Romero v Disney Facilities and Support
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Calendar: 2
Case: BC621826
Date: 11/17/17
MP: Defendant, Otis Elevator Co.
RP: Plaintiff, Rosario Romero
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT:
The Plaintiff suffered personal injuries when the elevator she was in suddenly and abruptly dropped.
CAUSES OF ACTION IN COMPLAINT:
1) Negligence
2) Products Liability - Strict Liability
3) Products Liability - Negligence
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Summary Judgment of the Complaint
DISCUSSION:
This hearing concerns the motion of Defendant, Otis Elevator Co. for summary judgment. Under CCP section 437c, the Defendant has the burden of offering facts that demonstrate that the Plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of her causes of action. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff cannot establish that it had a duty of care with regards to the elevator because it did not maintain the elevator and that the Plaintiff cannot establish that it had any product liability because it did not
Hearing Date
November 17, 2017
Type
Other PI/PD/WD (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Romero v Disney Facilities and Support
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Calendar: 2
Case: BC621826
Date: 11/17/17
MP: Defendant, Otis Elevator Co.
RP: Plaintiff, Rosario Romero
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT:
The Plaintiff suffered personal injuries when the elevator she was in suddenly and abruptly dropped.
CAUSES OF ACTION IN COMPLAINT:
1) Negligence
2) Products Liability - Strict Liability
3) Products Liability - Negligence
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Summary Judgment of the Complaint
DISCUSSION:
This hearing concerns the motion of Defendant, Otis Elevator Co. for summary judgment. Under CCP section 437c, the Defendant has the burden of offering facts that demonstrate that the Plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of her causes of action. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff cannot establish that it had a duty of care with regards to the elevator because it did not maintain the elevator and that the Plaintiff cannot establish that it had any product liability because it did not