1/23/20
Dept. 73
Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding
GERIPSA MOLINA, et al. v. WALGREEN CO. (BC710808)
Counsel for plaintiffs/opposing parties: Thomas Kemerer, Brian McMahon (Kemmer, etc.)
Counsel for defendant/moving party Walgreen Co.: Loren Leibl, Michael Miretsky, Andrew Sewell (Leibl, etc.)
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (filed 11/8/19)
Tentative ruling
Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections: OVERRULED as to 1, 2, 10, 12, 13; SUSTAINED as to 3-9, 11-12.
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
Plaintiffs Geripsa Molina and Rosa Molina (minor by Geripsa Molina as guardian ad litem) sue Defendant Walgreen Co. for claims arising from Defendant’s employee’s false accusation of merchandise theft. Defendant now moves for summary judgment asserting that the conduct of Walgreen employees is protected under the doctrine of Shopkeeper’s Privilege (Penal Code § 490.5(f) because “Defendant’s employees had probable cause to stop Plaintiffs and that the stop was performed i
Hearing Date
January 23, 2020
Type
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
1/23/20
Dept. 73
Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding
GERIPSA MOLINA, et al. v. WALGREEN CO. (BC710808)
Counsel for plaintiffs/opposing parties: Thomas Kemerer, Brian McMahon (Kemmer, etc.)
Counsel for defendant/moving party Walgreen Co.: Loren Leibl, Michael Miretsky, Andrew Sewell (Leibl, etc.)
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (filed 11/8/19)
Tentative ruling
Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections: OVERRULED as to 1, 2, 10, 12, 13; SUSTAINED as to 3-9, 11-12.
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
Plaintiffs Geripsa Molina and Rosa Molina (minor by Geripsa Molina as guardian ad litem) sue Defendant Walgreen Co. for claims arising from Defendant’s employee’s false accusation of merchandise theft. Defendant now moves for summary judgment asserting that the conduct of Walgreen employees is protected under the doctrine of Shopkeeper’s Privilege (Penal Code § 490.5(f) because “Defendant’s employees had probable cause to stop Plaintiffs and that the stop was performed i