SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
ALMA MONTES, Plaintiff(s), vs. IN-N-OUT BURGER, ET AL., Defendant(s).
CASE NO: BC671890
[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; DENYING MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DENYING REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
Dept. 3
1:30 p.m.
September 20, 2019
1. Background Facts
Plaintiff, Alma Montes filed this action against Defendant, In-N-Out Burger to recover for injuries sustained when a bathroom door in one of Defendant’s restaurants collapsed onto her. Plaintiff filed the complaint on 8/10/17; it includes causes of action for general negligence and premises liability.
2. Motion for Sanctions
At this time, Plaintiff moves for issue sanctions, contending Defendant failed to disclose certain facts concerning inspections that occurred on the date of the incident. Defendant raises numerous purported procedural issues in its opposition; the Court is unclear on why Defendant apparently did not receive copie
Hearing Date
September 20, 2019
Type
Premises Liability (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
ALMA MONTES, Plaintiff(s), vs. IN-N-OUT BURGER, ET AL., Defendant(s).
CASE NO: BC671890
[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; DENYING MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DENYING REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
Dept. 3
1:30 p.m.
September 20, 2019
1. Background Facts
Plaintiff, Alma Montes filed this action against Defendant, In-N-Out Burger to recover for injuries sustained when a bathroom door in one of Defendant’s restaurants collapsed onto her. Plaintiff filed the complaint on 8/10/17; it includes causes of action for general negligence and premises liability.
2. Motion for Sanctions
At this time, Plaintiff moves for issue sanctions, contending Defendant failed to disclose certain facts concerning inspections that occurred on the date of the incident. Defendant raises numerous purported procedural issues in its opposition; the Court is unclear on why Defendant apparently did not receive copie