SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
DEBORA RUIZ, Plaintiff(s), vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL., Defendant(s).
CASE NO: BC671645
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Dept. 3
1:30 p.m.
May 24, 2019
Background Facts
Plaintiff, Debora Ruiz filed this action against Defendants, City of Los Angeles and Edmond Ethel for damages arising out of a trip and fall on the sidewalk. Plaintiff subsequently named Sandra Martinez and Hector Rivas as Does 1 and 2, alleging they owned the private property adjacent to the sidewalk.
Motion for Summary Judgment
At this time, Martinez and Rivas move for summary judgment, contending they did not own the sidewalk where the fall occurred, and they did not own or maintain the tree that caused the crack in the sidewalk.
Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing (a) Defendants did not meet their initial burden of proof, (b) Defendants’ motion improperly focuses on ownership, possession
Hearing Date
May 24, 2019
Type
Premises Liablty (e.g. slip & fall (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
DEBORA RUIZ, Plaintiff(s), vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL., Defendant(s).
CASE NO: BC671645
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Dept. 3
1:30 p.m.
May 24, 2019
Background Facts
Plaintiff, Debora Ruiz filed this action against Defendants, City of Los Angeles and Edmond Ethel for damages arising out of a trip and fall on the sidewalk. Plaintiff subsequently named Sandra Martinez and Hector Rivas as Does 1 and 2, alleging they owned the private property adjacent to the sidewalk.
Motion for Summary Judgment
At this time, Martinez and Rivas move for summary judgment, contending they did not own the sidewalk where the fall occurred, and they did not own or maintain the tree that caused the crack in the sidewalk.
Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing (a) Defendants did not meet their initial burden of proof, (b) Defendants’ motion improperly focuses on ownership, possession