, or Podiatrist Malpractice |
Torts - Medical, Dental, or Podiatrist Malpractice |
506327/2016
Document
Alberta Rehberg, As Executor Of The Estate Of Vincent Varvaro, Deceased v. Nyu Langone Health System, Nyu Langone Hospitals, Sea Crest Acquisition 1, Llc D/B/A Sea Crest Nursing And Rehabilitation Center
Oct 19, 2021 |
Heela Capell
|
Torts - Other (Neg.,PHL2801d,WD,Med Mal) |
Torts - Other (Neg.,PHL2801d,WD,Med Mal) |
526619/2021