JOAN BIGGS, Plaintiff(s), vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ET AL., Defendant(s).
CASE NO: BC629955
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
Plaintiff, Joan Biggs filed this action against Defendant, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”) for damages arising out of a bus accident. Plaintiff’s complaint includes a sole cause of action for motor vehicle negligence, and seeks to hold Defendant liable for (a) operation of a motor vehicle, (b) employment of persons (c) operating the vehicle, (d) ownership of the vehicle, (e) entrustment of the vehicle, and (f) “other reasons.”
At this time, LACMTA seeks to strike the allegations concerning entrustment of the vehicle and “other reasons.” LACMTA argues it cannot be held liable for negligent entrustment. It argues there are no allegations to support imposition of liability for “other reasons.” Finally, it contends nothing concerning negligent entrustm
Hearing Date
January 20, 2017
Type
Motor Vehicle - PI/PD/WD (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
JOAN BIGGS, Plaintiff(s), vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ET AL., Defendant(s).
CASE NO: BC629955
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
Plaintiff, Joan Biggs filed this action against Defendant, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”) for damages arising out of a bus accident. Plaintiff’s complaint includes a sole cause of action for motor vehicle negligence, and seeks to hold Defendant liable for (a) operation of a motor vehicle, (b) employment of persons (c) operating the vehicle, (d) ownership of the vehicle, (e) entrustment of the vehicle, and (f) “other reasons.”
At this time, LACMTA seeks to strike the allegations concerning entrustment of the vehicle and “other reasons.” LACMTA argues it cannot be held liable for negligent entrustment. It argues there are no allegations to support imposition of liability for “other reasons.” Finally, it contends nothing concerning negligent entrustm