Preview
Reuben J. Donig (Bar ¹065659)
Jeffrey R. Windsor (Bar ¹213484)
Attorneys at Law
177 Bovet Road, Suite 600
San Mateo, California 94402
Telephone (650) 638-2336
Facsimile (650) 638-2536
Attorney for Plaintiff
ELAINE PICO 9/21/2021
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
IO
11
ELAINE PICO Case No. 19-CIV-07360
12
Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT COUNTY
OF SAN MATEO'S MOTION FOR
13
vs. SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THLF
ALTFRNATIVE,SUMMARY
14
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO'AN MATEO ADJUDICATION
COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION,
15
~Hearin~
Defendants.
16
Date: September 17, 2021
Time: 9:00 a.m.
17
Dept: Courtroom 2J
Judge: Hon. Robert D. Foi les
18
Defendant County of San Mateo's (" County" ) Motion for Summary Judgement Or, In the
20 Alternative, Summary Adjudication (" Motion" ) came on regularly for hearing on September 17, 2021 on
the Law and Motion Calendar of Department 21 of the above-entitled court, the Honorable Robert D.
Foiles presiding. The hearing was conducted remotely via Zoom.
23
At the oral argument, Plaintiff was represented by her counsel of record, Reuben J. Donig, Esq.
Defendant COUNTY was represented by its counsel, Karen Rosenthal, Esq. Defendant SAN MATEO
COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION did not support or oppose the Motion and appeared through its
25
counsel, Jordan Scott, who did not participate in oral argument.
26
First, the County moved for summary judgment/summary adjudication on the ground that
27
Plaintiff s claim for dangerous condition of public property is barred based on the hold harmless
28
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SAN MATEO'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
I
provision in the contract entered into between Plaintiff and the County. The Court finds that a triable
issue of material fact exists as to whether the contract applies to Plaintiff's claim.
Second, the County moved for summary judgment/summary adjudication arguing that Plaintiff
cannot establish that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of injury because the
pavement irregularity is a trivial defect. The Court finds that a triable issue of material fact exists as to
whether the condition was a trivial or a non-trivial, dangerous or defective condition.
10
1'annot
Third, the County moved for summary judgment/summary adjudication claiming that. PlainIi1
establish that the County had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition, The Court
finds that a triable issue of material fact exists as to whether the County had actual or constructive notice
of the dangerous condition.
Wherefore, it is hereby ordered as follows: THE MOTION IS DENIED.
12
IT IS SO ORDERED
13
Dated:
14 The Hon. Robert D. Foiles,
Judge of the Superior Court,
15 Department 21
16
Approved as to Form and Content:
17
Dated: September 21, 2021
Karen Rosenthal
AItorney for Defendant
19 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SAN MATEO'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN TIIE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
Rei Elaine Pico v. County of San Jtfateo, et al.,
Superior Court of San Mateo County, Case ¹19-CIV-07360
I am employed in the County of San Mateo, California; I am over the age of 18 years,
and not a party to the within action; my business address is 177 Bovet Road, Suite 600, San
Mateo, California 94402.
I am readily familiar with my employer's business practice for collection and
processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service.
On the date set forth below, following ordinary business practice, I served the
10 following:
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SAN MATEO'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
12 SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
13 on the party or parties named below, by:
14 X BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: To ensure that the document was received by counsel within the
15 time frame of the statute, I caused the documents to be sent to the person at the electronic
notification addresses listed below. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the
16
transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
17
1B Karen B. Rosenthal, Esq. Mark F. Hazelwood, Esq.
liana P. Mandelbaum, Esq. Jordan E. Scott, Esq.
19
20 Hall of Justice and Records Allen, Glaessner, Hazelwood & Werth, LLP
400 County Center, 6'loor 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200
21 Redwood City, CA 94063-1662 San Francisco, CA 94104
22 email: irrosenthal smc ov.or email: mhaselwood a hwlaw.com
email: imandelbaum a mc ov.or email: scott a hwlaw.corn
23
24
Attorneys for Defendant County of San Attorneys for Defendant San Mateo County
Mateo Office of Education
25
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
26 foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on September 21, 2021 at
San Mateo, California.
27
20
Leah Bottini
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
Reuben J. Donig (Bar ¹065659) Jeffrey R. Windsor (Bar ¹213484) Attorneys at Law 177 Bovet Road, Suite 600 San Mateo, California 94402 Telephone (650) 638-2336 Facsimile (650) 638-2536 Attorney for Plaintiff ELAINE PICO 9/21/2021 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO IO 11 ELAINE PICO Case No. 19-CIV-07360 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SAN MATEO'S MOTION FOR 13 vs. SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THLF ALTFRNATIVE,SUMMARY 14 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO'AN MATEO ADJUDICATION COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, 15 ~Hearin~ Defendants. 16 Date: September 17, 2021 Time: 9:00 a.m. 17 Dept: Courtroom 2J Judge: Hon. Robert D. Foi les 18 Defendant County of San Mateo's (" County" ) Motion for Summary Judgement Or, In the 20 Alternative, Summary Adjudication (" Motion" ) came on regularly for hearing on September 17, 2021 on the Law and Motion Calendar of Department 21 of the above-entitled court, the Honorable Robert D. Foiles presiding. The hearing was conducted remotely via Zoom. 23 At the oral argument, Plaintiff was represented by her counsel of record, Reuben J. Donig, Esq. Defendant COUNTY was represented by its counsel, Karen Rosenthal, Esq. Defendant SAN MATEO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION did not support or oppose the Motion and appeared through its 25 counsel, Jordan Scott, who did not participate in oral argument. 26 First, the County moved for summary judgment/summary adjudication on the ground that 27 Plaintiff s claim for dangerous condition of public property is barred based on the hold harmless 28 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SAN MATEO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION I provision in the contract entered into between Plaintiff and the County. The Court finds that a triable issue of material fact exists as to whether the contract applies to Plaintiff's claim. Second, the County moved for summary judgment/summary adjudication arguing that Plaintiff cannot establish that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of injury because the pavement irregularity is a trivial defect. The Court finds that a triable issue of material fact exists as to whether the condition was a trivial or a non-trivial, dangerous or defective condition. 10 1'annot Third, the County moved for summary judgment/summary adjudication claiming that. PlainIi1 establish that the County had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition, The Court finds that a triable issue of material fact exists as to whether the County had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Wherefore, it is hereby ordered as follows: THE MOTION IS DENIED. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED 13 Dated: 14 The Hon. Robert D. Foiles, Judge of the Superior Court, 15 Department 21 16 Approved as to Form and Content: 17 Dated: September 21, 2021 Karen Rosenthal AItorney for Defendant 19 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SAN MATEO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN TIIE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 2 PROOF OF SERVICE Rei Elaine Pico v. County of San Jtfateo, et al., Superior Court of San Mateo County, Case ¹19-CIV-07360 I am employed in the County of San Mateo, California; I am over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is 177 Bovet Road, Suite 600, San Mateo, California 94402. I am readily familiar with my employer's business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. On the date set forth below, following ordinary business practice, I served the 10 following: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SAN MATEO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, 12 SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 13 on the party or parties named below, by: 14 X BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: To ensure that the document was received by counsel within the 15 time frame of the statute, I caused the documents to be sent to the person at the electronic notification addresses listed below. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the 16 transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 17 1B Karen B. Rosenthal, Esq. Mark F. Hazelwood, Esq. liana P. Mandelbaum, Esq. Jordan E. Scott, Esq. 19 20 Hall of Justice and Records Allen, Glaessner, Hazelwood & Werth, LLP 400 County Center, 6'loor 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200 21 Redwood City, CA 94063-1662 San Francisco, CA 94104 22 email: irrosenthal smc ov.or email: mhaselwood a hwlaw.com email: imandelbaum a mc ov.or email: scott a hwlaw.corn 23 24 Attorneys for Defendant County of San Attorneys for Defendant San Mateo County Mateo Office of Education 25 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 26 foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on September 21, 2021 at San Mateo, California. 27 20 Leah Bottini PROOF OF SERVICE