Tag Archive for: lisa-angelo

Motion of Summary Judgment Granted in Trip and Fall Case

/in

A motion for summary judgment was granted by Judge James L. Crandall from the Orange County Superior court in favor of Defendant’s Gym located in Fullerton, California in a premises liability case. Lisa D. Angelo, Scott J. Loeding, and Katie M. Trinh of Murchison & Cumming, LLP represented defendant.

Plaintiff was a member of a local gym in Fullerton, California. When she initially became a member, she signed an agreement which included a Waiver and Release of Liability as well as Indemnity Agreement. On October 16, 2019 at approximately 6:30 in the morning, plaintiff walked into the lobby of the gym and tripped over a yellow wet floor caution sign. The sign had been placed on the floor by a janitor after he mopped the floor in the morning. Plaintiff sustained personal injuries including a upper humerus fracture on the right side. Plaintiff claimed damages in the low six figure range. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on grounds the waiver and release of liability provision contained in the gym membership agreement barred her claims against the gym.

On August 3, 2022, Judge James L. Crandall from the Orange County Superior Court granted defendant’s motion and found plaintiff waived her rights to sue for personal injuries when she signed her membership agreement, which included the liability waiver. The court further held that even though plaintiff spoke a different language, claimed to not understand the agreement or know what she was signing, that did not bar enforcement of the agreement.

On November 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for New Trial pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 657 and on grounds the court’s order granting summary judgment was improperly issued because the court did not have a tentative ruling or Order noting the basis for the court’s ruling ahead of the hearing and/or because the ruling amounted to an error in law because a warning sign was excluded by the release as a known risk and because the evidence before the court on the MSJ was insufficient to justify the court’s decision.

On January 24, 2023, Judge Martha K. Gooding from the Orange County Superior Court denied Plaintiff’s motion on both grounds. First, the court found that a trial court need not have a detailed order reflecting his or her decision to grant an MSJ ahead of the hearing and there is nothing improper about adopting the reasoning recited in the moving party’s proposed order. Second, the court found that Defendant has shown with undisputed evidence that it was not negligent as a matter of law by having the wet floor caution sign displayed when plaintiff tripped over it.

In denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, the court effectively found in favor of Defendant for a second time and on a second ground—the merits. Thus, Defendant prevailed twice by way of moving papers, first based upon the waiver/release and second, based upon the fact that a wet floor sign does not constitute a dangerous condition.

Motion of Summary Judgement Granted in Slip and Fall Case

/in

A motion for summary judgment was granted in the Los Angeles Superior Court in a premises liability case. Lisa D. Angelo, Gregory G. Brezovec, and Scott J. Loeding of Murchison & Cumming, LLP represented defendant.

This case involved a customer slipping and falling upon liquid that was believed to have come from a cup that another customer was holding and drinking from. According to video surveillance, which was 11 minutes in length, the footage showed Plaintiff walking behind the customer with the cup and all of a sudden, falling to the ground after the customer with the cup drank from his cup. The Court found this evidence to be sufficient for Defendant to meet its initial burden as “the liquid likely was spilled six seconds prior to the incident when a man carrying a cup walked through the exact location.” In her opposition, Plaintiff failed to present additional evidence to show the liquid she slipped upon came from another source and/or that the liquid was on the floor before the man with the cup walked through the area where Plaintiff fell.

Motion for Summary Judgment in Elder Abuse Case

/in

A motion for summary judgment was granted in favor of Veterans Rideshare, a unique transportation company based in Southern California, serving greater Los Angeles and Orange counties. Lisa D. Angelo and Scott J. Loeding of Murchison & Cumming, LLP represented the defendant.

Judge Brazile from the Los Angeles Superior Court initially granted the MSA as to Elder Abuse and Unruh Act claims, then, three months later, granted the rest of the motion as to the wrongful death claim. After the plaintiff’s pathologist, who submitted a declaration in opposition to the motion on behalf of the plaintiff, was deposed. The court found no causation between the plaintiff’s fall and his subsequent death nearly a year later. The court also rejected the pathologist’s brain damage theory and his entire declaration.

Motion of Summary Judgement Granted in Slip and Fall Case

/in

A motion for summary judgment was granted by Federal Court Judge Dolly Gee in favor of a store owner in a premises liability case. Lisa D. Angelo and Scott J. Loeding of Murchison & Cumming, LLP represented the defendant.

The case concerned a slip and fall over alleged water that had been spilled on the floor. Video surveillance showed that in a separate room around the corner from where the fall took place the defendant’s employees were cleaning up something on the ground with towels and left a mound of towels on the floor. The court ruled that even if the defendant was negligent in one part of the store, that did not mean that they were negligent in the place where the plaintiff fell and there was no causal link between the plaintiff’s fall and the alleged spill of water leakage around the corner. Consequently the court granted a summary judgment in favor of the store owner.

Motion for Summary Judgment Granted in Breach of Contract Case

/in

A motion for summary judgment was granted in favor of Community Action of Ventura Inc. (“Community Action”), a nonprofit organization assisting low income individuals to weatherize their residences to be more energy efficient. Lisa D. Angelo and Christy Gargalis of Murchison & Cumming, LLP represented the defendant.

In 2015, Community Action assisted homeowners in Oxnard, CA to replace two windows in their home. About six months after the window installation and a heavy rainfall, one of windows leaked and damaged hardwood flooring in the room where the window was installed. Community Action agreed to hire the plaintiff Jose F. Garcia to repair the flooring and walls in the area where the energy efficient window leaked.

After Garcia began work, he and the homeowners agreed to expand the scope of the repairs to include much more than what was identified in the original estimate including new hardwood flooring throughout the home. Both Garcia and the homeowners believed Community Action would pay for the additional work because a non-managerial employee from Community Action occasionally came to the property to check on the progress of the work. About a month after completing the work, Garcia submitted a final invoice to Community Action. Because Community Action had not agreed to pay for any work beyond what was submitted in Garcia’s original estimate, Community Action refused to pay Garcia’s second invoice. Garcia sued Community Action for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) quantum meruit; (3) work, labor and material; (4) work, labor and services; and, (5) unjust enrichment

After two years of litigation, Community Action filed a motion for summary judgment as to all of Garcia’s claims. After a hearing on the motion, the court held that Garcia’s breach of contract claim failed because the only viable contract that was entered into by the parties was for limited repairs to the floor by the leaking window and Community Action was not liable for additional costs to which it did not agree. The court further held that because Community Action established that the employee who occasionally visited the home to observe the status of Garcia’s work was a non-managerial employee, he lacked actual or ostensible authority to bind Community Action to authorize the expansion of Garcia’s work at the property. As to the remaining causes of action, the Court found that because Community Action did not own the subject property, it did not obtain any benefit from the additional work Garcia performed at the property.

Defense Verdict in Alleged Real Estate Fraud Case

/in

On November 12, 2020, a fully masked Orange County jury, which was seated about the courtroom, including the gallery, returned a Defense Verdict in favor of Rajeswari Vunnamadala. Murchison & Cumming, LLP Partner Lisa D. Angelo tried the case. Senior Associate Darin W. Flagg provided law and motion assistance and Associate Vedang J. Patel provided trial assistance over the course of the three-week trial.

The plaintiff Hymavathi Kunamneni sued Vunnamadala, her former best friend of 34 years, for Intentional Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Constructive Fraud and Breach of Fiduciary Duty in connection with Kunamneni’s belief that Vunnamadala caused her to make bad investment decisions and in so doing, Vunnamadala accepted large sums of money from Kunamneni to finalize her property purchases for her in India. Vunnamadala vehemently denied each and every allegation set forth by Kunamneni.

The unique case concerned the sale of three lots of land in India. In addition to being Plaintiff’s best friend, Vunnamadala was a licensed real estate agent in Orange County who had previously worked as the plaintiff’s agent and helped her buy and sell real estate in Orange County in the early 2000s. Vunnamadala denied working as Kunamneni’s agent or helping her buy any of the Indian properties she now regrets purchasing between 2008 and 2011. In 2015, Kunamneni began to voice regret and concern about the value of her properties and started to accuse Vunnamadala of tricking her into making bad investment decisions in India. Kunamneni also began to threaten Vunnamadala and bad mouthed Vunnamadala in India as well as in Orange County.

Defense real estate expert Alan Wallace, Esq. testified that in the absence of an agency relationship between the parties, there can be no breach of fiduciary duty. To establish an agency relationship there had to be an express written agreement between the parties or conduct that implied an agency relationship existed. Because there was no evidence of an express written agreement after 2003 (when Vunnamadala was Kunamneni’s real estate agent in Orange County, CA) and the conduct of the parties did not establish consent to enter into an agency relationship, no agency existed between Kunamneni and Vunnamadala for any of Kunamneni’s Indian property purchases. Wallace also observed there was no evidence of any commission earned by Vunnamadala in exchange for working as Kunamneni’s agent in India. This further showed the parties did not have an agent/client agreement between them. Defense Indian law and Indian real estate expert Monisha Coelho further explained that none of the Indian real estate documents produced at trial showed that Vunnamadala was Kunamneni’s agent and simple acts such as going to India’s registration office to drop off and pick up real estate documents for Kunamneni did not create an agency relationship between the parties.

After a three-week trial, the jury took less than three hours to find Defendant Vunnamadala not liable for any of the fraud-based claims Kunamneni alleged including her claim for punitive damages.

Motion for Summary Judgment Granted in Products Liability Case

/in

Judge Curtis A. Kin of the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted a motion for summary judgment in a products liability case against Mountville Mills, Inc. (MMI), a floor mat manufacturer. The motion was prepared and argued by Matthew E. Voss and the handling attorney for this matter was Lisa D. Angelo.

MMI is a manufacturer of floor mats used in the restaurant industry and other businesses across the U.S. The plaintiff had purportedly sustained serious physical injuries after a trip and fall accident at the entrance of a restaurant in Pasadena, California involving a mat manufactured by MMI. She alleged causes of action against MMI for: 1) Products Liability; 2) Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness; and 3) Negligence.

The Court found that the plaintiff had failed to raise any triable issues of material fact and submit evidence showing a defect in the mat, or conduct constituting a breach of warranty or breach of duty by MMI. Thus, the plaintiff could not establish her causes of action against MMI. The Court found the declaration of the plaintiff’s expert, Brad Avrit, submitted in opposition to the motion, unpersuasive because Avrit did not test the mat, request a sample mat for testing, inspect the accident site, and his opinions were not based upon personal knowledge.

Defense Verdict in Premises Liability Case

/in

A Long Beach jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, a local restaurant from Avalon, California. Murchison & Cumming Partner Lisa D. Angelo represented the restaurant in a five-day trial where plaintiff asked the jury to award her $5 million dollars.

The plaintiff fell upon a curb on the corner of Third St. and Catalina Ave. in the City of Avalon. Video surveillance from the defendant’s restaurant captured the fall. As a result of her fall, the plaintiff claimed she suffered a sciatic nerve injury to her back that required her to undergo physical therapy and two epidural injections. Her future medical damages claims included a spinal cord stimulator along with a battery pack that had to be replaced every five to seven years. According to the plaintiff’s medical expert, the cost of the stimulator and battery pack alone was $350,000.

At trial, the plaintiff testified that she fell as a result of “slime and sludge” that came from a roof drain pipe attached to defendant’s restaurant. Evidence at trial showed that defendant’s air conditioning unit, located on the restaurant’s roof, leaked water condensation that traveled from the unit, across the roof, down a roof drain and onto the City of Avalon’s sidewalk. The restaurant’s owner testified that he routinely changes the filter on the air conditioning unit and that it was properly maintained at all times.

The plaintiff’s liability expert, Brad Avrit, testified that the air conditioner’s water condensation picked up “contaminants” as it traveled across the roof and down the drain pipe to the City sidewalk. Mr. Avrit further opined that the “contaminants,” while resting on the City sidewalk, turned into an liquid substance that caused plaintiff to slip and fall. The only evidence the plaintiff produced to support her expert’s “contamination” theory was her own testimony, the video surveillance and a nighttime photo that she believed showed “slime and sludge” on the concrete.

Defense liability expert, Ned Wolfe, testified that the plaintiff fell as the result of a misstep. Having turned the video surveillance into still-shots, Mr. Wolfe effectively showed the jury that the plaintiff’s torso pitched forward at the time of her fall rather than backwards. These “body mechanics” demonstrate a “misstep” off the curb and not a slip upon slime, sludge or any other “contaminant.”

Both liability experts agreed: water on concrete does not create a slippery or dangerous condition.

The jury returned a 11-1 defense verdict in less than two hours after a five day jury trial. The jury answered “No” to the first question on the special verdict form as to whether Defendant was negligent. The case was tried before Judge Vicencia in the Long Beach Superior Court.

Murchison & Cumming Partners Claim Two Trial Victories in One Week

/in ,

Murchison & Cumming partners Mary C. Trinh and Lisa D. Angelo capped a winning week for their clients and the firm by obtaining dismissals in two fiercely contested Los Angeles Superior Court cases, on the first day of trial!

In an alleged escalator accident matter, Ms. Trinh’s client obtained a Non-Suit, ending a personal injury case that had been litigated for more than four years. The defense successfully argued that the plaintiff had no evidence, from experts or otherwise, that any duty was breached. The court is expected to eventually award substantial costs in favor of the defendant, separate from significant unpaid medical bills incurred by plaintiff. The case result was the latest in a long line of Murchison & Cumming’s defense verdicts/awards in elevator and escalator personal injury cases handled on behalf of property owners, manufacturers and product service companies over the last two decades.

In a complex 10-count complaint arising out of the sale of a high-end vehicle, with allegations ranging from malicious prosecution and defamation to fraud and conversion of the vehicle, Ms. Angelo’s client obtained dismissal by simply demanding the case proceed to trial even in the absence of the plaintiff–who after litigating her complaint for more than three years–failed to appear for trial. While the plaintiff claimed she had been in an auto-accident the day before and needed a last minute trial continuance, Ms. Angelo argued that unlike criminal cases, a plaintiff need not be present for trial, except for the day she testifies. If the plaintiff’s counsel was not “ready” for trial, the defense was entitled to a dismissal. And, if the plaintiff’s counsel was “ready” for trial, the defense was entitled to proceed with the jury trial as scheduled without the plaintiff’s presence. The court agreed and called to have the jury empaneled. As the jury walked in the door, the plaintiff’s counsel asked to withdraw as trial counsel. When his request was denied, the plaintiff’s counsel moved to dismiss the case. The court immediately dismissed the case and the plaintiff, who had sought substantial compensatory and punitive damages, is now expected to face a substantial defense cost bill.

About Murchison & Cumming, LLP
With a firm history dating to 1930, Murchison & Cumming, LLP is a premier, AV-rated civil litigation firm with five offices in California and Las Vegas, whose attorneys specialize in the defense of domestic and international businesses, insurers and individuals, at trial and on appeal. The firm’s attorneys also handle employment matters and business transactions. The firm is a member of the USLAW and Insuralex Networks.

Motion for Summary Judgment Granted in “Dog-Bite” Case

/in

Judge Patricia Nieto of the Los Angeles Superior Court Grants Motion for Summary Judgment in premises liability / “dog-bite” case against local Pet Shop and animal rescue owner in a case handled by Lisa D. Angelo and Kelsey L. Maxwell.

Four days before the statute of limitations was to pass, on November 6, 2014, the plaintiff, a frequent visitor of a local pet supply boutique, brought a three-count complaint against the pet supply (“Defendant”) for Strict Liability, Negligence and Premises Liability. In her complaint, the plaintiff claimed that while on the defendant’s property, playing with several dogs, she suffered a baby dog scratch/bite from a 4 month old Maltese puppy who was in a dog pen and became jealous when the plaintiff stopped paying attention to him. Over the course of discovery, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her Strict Liability claim against the defendant as it was learned the defendant was not the “owner” of the Maltese and was simply allowing the dog’s owner to show the puppy in her store so it could be adopted. Evidence gathered further showed the defendant had no notice of “dangerous propensities” such that an attack or baby dog scratch was foreseeable by the puppy.

Despite the plaintiff’s dismissal of her primary claim under California’s “dog-bite” statute, the plaintiff proceeded with her lawsuit against the defendant under a premises liability theory. In order for a property owner to be liable for negligence or premises liability, however, the plaintiff must prove the defendant had notice of a dangerous condition on its property which, in this case, meant the plaintiff had to prove the defendant had knowledge of violent propensities of the animal in question. When evidence gathered through discovery showed the Maltese was “sweet natured,” the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment as to the remaining claims alleged by the plaintiff in her complaint.

On September 29, 2016, after two hearings, consideration of a 60 paragraph expert declaration and a supplemental expert declaration offered by the plaintiff’s “dog training expert,” the Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety. First the court ruled most of the plaintiff’s expert declaration was irrelevant and inadmissible. Then, the court held, there was no evidence to show notice of the dog’s violent propensities or the existence of facts that would make the behavior foreseeable.