Preview
CAUSE NO. 03-0536-C DANA AMMONS, ET AL. IN THE DISTRICT COUR’ VS. SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS ABLE SUPPLY CO., ET AL. 241ST DISTRICT COURT DEFENDANT GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY’S DESIGNATION OF FACT WITNESSES SUBJECT TO ITS SPECIAL APPEARANCE COMES NOW, GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY (“Defendant”), and subject to its Special Appearance and its Motion to Transfer Venue, files this its Designation of Fact Witnesses. Based upon information currently available to Defendant, Defendant may call the following persons as fact witnesses in this litigation: Charles L. Kuencmann, Safety Director Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. P. O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX, 75710 (903) 882-5511 Mr, Kuenemann was a member of Tyler Pipe’s safety personnel at the Tyler Pipe Foundry from 1979-1998, safety engincer from 1973-79, and management trainee from 1971-73 He may have knowledge of air quality, safety devices, and safety training of employees at the Tyler Pipe plant. In addition, he may have information about Tyler Pipe’s knowledge of the potential health concerns involved with inhaling excessive amounts of silica. Mr. Kuenemann may also provide testimony concerning foundry operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work environment, the use of silica, foundry environmental/engineering controls, ventilation systems, respiratory protection devices used at the foundry, use and characteristics of silica sand at the foundry, manufacturing processes at the Tyler Pipe foundry, and safety practices and procedures. James Presswood 4408 Black Otter Dallas, TX 75287-5106 Mr. Presswood was a member of Tyler Pipe’s safety personnel at the Tyler Pipe Foundry from 1964-1973. He may have knowledge of air quality, safety devices, and safety training of employees at the Tyler Pipe plant. In addition, he may have information about Tyler Pipe’s knowledge of the potential health concerns involved with inhaling excessive amounts of silica. Mr. Presswood may also provide testimony concerning foundry operations, plaintiffs’ workplace Defendant General Refractories Company’s Designation of Fact Witnesses Subject to its Special Appearance— Page 1DL/2041282v1 2025-11241n. and work environment, the use of silica, foundry environmental/engincering controls, ventilatio sand systems, respiratory protection devices used at the foundry, use and characteristics of silica at the foundry, manufacturing processes at the Tyler Pipe foundry, and safety practices and procedures. The following witnesses may provide testimony regarding products applied to and used at Tyler Pipe foundry, as well as the use and characteristics of silica sand at the foundry: Bill Goolsby - Safety Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc P. O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 (903) 882-5511 Vicki Olliff, Purchasing Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc P. O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 (903) 882-5511 Paul Lowry Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 (903) 882-4624 Gary Furr 5102 CR 334 Tyler, TX 75708 The following physicians conducted pre-employment physicals to job applicants and treated minor on-the-job injuries at the Tyler Pipe Foundry from 1940 to the present. They may have information about Tyler Pipe’s knowledge of the potential health concerns involved with inhaling excessive amounts of silica: Joe C. Jones Lex Neil Richard Tylker Jim Swink Charles Stringer Walter Johnson David Burchess Donald Moreland Stephen Rydvank Patrick Taylor James McKinley Kevin Maye — Page 2 efendant General Refractories Company’s Designation of Fact Witnesses Subject to its Special AppearanceDL/2041282v]_ 2025-11241The following witnesses may provide testimony concerning foundry operations, foundry Sand industry practices and standards. They may also testify about Tyler Pipe Foundry/Tyler Company operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work environm ent, the use of silica, the n foundry’s environmental/engineering controls and ventilation system, respiratory protectio and devices used at the foundry, manufacturing processes used at the foundry, safety practices procedures, foundry management, business operations and corporate structure issues: Olin Jackson 1212 Hampton Lane Tyler, TX 75701 (903) 593-8477 James Milstead 1970 Raveneaux Tyler, TX 75703 (903) 561-9344 (W) (903) 581-3804 (H) Gene Mason Tyler Pipe Company P. O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 (903) 882-5511 or (903) 882-4343 Earl Davis 4021 Fry Avenue Tyler, TX 75701 (903) 561-8373 The following witness may testify about corporate structure issues, the relationship between Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. and Tyler Pipe Industries of Texas, Inc., foundry operations, Tyler Sand Company operations, foundry management, financial and accounting procedures, and business operations. John A. Warner 608 Rosemont Place One Tyler, TX 75701 (903) 581-0232 The following witnesses have performed surveying and industrial hygiene work at Tyler Pipe and therefore can discuss proper health and safety programs, appropriate engineering controls, management controls, respiratory protection programs, medical monitoring programs, training of employees, and other safe workplace practices. Joseph A. “Skip” Guimond Martha Guimond Defendant General Refractories Company’s Designation of Fact Witnesses Subject to its Special Appearance— Page 3DL/2041282v1 2025-112411Guimond & Associates, Inc. 751 Rt. 113 Souderton, PA 18964 (215) 721-4500 The following witness has a PhD in physiology and biophysics and has served as an environmental consultant for Tyler Pipe Foundry and therefore can discuss proper health and n safety programs, appropriate engineering controls, management controls, respiratory protectio programs, medical monitoring programs, training of employees, and other safe workplace practices. Alan Eggleston, Ph.D. Eggleston Homes & Associates Environmental Consultants 12301 Technology Blvd., Suite A Austin, TX 78727 (512) 250-0727 The following witnesses may knowledge of relevant facts regarding Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. and other sites: Dianna S. Kocurek, P.E. Lial F. Tischler, Ph.D., P.E. Tishcler & Kocurck 107 South Mays Street Round Rock, TX (512) 244-9058 Patrick J. Murin, P.E. Waid & Associates 14205 Burnet Road, Suite 500 Austin, TX (512) 255-9999 The following witness is Custodian of Records for National Safety Council and as such, is the employee or representative of the National Safety Council with knowledge of records maintained by the National Safety Council. Robert Maracek National Safety Council 1121 Spring Lake Drive Itasca, IL 60143-3201 The following witness is Custodian of Records for American Foundrymen’s Society, Inc. and as such, is the employee or representative of the American Foundrymen’s Society, Inc. with knowledge of records maintained by the American Foundrymen’s Society, Inc. efendant General Refractories Company’s Designation of Fact Witnesses Subject to its Special Appearance~ Page 4DL/2041282v] 2025-11241Virginia Khatib American Foundrymen’s Society, Inc 505 State St. Des Plaines, IL 60016-8399 Tyler Pipe Fact Witnesses: James Ausborne 2318 Walton Rd. Tyler, TX 75701 (903) 595-1051 Herman Lee Whitaker 109 E. Franklin Tyler, TX 75702 Jerry Lee Taylor 20514 CR 444 Lindale, TX 75971 George E. Miller 12237 CR 4122 Lindale, TX 75971 (903) 863-5543 George Dunning, Jr. 524 N. Forest Tyler, TX 75702 (903) 599-9054 Billy D. Young Rt. 1, Box 506 Ben Wheeler, TX 75754 (903) 852-6862 George Jones 10614 FM 162W Laneville, TX 75667 (903) 863-5543 William A. Jones 4885 CR 376 Tyler, TX 75708 (903) 592-7884 Defendant General Refractories Company’s Designation of Fact Witnesses Subject to its Special Appearance — Page 5DL/2041282v1 2025-11241James Russell (Dec.} 6108 Quail Creek Drive Tyler, TX 75703 (903) 581-8809 The above witnesses may provide testimony concerning foundry industry practices and standards. He may also testify about Tyler Pipe foundry operations, foundry environmental/engineering controls, and ventilation systems. He may also give testimony about plaintiffs’ workplace and work environment, the use of silica at the Tyler Pipe foundry, foundry manufacturing processes used at the Tyler Pipe foundry, safety practices and procedures, management, corporate structure issues, and business operations. Bobby Smith 11652 CR 2210 Tyler, TX 75707 (903) 566-2266 Witness may provide testimony concerning foundry industry practices and standards. He may also testify about Tyler Pipe Foundry/Tyler Sand Company operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work environment, the use of silica, the foundry’s environmental/engineering controls and s ventilation system, respiratory protection devices used at the foundry, manufacturing processe used at the foundry, safety practices and procedures, foundry management, and corporate structure issues. Fred Grendle 15298 Hwy. 64 W Tyler, TX 75704 (903) 592-5531 Witness may provide testimony concerning foundry operations, Tyler Sand Company operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work environment, the use of silica, foundry environmental/engineering controls, ventilation systems, the use and characteristics of silica sand at the foundry, manufacturing processes used at the Tyler Pipe foundry, safety practices and procedures, and business operations. Ronald Howell, Sr. Design Engineer c/o Tyler Pipe P. O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 (903) 882-5511 or (903) 862-5511 Witness may provide testimony about foundry operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work environment, the use of silica, the foundry’s environmental/engineering controls and ventilation system, manufacturing processes used at the Tyler Pipe foundry, safety practices and procedures and business operations. Hardee Tapp efendant General Refractories Company’s Designation of Fact Witnesses Subject to its Special Appearance— Page 6DL/2041282v] 2025-112411c/o Tyler Pipe P. O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 (903) 882-5511 or (903) 862-5511 work Witness may provide testimony about foundry operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and ventilation environment, the use of silica, the foundry’s environmental/engineering controls and practice s and procedures system, manufacturing processes used at the Tyler Pipe foundry, safety and business operations. Tim White 229 Peaceful Acres West Tyler, TX 75706 (903) 595-3716 Witness may testify about foundry industry practices and standards. He may also testify about Tyler Pipe Foundry/Tyler Sand Company operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work environment, the use of silica, the foundry’s environmental/engineering controls and ventilation system, respiratory protection devices uscd at the foundry, manufacturing processes used at the foundry, safety practices and procedures, foundry management and corporate structure issues. He may also testify about plaintiffs’ work habits, health habits, present health and other information related to plaintiffs’ work at the Tyler Pipe foundry. Ross Caldwell c/o Tyler Pipe P. O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 (903) 882-5511 Witness may testify about foundry industry practices and standards. He may also testify about Tyler Pipe Foundry/Tyler Sand Company operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work environment, the use of silica, the foundry’s environmental/engineering controls and ventilation system, respiratory protection devices used at the foundry, manufacturing processes used at the foundry, safety practices and procedures, foundry management and corporate structure issues. He may also testify about plaintiffs’ work habits, health habits, present health and other information related to plaintiffs’ work at the Tyler Pipe foundry. A. L. Hawkins c/o Tyler Pipe P. O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 (903) 882-5511 Witness may testify about foundry industry practices and standards. He may also testify about Tyler Pipe Foundry/Tyler Sand Company operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work environment, the use of silica, the foundry’s environmental/engineering controls and ventilation efendant General Refractories Company’s Designation of Fact Witnesses Subject to its Special Appearance — Page 7DL/2041282v1 2025-11241es used at the system, respiratory protection devices used at the foundry, manufacturing process issues. foundry, safety practices and procedures, foundry management and corporate structure habits, present health and other He may also testify about plaintiffs’ work habits, health information related to plaintiffs’ work at the Tyler Pipe foundry. Benny Spear Tyler Pipe P.O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 (903) 882-5511 Witness may testify about foundry industry practices and standards. He may also testify about Tyler Pipe Foundry/Tyler Sand Company operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work on environment, the use of silica, the foundry’s environmental/engineering controls and ventilati used at the system, respiratory protection devices used at the foundry, manufacturing processes foundry, safety practices and procedures, foundry management and corporate structure issues. health and other He may also testify about plaintiffs’ work habits, health habits, present information related to plaintiffs’ work at the Tyler Pipe foundry. Charles Parr Tyler Pipe P. O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 (903) 882-5511 Witness may testify about foundry industry practices and standards. He may also testify about Tyler Pipe Foundry/Tyler Sand Company operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work on environment, the use of silica, the foundry’s environmental/engineering controls and ventilati system, respiratory protection devices used at the foundry, manufacturing processes used at the foundry, safety practices and procedures, foundry management anc corporate structure issues. He may also testify about plaintiffs’ work habits, health habits, present health and other information related to plaintiffs’ work at the Tyler Pipe foundry. John Calip Tyler Pipe P. O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 (903) 882-5511 Witness may testify about foundry industry practices and standards. He may also testify about Tyler Pipe Foundry/Tyler Sand Company operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work environment, the use of silica, the foundry’s environmental/engineering controls and ventilation system, respiratory protection devices used at the foundry, manufacturing processes used at the foundry, safety practices and procedures, foundry management anc corporate structure issues. He may also testify about plaintiffs’ work habits, health habits, present health and other information related to plaintiffs” work at the Tyler Pipe foundry. — Page 8 Defendant General Refractories Company’s Designation of Fact Witnesses Subject to its Special AppearanceDL/2041282v1 2025-11241JR, Allen Tyler Pipe P. O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 (903) 882-5511 Witness may testify about foundry industry practices and standards. He may also testify about Tyler Pipe Found. ry/Tyler Sand Company operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work and ventilation environment, the use of silica, the foundry’s environmental/engineering controls used at the system, respiratory protection devices used at the foundry, manufacturing processes issues. foundry, safety practices and procedures, foundry management and corporate structure He may also testify about plaintiffs’ work habits, health habits, present health and other information related to plaintiffs’ work at the Tyler Pipe foundry. Zane Hayes formerly with Tyler Pipe P. O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 (903) 882-5511 Witness may testify about foundry industry practices and standards. He may also testify about Tyler Pipe Foundry/Tyler Sand Company operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work environment, the use of silica, the foundry’s environmental/engineering controls and ventilation system, respiratory protection devices used at the foundry, manufacturing processes used at the foundry, safety practices and procedures, foundry management anc corporate structure issues. He may also testify about plaintiffs’ work habits, health habits, present health and other information related to plaintiffs’ work at the Tyler Pipe foundry. Larry Earnst 1607 Brandywine Drive Tyler, TX 75703-5739 (903) 534-5721 Witness may testify about foundry industry practices and standards. He may also testify about Tyler Pipe Foundry/Tyler Sand Company operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work vironment, the use of silica, the foundry’s environmental/engineering controls and ventilation system, respiratory protection devices used at the foundry, manufacturing processes used at the foundry, safety practices and procedures, foundry management anc corporate structure issues. He may also testify about plaintiffs’ work habits, health habits, present health and other information related to plaintiffs’ work at the Tyler Pipe foundry. John Combs Tyler Pipe P. O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 (903) 882-5511 Defendant General Refractories Company’s Designation of Fact Witnesses Subject to its Special Appearance ~— Page 9DL/2041282v1 2025-11241]testify Witness may testify about foundry industry practices and standards. He may also about Tyler Pipe Foundry/ Tyler Sand Company operations, plaintiffs’ workpl ace and work controls and ventilation environment, the use of silica, the foundry’s environmental/engineering s used atthe system, respiratory protection devices used at the foundry, manufacturing processe structure issues. foundry, safety practices and procedures, foundry management anc corporate He may also testify about plaintiffs’ work habits, health habits, present health and other information related to plaintiffs’ work at the Tyler Pipe foundry. Steve Coats Tyler Pipe P. O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 (903) 882-5511 Witness may testify about foundry industry practices and standards, He may also testify about Tyler Pipe Foundry/Tyler Sand Company operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work on environment, the use of silica, the foundry’s environmental/engincering controls and ventilati processe s used at the system, respiratory protection devices used at the foundry, manufacturing foundry, safety practices and procedures, foundry management ane corporate structure issues. He may also testify about plaintiffs’ work habits, health habits, present health and other information related to plaintiffs’ work at the Tyler Pipe foundry. Bill Riley Tyler Pipe P. O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 (903) 882-5511 Witness may testify about foundry industry practices and standards. He may also testify about Tyler Pipe Foundry/Tyler Sand Company operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work environment, the use of silica, the foundry’s environmental/engincering controls and ventilation system, respiratory protection devices used at the foundry, manufacturing processes used at the foundry, safety practices and procedures, foundry management anc corporate structure issues. He may also testify about plaintiffs’ work habits, health habits, present health and other information related to plaintiffs’ work at the Tyler Pipe foundry. Jerry Easely Tyler Pipe P. O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 (903) 882-5511 Witness may testify about foundry operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work environment, sue of silica, manufacturing processes used at the Tyler Pipe foundry, and safety practices and procedures. James Bennett — Page 10 efendant General Refractories Company’s Designation of Fact Witnesses Subject to its Special AppearanceDL/2041282v1 2025-11241Tyler Pipe P. O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 (903) 882-5511 Witness may testify about foundry industry operations Tyler Sand Company operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work environment, the use of silica, the foundry’s environmental/engineering controls and ventilation system, respiratory protection devices used at the foundry, manufacturing processes used at the foundry, safety practices and procedures, foundry management anc corporate structure issues. He may also testify about plaintiffs’ work habits, health habits, present health and other information related to plaintiffs’ work at the Tyler Pipe foundry. Johnny Freeman V/k/a Tyler Pipe P. O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 (903) 882-5511 Witness may testify about foundry industry operations, Tyler Sand Company operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work environment, the use of silica, the foundry’s environmental/engineering controls and ventilation system, respiratory protection devices used at the foundry, manufacturing processes used at the foundry, safety practices and procedures, foundry management anc corporate structure issues. He may also testify about plaintiffs’ work habits, health habits, present health and other information related to plaintiffs’ work at the Tyler Pipe foundry. James Stanley Vk/a Tyler Pipe P.O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 (903) 882-5511 Witness may testify about foundry industry operations, Tyler Sand Company operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work environment, the use of silica, the foundry’s environmental/engineering controls and ventilation system, respiratory protection devices used at the foundry, manufacturing processes used at the foundry, safety practices and procedures, foundry management anc corporate structure issues. He may also testify about plaintiffs’ work habits, health habits, present health and other information related to plaintiffs’ work at the Tyler Pipe foundry. Garry Stromen Tyler Pipe P. QO. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 (903) 882-5511 Defendant General Refractories Company’s Designation of Fact Witnesses Subject to its Special Appearance —DL/2041282v1 2025-112411 Page 11Witness may testify about foundry industry operations, Tyler Sand Company operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work environment, the usc of silica, the foundry’s environmental/engineering controls and ventilation system, respiratory protection devices used at the foundry, manufacturing processes used at the foundry, safety practices and procedures, foundry management anc corporate structure issues. He may also testify about plaintiffs’ work habits, health habits, present health and other information related to plaintiffs’ work at the Tyler Pipe foundry. H. N. Cunningham, Hl 8117 Preston Rd. Dallas, TX 75225 (214) 696-3200 Witness may testify about regulatory and corporate structure, the reasoning behind the 1973 restructuring, the relationship between Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. and Tyler Pipe Industries of Texas, Inc. Jack Hood 18953 CR 49 Tyler, TX 75704 (903) 592-6269 or 389 Gallagher Drive Benicia, CA 94510-3916 (707) 746-7814 Witness may testify about foundry operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work environment, foundry management, corporate structure issues, business operations, plaintiffs’ work habits, health habits, and other information related to plaintiffs’ work at the Tyler Pipe foundry. Bill Hoffman Tyler Pipe Co. P.O. Box H Marshfield, MO 65706 (417) 468-2804 Witness may testify regarding the products applied to and used at the Tyler Pipe plant as well as the characteristics of silica sand in use at the foundry. Kevin Fowler Tyler Pipe P. O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 (903) 882-5511 Witness may testify about foundry operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work environment, foundry management, corporate structure issues, business operations, plaintiffs’ efendant General Refractories Company’s Designation of Fact Witnesses Subject to its Special Appearance — Page 12DL/2041282vi 2025-112411work habits, health habits, and other information related to plaintiffs’ work at the Tyler Pipe foundry. Jack Chelf 18953 CR 49 Tyler, TX 75704 (903) 592-6269 Witness may testify about foundry operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work environment, foundry management, corporate structure issues, business operations, plaintiffs’ work habits, health habits, and other information related to plaintiffs’ work at the Tyler Pipe foundry. Mark Mayo Tyler Pipe Company P. O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 (903) 882-5511 Witness may testify about foundry operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work environment, the use of silica, manufacturing processes in use at the Tyler Pipe foundry, and safety practices and procedures. Earl Griffin Tyler Pipe Company P. O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 (903) 882-5511 Witness may testify about foundry operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work environment, the use of silica, manufacturing processes in use at Tyler Pipe Foundry, and safety practices and procedures. J. P. Johnson 124 E. 4" St. Tyler, TX 75701 (903) 592-6226 Witness may testify about foundry operations, practices and standards, Tyler Pipe foundry operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work environment, the use of silica, foundry environmental/enginecring controls, ventilation systems, respiratory protection devices in use at the foundry, the characteristics of silica sand in use at the foundry, manufacturing processes in use at the Tyler Pipe foundry, safety practices and procedures, foundry management, corporate structure issues, and business operations. Catherine J. Cook 2219 N. Inglewood Ave. Tyler, TX 74702-1751 Defendant General Refractories Company’s Designation of Fact Witnesses Subject to its Special Appearance— Page 13DL/2041282v1 2025-11241(903) 597-1696 Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, foundry management, and business operations. Jerry Leatherwood 5008 Atlanta Dr. Tyler, TX 75703 (903) 561-0258 Witness may testify about Tyler Pipe foundry operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work environment, and the use of silica. Curtis Steager Address Unknown Witness may testify about foundry operations, practices and standards, Tyler Pipe foundry operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work environment, the use of silica, foundry environmental/engincering controls, ventilation systems, respiratory protection devices in use at the foundry, the characteristics of silica sand in use at the foundry, manufacturing processes in use at the Tyler Pipe foundry, safety practices and procedures, foundry management, corporate structure issues, and business operations. Dee Jackson Tyler Pipe Company P. O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 (903) 882-5511 Witness may testify about Tyler Pipe foundry operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and environment, plaintiffs’ work habits, health habits, present health, and other information related to plaintiffs’ work at the Tyler Pipe foundry. Don Hines 3528 Briarrose Lane Tyler, TX 75702 (903) 561-2260 Witness may testify about Tyler Pipe foundry operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and environment, plaintiffs’ work habits, health habits, present health, and other information related to plaintiffs’ work at the Tyler Pipe foundry. Billy Palmer 5407 Copeland Tyler, TX 75703 (903) 561-2260 or (903) 661-2260 efendant General Refractories Company’s Designation of Fact Witnesses Subject to its Special Appearance— Page 14DL/2041282v1 2025-12411Witness may testify about Tyler Pipe foundry operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and environment, plaintiffs’ work habits, health habits, present health, and other information related to plaintiffs’ work at the Tyler Pipe foundry. Joe Ripka 2027 Brookhaven Tyler TX 75701 (903) 566-0508 Milton Adams 4610 Trenton St. Tyler, TX 75703-1147 (903) 561-2007 Witnesses may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, foundry management, and business operations. Sam C. Alford 905 Rolling Dr. Athens, TX 75751 (903) 677-3368 Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, and business operations. Richard C. Barnett 6704 Holly Tree Circle Tyler, TX 75703 (903) 561-1296 Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, and business operations. Whan W. Han Boaz Address Unknown Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, foundry management, and business operations. Jack N. Corley 312 Bonnie Brae Circle Tyler, TX 75703-2237 (903) 561-5058 Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, foundry management, and business operations. W. B. Duckett efendant General Refractories Company’s Designation of Fact Witnesses Subject to its Special Appearance — Page 15DL/2041282v1 2025-112411Address Unknown Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, foundry management, and business operations. George E. Fitts 509 S. Hill Avenue Tyler, TX 75702-7831 (903) 593-6738 Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, foundry management, and business operations. Samuel Kevin Fowler, Personnel Manager Tyler Pipe P. O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 (903) 882-5511 Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, foundry management, and business operations. D. H. Gerhardstein 8229 Columbia Dr. Tyler, TX 75703-5157 (903) 561-1145 Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, foundry management, and business operations. Linda K. Hill 1555 Regal Row Dallas, TX 75247 (214) 630-7793 Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, foundry management, and business operations. Cullen L. Holman 6637 CR 2265 Tyler, TX 75707-9100 (903) 566-6639 Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, foundry management, and business operations. Darrell E. Hurt 4902 Trenton Street efendant General Refractories Company's Designation of Fact Witnesses Subject to its Special Appearance~ Page 16DL/2041282v1 2025-11241)Tyler, TX 75703-3100 (903) 561-6797 Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, foundry management, and business operations. James Charles Jacobs P.O. Box 5205 Tyler, TX 75702 Witness may testify about foundry operations and working conditions. W. Michael Kipphut 850 S. Willow Ave. Tampa, FL 33606 (813) 204-5239 Witness may testify about corporate structure issues and business operations. Robert P. Lewis 2327 Samson Dr. Tyler, TX 75701-4921 (903) 593-6625 Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, foundry management, and business operations. Richard Leroy Mallory 1208 Waterford Ct. Tyler, TX 575703-3900 (903) 561-4433 or (903) 661-4433 Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, foundry management, and business operations. Richard W. Margerison 3010 LBJ Freeway, Ste 800 Dallas, TX 74234 (972) 919-5702 Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, foundry management, and business operations. Billy J. McClung Tyler Pipe P.O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 efendant General Refractories Company’s Designation of Fact Witnesses Subject to its Special Appearance— Page 17DL/2041282v1 2025-12411Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, foundry management, and business operations. David K. McKie 612 Rosemont Circle Tyler, TX 75701-0843 (903) 561-2934 or (903) 361-2934 Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, foundry management, and business operations. Joseph F. McKinney 2121 San Jacinto St., #870 Dallas, TX 751201 (214) 999-0194 Witness may testify about corporate structure and business operations. Dale Meador 1400 Everglades Dr. Tyler, TX 75703-2005 (903) 561-3316 or (903) 661-3326 Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, foundry management, and business operations. Alton L. Meadows Address Unknown Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, foundry management, and business operations. Frederick R. Meyer 2121 San Jacinto St., #895 Dallas, TX 75234 (214) 754-1800 Witness may testify about corporate structure issues and business operations. Michael R. Myers 12801 Stemmons Freeway, #871 Dallas, TX 75234 (972) 243-7443 Witness may testify about corporate structure issues and business operations. Defendant General Refractories Company’s Designation of Fact Witnesses Subject to its Special Appearance — Page 18DL/2041282v1_ 2025-112411Brian K. Miller 2800 W. Mockingbird Lane Dallas, TX 75235 (214) 902-5000 Witness may testify about corporate structure issues and business operations. Stanley L. Phillips 2415 Glengariff Dr. Dallas, TX 75228-2933 (214) 327-1165 Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, foundry management, and business operations. Martha I. Rigby 105 Santa Fe Rockport, TX 78382 (512) 729-6111 Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, foundry management, and business operations. C. A. Rundell, Jr. 2121 San Jacinto St., Ste 2900 Dallas, TX 75201 (214) 754-7807 or (214) 724-7807 Witness may testify about corporate structure issues and business operations. Carl W. Schilter 305 Amberwood Circle Tyler, TX 75701-7057 (903) 592-7909 or (903) 692-7909 Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, foundry management, and business operations. D. A. Russell 329 W. 10" Tyler, TX 75701 (903) 597-6996 or (903) 697-6996 Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, foundry management, and business operations. efendant General Refractories Company’s Designation of Fact Witnesses Subject to its Special Appearance — Page 19DL/2041282v1 2025-12411Sandie D. Shepherds 7406 Hillwood Lane Dallas, TX 75248 (972) 490-8585 Witness may testify about corporate structure issues and business operations. David L. Smart 402 River Oaks Dr. Huntsville, TX 77340 (409) 428-8988 Witness may testify about corporate structure issues and business operations. W. J. Speas, Jr. Address Unknown Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, foundry management, and business operations. Bennie Spiers Address Unknown Witness may testify about foundry operations and working environment. Billy Bob Thompkins Address Unknown Witness may testify about foundry operations and working environment. Glen C. Uzzell 6018 Covey Lane Tyler, TX 75710 903-581-7538 Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, foundry management, and business operations. John A. Warner 608 Rosemont Place One Tyler, TX 75701 903-581-0232 Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, foundry management, and business operations. Donald W. Waugaman 5353 Keller Springs ~ Page 20 Defendant General Refractories Company’s Designation of Fact Witnesses Subject to its Special AppearanceDL/2041282v1 2025-12411Dallas, TX 75248 972-931-5619 Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, foundry manangement, and business operations. Wayne C. Whitaker 2819 New Copeland Rd. Tyler, TX 75701 903-597-7224 Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, foundry management, and business operations. Randy L. Williams 2025 Choctaw Trail Tyler, TX 75703-5452 903-581-8120 or 903-681-8120 Witness may testify about foundry operations, corporate structure issues, foundry management, and business operations. Dusty Johnson Address Unknown Witness may testify about Tyler Sand Company’s operations, Tyler Pipe foundry’s operations, plaintiffs’ work conditions, the use of silica sand, and plaintiffs’ habits. R. Allen Tyler Pipe P.O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 903-882-5511 Witness may testify about Tyler Sand Company’s operations, Tyler Pipe foundry’s operations, plaintiffs’ work conditions, the use of silica sand, and plaintif fs’ habits. Bill Sartain LKA Tyler Pipe P.O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 903-882-5511 Witness may testify about Tyler Sand Compan 'y’s operations, Tyler Pipe foundry’s operations, plaintiffs’ work conditions, the use of silic ‘a sand, and plaintiffs’ habits. Robert FultonpL 204 gaat General Refractories Company’s Designation of Fact Witnesses Subject to its Special Appearance— Page 21Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc P.O, Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 903-882-6511 Jerry Kirtley Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc P.O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 903-882-6511 Bob McCutcheon Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc P.O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 903-882-6511 Kevin Ashby Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc P.O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 903-882-6511 Lindsey Smith Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 903-882-6511 Chuck Chamness Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 903-882-6511 Lee Willis Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc P.O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 903-882-6511 Cheryl South Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 903-882-6511 Mike Conwaype 20a eed a General Refractories Company’s Designation of Fact Witnesses Subject to its Special Appearance- Page 22Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 903-882-6511 Roger Dunning Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 903-882-6511 Neil J. O’Brien Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc P.O. Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 903-882-6511 Jerry Easely Tyler Pipe Industries P.O, Box 2027 Tyler, TX 75710 903-882-6511 J.P. Johnson 124 E. 4" st, Tyler, TX 75701 903-597-6226 or 903-697-6226 Curtis Steger Address Unknown The above witnesses may testify about T. ‘yler Sand Company’s operations, Tyler Pipe foundry’s operations, plaintiffs’ work condition: s, the use of silica sand, and plaintiffs’ habits. Christopher J. Kelly Address Unknown Witness may testify about foundry operations, plaintiffs’ workplace and work environment, foundry management, corporate structure issues, busines s operations, plaintiffs’ work habits, health habits, and other information related to plaintif fs’ work at the T yler Pipe foundry. The following persons may also be called to testify: OSHA inspectors, directors, or representatives with knowledge of employ ee inspectionsuaa ee eaane General Refractories Company’s Designation of Fact Witnesses Subject to its Special Appearance— Page 23U. S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration Public Affairs Office - Room 3647 200 Constitution Avenue Washington, D.C. 20210 202-693-1999 Charles J. Adams OSHA-Dallas Area Office Adolphus Tower, Suite 1820 1412 Main Street Dallas, TX 75202 The above fact witnesses may testify to, including, but not limited to, workplace rules and regulations related to worker safety, respirator safety protection, knowled ge and compliance of employers related to such rules and regulations, and the application of these rules and regulations to this case, workplace conditions, site inspections, OSHA regulations and compliance, and applicable industry standards. Chester (Chet) D. Mouser OSHA-Dallas/Fort Worth Area Office Central Place, Suite 230
Related Contentin Smith County
Case
IN THE INTEREST OF J.P., A CHILD
Aug 20, 2024 |Robert H. Wilson |Child Protective Services |24-2281-D
Case
First Baptist Medical Center LLC vs. Rebecca Griffin
Aug 27, 2024 |Contract - Other |77343-B
Case
Newton Family Trust vs Bjorn Brown
Aug 19, 2024 |Eviction |E24-3140JP4
Case
THE MADISONvs.BRIYANNA WASH
Aug 12, 2024 |Dunklin, Andy Judgment of $3,453.30Awarded To: THE MADISONAwarded Against: BRIYANNA WASH |Eviction |E24-0347JP2
Case
43596P
43596P
Case
Lvnv Funding Llc vs Christina Smith
Mar 19, 2024 |Wulf, Curtis W. Judgment of $929.30Awarded To: Lvnv Funding LlcAwarded Against: Christina Smith |Debt Claim |DC24-1712JP4
Case
Lvnv Funding Llc vs Roger Langley
Aug 26, 2024 |Debt Claim |DC24-383JP1
Case
Republic Finance LLC vs Luis M Rodriguez
Aug 26, 2024 |Debt Claim |DC24-1858JP4
Case
Discover Bank vs. Barbara Johnson
Aug 23, 2024 |Contract - Other |77299-A
Ruling
ALEX HOPKINS VS GILBERTO SOTO
Aug 27, 2024 |23CHCV01925
Case Number: 23CHCV01925 Hearing Date: August 27, 2024 Dept: F43 MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION MOVING PARTY: Defendant Gilberto Soto RESPONDING PARTY: No response has been filed. RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiff Alex Hopkins responses to Defendants Requests for Production, as well as sanctions. RULING: Motion is granted. SUMMARY OF ACTION On March 5, 2024, Defendant Gilberto Soto (Defendant) served request for production on Plaintiff Alex Hopkins (Plaintiff). Defendant had not received any responses by May 2, 2024, so Defendants counsel wrote to Plaintiffs counsel that the answers were due. Defendant has not received any answers to the Requests for Production. Defendant filed this motion to compel discovery responses to the requests for production on July 1, 2024. No opposition has been filed. Defendant also requests sanctions in the amount of $588.00 against Plaintiff. Requests for Production A propounding party may move to compel responses to requests for production of documents where the responding party fails to provide responses. (CCP § 2031.300.) The responding party must provide responses within thirty days after the demand is served. (CCP § 2031.030(c)(2) & (3).) The responding party waives all objections, including privilege and work product, by failing to timely respond to requests for production of documents. (CCP § 2031.300.) Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendants Requests for Production. Defendant has moved for an order compelling Plaintiffs response to these Requests for Production. The Court grants Defendants motion to compel responses to the Requests for Production. Sanctions CCP § 2023.030 authorizes the Court to issue sanctions against a party engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. Failure to respond to discovery, evasive responses, and objections lacking substantial justification are misuses of the discovery process. (CCP § 2023.010, subd. (d)-(f).) Defendant has requested sanctions in the amount of $588.00 against Plaintiff. The amount was based on Defendants counsel spending 3 hours preparing this motion and attending the hearing on the motion at $175.00 an hour, plus the $60 filing fee. (Opfell Decl., ¶ 6.) The Court grants the sanctions in the full requested amount. Defendants request for sanctions against Plaintiff is granted in the total amount of $588.00. ORDER 1. 1. Defendants motion to compel responses to the requests for production is granted. 2. 2. Plaintiff is ordered to serve responses within twenty (20) days. 3. 3. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions in the total amount of $588.00. Plaintiff is ordered to pay these sanctions to Defendants counsel within twenty (20) days. 4. 4. Moving party to give notice.
Ruling
LATRICE HARRIS VS LYNWOOD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
Aug 29, 2024 |24STCV00756
Case Number: 24STCV00756 Hearing Date: August 29, 2024 Dept: 72 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT 72 TENTATIVE RULING LATRICE HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. LYNWOOD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. Case No: 24STCV00756 Hearing Date: August 29, 2024 Calendar Number: 4 Defendant Lynwood Unified School District (LUSD) demurs to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Latrice Harris. LUSD demurs to the first, second, third, and fourth claims as to Defendant Brenda Romero, and to the fifth claim as to itself. The Court SUSTAINS the demurrer to the first, second, third, and fourth claims with respect to Romero only WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Romero, the individual, should not be a party to the claims asserted in this lawsuit. The claims stand against LUSD, which did not demur to them. The Court SUSTAINS the demurrer to the fifth claim with respect to LUSD WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff may amend within 10 days. Background This is an employment case. The following facts are taken from the allegations of the Complaint, which the Court accepts as true for purposes of the demurrer. Plaintiff worked for LUSD from 2017 to 2023 as a Benefit and Payroll Manager and Benefit and Risk Manager. Plaintiff alleges that from around August 2022 until June 2023, Plaintiff was subject to discrimination based on race and color by her supervisor Brenda Romero. Plaintiff alleges that Romero called her derogatory terms, including racial slurs, and encouraged other employees to file meritless complaints against Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Romero told Plaintiff that Romero was going to get Plaintiff fired or make Plaintiffs working conditions intolerable. Plaintiff alleges that LUSD constructively terminated her in June 2023. Plaintiff alleges that in October 2001, Ms. Rodriguez, a candidate for the LUSD school board who was later elected to the board, told the board that their job was to get rid of black people, using a racial slur. Plaintiff alleges that since the time of Rodriguezs election to the board, LUSD has targeted black employees in the district for harassment, intimidation, removal, and demotion based on their race. Plaintiff filed this action against LUSD and Romero on January 10, 2024, raising claims for (1) discrimination based on race; (2) discrimination based on color; (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). LUSD demurred to the complaint on July 23, 2024. The hearing date was set for August 15, 2024. Plaintiff did not file an opposition prior to August 15, 2024. On August 13, 2024, two days before the scheduled hearing, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC). On August 15, 2024, Plaintiff did not appear at the hearing because Plaintiffs counsel assumed that the FAC would moot the demurrer and that the demurrer would therefore be taken off calendar. Plaintiffs counsel had another hearing on the same day, which ran the full day. The Court continued the hearing to August 29, 2024. On August 22, 2024, five court days before the August 29, 2024 hearing, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On August 23, 2024, LUSD filed a reply. Legal Standard As a general matter, in a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) A demurrer tests the pleading alone, and not the evidence or facts alleged. (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) The court assumes the truth of the complaints properly pleaded or implied factual allegations. (Ibid.) The only issue a demurrer is concerned with is whether the complaint, as it stands, states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) Where a demurrer is sustained, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the plaintiff to show the court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Ibid.; Lewis v. YouTube, LLC (2015) 244 Cal.App.4th 118, 226.) However, [i]f there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action, it is error to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend. (Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 245). Discussion The First Amended Complaint A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike. A party may amend the pleading after the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike, upon stipulation by the parties. The time for responding to an amended pleading shall be computed from the date of service of the amended pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 472, subd. (a).) Plaintiffs opposition was due 9 days before the August 15, 2024 hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) In the absence of a stipulation or court order, Plaintiffs FAC was therefore not timely filed and is therefore not operative. The operative pleading at issue on this demurrer remains the original Complaint. If Plaintiff wishes to amend the Complaint to add her negligent hiring, retention, and supervision claim, she must file a motion for leave to amend. Discrimination Based on Race First Claim To establish a claim for discrimination, a plaintiff must show that (1) [the plaintiff] was a member of a protected class, (2) [the plaintiff] was qualified for the position he sought or was performing competently in the position [they] held, (3) [the plaintiff] suffered an adverse employment action, such as termination, demotion, or denial of an available job, and (4) some other circ*mstance suggests discriminatory motive. (Guz v. Bechtel National Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 355.) LUSD demurs only as to Romero. [I]ndividuals who do not themselves qualify as employers may not be sued under the FEHA for alleged discriminatory acts. (Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 663.) Plaintiff does not argue that Romero is a proper defendant in this action. Plaintiff argues that she only seeks to impose liability on LUSD through the doctrine of respondeat superior and not Romero. However, Plaintiffs Complaint names Romero individually as a defendant for all of the first four claims. The Court therefore sustains the demurrer to this claim with respect to Romero without leave to amend. Discrimination Based on Color Second Claim As discussed above, non-employer individuals cannot be sued for discrimination under FEHA. The Court therefore sustains the demurrer to this claim with respect to Romero without leave to amend. Retaliation Third Claim The elements of a cause of action for failure to prevent harassment or retaliation are: (1) actionable discrimination or harassment by employees or nonemployees; (2) defendants legal duty of care toward plaintiff (i.e., defendant is the plaintiffs employer); (3) breach of that duty (i.e., failure to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring); (4) legal causation; and (5) damages to plaintiff. (Trujillo v. North County Transit District (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 280, 287, 289; Bradley v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1612, 1630; Gov. Code, § 12940.) [T]he same rule applies to actions for retaliation that applies to actions for discrimination: The employer, but not nonemployer individuals, may be held liable. (Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1158, 1160.) The Court therefore sustains the demurrer to this claim with respect to Romero without leave to amend. Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation Fourth Claim The elements of a cause of action for failure to prevent harassment or retaliation are: (1) actionable discrimination or harassment by employees or nonemployees; (2) defendants legal duty of care toward plaintiff (i.e., defendant is the plaintiffs employer); (3) breach of that duty (i.e., failure to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring); (4) legal causation; and (5) damages to plaintiff. (Trujillo v. North County Transit District (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 280, 287, 289; Bradley v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1612, 1630; Gov. Code, § 12940.) FEHAs requirement to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment and discrimination falls on employers, and not non-employer individuals. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subds. (j)(1) [An entity shall take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from occurring.], (k) [[It is unlawful] [f]or an employer, labor organization, employment agency, apprenticeship training program, or any training program leading to employment, to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.].) The Court therefore sustains the demurrer to this claim with respect to Romero without leave to amend. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Fifth Claim The elements of a prima facie case for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiffs suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendants outrageous conduct. Conduct to be outrageous must be so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community. (Wilson v. Hynek (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 999, 1009, citation and ellipses omitted.) Whether a defendants conduct can reasonably be found to be outrageous is a question of law that must initially be determined by the court; if reasonable persons may differ, it is for the jury to determine whether the conduct was, in fact, outrageous. (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 534.) [T]here is no common law tort liability for public entities in California; such liability is wholly statutory. (In re Groundwater Cases (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 659, 688.) Except as otherwise provided by statute & [a] public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person. (Gov. Code, § 815.) [B]ecause under the Tort Claims Act all governmental tort liability is based on statute, the general rule that statutory causes of action must be pleaded with particularity is applicable. (Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 795.) This means that, to state a cause of action against a public entity, every fact material to the existence of its statutory liability must be pleaded with particularity. (Peter W. v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist. (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 814, 819.) Since the duty of a governmental agency can only be created by statute or enactment, the statute or enactment claimed to establish the duty must at the very least be identified. (Searcy v. Hemet Unified School Dist. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 792, 802.) Plaintiff fails to identify a statute setting forth the applicable duty for her IIED claim. Plaintiff argues that she identifies Government Code, section 815.2, subd. (a), which holds public entities liable for injuries caused by their employees within the scope of employment. Plaintiff only raises this statute in the FAC, which is not the operative complaint and not the subject of this demurrer. The Court therefore sustains the demurrer to this claim with respect to LUSD with leave to amend.
Ruling
SONYA DANIELS VS BODY BY BATAL COSMETIC SURGERY CENTER, ET AL.
Aug 27, 2024 |23SMCV02556
Case Number: 23SMCV02556 Hearing Date: August 27, 2024 Dept: 207 TENTATIVE RULING DEPARTMENT 207 HEARING DATE August 27, 2024 CASE NUMBER 23SMCV02556 MOTIONS Motions to Deem Admitted Requests For Admission Sets One; One/Two; Three; Four MOVING PARTY Plaintiff Sonya Daniels OPPOSING PARTIES Defendants Obaida Batal, M.D.; Body By Batal Cosmetic Surgery Center MOTIONS Plaintiff Sonya Daniels (Plaintiff) moves to deem admitted the matters specified in Requests for Admission, Sets One; One/Two; Three; and Four (RFA) propounded on Defendant Obaida Batal MD (Defendant) and for monetary sanctions. Defendants Obaida Batal MD and Body By Batal Cosmetic Surgery Center oppose the motion.[1] ANALYSIS Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (a), [i]f a party to whom requests or admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product[.] (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) Where a party fails to respond to requests for admissions, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) 1. Motion to Deem Admitted Plaintiff has provided declarations indicating that on June 18, 2024, RFA sets one, one/two, and three were electronically served on Defendant via eServe, and on June 30, 2024, RFA set four was electronically served on Defendant via eServe. (See Declarations of Sonya Daniels at ¶ 2.) For RFA sets one through three, electronically served on June 18, Defendants deadline to respond was July 22 (30 days + 2 court days per Code Civil Procedure section 1010.6, subdivision (a)(3)(B)). Similarly, for RFA set four, electronically served on June 30, Defendants deadline to respond was August 1. Plaintiffs declarations further provide that as of August 8, 2024, when the declarations were signed and motions were filed, Plaintiff had not received responses to any of the RFAs. (See Declarations of Sonya Daniels at ¶ 4.) Therefore, Defendant failed to timely respond to RFA sets one, one/two, three, and four. Subsequently, on August 12, Defendant (erroneously filed) and served responses to all of the RFAs that appear to the Court to substantially comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiffs motions to deem the RFA sets one, one/two, three, and four admitted. 2. Monetary Sanctions It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Having found Defendant failed to timely respond to the RFA, it is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction. Plaintiff requests $250 in connection with the first motion for RFA set one, $200 in connection with RFA set one/two, $200 in connection with RFA set three, and $200 in connection with RFA set four, representing 15, 10, 10, and 10 hours of Plaintiffs time, respectively, at the minimum wage of $20 per hour. The Court notes that Plaintiff did not incur any attorneys fees, as Plaintiff is self-represented, and that Plaintiffs filing fees have been waived, minimizing Plaintiffs costs and expenses in bringing the instant motions. Further, the motions and declarations are substantially identical to one another, further reducing the reasonable amount of time Plaintiff spent preparing them. Therefore, the Court awards mandatory monetary sanctions against Defendant Obaida Batal MD in the total amount of $250 for the four motions. CONCLUSION AND ORDER For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Plaintiffs motions to deem admitted the matters specified in the RFA sets one, one/two, three, and four, but grants in part Plaintiffs request for monetary sanctions, and orders Defendant Obaida Batal MD to pay Plaintiff monetary sanctions in the amount of $250 within thirty days of notice of the Courts orders. Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of the Courts orders and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith. DATED: August 27, 2024 ___________________________ Michael E. Whitaker Judge of the Superior Court [1] The Court notes that because business entities must be represented by counsel, the Court may not consider any opposition filed by Defendant Obaida Batal MD in pro per on behalf of Body By Batal Cosmetic Surgery Center. (See CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1147-1152.) However, because the discovery was propounded on Defendant Obaida Batal MD only, who also responded on his own behalf, the Court considered the merits of the opposition.
Ruling
SEAN ROSE VS LOREN PROPERTIES, LLC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
Aug 27, 2024 |23VECV03196
Case Number: 23VECV03196 Hearing Date: August 27, 2024 Dept: W SEAN ROSE v. LOREN PROPERTIES, LLC, et al. cross-complainant john patrick grahams motion for protective order Date of Hearing: August 27, 2024 Trial Date: None set. Department: W Case No.: 23VECV03196 Moving Party: Cross-Complainant John Patrick Graham Responding Party: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Sean Rose Meet and Confer: Yes (Citron Decl. ¶11-14.) BACKGROUND On July 24, 2023, Plaintiff Sean Rose filed a complaint against Loren Properties, LLC, Westside Habitats, LLC, Rohit Mehta, and John Patrick Graham for negligence, premises liability, negligent hiring, supervision, or retention of employee, battery, and assault. Plaintiff Rose alleges Plaintiff, while standing within property he lawfully rented and controlled, was assaulted by Defendant, John Patrick Graham, while Mr. Graham was working as an employee on behalf of the other named Defendants. On December 8, 2023, Loren Properties, LLC, Westside Habitats, LLC, and John Patrick Graham filed a Cross-Complaint against Rose for breach of contract, assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and elder abuse. On April 5, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed the action against Graham. [Tentative] Ruling Cross-Complainant John Patrick Grahams Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED. discussion Cross-Complainant John Patrick Graham moves the court for an order prohibiting Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Sean Rose from taking the deposition of Mr. Graham until a date after the current criminal matter involving the same facts and circ*mstances as this instant civil case is resolved. Mr. Graham contends the discovery should be prohibited because it impermissibly seeks privileged matters protected by the Fifth Amendment Right. Before, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. (CCP § 2025.420(a).) The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. (CCP § 2025.420(b).) This protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions set forth in CCP §§ 2025.420(b)(1)-(16). Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420, subdivision (b), provides a nonexclusive list of permissible directions that may be included in a protective order. (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 316.) If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may order that the deponent provide or permit the discovery against which protection was sought on those terms and conditions that are just. (CCP § 2025.420(g).) [T]he issuance and formulation of protective orders are to a large extent discretionary. [Citation.] (Nativi, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at 316.) Graham states a criminal case was filed against him in the California Superior Court, Case Name People v. John Patrick Graham, Case Number 3VW0009, for the same incident as described herein, to which Mr. Graham pled Not Guilty. Due to the pending criminal matter, Mr. Graham asserts he may invoke his right to not self-incriminate at his deposition; however, his refusal to answer questions by invoking this right can pose a potential danger to his defense in this civil matter, including drawing of adverse inferences from his refusal to provide testimony. (See Our conclusion is consistent with the prevailing rule that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them& [Baxter v. Palmigiano (1976) 425 U.S. 308, 318.].) To avoid this dilemma, Graham requests this court issue a protective order, postponing Mr. Graham's deposition in this civil case to a date after the conclusion of the criminal case. Mr. Graham states the Restitution hearing and expiration of diversion are only a few weeks away, and therefore the brief postponement of the deposition, rather than an entire stay on the civil matter, will not prejudice Plaintiff. Written discovery has already been exchanged, and nothing is stopping Plaintiff or the other Parties from proceeding with the depositions of other individuals or PMKs in this matter. In opposition, Plaintiff argues there is no need to postpone Mr. Grahams deposition as he can answer a significant amount of discovery that would not run afoul of his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. (See Blackburn v. Superior Court (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 414, 429 holding if it is not evident from the circ*mstances that the questions call for incriminating information, the court must require an explanation as to why and how the answers might be incriminating.) For example, Plaintiff argues the parties can ask Mr. Graham innocuous background questions that would in no way implicate his Fifth Amendment rights, such as his address, marital status, employment history, etc. Moreover, Mr. Graham can state whether he had frequently interacted with the Plaintiff prior to the date of the assault. Plaintiff also notes it would unduly prejudice the Plaintiff, and this court, to have further unnecessary delays in this case through postponing this deposition. Plaintiff contends since February of 2024, Mr. Graham backed out of each and every date provided, including even ones provided by themselves. (Harper Decl. ¶¶2-5, Exhs. A-D.) Additionally, the criminal matter has been pending since May 10, 2023 and Mr. Graham has been avoiding having his deposition taken since February 2024 yet only seeks now to have a protective order. The court finds Mr. Graham has shown good cause for the issuance of a protective order to stay the deposition pending the conclusion of the diversion termination and Restitution hearing dates. Plaintiff claims the questions would be innocuous background questions, but Mr. Graham has already provided written discovery regarding address, employment, work history, insurance coverage, etc. Moreover, as noted by Mr. Graham, questions regarding Plaintiff and Mr. Grahams prior interactions would implicate these rights against self-incrimination because it would be inevitable that Plaintiff will ask questions about the alleged assault and battery during Mr. Grahams deposition. The court agrees this instant matter is unlike Fuller v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299 where the court found the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the security guards request to stay the civil proceedings pending criminal matter because the statute of limitations was not set to expire until three years later. (Fuller v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299, 309.) The court held the delay of three years not only flies in the face of the policies behind Government Code section 68607 and the Standards of Judicial Administration, but also exposes both sides of the litigation to the risk of diminished memory and lost records. (Ibid.) Moreover, the protective order sought by the security guards was to completely prevent the depositions from going forward until they were no longer in jeopardy of criminal prosecution. Mr. Graham is not asking to stay indefinitely but until next month when the diversion termination and the Restitution Claim are heard on September 23, 2024. (Reply, p. 4:4-5.) The court briefly notes while Mr. Graham has been aware of the criminal proceedings against him and Plaintiffs wishes to depose him for some time now, the court finds that is not grounds to deny the motion today. As such the court issues a protective order until that date. If for whatever reason the hearing is moved, Mr. Graham will have to motion for another protective order or the depositions may proceed. Accordingly, Cross-Complainant John Patrick Grahams Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED.
Ruling
BRITTANY MOORE VS TOMAS CRUZ, ET AL.
Aug 27, 2024 |21STCV47521
Case Number: 21STCV47521 Hearing Date: August 27, 2024 Dept: B SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHWEST DISTRICT BRITTANY MOORE, Plaintiff, vs. TOMAS CRUZ, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO: 21STCV47521 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT Dept. B 8:30 a.m. August 27, 2024 I. BACKGROUND On December 30, 2021, Plaintiff Brittany Moore (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Tomas Cruz, Alvaro Alacon, Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier LLC, and Raiser-CA LLC, alleging a cause of action for negligence, arising out of a vehicle collision that occurred on January 12, 2020. On August 5, 2022, Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier LLC, and Raiser-CA LLC (Defendants) filed their answer. On July 30, 2024, Defendants filed this motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. On August 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On August 19, 2024, Defendants filed a reply. II. LEGAL STANDARD CCP § 428.10 provides that a party against whom a cause of action has been asserted may file a cross-complaint setting forth: (b) Any cause of action he has against a person alleged to be liable thereon, whether or not such person is already a party to the action, if the cause of action asserted in his cross-complaint (1) arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause brought against him or (2) asserts a claim, right, or interest in the property or controversy which is the subject of the cause brought against him. (CCP § 428.10(b).) A party shall obtain leave of court to file a cross-complaint if it is not concurrently filed with the answer or at any time before the court sets a trial date. Leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action. (CCP § 428.10(c).) If a cross-complaint is compulsory, leave must be granted as long as the cross-complainant is acting in good faith, so as to avoid forfeiture of the causes of action. (C.C.P. §426.50; See Silver Organizations, Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 101 (concluding that the late filing of the motion to file a compulsory cross-complaint absent some evidence of bad faith is insufficient evidence to support denial of the motion).) To be considered a compulsory cross-complaint, the related cause of action must have existed at the time defendant served its answer to the complaint. (See Crocker Natl Bank v. Emerald (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 852, 864.) If the cross-complaint is not compulsory, but rather is permissive, the Court has sole discretion whether to grant or deny leave. (Id.) III. DISCUSSION Defendants move for leave to file a cross-complaint for equitable indemnity against Sean Armin, M.D., related to what Defendants contend were unnecessary surgeries and procedures performed on Plaintiff which exacerbated her injuries. Defendants argue they determined a cross-complaint against Dr. Armin is necessary due to additional facts discovered during his June 6, 2024 deposition regarding the nature of his medical treatment of Plaintiff Moore, including an additional surgery. (Golub Decl. ¶ 5.) Defendants argue there was no need or indication for Plaintiffs cervical disc replacement surgery of 2022. (Kaloostian Decl. ¶ 17.) They further argue that as a result of this unnecessary surgery, Plaintiff Moore suffered a complication. (Kaloostian Decl. ¶ 17.) Plaintiff underwent additional surgery as a result in September of 2023. Plaintiff opposes, arguing that trial is set for March 2025, and Defendants waited nearly a year after discovering Plaintiffs initial artificial disc replacement to file a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint against Dr. Armin. In the proposed cross complaint, Defendants are essentially alleging that Dr. Armin committed malpractice by performing surgery and providing treatment to Plaintiff that was not reasonably required. If Defendants are permitted to cross complain against Dr. Armin for his treatment of Plaintiff, a significant amount of discovery will be necessary to investigate Defendants allegation of malpractice which will delay trial once again, and the court already stated it would be hesitant to grant any more continuances. Plaintiff also alleges that the cross-complaint is futile. The Court first notes that that the cross-complaint is permissive. To be considered a compulsory cross-complaint, the related cause of action must have existed at the time defendant served its answer to the complaint. (See Crocker Natl Bank v. Emerald (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 852, 864.) Defendants filed their answer in August 2022. Plaintiff initial surgery occurred in December 2022, after the answer was filed and litigation ensued. As such, the court has sole discretion whether to grant or deny leave. (Id.) The court exercises its discretion in denying leave to amend. Trial is set for March 2025. Trial has already been continued four times in this matter, and the court informed the parties that it would be hesitant to grant any further continuances. To add a new party so late in the proceedings would not only likely delay trial even more, but enlarge the issues in this vehicle collision case to include allegations of medical malpractice. Further, Defendants expert examined Plaintiffs injuries in January of 2024 (Khoshnou Decl.; Exh. B), but Defendants did not move for leave to file a cross-complaint until August 2024. While Defendants argue they only learned of the facts giving rise to the proposed cross-complaint after deposing Dr. Armin in June 2024, they point to nothing specific in his testimony to support this assertion. The court finds that Defendants delayed in seeking to file their cross-complaint, which will result in prejudice to Plaintiff in that additional discovery will be necessary, resulting in further delay of trial and an undue burden on party and court resources. IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, Defendants motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is DENIED. Defendants are ORDERED to give notice.
Ruling
Roderick Mcdonald, II vs State of California, et al.
Aug 28, 2024 |23CV-04600
23CV-04600 Roderick Mcdonald II v. State of California, et al.Order to Show Cause re SanctionsAppearance required. Remote appearances are permitted. Parties who wish to appearremotely must contact the clerk of the court at (209) 725-4111 to arrange for a remoteappearance. Appear to address whether sanctions should be awarded because neitherparty appeared at the July 8, 2024, Case Management Conference.Case Management ConferenceAppearance required. Remote appearances are permitted. Parties who wish to appearremotely must contact the clerk of the court at (209) 725-4111 to arrange for a remoteappearance. Appear to address the status of the case.
Ruling
SHERIF MAKAR VS ZACHARY KELLER, ET AL.
Aug 29, 2024 |23TRCV01656
Case Number: 23TRCV01656 Hearing Date: August 29, 2024 Dept: 8 Tentative Ruling¿ ¿¿ HEARING DATE: August 29, 2024 ¿¿ CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV01656 ¿¿ CASE NAME: Sherif Makar v. Zachary Keller, et al. ¿¿ MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Sherif Makar ¿¿ RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants, Zachary Keller and Bruce S. Keller (No Opposition) ¿¿ TRIAL DATE: Not set. ¿¿ MOTION:¿ (1) Default Prove-Up ¿ Tentative Rulings: (1) Denied. There is no Statement of Damages, no Statement of the Case, and the Does have not been dismissed. The Court will consider continuing the hearing to allow counsel to correct these deficiencies. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual On May 24, 2023, Plaintiff, Sherif Makar (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendant, Zachary Keller (Defendant), and DOES 1 through 50, for: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence; and (2) General Negligence. The complaint is based on the allegation that Plaintiff and Defendant, Zachary Keller were exiting the parking structure at LAX and when Defendant Keller illegally crossed multiple lanes causing Plaintiff to collide with Defendants vehicle. As a result, Plaintiff contends that he suffered, and continues to suffer, damages, including, but not limited to, wage loss, loss of use of property, hospital and medical expenses, general damage, property damage, and loss of earning capacity. On December 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint DOEing in Bruce S. Keller as DOE 1. On April 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Order for Publication which was granted the same day by this Court. On April 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Proof of Publication as to Bruce S. Keller and Zachary Keller. Further, on June 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed another Proof of Publication as to Zachary Keller. Plaintiff now files a Motion for Default Prove-Up against Defendants, Zachary Keller and Bruce S. Keller (collectively, Defendant). B. Procedural On August 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Default Prove-Up. On August 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amended declaration of Sherif Makar in support of Plaintiffs request for Court Judgment. To date, no opposition has been filed. II. LEGAL STANDARD Code of Civil Procedure Section 585 permits entry of a judgment after a Defendant fails to timely answer following proper service of process. A party seeking judgment on the default by the Court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and provide: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursem*nts; (5) a proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (C.R.C., Rule 3.1800.) Typically the Plaintiff will also file a statement of damages summarizing the categories of claimed harm and the amounts claimed as to each, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 425.11, using the mandatory judicial council form CIV-050. There was no statement of damages filed here, such as to given notice to the defendants of the amounts being sought for the different categories of alleged harm. A complaints allegation of general damages alone is insufficient. (Jones v. Interstate Recovery Service (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 925, 929-930.) The amount of the default judgment cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint, in the statement required by Section 425.11, or in the statement provided for by Section 425.115. (Code of Civil Procedure § 580, subd. (a).) The statement required by section 425.11 is a statement of damages served separately on a defendant in an action to recover damages for personal injury or wrongful death. (§ 425.11, subd. (b).) (Dhawan v. Biring (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 963, 968969.) As this is a personal injury case, the absence of the Statement of Damages precludes the Court from entering a default judgment in any dollar amount. The purpose of the statement of damages (under § 425.11 or § 425.115) is to notify a defendant of the amount of damages sought where the law prevents the plaintiff from including a specific amount in the complaint. (Id.) Under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.10, subdivision (b), a complaint in an action for personal injury or wrongful death may not state the amount of damages. If the Defendant has not appeared in the action, the Statement of Damages must be served in the same manner as a summons (CCP §§ 425.11(d)(1); 425.115(g)(1).) This includes service by publication. III. DISCUSSION Proof of Service of Process: Proof of Service by Posting was filed as to both Defendants on both April 23, 2024, and as to Zachary Keller again on June 7, 2024 for the summons and complaint. The Request for Court Judgment filed on August 16, 2024 notes that the CIV-100 was served by mail on August 16, 2024. Request for Entry of Default: CIV-100 was filed on the same date as the other moving papers. It has not been granted. Prove Up: Plaintiff seeks entry of judgment against Defendants. While the 3rd page of the complaint notes that he has suffered wage loss, loss of use of property, hospital and medical expenses, general damage, loss of earning capacity, there is no dollar amount claimed in the Complaint and no Statement of Damages was filed. Nor is there the required Statement of Damages. Further, the Doe defendant have not been dismissed, which is required before a court can entere a money judgment. The Court has reviewed the Declaration of Sharif Makar filed on August 16, 2024 and Amended Declaration of Sharif Makar filed on August 19, 2024. Attached to those declarations are detailed exhibits evidencing medical specials from each of Plaintiffs treating facilities. But the Plaintiffs declaration under Section 585 cannot cure the failure to serve the Statement of Damages. Because this is a Due Process requirement, the Court cannot enter a default judgment on the record before this Court. The Proof of Service by publication attests that a statement of damages was served along with the Summons and Complaint, but there is no such statement in the court file. IV. CONCLUSION Here, Plaintiffs Default Prove-Up is DENIED as Plaintiff has failed to file and serve a Statement of Damages nor has he dismissed DOES 1 through 50.
Ruling
GERARDO DIAZ, , ET AL. VS NEW CENTURY INVESTMENT, LLC
Aug 27, 2024 |23STCV01891
Case Number: 23STCV01891 Hearing Date: August 27, 2024 Dept: 11 The tentative is as follows: The Motion for Preliminary Approval set for hearing on August 27, 2024, must be continued for counsel to provide a settlement agreement which is properly formatted and filed. The Stipulation of Settlement filed with the Court on April 29, 2024 has a file formatting error such that any copying of the document via "copy-paste" function results in illegible material. In addition, the text is not searchable. All documents electronically filed must comply with the Rules of Court, including 2.256(b)(3) which specifies: "The document must be text searchable when technologically feasible without impairment of the document's image." The same search functionality is required by this Court's First Amended General Order re electronic filing, filed May 3, 2019. Counsel is to provide a properly formatted, fully text searchable settlement agreement before the Court can proceed with preliminary approval. The continued hearing date is ________ at ____ a.m. with updated/corrected papers filed no later than ______.
Document
ZELAYA, CARLA vs. JERNIGAN, RONALD
Dec 08, 2023 |DONNA ROTH |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202384702
Document
CABRERA, VERONICA vs. SETHI, MANPREET
Dec 04, 2023 |KYLE CARTER |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202383658
Document
SHANNON, JESSICA (REV) vs. TEXAS CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL
Jul 21, 2023 |MIKE ENGELHART |DISCRIMINATION |DISCRIMINATION |202345855
Document
CRIACO, MICHAEL vs. OMARBEKOV, ZHARKYN (DVM)
Dec 06, 2023 |DONNA ROTH |PERSONAL INJ (NON-AUTO) |PERSONAL INJ (NON-AUTO) |202383937
Document
ROBINSON, DARSHA (INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND vs. ALMENDAREZ-BONILLA, LEYLA
Aug 16, 2023 |TAMIKA CRAFT-DEMMING |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202353928
Document
COMMERCE EQUITIES - SETTLER'S RANCH LTD vs. BREEN, THOMAS E (AKA TOMMY BREEN)
Aug 29, 2023 |CORY SEPOLIO |PERSONAL INJ (NON-AUTO) |PERSONAL INJ (NON-AUTO) |202357925
Document
VALDEZ, ADELINE (INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT OF FRIEND OF A V) vs. WESTMONT HOSPITALITY GROUP INC
Aug 17, 2023 |KYLE CARTER |Premises |Premises |202354356
Document
GONZALEZ, AARON vs. METOYER, SHAKITA DENISE
Feb 07, 2023 |C. ELLIOTT THORNTON |Motor Vehicle Accident |Motor Vehicle Accident |202307831
