ROCIO GABRIELA PALAFOX VALENCIA, ET AL., Plaintiff(s), vs. TNH MOTORS, INC., ET AL., Defendant(s).
CASE NO: BC582695
[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1. Allegations of the Complaint
Plaintiffs, Rocio Gabriela Palafox Valencia and Jesus Fuentes-Sosa filed this action against Defendants, Hankey Investment Co., LP, et al. to recover for injuries sustained when Valencia fell down the stairs. Valencia alleges she was holding on to a handrail while descending the stairs, the handrail gave way (broke), and she consequently fell and sustained injuries. Fuentes-Sosa sues for loss of consortium.
2. Motion for Summary Judgment
At this time, Defendant moves for summary judgment, contending it did not cause the dangerous condition and it did not have notice of the dangerous condition.
a. Initial Notes
Plaintiffs filed their opposition on 10/05/16 and served it by mail the same day. Defendant correctly notes in reply that service by mail is not reasonably calculated to ensu
Hearing Date
October 21, 2016
Type
Premises Liablty (e.g. slip & fall (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
ROCIO GABRIELA PALAFOX VALENCIA, ET AL., Plaintiff(s), vs. TNH MOTORS, INC., ET AL., Defendant(s).
CASE NO: BC582695
[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1. Allegations of the Complaint
Plaintiffs, Rocio Gabriela Palafox Valencia and Jesus Fuentes-Sosa filed this action against Defendants, Hankey Investment Co., LP, et al. to recover for injuries sustained when Valencia fell down the stairs. Valencia alleges she was holding on to a handrail while descending the stairs, the handrail gave way (broke), and she consequently fell and sustained injuries. Fuentes-Sosa sues for loss of consortium.
2. Motion for Summary Judgment
At this time, Defendant moves for summary judgment, contending it did not cause the dangerous condition and it did not have notice of the dangerous condition.
a. Initial Notes
Plaintiffs filed their opposition on 10/05/16 and served it by mail the same day. Defendant correctly notes in reply that service by mail is not reasonably calculated to ensu