Richardson v. Jones and Jones Management Group, Inc., et al.
The Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Jones and Jones Management Group, Inc. and Defendant Landcare USA, LLC (Doe 1) are DENIED. Defendants have not established entitlement to judgment in their favor. (Code of Civil Proc. § 437c).
In this action, Plaintiff Loretta Richardson argues that she was injured as a result of an alleged dangerous condition on the premises of a building owned, repaired, or managed by Defendants Jones and Jones Management Group, Inc. (“Jones”) and Landcare USA LLC (Doe 1) (“Landcare”). Each defendant has moved for summary judgment, arguing that no duty was owed because the condition was trivial and open and obvious, and that the defendants did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the condition.
The defendants’ motions are nearly identical, so the Court considers them together.
EVIDENCE
In support of the motion, Defendants presented the following evidence:
Plaintiff testified
Hearing Date
July 28, 2020
Type
Premises Liability (e.g.slip & fall) (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Richardson v. Jones and Jones Management Group, Inc., et al.
The Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Jones and Jones Management Group, Inc. and Defendant Landcare USA, LLC (Doe 1) are DENIED. Defendants have not established entitlement to judgment in their favor. (Code of Civil Proc. § 437c).
In this action, Plaintiff Loretta Richardson argues that she was injured as a result of an alleged dangerous condition on the premises of a building owned, repaired, or managed by Defendants Jones and Jones Management Group, Inc. (“Jones”) and Landcare USA LLC (Doe 1) (“Landcare”). Each defendant has moved for summary judgment, arguing that no duty was owed because the condition was trivial and open and obvious, and that the defendants did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the condition.
The defendants’ motions are nearly identical, so the Court considers them together.
EVIDENCE
In support of the motion, Defendants presented the following evidence:
Plaintiff testified