MOTION IN LIMINE - REGARDING TESTIMONY REGARDING PAMELA MCCAULEY'S AFFIDAVIT F/B PLT September 23, 2018 (2024)

MOTION IN LIMINE - REGARDING TESTIMONY REGARDING PAMELA MCCAULEY'S AFFIDAVIT F/B PLT September 23, 2018 (1)

MOTION IN LIMINE - REGARDING TESTIMONY REGARDING PAMELA MCCAULEY'S AFFIDAVIT F/B PLT September 23, 2018 (2)

  • MOTION IN LIMINE - REGARDING TESTIMONY REGARDING PAMELA MCCAULEY'S AFFIDAVIT F/B PLT September 23, 2018 (3)
  • MOTION IN LIMINE - REGARDING TESTIMONY REGARDING PAMELA MCCAULEY'S AFFIDAVIT F/B PLT September 23, 2018 (4)
  • MOTION IN LIMINE - REGARDING TESTIMONY REGARDING PAMELA MCCAULEY'S AFFIDAVIT F/B PLT September 23, 2018 (5)
  • MOTION IN LIMINE - REGARDING TESTIMONY REGARDING PAMELA MCCAULEY'S AFFIDAVIT F/B PLT September 23, 2018 (6)
 

Preview

Filing # 78282219 E-Filed 09/23/2018 06:14:35 PM.IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTHJUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALMBEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA.Case No.: 502014CA012361XXXXMB AHMICHAEL CAMPBELL andDARLA DRAKE-CAMPBELL,Piaintiffs,Vv.PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC.,a Florida corporation, and S-LDISTRIBUTION COMPANY., INC., aDeiawaie Corporaucn, anaYANIRE ENTERPRISES, INC.a Florida corporation, and ARISTIDESMARTE, individually,Defendants./PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING TESTIMONYREGARDING PAMELA MCCAULEY’S AFFIDAVITCOMES NOW the Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned attorneys, and filethis Motion in Limine with respect to the testimony regarding Pamela McCauley, Ph.D.’sAffidavit, and as grounds therefor states the following:1. Dr. Pamela McCauley is an expert retained by the Plaintiff who has providedtrial testimony by way of a video deposition.2. Prior to the deposition, Dr. McCauley provided an affidavit containingopinions on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations, the FloridaBuilding Code regulations, and the Florida Fire Prevention Code. Dr. McCauley offeredopinions regarding the obstruction of the ingress and egress at the Publix where thelanl ant anniemGiuent OCouTe.CHIEN. DAIRARECACUAAIINTY Cl CUADAND ANFY FLED nain2innia ne44.25 DAAPILL. PAL DLA VUUINE TT, 1, OHI. DUUN, ULLIAN, voreur2u LU UU. Ito FiveCAMPBELL v. Publix, S-L Distribution Co., Yanire and MarteCase No.: 502014CA012361XXXXMB AH3. At the time Dr. McCauley offered her opinions, Publix was a party to thelawsuit. Publix raised counter arguments that the obstruction in the ingress and egresswas only there for 19 seconds.4, When Dr. McCauley testified during her video deposition for use at trial, Dr.McCauley testified that she would not be offering opinions regarding ingress and egressbecause she needed to do additional research on whether the obstruction was temporaryunder the applicable codes and ordinance.5. Publix was dropped as a party.6. Defendants added Publix as a Fabre Defendant.7. Defendants have no evidence of any negligence on behalf of Publix.Instead, it appears Defendants are attempting to use Dr. McCauley’s affidavit andtestimony regarding the affidavit as their only evidence of Publix’s negligence.8. Dr. McCauley’s affidavit is inadmissible hearsay. It should not be admittedas evidence and the Defendants should be prohibited from referencing the affidavit atiflal.9. Defendants have designated portions of Dr. McCauley’s testimonyregarding the affidavit to be played at trial.10. The testimony regarding the affidavit should be excluded because it doesnot hold any probative value and it is highly prejudicial. The testimony will only confusethe jury on the issues.11. Dr. McCauley has testified that the opinion is incomplete. Dr. McCauleywwaild naad ta da mnre reWeur mecu ww GO nore re.CAMPBELL v. Publix, S-L Distribution Co., Yanire and MarteCase No.: 502014CA012361XXXXMB AH“temporary” and whether the temporary nature has any impact on applicable codes andordinances. Specifically, Dr. McCauley testified as follows:Question: Your opinion has changed?Answer: Well, this is -- | did. | looked at: -additional -- | wouldn't say -- | wouldneed to do -addition analysis.- | went back and looked at the video. And uponobserving that the cart was in the doorway for 19 seconds, okay.- So -- and then |looked at the code, and I just -- | tried to be very thorough and complete andobjective in my analysis. And so the cart was there for 19 seconds.- And then,there was another exit that was there, which | think 1 showed in the photo.- And so| will - | was concerned that my opinion may not -- with the term temporary, that itmay be a concern. So my concern was that | needed to do additional research onwhai the scientific iiterature states is temporary, and i didn’t have time to find or todo that additional analysis.- So that's why | stepped back from those opinions, so.Question: Okay. So, Doctor -- I'm sorry.- Are you done?Answer: Yes. So — but, no. What I'm saying is when | wrote that, yes, that wastrue. But I'm telling you after | did additional analysis and began to understand sownat do mean we mean by Temporary? 7 18 ner anyining i ine SCieiitt tithat | can point to that says what temporary is which would constitute a violation. See Deposition of Pamela McCauley, August 20, 2018, 40:9-25, 1-8 attached asEx112. Dr. McCauley later testified that her opinion on the ingress and egress isthat she has no opinion because she needs to do more research on what constitutes atemporary obstruction. 42 at 5-1413. Defendants have designated the following portions of Dr. McCauley’sAanacitinn racnardinn tha offidauit ta ha nlavad at trialGepComen (Ogaraing wie aniGavin iW We picyou Ge wie,Page 38 line 3-13;Page 39 line 21-25;Pages 39-40;Page 41, line 1-8, 23-25; andPage 42, Line 1-25.eeoeeeCAMPBELL v. Publix, S-L Distribution Co., Yanire and MarteCase No.: 502014CA012361XXXXMB AH14. Plaintiff requests that the Court prohibit Defendants from playing anyportions of Dr. MicCauley’s testimony regarding her prior affidavit.15. Defendant should likewise be preciuded from arguing, mentioning, orreferencing that McCauley offered an opinion on Publix’s negligence.WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray the Court enter an Order as follows:A. Finding that Dr. McCauley’s prior affidavit is inadmissible; andB. Prohibiting Defendants from playing portions of Dr. McCauley’s depositionat iriai that invoive her prior affidavit; andCc. Prohibiting Defendants from arguing, mentioning, or referencing that Dr.McCauley offered an opinion on Publix’s negligence.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE| HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing has been furnished via e-service; and, e-mail to: Matthew A. Fiorello, Esq., matthew.fiorello@petersonbernard.com;patty.martel@petersonbernard.com; Peterson Bernard, Counsel for Defendant, S-L.Distribution Company, Inc., Yanire Enterprises, Inc. and Aristides Marte, 1550 SouthemBlvd., Suite 300, West Palm Beach, FL 33406 on this 23°~ day of Sep tem 2018.CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLPAttorneys for Plaintiffs303 Banyan Bivd., Suite 400West Palm Beach, FL 33401Telephone: 561-842-2820Fax: 561-844-6929milMlaunle eam: snarkuMlawole | onam Florida Bar No. 302864wo101112131415161718192021Pamela McCauleyAugust 20, 2018 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIALCIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY,FLORIDACASE NO.: 502014-CA-012361XXXXMB AHMICHAEL CAMPBELL and DARLADRAKE-CAMPBELL,Plaintiffs,v.PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., a FloridaDann and @ 7 nremerormraw Aumnawycorporation, GOOG P-U VisinLDULLUN UUrIFANLLLC, £/k/a S-L DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, INC.,a Delaware Corporation, and YANIREENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida corporation, andARISTIDES MARTE, individually,Defendants. VIDEO DEPOSITION OF PAMELA MCCAULEY, Ph.D.August 20, 201848 pom,Aatnm Aoa pem. at3505 Lake Lynda DriveSuite 200Orlando, Florida 32817Stenographically Reported By:Daly OoanaCourt Reporter www.uslegalsupport .comPamela McCauley August 20, 2018 2 to 5Page 2 Page 4: =a 1 Deposition taken before Daly Ocana, Professional2 Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of3 3. Florida at Large in the above cause.critton, luttier & Coleman, LLP a tea bale4 303 Banyan Boulevardsuite 400 5 'THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good afternoon. We are now5 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 6 on the video record.561-842-2820 : 7‘ BY; MARKT, LUPTIER, REQUIRE 1 ‘THE COURT REPORTER: This is the case ofmtLolawclc.com 8 Michael Campbell and Darla Drake-Conpbell versus7a 9 Yanire Enterprises and Aristides Marte, and theSn Sonnit of ths Detenmants: b case was ed ai the Ciiaiit Court of the iti: ath lloilo n Judicial circuit in and for Palm Beach County,10 1550 Southern Boulevard 12 Florida. We are here to take the video depositionsuite 300a West Palm Beach, Florida 23406 B of Panola McCauley, Ph.D,561-606-5005 u Would all comsel please state your12 BY: MATTHEW A, PIORELIO, RSQUIRE 15 appearances on the record, please?matthew. fiorelloepetersonbernard.com . 72 16 MR, IUETIER: Mark Iuttier on behalf of MikeM4 av and Darla Carpbel.2 18 MR. FIORELLO: Matthew Fiorello on behalf of16 19 Yenize Enterprises and Aristides Marte.al 20 THR COURT REPORTER: Okay. Dr. McCauley,29 an would you please raise your right hand?os 2 ‘THE WITNESS: Yes. (Complies.)22 23 ‘THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm23 24 the testinany you are about to give will be the24s 25 truth, the whole truth, end nothing but the truth?Page 3 Page 52 ‘INDEX 1 ‘THE WITNESS: I do,eer: iva 2 THE COURT REPORTER: Okay.PAMELA MCCAULEY, Ph.D. c 7: 3 THEREUPON,A Diveot Examination by Mr. Luttier...........0000+ 4 4 PAMELA MCCAULEY, Ph.D. ,cross-Exanination by Mr, Fiorello. . 5 having been first duly sworn, was exanined and testified5 Redirect Examination by Mr. tuttier. 6 as folloxs:Recross Examination by Mr. Fiorello,,.. 7 DIRRCE EXAMINATION6 Further Redirect by Hr. Luttier :‘7 CERTIFICATE OF OATH. 13 BBE tie ANTESeuprpieata on yavseria | ly at 9 9 Good afternoon, Doctor. Could you tell thee 10 wenbers of the jwy your name, please?ERRATA SHEET... i A Yes, Pamela NoCauley.9 NOTIPICATION LETTER, 12 Q And, Doctor, what is your occupation?7 B A I'ma professor of industrial engineering ati 14 the University of Central Florida.33 45 Q And what is your professional address?14 16 A My professional address is 3505 Lake Lyndaae 17 Drive, Suite 200, Orlando, Florida,16 (No EXHIBITS MARKED.)i 8 Q Okay. And could you tell the wenbers of theae 19 jury a Little bit about what your occupation is? What29 20 it entails?20 a A Certainly. As an occupational ergonomist anda aa 23° ergonomics, huran factors, and bionechanics. As such, Iny 24 work as a professor at the University of Central Florida25 where I teach ergonomics courses, biomechanics courses,as www.uslegalsupport.comPamela McCauley August 20, 2018 6 to 9Page 6 Page 82 and occupational, safety courses and have for the past 26 | 1 Q Okay. Have you been involved in projects2 years, 2 where vou achwally annly var himan factors exnertineEy Q What is ergonomics? 3. cut in the ~- as we would say the real world?4 A Well, ergonomics, it means the study of the 4 A Oh, many, many, It's very exciting. I've5 lwman ergo in the -- in the work -- work -- in the 5 done projects for NASA, munerous projects for the6 workplace. and so the field actually has evolved so it | 6 Department of Defense. I've done projects for the World7 doesn't as mich -- doesn't isolate itself to work. But {| 7 Bank and mmerous projects for corporations such as8 any time people interact with a physical environment or | 8 Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and others.9 a cogni- -~ from a cognitive or physical standpoint, we | 9 Q Okay. And just in a summary form so that the6 can apply principles of ergononics and muman factors, | i jury has a sense of wnat you do, what is it ineseiL And so without being too long winded here, 11 companies hire you as a human factors and ergnomist. to12 ergonomica and Inman factors have become synonymous 12 do?13° terms, But the human factors aspect of our field of B A Okay, ell, they hire me to offer input into14 study tends to foous more on the cognitive side of the | 14 the design, the layout of facilities and equipnent.15 research, 15 Also, what's the most appropriate way for a process to16 Q Meaning what? 16 work or a facility to be laid out. It -- that -- so. A Cognition is thinking how people think and kow | 17 that you have the most: efficient and effective work18 the mind works, And so as ergonomists, it's our 18 place and where people can operate and function safely19 responsibility to do research and design processes, 19 and efficiently.20 procedures, and environment so it's consistent with 20 Q Yeah. Have -- have -- are you a member of any21 human expectations. 21 professional societies in your area?22 Q Would it be a correct statement to say that in | 22 A Tam, T'ma nether of the Human Factors and23° a summary form, human factors studies how people react 23 Ergonomics Society. I'm also a menber of the Institute24 and act in various situations? 24 of Industeial, Engineers, and I'm a menber of 1EZ3, the25 A Yes, that would be very appropriate because we |25 Institute of Zlectrical and Blectronics Engineers, and aPage 7 Page 91 do study how people act and react, and how ve would 1 few other societies, But those are the most relevant:2 expect for then to respond in situations, 2 technical societies,3 Q ALL right. what is your educational 3 Q Have you ever received any awards or honors as4 background? 4 a result of your work in human factors?5 AT have three degrees in engineering, a 5 A Ihave. I've been awarded best paper6 hachelors, masters, and doctorate degree all in 6 competitions by the Institute of Industrial Engineering.7 industrial engineering. And I'm also a certified 7 have received a recognition from the Florida8 professional erganomist. I've also had additional study | 8 Engineering Society. So I’ve received mmerous forms or9 in the Field of biomechanics with short courses at MIT | 9 recognition throughout my career for my work,10 after I was on the faculty there. 10 Q Have you published any works or papers?nu Q Okay, And you're -- you are currently a 1 A Thave. I've published over 100 scientific12 professor at the University of Central Florida? 12 articles. I've written four books including anB A Tam. However, I'm -- I'm currently -- Iwas | 13 ergonomics textbook that is used internationally. 80u an 14 Tive done a m dng around the15 Foundation on assignment to help them lead and direct 15 world in ergonomics and biomechanics.26 the National Innovation Corps. 16 Q And -~ and do you actually head a lehoratorya7 Q = And as a professor, do you actually teach 17 at the University of Central Florida?38 classes at the University of Central Florida? 18 A Ido, I'm the directar of the ergonomics19 A Ido. I teach classes every semester. 19 laboratory.20 Q Okay, And -- and are you the head of a 20 Q and do you, in the field, conduct actual21 department or a laboratory? 21 projects with students that are PhD candidates?2 A Lam, 1 am the director of the ergonamics aa A ila. i y23 laboratory that's located within the College of 23 candidates and guide their work. And so I've worked24 Engineering and Computer Science in the Department of | 24 with a nunber of students in that capacity.25 Industrial Engineering, 25 Q Okay. And you were hired by myself on behalf www.uslegalsupport.comPamela McCauley August 20, 2018 10 to 13Page 10 Page 121 of Mr. and Mra. Campbell in this matter? 1 A That is Mr. Campbell.2 A Thatts correct. 2 © Ind thie is a view from the outside of the3 Q And you were hired initially to act as a 3 store?4 consultant on our behalf? 4 A That's correct.5 A That's correct. 5 Q and the ~~ the opening that we see with these6 Q And you were asked to review the facts 6 curtains, that's the opening Mr. Campbell is going to go7 involved in this case, and the location where this 7 through?8 incident happened, and some videotape of the incident, 8 A Yes, that's correct.9 and advise us as to whether or not there are any human | 9 Q Okay. All right, Let me see what -~ do10 factors issues involved? iG Yaa -- did yea also -- wie you wane with -- to the1m A That is correct. 31 store, did you also go in the store?2 Q All right. Now, you are aware that the 2 A In the hack of the store? Yes, I did.13 factual basis for -- for this case involves a fall that | 13 Q All xight, and let me show you a couple of24 occurred at the Publix at the Greenwise Market in Palm | 14 pictures here. If you could show them to the jury? Did15 Beach Gardens? 15 these -- do these pictures depict the configuration of16 A Yes, Tam. 16 the back of the store? If you could hold those up 6017 Q Okay. And -- and that happened in dune of 17 the videographer can get. those?18 2014? 18 A Yes, ‘these pictures depict the back of the19 A Yes. I'm avare of it, 19 stove on the site visit -- during the site visit. so20 Q and -- welll, did you have the opportunity to | 20 this one --21 review some security video footage that was captured by | 21 Q And did you ask Mr, Campbell whether or not22 Publix from inside and outside the store of this 22 that accurately depicts the configuration of the store23 particular incident? 23 on the date of the accident?24 A Yes, I did have the opportunity to review both | 24 A Yes, I did,25 of those videos. 25 Q And what did he tell you?Page 11 Page 131 Q and this particular incident involves a 1 A Bnd he said yes, it does.2 situation where tir. Campbell was delivering sone boxes | 2 Q All right. So these pictures show us what the3. to Publix through their -- what we call the back door or | 3 back of the store looks like? Okay.4 the loading dock? 4 A That's right.5 A That's correct. 5 Q All right. Now, in this case, this involves a6 Q Okay. And did you actually go in and inspect 6 situation which Mr. Campbell tripped as he came through7 these premises? 7 this entrance over what's sometimes referred to as a8 A did, 8 stock float?9 Q And did you interview Mr. Carpbell? 9 A Correct.10 A Idid, 10 Q Okay. and did you have -~ ask Mr. Campbell toi Q kay. and did you do some research in your 11 take a stock float that was similar to the one he12 areas of expertise? 12 tripped over and place it in a location where he thoughtB A Yes, I did. 13 it was at the tine that he fell?M 2 ; Aad an “ A Yes, T did.15 you sowe photographs, is that correct? 15 Q And did you take a picture of that?16 A that is comect. 16 A Yes, I did,a Q All right, and do you have, for example, a -- | 17 @ — Could you show that to the jury?18 a photograph today that you can show the jury that 18 A Yes.19 depicts the -- the opening or the entrancevay that -- | 19 Q All right. and -- and when you asked20 that is the subject of -- of this particular clain? 20M. Campbell to do this, did he indicate that this --au A Yes, Ido. 21 that he placed this stock float in approximately the2a @ Gray, ind if we can just -- you are just 2 ACG IE the date of Wie accent?23 © showing me one of them. Okay. If the camera can get 23 A Yes, he did. Re said this is the location24 that? Now, this particular picture, there's a mm in -- | 24 that it was in on the date of his accident.25 in blue there. Is that Mr, Campbell? 25 Q You got to tum that so that the www.uslegalsupport.comPamela McCauley August 20, 2018 14 to 17Page 14 Page 161 videographer -- 1 that other entrance that you observed?2 Rh, excuse me, That this is the location of 1 2 A Yen, This is a closer --3 the stock float on the day of his accident. 3 Q Tum it around.4 Q And he identified that stock float as being 4 A Excuse te.5 one similar to the ane that he tripped over? 5 Q There you go.6 A Yes, he did, 6 A Acloser view of the picture. Yes, of the1 Q Okay. Now, did you also have Mr. Campbell 7 other exit --8 stand next to the stock Eloat so that you wild get a 8 Q Okay, All right.9 sense of where -- how high the stock float was off this | 3 A -- and entry.30 ground so that you can apply that knowledge to tne ia «fae [ia going ta show you one of your cher11 ~~ opinions you formed? 11 pictures. Here is a picture of the -- the -- that12 A Yes, I did. 12 depicts the other entyance. And docs thia picture show2B Q And let me show you a picture here, Is this a |13 the sane stock float that you -- Mr. Canpell identified14 picture of Mr, Campbell standing next to the stock 14 as being similar to the one that he tripped over?15 float? 1b A Yes. This picture does show that, the6 A Yes, it is. 16 same stock float.17 Q All right. And Mr. Campbell, did he indicate | 17 Q And it shows that that stock float -- there's48 to you that in that picture, he was depicting 18 room for that stock float to -- to -~ to be removed and19 approximately where he was when he first came in and 19 placed a near countertop that is next to it with a20 encountered the float? 20 garbage can?a MR. FIORELIO: Objection. Leading. a MR. FIORBLLO: Objection. Leading.2 ‘A That i what he was depicting, yes 22 A Yes.23° BY MR, LUTTTER: 23° BY MR, LUTTE:4 Q Okay. Well, there was an cbjection. So I'm | 24 Q Let me rephrase that question, When you met28 going to restate my question, 25 with Mc. Campbell, did he indicate that when hePage 15 Page 171 A Owy, 1 delivered boxes, that there was sone sort of a clerk at2 Q What did you ask Mr. Campbell to do in this 2 Publix that was located at a desk here, and he would3 particular picture? 3. check thase boxes in?4 A asked Mr. Campbell to show me where he -~ 4 A Yes.5 how he cane into the entrance ag it relates to the 5 Q All right.6 position of the cart. 6 A Yes,7 Q Okay. Now, in addition to the entrance that | 7 Q And in this picture that you'xe showing the8 Mr. Campbell actually went through as part of 8 jury right now, does this depict the location where9 hig -- and 1°21 show you one of the other 9 Mr, Campbell indicated that there was a clerk where he10 photographs. Is there another -- did you observe 10 would check boxes in when they'xe there?11 another entrance and exit in the Publix? ct A Yes,12 A Yes, I did, 12 Q All right, And is that that stool. there?B Q All right. So let me show another photograph | 13 A Yes,u F amy? u © Okay. And ~~ and we see the stock float is15 A Okay, Yes. 15 someshere near that stool, but ~~ but not in this16 Q ALL right, And where -- can you point out 16 doorway?11 where the other entrance is? aT MR. FIORELIO: Gbjection, Leading.18 A This is where the other entrance and exit ~ | 18 BY MR. LUITIER:19 Q Okay. 19 Q Is -- is there room enough based upon your20 A -= dg in the back of the facility. 20 observations on the day that you went there, for thea Q Okay. 21 stock float to be outside of the ingress and egress ofB A Gan you see that oxay? 22 Gils ~~ the & a+ Git StL2B Q Okay. Yes. 23 be over near the clerk's desk?24 A Okay. mw A Yes, there is room for it.25 Q and is -- ig this picture an actual picture of | 25 Q Okay. Now, in the area of ergonomics and www.uslegalsupport.comPamela McCauley August 20, 2018 18 to 21Page 18 Page 201 human factors ~~ 1 I'msaying. So the more times ~~ when I say navigate,2 A Yes. 2 I'm weaning walk, ‘The way that you interact in a3 Q == are you aware of something that's called 3. physical environment. For example, if there's a comer4 cognitive mapping? 4 store that you go to every week in your neighborhood --5 A Yes, Tam, 5 and 0 excuse we -~ let me show you what I'm talking6 Q Okay. Could you explain to the menbers of the | 6 about here, Mr. -~ Mc. Luttier.7 jury what cognitive mapping is? 7 So if I have a comer stare that I go to every8 ‘A Certainly. Cognitive mapping is a process 8 moming to get my coffee on my way to work, then I am9 that the huran brain goes through when you go into a 9 going to go down this street every single day. Say I've30 plysicaa . Baa uncc it does, the human mind) 10 been dolng this for, what, 200 tines, and I tum left,1 actually creates a wap -- a wental map in our head of | | 11 and I mow I'm going to be xight here at the coffee32 our physical environment, and this allows us to walk © 42 shop. But if on the 301 time £ tum left, I'm going to13 into environment: and Imow how to navigate around it. 13 expect that I'm just going to eafely walk into the14 And the more tines we'ze in a place, the more that 14 coffee shop, but if someone -- if they're cleaning and15 cognitive map -- or mental map is strengthened. 15 washing windows, and they've got a ladder there, I'm16 Q Isa-- isa cognitive map, is that a 16 going to tum and walk into this ladder if I dida't have17 conscious or a subconscious thing that happens in the | 17 the benefit of viewing that before I got in that spot.18 mind? 18 So my cognitive map tells me that I can expect,19 A Oh, no. It's -- it's very much a subconscicus {19 the sama thing. So I'm walking to work. Walking down20 thing. You don't tell yourself to create a mental map | 20 the street. I'm going to tum left and go get my21 of this place. You're -- that is a very natural 21 coffee. Go I've done this 300 times. So I would expect22 subconscious response that: happens, And it's one of the | 22 that there will be nothing different that I would23° ways that: hunans can navigate in physical environment | 23 expect. And I just walk down here and get my coffee.24 safely, 4 But, again, if there's an obstruction and --25 Q All right, and does it -- does a cognitive | 25 when I tum the comer, I'm going to walk into it.Page 19 Page 211 map get -- what makes a cognitive map get stronger in 1 Q Okay, And -- and you -- you mentioned that2 one’s subconscious? 2 you interviewed Me, Camphell. and did you also read his3 A Well, the number of times that you're in that 3 deposition?4 environment. So the number of times that you're in the | 4 A Yes, I did.5 environment, and you navigate that environment, and yor | 5 Q And could you tell the menbers of the jury6 get the same result, So the -- the fifth tine, the 6 aged upon your interview and Mr. Camphell's deposition,7 tenth time, the twentieth time you're there, you -- that | 7 how many times he had traversed or crossed this loading8 map gets stronger and stronger. 8 dock and walked through this back door that had the9 Q All right. And what is the subconscious hmwn | 9 plastic curtains to deliver boxes to Publix?10 expectation based upon one's cognitive map? a0 A Certainly. He said that he went for several1 ‘A Well, your -- your cognitive wep -- once you [11 years every week, Sometimes more than once a week, and12 have a cognitive map that is created, and you don't see {12 he had been there about 500 tines.13 anything different when you've in that enviroment, you | 13 Q Okay, Did -- did Mr, Campbel} tell you14 empect for the same thing to hapnen wien you enter that | 14 vhether or not he had ever experienced an obstruction on15 envixoment. from a physical navigation perspective. 15 the other side of the curtain —~16 Q Okay. So let me use a -- a comple of 16 MR. TORRID: Objection.17 digferent tems to make sure that I'm -- 17 BY MR. LOTIER:18 A Okay. 18 Q ~~ when he walked through the curtain?19 Q -- saying the sane thing you are. When you | 19 MR, FIORELLO: Objection, Relevance.20 say physical environment and navigation, is that the 20 A No, Mr. Campbell said he had never21 same as saying if one walks a particular path or 21 experienced --2 airection Gh actasions, the wore tines they walk ) 22 Q tei, fold an,23. that, the more times they -- they get a stronger 23 MR. LUITIER: What was the objection?24 cognitive map of what to experience? 24 MR, FIORELO: Relevance,8 A Pbsolutely. And that -- that's exactly what | 25 BY MR. LUTTIER: www.uslegalsupport.comPamela McCauley August 20, 2018 22 to 25Page 22 Page 242 Q Gkay. Go ahead. You can go ahead and answer | 1 A Yes, I've been -~2 it. 2 MR. PIORELIO: Hang on. Objection and3 A Okay, No, In my interview with Mr. Campbell, | 3 relevance.4 he said he had never experienced any obstruction vhen he | 4 MR. LUTIER: Go ahead,5 walked in this space those 500 tines and proceeded 5 MR, FIOREUO: Calls for the ultimate6 through the curtain. 6 conclusion,1 Q Okay. Did you see any evidence anywhere else | 7 MR. LUITIER: And you still can testify.8 in the case ~~ 8 THR WITNESS: Okay,9 MR. PIORELLO: Objection. 9 BY IR, LNTIER:360 BY AR. OTTER: iB & fa*g it TeasGiabhe for iin C6 act as te had daan Q =+ that there had been any situation where 21 the past?12° Me, Campbell, on any prior occasion over the period of | 12 MR. FIORELLO: The same objection,13° tine when he went through this door, that when he went | 13 A Okay, Yes, Tt was very reasonable for -- it14 through these plastic curtains, he encountered an 14 was reasonable for him to act that way, and it was15 obstruction on the other side? 15 scientifically expected based on what we know about16 MR, FIORSLIO: Objection, Relevance and 16 cognitive and mental maps.7 vague. 47 BY MR. LOTTTER:18 BY MR. IOTTIER: 18 Q Okay. 1 want to now awitch to a topic that --19 Q You can go ahead and answer it. 19 that -- that we'll call -- and correct me if -- if I use20 A I did not see any other information in the 20 the wrong terminology. I kmow terminology is inportant.24 case material that would indicate that there was an -- | 21 But 7 want to talk about something that’s sometimes22 had been a previous obstruction. 22 referred to as the field of view.2B Q Okay, And did -- for the period of time that | 23 A Okay.24 Mr, Campbell said he'd heen using this entrance and 24 Q What: ie the field of view?25 going through it and delivering boxes to Publix, was 25 ‘A The human field of view is the cone or anglePage 23 Page 251 that over a period of years? 1 that a human has when they are walking in front of them2 A Yes, it was. 2 or what they see. So it’s about 55 degrees from3 Q All xight. So in your opinion, based on your | 3 horizontal and approximately 60 degrees -- excuse me -~4° expertise, how strong would Mr. Cangbell's cognitive map | 4 55 degrees from the vertical and 60 degrees on the5 be in terms of what he would expect if he were to go 5 horizontal.6 across the loading platform with boxes and go through 6 Q Okay. As one walks forward --7 these curtains? 7 A ub-huh,8 HR, FIORELLO: Objection, Speculation. 8 Q -- does their field -- field of view go9 A Well, scientifically speaking, 1 think he 9 forvard as well?10 would have a very strong cognitive map because as T 10 A Of course,11 mentioned, repetition impacts the strength of the map. i Q All right,12 And so if this mental map had been -- he'd experienced | 12 A OF course, the field of view moves with the13. this over 500 times, it is scientifically reasonable to | 13 human.14 eect that he would have a very strona cognitive map | 14 O All right, So are there ~~ is there -- are18 associated with navigating in this enviroment. 15 there any studies or research done that tells you what16 So he would expect that just as the other 499 |16 Mr, Campbell's field of view would be in terms of how17 or 500 tines he had gone through this envionment, 17 far in front of him he would first begin to visualize18 through the plastic curtains, that: he would safely 18 materials?19 navigate this just as he had before. 19 MR. FIORELIO: Objection. Hearsay.20 BY MR. LUNTTER: 20 A Absolutely. Scientifically speaking, thea Q Right. And in your opinion, is it reasonable | 21 research has shom -~aa Ge. Ceampoenl i Ui 22 By eR, IAT TiER?23 upon his cognitive map, to go through the doors in the | 23 Q Okay, Let me ask you. First, let me -- there24 same mamer ~~ or through the curtains in the sane 24 was an objection, so --25 wanner as he had done in the past? 25 A Ob, okay. www.uslegalsupport.comPamela McCauleyAugust 20,2018 26 to 29 Page 26Page 28 1 Q Have you -~ in your area of expertise, have 1 he can't see -- if he moves his head, that he can't see2 you studied measurements for a person's field of view? | 2 something closer than that, right?3. And in particular, how far a person's field of view is | 3 A Well, of course, you can see that. And also,4° in terms of where they Einst begin to see objects? 4 lmmans use foveal vision when we walk. And that's your5 A Yes, I have studied that, 5 vision in front of you. But we also use peripheral6 Q Okay. And are there research papers about 6 vision,7° that? 7 QO Okay.a A There are research papers about that. 8 A So owr peripheral vision also tells -~ gives9 Q And have you studied those? 9 us clues, So anything that is seen in that18 A Lada, 20 Biixoment <= that's in tint cmuironment, cur ving)1 Q And for how many years have you been studying [1% systems can pick that -- senses can pick that up.12 a person's field of view, and the point in front of them | 12 Q Allright. So if -- if a person -- if you can13 when they first start to experience something? 13 just stand there -- if a person is walking forward --u A Well, I began studying it over 30 years ago, | 14 A Yes.5 Q Okay. 5 Q ~~ are they -- based on you research and your16 ‘A And as a professor, for almost 27 years nov. | 16 expertise, do they ~~ are they looking forward. andW Q All right. and -- and is there a scientific [17 that field of view is where they're observing things?18 term for the point in -- in front of someone when they | 18 A That is correct, The scientific literature19 first begin to pick something up? Is that -- is that -- |19 says that you have this field of view, And as you're20 does that point have a mane in the science or anything? |20 walking, you're moving foxvard, that field of view isa A Well, it -- it -- we generally refer to the | 21 advancing with you as you move forward.22 field of view because it’s not a single point. But it's | 22 Q Okay. So if you put up your angle --23° an entire space and area where you would expect a 2B A Yes, Here's ny angle.24 Inman -- the human eye to be able to have visual 2 Q ~ for example, if you are walking forward ~~25 contact. 25 A Yes.Page 27 Page 29z Q Okay, All right. So does ane’s field of 1 Q = something don here below your field of2 view, the point that they first begin to obsexve 2 view, would the person ordinarily see that?3 something, does that change based on the height of a 3 A They wouldn’t have --4 person? 4 MR, FIORELLO: Objection. Hang on,5 A It does matter. 5 Gbjection. Calls for speculation.6 Q Mil right. 6 THE WITNESS; Yeah,1 A Yes, it does matter. 7 BY MR. LUTTIER:8 Q ALL right. Did you read in Mr. Campbell's 8 Q Okay.9 deposition how high it was? 9 A They wouldn't --10 A Yes. 40 Q — Based on your research?n Q How tall it was? a A Based on the scientific literature, they would2 A Yes. 12 not ordinarily see that.B Q All right. Based on his height -- B Q Okay. Now, what happens to your field of viewu“ A Yes, 14 as you move forward?5 Q == at what point in front of Mr, Cambell does | 15 A So as you move forvard, your field of view16 he first begin to see things? 16 moves forward with you,1 A Okay. So he's 6 feet 1 inches tall. Sohia | 17 Q = Okay.18 field of view where he would begin to see things is 18 A Brouse me, I think my microphone is caught19 between 12-and-a-half and 13-and-a-half feet. 19 here.20 Q Okay. Now -- 20 Q All right.a A Okay, So this ip -- when I say field of view, | 21 ‘A But as you nove forward -- Jet me step hack aa Gas one's avis tS acd, Th Id-and-asialf to 22 Metle bit. But as you move fomard -- so is -- if this23 13-and-a-half feet in front of him is where his initial }23 is the field of view as you're moving forward, your24 gaze would be vhen he's walking. 24 field of view is moving forward with you. So it's25 Q Okay, ALL right. Now, that's not to say that | 25 moving further down. www.uslegalsupport.comPamela McCauley August 20, 2018 30 to 33Page 30 Page 321 Q Okay. Now, if —~ if, when you first begin to | 1 Q All right. So if we put your 50 degree2 walk, and you have your field of view, if -- if you are | 2 curtain, will he see something that's by his feet or say3 able to observe something, then -~ then you -- is it 3 a--a12 to 16, 18 inches in front of his feet --4 tme that a person will note that object that they see? | 4 MR, FIORELIO: Objection.5 A Absolutely. 5 BY MR. LOTTIER:6 MR. FIORELLO: Objection. Leading. 6 Q ~~ when he's standing right in front of those7 ~~ ~BY MR, LOTTIER: 7 curtains?a Q Okay, 8 A to,9 ‘A Absolutely. I wean in my field of view right | 9 MR. FIORELLO: Objection, Calls for30 ioe, I see the -- the blue rack, $6 T wala == because 20 speciation,11 that's completely in uy field of view. So if there's an | 11 A ‘That is not in his field of view.32 object, or obstruction, or there's something there you 42 Selentifically speaking --13 would definitely ~~ 13° BY MR. LUTTIER:4 Q Right. u Q Gay.15 A = see it in your field of view. 15 A that's not in his field of view. ‘that -~16 Q If a person doesn’t observe any object -- and [16 but if ~~ so, no, it's not. That's not gaing to be in17 in this case, for example, Mr, Campbell, as be walks 17 his field of view.18 towards these -- this door with the plastic curtains, if | 18 Q All right. Now, is that based on your19 he doesn't see an object as he moves closer to that 19 expertise and the research that you've dane?20 door, what happens to his field of view? 20 A Yes,a A Well, as he moves closer to that doar, the an MR. FIORELLO: Sane objection,22 field of view -- for example, if I have a pen right here | 22 BY MR, LUTTIER:23° on the floor, and I'm back here, it may be in my field | 23 Q And the -- and the articles that you've24 of view now, But as I move forvard, it's no longer 24 researched?25 going to be in ny field of view, And so if it were not | 25 MR, FIORELIO: The sane objection.Page 31 Page 332 obvious, it would then no longer be in wy field of view | 1 A Yes, it is. That is based on the human2 when I got sight in front of it. 2 factors Literature --3 @ I want you to assume that -- that -- and -- 3 BY MR, IATTIRR:4 and based on your interview with Nr. Campbell, did he 4 Q All right.5 advise you whether he saw this stock float or this cart | 5 A - and articles I've looked at.6 on the other side of these plastic curtains? 6 Q And -- and when you had Mr. Canbpell stand1 ‘A Mr. Campbell said he did not see the atock 7 next to this cart that he fell over, vas it ankle8 float. 8 height?9 Q All right. So if ve assume that Mr. Cambell | 9 A Yes.10 didn't see it, and when he first picked up his boxes and | 10 MR, FIORELLO: Objection.11 started walking towards the doar -~ 11 BY MR, LOTTTRR:12 A Yes. 2 Q So i€ you could just tell the jury if he'sB Q his field of view would continue in the 13. standing immediately in front of the plastic curtains,M_ sane 55 dearee cone, correct? 14 as he stands there with the boxes in his hand, if he has15 A That is correct. 15 anomal field of view of your 50 degrees, is he going16 Q ML) right, So when he was inmediately -- in [16 to see what's at his ankles?17 your opinion, when he's immediately in front of those | 17 MR, PIORELLO: bjection, Calls for18 plastic curtains -- 18 speculation,19 A Yes, 49 A Wb.20 Q == where is he going to be looking and where | 20 BY MR. IUTTIER:21 will his field of view be? aa Q Okay.a A fig fica of view sill remain the soc sh 22 2 ke23. he's in front of the curtains as he's atteapting to gaze | 23 Q And that’s ~~ that's the hutan factors aspect24 in front of him, okay? Because that's how hununs view | 24 of what: people see when they're actually walking, is25 ven they've walking. 25 that carrect? www.uslegalsupport.comPamela McCauley August 20, 2018 34 to 37Page 34 Page 361 ‘MR. FIORELLO: Objection, Leading, 1 any court.2 A That'a correct. ‘That's not “just Mr. Cambell. | 2 WR, DOTTIER: Okay. I -~ I doa't have any3. ‘That's what humans actually see when they'xe walking. 3 other questions, Doctor. Thank you.4 That's hat the scientific and the hunan factor -- the | 4 ‘THE WINES: Okay.5 Inman factors scientific Literature has denonstrated 5 ‘CROSS-EXAMINATION6 through research. 6 BY MR. FIORELO:7 BY MR. EUTTIER: 1 Q Good afternoon, Dr. McCauley.a Q Other than your opinions concerning the field | & A Good afternoon.9 of view and cognitive mapping, do you have any other 3 Q SoT represent Aristides Marte and Yanire10 opimiais in chis case? we , and I appreciate you sitting dow with usa A Ido not. i12 Q Okay. Now, Doctor, you ~~ you obviously -- | 12 A Sure.13 you -~ you billed us for your tine, correct? 3 Q I'm going to jump around a little bit. Butu A Yes, I have, 14 counsel for plaintiff asked you some questions I need to15 Q And you've been paid? 35 get to,16 A T have, 16 A Okay.a Q Chay. And did you bil? us in accordance with | 17 Q With respect to this case, you were paid about18 your standard -- standard hourly rates? 18 9 or $10,000 in total ~~ well, strike that.19 A Yes, I did. 19 You've been paid a total of $60 something20 Q Okay, And what's your hourly rate? 20 hundred in this case to date?a ‘A My hourly rate is $450 an hour for case a A That ~~ that sounds about: right.22 material review and analysis. 22 Q And then, you've also billed -~ since your2B Q Okay, And that's -- 23 last invoice in February about 3- to $5,000 ofer A Yes. 24 additional time, is that accurate?25 Q => that's for a doctorate, BHD with 26 years’ | 25 A Well, that's -- that's coning, I haven't.Page 35 Page 371 experience in industrial engineering? 1 billed that -- that yet, so.2 MR, FIOREGO: Objection, Bolstering. 2 Q You performed the work that you will bill --3 BY MR, LUTTIER: 3 will be billing for to the plaintiffs in this case?4 Q Correct? 4 A That's correct.5 ‘A Correct. 5 Q All right, You mentioned before that 206 Q Okey, And is that the sane hourly rate you 6 percent of your career and your work is dedicated to7 charge anyone elee that retains you for purposes of your | 7 expert work?8 expert services? 8 A Right.9 A Yes, it is, 9 Q We are sitting in a building here called the10 Q All right. And about -- can you tell menbers 10 T-STEM Institute?11 of the jury about vhat percentage of your time you spend | ii A T-STEN Offices.12 doing work Like this that ve comonly xefer to as expert | 12 Q TSIEN Offices.13 witness work versus your academic work? B A Yes,14 A About 20 narcent of uv time is spent in expert. | 14 Q Separate and apart from your work as a15 witness work. Maybe, you know, 20 percent, And then 80 |15 university professor for UCF?16 percent of my tine is spent in my university research, | 16 A Yes, it is separate and apart from my work as17 and guiding my PhD students, and teaching my classes. © |17 a university professor.18 0 Gkay. And have you qualified as an expert 18 Q And you have a separate office for UCF?19 witness in circuit courts throughout the state of 13 A Yes, I do.20 Florida? 20 Q This office is strictly for your expert work?a A Yes, throughout the state of Florida and au A Well, it's strictly for my 7-STH work.“a 22 T-STas Work inchades caper witucss work a3 well 232B Q Okay. And have any of your opinions ever been | 23 outreach to wonen to support then in their engineering24 stricken by any court? 24 careers,8 A T've never know my opinions to be stricken by | 25 Q And that would be separate and apart from your www.uslegalsupport.comPamela McCauley August 20, 2018 38 to 41Page 38 Page 401 career as a professor? 3 violated -- taken by Mc. Campbell at the Greenwise2 A That. is correct. 2 Publix violated the Florida fixe prevention code,3 Q All wight. You gave an affidavit in this 3 A Correct,4 case, Dr. NoCauley, back in March of 2018 -~ March 15th. | 4 Q And those were all directed tovards Publix?5 Tim going to mark it as exhibit -- we've marked it as 5 A That's correct.6 hibit 2 before. So we've going to mark it today as 6 Q Today when you were asked by counsel if you7 Txhibit 2, T'm going to show you that and ask you to 7 have any other opinions, you didn't mention those,8 review it. 8 BR Correct.9 A Okay. Okay. 9 Q Your opinion has changed?rity @ «Is Ghat your siguatuze on the last page? ib A weal, Uh - 1 did, F looed atu A Yes, it is, 34 additional -- I wouldn't say -~ T would need to do2 Q ‘That's your affidavit? 12 addition analysis. I went back and looked at the video,B A that is ny affidavit. 13 And upon observing that the cart was in the doorway foruu Q We've also narked previously the binder in 14 19 seconds, ckay. So -- and then I locked at the code,15 front of you as Byhibit 1 that contains the photographs 15 and I just -- I tried to be very thorough and complete16 that you were shom by comsel. And also, the initial | 16 and objective in my analysis.17 opinions you had in this case? uv 3nd so the cart was there for 19 seconds, And18 A That's correct. 18 then, there was another exit: that was there, which I19 Q As well as your CV and other materials? 19 think I choved in the photo, And so I will -~ I vas20 A That's correct. 20 concerned that my opinion may not -- with the terma Q The affidavit -- may I have that -- 2% temporary, that it my be a concern, So ny vas22 A You may. 22 that I needed to do additional research on vhat the2 Q - Dr, McCauley? ‘Thank you, In your 23 scientific literature states is temporary, and I didn't24 affidavit that was done in March 2018, you were asked | 24 have time to find or to do that additional analysis. So25 earlier today whether or not you have any other 25 that's why I stepped back fram those opinions, so.Page 39 Page 411 opinions, and you said no. 1 Q Okay, 80, Doctor -- I'm sorry. Are you done?2 A Correct. 2 A Yes, So =~ but, no, What I'm saying is when3 Q In March of 2018, you swore to tell the truth | 3 I wrote that, yes, that was true, But I'm telling you4° when you gave this affidavit? 4 after I did additional analysis and began to understand5 A Yes, I did, 5 60 what do mean we mean by temporary? Is there anything6 Q And you made the opinions that on — the 6 in the scientific Literature that I can point to that7 paragraph 11 -- on the date of the incident, June 18, 7 says vhat temporary is which would constitute a8 2014, the route taken by Michael Campbell to enter the | @ violation,9 Greenwise Publix in Palm Beach Gardens was not free and | 9 Q Okay. So just so wetre clear, the --10 obstructed -- uncbstructed. It was obstructed by a cart |10 tr. Campbell had his fall in 2014211 omed by Publix. ‘That was your statement? n A Yes,12 A ‘That was my statenent. 2 Q You went out there for -- to the Publix inB Q And also, the next paragraph, you indicated [13 2016 for an inspection?4 that on that save dav, the route taken by u A Correct.15 Michael Campbell at the Greenvise Publix in Palm Beach | 15 Before you went out there, you had alveady16 Gardens violated OSHA regulations. 16 veviewed the video?7 A That's correct. 0 A Correct.18 @ That was your opinion then? 18 Q — You had already seen the -- the layout: of the19 A That. was my opinion. 19 Publix,20 Q You've also made the opinion that the -- on | 20 A Correct.21 that sane day, the route taken by Michael Campbell at | 21 Q You'd apcken to plaintiffs' counsel,vrs 2 A Corre,2% Florida building code. 2 Q Mr, Campbell's counsel. And then two yearsm4 ‘A That vas ny opinion, yes. 24 Vater in 2018, you drafted an affidavit where you made25 Q And you also made the opinion that the route | 25 the opinions that Publix violated these codes -- www.uslegalsupport .comPamela McCauley August 20, 2018 42 to 45Page 42 Page 441 A Yes. 1 distance of Mr. Campbell's stride length, right?2 Q =~ and Publiv violated Mr, Camhellts inress | 2 A Richt. 1 did calewlations to sunport the3 of the building, is that correct? 3. human factors analysia,4 A That's correct. 4 Q and you did -- you estimated the distance of5 Q And today, your deposition five months later, 5 the cart behind the plastic straps based on vhat6 you have a different opinion? 6 Mr. Caupbell told you?7 A Well, yes, But I just explained why. Yes, my | 7 ‘A Based on what Mr. Campbell told me and the8 opinion to date is that I need -~ I would need to do 8 site visit.9 more research on what constitutes a temporary 9 Q Okay. And the photograph you showedi obstruction. Go i need move scientific foundation for | ii Mr, iattier earlier about the -- Me, Campoeil atanaiag1 that. And go that's vhy I backed away from those 31 next to the cart, and the position of the cart in that12 opinions, Now, what T said there in my affidavit is 12 photograph ~~13 true, But my issue is here vhat constitutes a temporary | 13 A Yea,14 obstruction. 4 Q ~~ that was based on what Mr. Campbell told15 Q And, Dr. McCauley, since March of 2018 when | 15 you where he thought the cart was?36 you wade that affidavit, you have done no additional, 16 A Well, that was based on what Mr. Campbell told17 research to find out what the use of the tem 17 we as well as my observation of the surveillance video,18 © “temporary” means, correct? 18 the Publix surveillance video,19 A I have not, 19 Q Okay. You mentioned -~ you've done no20 Q Okay, And in your affidavit of March of 2018, |20 measurements from the surveillance video to try and21 nowhere do you indicate anything that Mr. Marte or 21 detenmine how far that cart was actually behind that22 Yanire Enterprises did inpermissible of these codes, is | 22 curtain, correct?23 that correct? 23 A Measurements from the surveillance video?24 A I don't know -- no, I didn't. So I don't know | 24 Q Yeah, You haven't tried to take any25 who ~~ well, never -- never mind. 25 measurements from the video or any still. framePage 43 Page 451 Q Dr. MeCauley, in -~ in your retention in this | 1 photographs of the video of how far behind those2 case, you've reviewed Mr, Campbell's deposition, right? | 2 curtains the cart was?3 A Correct. 3 A fo,4 Q You've reviewed Dr, Raward's deposition? 4 Q You estimated?5 A Correct. 5 ‘A Well, I estimated. But also, when I went to6 Q ‘That's the expert that we retained as 6 the site, I actually -- and Mr. Cam

Related Contentin Palm Beach County

Case

MOSLEY, JOHN A JR V EATON, CHARLES R IV

Jul 29, 2024 |Luis Delgado |AUTO NEGLIGENCE |50-2024-CA-007107-XXXA-MB

Case

GORANSON, CAMILLE V ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Aug 01, 2024 |John J. Parnofiello |AUTO NEGLIGENCE |50-2024-CA-007234-XXXA-MB

Case

JULIANA RESTAURANT CORP V 1951 1997 S MILITARY TRAIL LLC

Jul 31, 2024 |James W. Sherman |BUSINESS TORT |50-2024-CA-007214-XXXA-MB

Case

PRITCHARD, HAROLD V WELCH, GABRIEL ALLAN

Jul 31, 2024 |G. Joseph Curley |AUTO NEGLIGENCE |50-2024-CA-007193-XXXA-MB

Case

MARSHALL, NIKISHA V HEIM, MICHAEL F

Jul 26, 2024 |Reid P. Scott, II |AUTO NEGLIGENCE |50-2024-CA-007061-XXXA-MB

Case

MORRISON, SHARON D V MARTINEZ, KATIA

Jul 30, 2024 |G. Joseph Curley |AUTO NEGLIGENCE |50-2024-CA-007151-XXXA-MB

Case

SANTIAGO, WIGBERTO V WALKER J, LEROY W.

Aug 02, 2024 |G JOSEPH CURLEY |AUTO NEGLIGENCE |50-2024-CA-007288-XXXA-MB

Case

ATKISSON, DAVID V OJ TRUCKING AND LEASING CORP

Jul 25, 2024 |Bradley G. Harper |AUTO NEGLIGENCE |50-2024-CA-007042-XXXA-MB

Case

MCFARLANE, RORIE V VASQUEZ, RAUL

Jul 31, 2024 |G. Joseph Curley |AUTO NEGLIGENCE |50-2024-CA-007217-XXXA-MB

Ruling

Jul 31, 2024 |22STCV30388

Case Number: 22STCV30388 Hearing Date: July 31, 2024 Dept: 32 PLEASE NOTE: Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that partys intention to submit. The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsels contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling. If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely. Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. TENTATIVE RULING DEPT: 32 HEARING DATE: July 31, 2024 CASE NUMBER: 22STCV30388 MOTIONS: (1) Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Salem Greigh by and through GAL MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Counsel OPPOSING PARTY: None BACKGROUND Plaintiff Salem Greighs (Plaintiffs) counsel of record, Dordulian Law Group (Counsel), moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff. No opposition has been filed for this motion. LEGAL STANDARD To be granted relief as counsel, counsel must comply with California Rules of Court (CRC) 3.1362. Even where grounds for termination exist, attorneys seeking to withdraw must comply with the procedures set forth in California Rule of Professional Conduct (CRPC) 3.700 and are subject to discipline for failure to do so. CRPC 3.700(B) lists various grounds for mandatory withdrawal. An attorney's right to terminate the attorney-client relationship and withdraw from a case is not absolute. (See Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192, 197; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398.) The decision whether to grant or deny an application for withdrawal is within the court's discretion, and it does not abuse that discretion by denying the application on the ground that the attorney's withdrawal would work injustice upon a third party. (Hodcarriers, Bldg. and Common Laborers Local Union No. 89 v. Miller (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 391.) The rules have been liberally construed to protect clients. (Vann v. Shilleh, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d 192.) An attorney, either with client's consent or court's approval, may withdraw from a case when withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to client's interests; however, an attorney shall not withdraw from employment until the member has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, complying with rule 3-700(D), and complying with applicable laws and rules. (CRPC 3.700(A)(2).) A lawyer violates his or her ethical mandate by abandoning a client (Pineda v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 753, 758 759), or by withdrawing at a critical point and thereby prejudicing the clients case. (CRPC 3.700(A)(2); Vann v. Shilleh, supra.) DISCUSSION Counsel has filed forms MC-051 and MC-052 and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053 as required. (Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) The Court finds a valid basis for withdrawal. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motions to relieve counsel. Counsel shall provide notice of the Courts ruling and file proofs of service of such.

Ruling

FCS059298 - THOMPSON, FELICIA V. SAUKHLA, M.D., NARINDER (DMS)

Jul 30, 2024 |FCS059298

FCS059298PORTUGAL’s Motion for Summary JudgmentTENTATIVE RULINGDefendant RUTH PORTUGAL, R.N. (“PORTUGAL”) moves for summary judgment onPlaintiff FELICIA THOMPSON’s cause of action for wrongful death via medicalnegligence. Summarized, Plaintiff alleges that PORTUGAL’s failure to observe thestandard of care applicable to a nurse caused the death of Plaintiff’s father (“Decedent”)on September 2, 2017.Objections to Evidence. In ruling on a motion for summary adjudication the courtneed only rule on those evidentiary objections that it deems material to its disposition ofthe motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).)PORTUGAL’s Objections #1-10. PORTUGAL’s objections #1-10 are overruled.PORTUGAL’s Objections #11-22. PORTUGAL’s objections to Plaintiff’s declarationsfrom Melvin Smith, Michael Burrus, Cole Bienek, Earl Miller, James Cross, JohnLawyer, Herman Davis, Clarence Myers, Shelvert Dyer, Lamar Minor, and MichaelDavis, as well as the second supplemental declaration of Dr. Dan Field, on the basis offailure to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5 are sustained. Thoughthe declarations are not hearsay they do not meet Code of Civil Procedure section2015.5 requirements. (Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial Corp. (2004) 33 Cal.4th601, 609 [declarations of personal knowledge admissible on summary judgment].) Alldeclarations but Dr. Field’s fail to state the date and place of execution of thedeclarations. Dr. Field’s second supplemental declaration does not state the place.PORTUGAL’s Objections #23-24. PORTUGAL’s objections to all proffered evidencefrom Dr. Field, being his two declarations, a rebuttal declaration to defense expertopinions, and deposition excerpts, are sustained. A doctor may speak to the standardof care for a nurse if he possesses relevant qualifications or knowledge. (Lattimore v.Dickey (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 959, 970 (Lattimore).) However, Dr. Field’squalifications and knowledge are solely set forth in his second supplementaldeclaration, which fails to meet Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5 requirements.Accordingly Plaintiff does not establish with admissible evidence that Dr. Field canspeak to the standard of care applicable to PORTUGAL.Similarly, Dr. Fields’ opinions as a medical doctor are also lacking in foundation. Neitherthe Record Review Report dated 12/11/2020 or the Rebuttal Report dated 1/14/2021state Dr. Fields’ qualifications. The Second Supplemental Declaration, which does statethe doctor’s qualifications, does not cure the problem as the declaration is procedurallydefective under CCP 2015.5.The court does not consider PORTUGAL’s remaining objections material to thedisposition of the motion.Requests for Judicial Notice. Matters subject to judicial notice may support a motionfor summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (b)(1).) The court takes judicialnotice of all items proffered by PORTUGAL, being documents from Plaintiff’s federalcase preceding this one on the same facts, as records of a court of the United Statesper Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d).Legal Standard. A defendant may move for summary judgment on the basis that theplaintiff cannot establish an element of his cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c,subd. (o)(1).) A summary judgment motion is properly granted where the evidence insupport of the moving party would be sufficient to sustain a judgment in his favor andhis opponent does not show facts sufficient to present a triable issue of fact. (Parker v.Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 176, 181 (Parker).) The motion isnot to be granted where any triable issue of material fact exists. (Ibid.) The affidavits ofthe moving party are strictly construed, and doubts as to the propriety of summaryjudgment should be resolved against granting the motion. (Ibid.) Reasonableinferences from the evidence must be drawn in the light most favorable to the opposingparty. (Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Helliker (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1155.)Affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, andmatters judicially noticed may all support a motion for summary judgment, provided theycontain admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 437c, subds. (b)(1), (d).) Allegationsin a party’s own pleadings may not satisfy deficiencies in evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., §437c, subd. (p).) Allegations in an opposing party’s pleadings may be consideredevidence, however. (Parker, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 181.) Additionally, a defendant doesnot meet its burden of showing a plaintiff cannot establish an element merely bypointing out the absence of evidence; the defendant must show that the plaintiff bothdoes not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence. (Zipusch v. LA Workout, Inc.(2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1286-1287.)Wrongful Death via Medical Negligence. Wrongful death is a statutory cause ofaction, the elements of which are simply a tort resulting in death and damages.(Lattimore, supra, 239 Cal.App.4th at p. 968.) In this case Plaintiff alleges the wrongfuldeath of Decedent due to the underlying tort of medical malpractice or negligence.(First Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 38-44.) Medical negligence is a form of negligence, towhich general principles of negligence apply. (Massey v. Mercy Medical CenterRedding (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 690, 695.) Thus a medical practitioner is negligent ifhe fails to use the standard of care that a reasonably careful practitioner would use insimilar circ*mstances, but what the standard of care is for a medical practitioner is amatter peculiarly within the knowledge of experts. (Ibid.) The standard of care for amedical practitioner may therefore only be proven by the testimony of experts unlessthe conduct required in the circ*mstances is something within the common knowledgeof laymen. (Ibid.) In other words, a plaintiff usually may only prove that a medicalpractitioner failed to meet the standard of care via expert testimony. (Ibid.) Theforegoing rules of analysis apply whether the practitioner is a doctor or a nurse; anurse’s conduct is not measured by the same standard of care as a doctor’s butlikewise must be assessed by expert testimony from one qualified to speak to theappropriate profession’s standard of care. (Lattimore at p. 969.)On moving for summary judgment a medical practitioner will accordingly have the initialburden to present evidence, supported by expert testimony where necessary, thathis/her acts met the applicable standard of care, else the motion must be denied.PORTUGAL carries her initial burden as to the standard of care issue. The Declarationof Nancy Booth in Support of PORTUGAL’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Booth)states that PORTUGAL observed the relevant standard of care (Booth at ¶ 17.) Ms.Booth declares she is qualified to speak to the standard of care for a nurse inPORTUGAL’s circ*mstances because she is a licensed registered nurse with almostfifty years’ experience who has been a certified correctional setting health careprofessional since 2013 and worked in a correctional health care setting from 2006 to2021. (Id. at ¶¶ 1, 3.) Ms. Booth reviewed Decedent’s general medical records, therecords from September 2, 2017, and numerous documents generated in the course ofthis litigation. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Ms. Booth explains that in the context of the unusually hotday on September 2, 2017 it was reasonable for PORTUGAL to believe Decedentsuffered heat-related problems and perform associated assessments and treatment.(Id. at ¶ 18.) Ms. Booth states that Decedent was able to answer questions and obeycommands and so it was reasonable for PORTUGAL to not explore a possible alteredmental state. (Id. at ¶ 17.) Ms. Booth states that it was reasonable to believeDecedent’s problems had resolved because he displayed improved vital signs aftertreatment. (Id. at ¶ 18.) Additional tests such as rectal thermometer and orthostaticblood pressure readings were not necessary to meet the standard of care becauseDecedent was a conscious adult male whose vital signs were able to be accessed inother ways. (Id. at ¶¶ 20-21.) Ms. Booth connects her opinions to facts and offerscompetent expert testimony that PORTUGAL met the standard of care.Plaintiff’s admissible evidence suffices to raise triable issues of material fact on theissue of the standard of care. In paragraph 13 of the Ron Lopez declaration he statesthat PORTUGAL observed that Decedent was dehydrated yet performed no evaluationof urine specific gravity, orthostatic blood pressure, or fluid intake and output. Thisdirectly counters Ms. Booth’s assertion that there was no need to examine Decedent’sorthostatic blood pressure and raises a triable issue of material fact on the standard ofcare given that the defense position hinges on the idea that PORTUGAL respondedappropriately to presented dehydration. In paragraph 14 Mr. Lopez states thatPORTUGAL observed “10/10” pain from Decedent for two and a half hours but did notperform a PQRST pain assessment or document the effect of the analgesics provided.This too raises an issue as to the standard of care in the circ*mstances Decedentpresented.On the issue of causation, however, PORTUGAL fails to meet her initial burden. In amedical negligence case, causation must be proven with expert testimony. (Bromme v.Pavitt (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1498; Dumas v. Cooney (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1593,1603; Munro v. Regents of University of California (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 977, 984-985.) In the context of a motion for summary judgment, it stands to reason that experttestimony is needed to negate causation. PORTUGAL offers no expert evidence tonegate causation. She uses only a layperson’s analysis based on the disputed factssurrounding Decedent’s cause of death to conclude that there is no evidence thatresponding differently to Decedent’s initial presentation would have changed histreatment outcome.Conclusion. PORTUGAL’s motion for summary judgment is denied.Department 7 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting.Join ZoomGov Meetinghttps://solano-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1611554664?pwd=T3U4QlBGWWNWaGlieXJTcGxIVHRXZz09Meeting ID: 161 155 4664Passcode: 818575One tap mobile+16692545252,,1611554664#,,,,*818575# US (San Jose)+14154494000,,1611554664#,,,,*818575# US (US Spanish Line)

Ruling

MARIA RIVAS VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Jul 29, 2024 |21STCV26913

Case Number: 21STCV26913 Hearing Date: July 29, 2024 Dept: 28 Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On July 21, 2021, Plaintiff Maria Rivas (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and Does 1-30 for negligence and statutory liability. On October 5, 2021, the Court granted Metros motion to strike portions of the complaint with leave to amend. On October 28, 2021, Metro filed an answer. On January 13, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Francisco Sanchez as Doe 1 (Sanchez). On March 11, 2022, Sanchez filed an answer. On May 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the deposition of Metros person most knowledgeable and for sanctions. The motion was set for hearing on June 17, 2024. On June 4, 2024, Metro filed an opposition. On June 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply. The Court continued the hearing to July 29, 2024. Trial is currently set for August 22, 2024. PARTIES REQUESTS Plaintiff asks the Court to order Metro to produce persons most knowledgeable to testify about subjects that the person most knowledgeable whom Metro previously produced did not testify about. Plaintiff also asks the Court to impose sanctions on Metro. Metro asks the Court to deny the motion and to impose sanctions on Plaintiff. LEGAL STANDARD Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 provides in part: (a) If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponents attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. (b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following: (1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. (2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. * * * (g) (1) If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circ*mstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. . . . (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (a), (b), (g)(1).) DISCUSSION A. The complaint Plaintiffs complaint alleges the following: On February 5, 2021, the operator of a Metro bus on Van Nuys Boulevard near Nordhoff Street suddenly and without warning applied the brakes and stopped the bus, injuring Plaintiff, a passenger on the bus. Metro was a common carrier operating the bus line under Civil Code section 2168. 7. Metro and the Doe defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to use the utmost care and diligence for her safe carriage, to provide everything necessary for that purpose, to exercise reasonable skill under Civil Code section 2100, and to do all that human care, vigilance, and foresight reasonably could do under the circ*mstances. Metro and the Doe defendants breached these standards of care. The bus operator/driver, acting within the course and scope of his duties as Metros employee, carelessly and negligently operated, maintained, inspected, controlled, and drove Metros bus by suddenly and without warning forcibly and over-aggressively applying the brakes and/or causing the brakes to engage in that manner and thereby abruptly and violently causing the bus to stop in an unsafe manner, causing Plaintiff to violently fall into the aisle suffering severe and debilitating injuries. B. Background On January 19, 2024, Plaintiff noticed the deposition of Metros person or persons most knowledgeable about nine subjects: 1. Francisco Sanchezs training. 2. Inspections of the MTA BUS. 3. Maintenance of the MTA BUS. 4. Policies and procedures that relate to safe driving of YOUR buses. 5. Inspections of the MTA BUS surveillance cameras. 6. Repairs of the MTA BUS surveillance cameras. 7. Surveillance management program. 8. The investigation of the INCIDENT. 9. The investigation of incidents that occur on YOUR buses. Plaintiff scheduled the deposition for February 8, 2024. Plaintiff asserts that Metro failed to comply with the date (Keshmiri dec. ¶ 4) but provides no other information about why this deposition did not take place. Metro served objections to Plaintiffs January 19, 2024 deposition notice. On March 25, 2024, Plaintiff again noticed the deposition of Metros person or persons most knowledgeable, setting the deposition on April 9, 2024. The deposition notice listed the same nine subjects as the first deposition notice. Metro served objections to Plaintiffs March 25, 2024 deposition notice. On April 9, 2024, Metro produced a person most knowledgeable. Plaintiff asserts that the deponent addressed only one of the nine subjects listed in Plaintiffs deposition notice: Policies and procedures that relate to safe driving of Metros buses. Metro asserts the deponent also testified about training regarding safe driving of bus operators. Plaintiffs counsel objected to Metros failure to produce a person most knowledgeable about the other subjects listed in the deposition notice. On April 24, 2024, Plaintiff served a third deposition notice for Metros person or persons most knowledgeable, listing the same nine subjects as the previous deposition notices. Plaintiff scheduled the deposition for May 8, 2024. On April 30, 2024, Metro served objections to the deposition notice and stated that [n]o appearance will be made on May 8, 2024. C. Plaintiffs motion to compel the deposition of Metros person or persons most knowledgeable 1. Subject 1 Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Metros person or persons most knowledgeable about Francisco Sanchezs training. In opposition, Metro raises the arguments it made in its objections to Plaintiffs deposition notices. Metro observes that in granting Metros motion to strike on October 5, 2021, the Court ruled that Plaintiff could not assert a claim against Metro for negligent entrustment, hiring, training, supervision, or retention. (See de Villers v. County of San Diego (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 238, 253-256.) Metro also asserts that its person most knowledgeable testified at the April 9, 2024 deposition about the training of Metros bus drivers. Plaintiff has not shown that Metros objections to this subject were invalid. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) The Court denies Plaintiffs motion to compel Metro to produce a person most knowledgeable to testify about Francisco Sanchezs training. 2. Subjects 2 and 3 Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Metros person most knowledgeable about inspections and maintenance of the Metro bus. The Court has considered Metros arguments and concludes that Plaintiff is entitled to examine Metros person or persons most knowledgeable about inspections and maintenance of the Metro bus. The Court grants Plaintiffs motion to compel Metro to produce the person or persons most knowledgeable about inspections and maintenance of the Metro bus. 3. Subjects 5, 6, and 7 Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Metros person most knowledgeable about inspections and repairs of the surveillance cameras on the Metro bus and the surveillance management program. Metro states that it has offered to produce its person most knowledgeable about the camera systems on the bus but Plaintiff has declined Metros offer. Plaintiff does not explain why she has not accepted Metros offer. The Court denies Plaintiffs motion to compel Metro to produce a person or persons most knowledgeable on these subjects based on the Courts understanding that Metro will voluntarily produce its person most knowledgeable to testify about the camera systems on the bus. 4. Subjects 8 and 9 Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Metros person or persons most knowledgeable about the investigation of the incident at issue in this case and incidents that occur on Metros buses. Metro argues the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine shield its investigation in this case and in other cases from discovery. The possibility of questions asking for information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine does not require the Court to prohibit the deposition in its entirety. For example, general questions about Metros practices and procedures for investigating incidents may not be privileged or protected. Metros counsel may make appropriate objections at the deposition. The Court limits examination on the subject of investigations of incidents that occur on Metro's buses to the period beginning two years before the incident at issue in this case to the present. With this limitation, the Court grants Plaintiffs motion to compel the deposition of Metros person or persons most knowledgeable to testify about the investigation of the incident at issue in this case and incidents that occur on Metros buses. D. Sanctions The Court denies both parties requests for sanctions, finding that both parties acted with substantial justification. CONCLUSION The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff Maria Rivass motion to compel the deposition of Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authoritys person most knowledgeable and for sanctions as follows. The Court ORDERS Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to produce its person or persons most knowledgeable on the following subjects within 30 days of the hearing on this motion: inspections of the bus, maintenance of the bus, the investigation of the incident at issue in this case, and incidents that occur on Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authoritys buses (from two years before the date of the incident to the present). The Court DENIES Plaintiff Maria Rivass request for sanctions. The Court DENIES Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's request for sanctions. Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

Ruling

DEREK PEREZ VS NICHOLAS JOSEPH GUTIERREZ

Jul 30, 2024 |22NWCV01769

Case Number: 22NWCV01769 Hearing Date: July 30, 2024 Dept: C Derek Perez vs. Nicholas Joseph Gutierrez et al. Case No.: 22NWCV01769 Hearing Date: July 30, 2024 @ 9:30 a.m. #2 Tentative Ruling Defendant County of Los Angeless Demurrer is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend. Defendant to give notice. Background This is a personal injury lawsuit. The operative First Amended Complaint (FAC), filed on August 16, 2023, alleges On or about November 16, 2022 at around 6 :30 a.m., Defendant Nicholas Joseph Gutierrez was south on Mills Road and veered into northbound lanes, driver was going the wrong-way on Mills Avenue on his way to work. Defendant Nicholas Joseph Gutierrez plowed into 25 law enforcement recruits who were on a training run. Plaintiff Derek Perez was one of the recruits/runners that was severely injured. Defendant was in violation of California Vehicle Code §21651by driving on the wrong side of the road. (FAC, p. 5.) Plaintiff Derek Perez (Plaintiff) brings causes of action for Negligence and Violation of the Bane Act against Defendants Nicholas Joseph Gutierrez (Gutierrez) and the County of Los Angeles (The County). The County demurs on the grounds that the FAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and is uncertain. More specifically, the County argues that the FAC fails to allege a statutory or factual basis against the County, as there is no direct liability against a public entity for non-statutory negligence. Meet and Confer The Court determines that the County sufficiently attempted to meet and confer. (CCP § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).) Legal Standard The party against whom a complaint has been filed may object to the pleading, by demurrer, on several grounds, including the ground that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or is uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10., subds. (e) & (f).) The grounds for any demurrer must appear on the face of the pleading or from matters outside the pleading if they are judicially noticeable. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a); Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Tenet Healthsystem Desert, Inc. v. Blue Cross of California (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 821, 834.) If a demurrer is sustained, the court may grant leave to amend the pleading upon any terms as may be just and shall fix the time within which the amendment or amended pleading shall be filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 472a, subd. (c).) A trial court must grant leave to amend after sustaining a demurrer if a plaintiff seeks such leave and shows how amendment will cure the defect in the complaint. (Thornton v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1423.) Discussion Second Cause of Action: Negligence To state a claim for negligence, Plaintiff must allege: (1) the existence of a legal duty of care, (2) breach of that duty, and (3) proximate cause resulting in an injury. (McIntyre v. Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.) The County argues that Plaintiff has failed to plead a statutory basis for the Countys liability. Gov. Code § 815 provides in relevant part, Except as provided by statute: (a) [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. This does not mean the statute itself must expressly make itself applicable to government entities. It need only define the tort in general terms. "But the phrase as provided by statute is given its broadest possible meaning by our Supreme Court. It is not interpreted to mean that public entities are liable in tort only when the Legislature has enacted a statute imposing liability which on its face is applicable to public bodies. Rather, liability is deemed provided by statute if a statute defines the tort in general terms." (Levine v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 68 Cal. App. 3d 481, 487.) The complaint must identify the statute at the very least, 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.) Here, Plaintiff argues that the County caused Plaintiff and the other recruits to violate Vehicle Code § 21954 (pedestrians shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway) and Vehicle Code § 21956 (pedestrians shall not walk upon a roadway). However, these statutes are not alleged in the FAC, and the FAC alleges no other statutory basis for liability against the County. Accordingly, the demurrer to the second cause of action is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend. Third Cause of Action: Violation of the Bane Act The Bane Act authorizes suit against anyone who by threats, intimidation, or coercion interferes with the exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the state or federal Constitutions or laws without regard to whether the victim is a member of a protected class. (Civ. Code § 52.1.) To obtain relief under Section 52.1, liability only requires interference or attempted interference with the plaintiffs legal rights by the requisite threats, intimidation, or coercion. (Venegas v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 32 Cal.4th 820, 841-843.) Plaintiff fails to plead any facts to illustrate how the County or any of its employees violated the Bane Act. Moreover, the violence or threatened violence must be because of plaintiffs membership in one of the specified classifications set forth in Civil Code § 51.7 or a group similarly protected by the Constitution or statute from hate crimes. (Cabesuela v. Browning-Ferris Indus. of Calif., Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 101, 111.) The demurrer to the third cause of action is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.

Ruling

BRENDAN HAINER, AN INDIVIDUAL VS FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Jul 30, 2024 |23STCV11077

Case Number: 23STCV11077 Hearing Date: July 30, 2024 Dept: 32 PLEASE NOTE: Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that partys intention to submit. The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsels contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling. If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely. Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. TENTATIVE RULING DEPT: 32 HEARING DATE: July 30, 2024 CASE NUMBER: 23STCV11077 MOTIONS: Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint MOVING PARTY: Defendant Food 4 Less of California Inc. OPPOSING PARTY: Unopposed BACKGROUND On May 17, 2023, Plaintiff Brendan Hainer (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Food 4 Less of California, Inc. (Defendant). On August 7, 2023, Defendant filed an answer. Defendant now moves for leave to file a cross complaint against American Guard Services, Lester Finnell, and Rolando Vega. LEGAL STANDARD A cross-complaint against any of the parties who filed the initial complaint or cross-complaint against the cross-complainant must be filed before or at the same time as the answer to the initial complaint or cross-complaint, which answer must be filed within 30 days of service of the complaint or cross-complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 412.20(a)(3), 428.50(a), 432.10.) Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a trial date. (Code Civ. Proc. §428.50(b).) If a party fails to file a cross-complaint within the time limits described above, he or she must obtain permission from the court to file the cross-complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 426.50, 428.50(c).) Leave to file a mandatory cross-complaint must be granted absent bad faith. (Silver Organizations, Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 99.) Leave to file a permissive cross-complaint need only be granted in the interest of justice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50(c).) The court must grant leave to file a mandatory cross-complaint so long as the defendant is acting in good faith. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50.) A party against whom a cause of action has been asserted in a complaint may file a cross complaint setting forth [a]ny 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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 428.10(b).) DISCUSSION The proposed cross-complaint arises out of the same occurrence alleged in the complaint and generally seeks indemnification. Accordingly, the Court finds that granting leave to file the cross-complaint would be in the interest of justice. No opposition has been filed asserting any reasons why allowing the filing would not be in the interest of justice. Therefore, the motion for leave is granted. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint. Defendant is ordered to file and serve its proposed cross-complaint within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. Moving party shall provide notice of the Courts order and file a proof of service of such.

Ruling

JANICE M. COOK ET AL VS. ANNING-JOHNSON COMPANY

Jul 30, 2024 |CGC24277216

On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday, July 30, 2024 in Department 301, Line 3. Defendant Novartis Corporation's filed a Motion to Quash for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. Opposition filed by Plaintiff. Reply filed by Defendant. The Court is inclined to grant Plaintiffs' request to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery. Hearing required and counsel are ordered present. The moving party shall lodge with the clerk in Department 301 by the time set for this hearing a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling. Any party wishing to contest the tentative ruling must email contestasbestostr@sftc.org by 4:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing and state their intention to contest. If a hearing is requested, it will be on July 30, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. Attorneys may appear in person or remotely via zoom: Meeting ID 160 757 8308; Passcode: 485029. Face coverings are optional. The Court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law and Motion department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: Their name, CSR and telephone number, and their individual work email address. There will be only one official record. If the parties cannot agree, the Court will designate a qualified court reporter to provide the official transcript for the matter, and the party or parties will bear the cost. = (301/RCE)

Ruling

JAY ZALOWITZ VS. DAVID SMOOKE ET AL

Jul 30, 2024 |CGC23605536

Matter on the Discovery Calendar for Tuesday, Jul-30-2024, Line 2, 1-PLAINTIFF JAY ZALOWITZ', AN INDIVIDUAL, Motion To Quash Non-Party Crowell & Moring Llps Notice Of Deposition Of Jay Zalowitz And Request For Sanctions Against Crowell & Moring Llp. Pro Tem Judge Philip Ward, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. If a party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: Before the Court are two motions by plaintiff. First, he has filed for an order quashing a "non-party" notice of deposition issued by defense counsel Crowell & Moring ("C&M"). Second, he moves the Court for a protective order that his deposition by defendants shall only proceed remotely and not in person in C&M's San Francisco offices. The Court has prepared a complete tentative ruling that has been sent to counsel for the parties. Summarizing that tentative ruling, plaintiff's motion to quash the C&M non-party deposition notice is GRANTED, with plaintiff's request for sanctions DENIED. Plaintiff's motion for a protective order mandating that his deposition shall only proceed remotely is DENIED. Any and all sanctions requests are also DENIED. For the 9:00 a.m. Discovery calendar, all attorneys and parties are required to appear remotely. Hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link (DISCOVERY, DEPARTMENT 302 DAILY AT 9:00 A.M.), or dial the corresponding number and use the meeting ID, and password for Discovery Department 302. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to psw@hassard.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must e-mail it to the Judge Pro Tem. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/JPT)

Ruling

SALTSMAN, Sr., et al. vs. HEADRICK LOGGING INC., et al.

Jul 29, 2024 |CVPO21-0198364

SALTSMAN, SR., ET AL. VS. HEADRICK LOGGING INC., ET AL.Case Number: CVPO21-0198364Tentative Ruling on Motion for Mental Examination and for Protective Order: Defendant HeadrickLogging, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant”) move for an order requiring Plaintiff to a medical examination pursuantto CCP § 2032. Defendant also seeks a protective order as to the scope of tests, to permit a broad line ofquestioning and to limit the production of the audio record and raw data. Plaintiff’s opposition raises the issue ofan insufficient meet and confer process. Defendant’s reply concedes that the meet and confer efforts wereinsufficient as to the proposed tests and agrees that short continuance is warranted. This matter is continued toMonday, August 5, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 63. The parties are ordered to further meet and conferon all issues raised in the motion. The parties shall submit a Joint Statement which identifies the new meet andconfer efforts, and which identifies any unresolved issues. The Joint Statement shall be filed no later than July31, 2024. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

Document

FERNANDEZ, JUAN V AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING INC

Jul 29, 2024 |Bradley G. Harper |OTHER NEGLIGENCE |50-2024-CA-007084-XXXA-MB

Document

CHAVERS, TRINITY V POLONSKY, ISAY

Jul 30, 2024 |Luis Delgado |AUTO NEGLIGENCE |50-2024-CA-007140-XXXA-MB

Document

GILLIAR, GEORGE V DVIVERA, ANGELICA S

Jul 25, 2024 |Maxine D. Cheesman |OTHER NEGLIGENCE |50-2024-CA-007036-XXXA-MB

Document

MOSLEY, JOHN A JR V EATON, CHARLES R IV

Jul 29, 2024 |Luis Delgado |AUTO NEGLIGENCE |50-2024-CA-007107-XXXA-MB

Document

VALDMAN, AVRAHAM V DESTINE, PIERRE J

Jul 26, 2024 |Scott R. Kerner |AUTO NEGLIGENCE |50-2024-CA-007048-XXXA-MB

Document

WURTZ, TAYLOR V MENASHE DMD, MEGAN

Aug 01, 2024 |G. Joseph Curley |MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |50-2024-CA-007245-XXXA-MB

Document

BUENTE, MICHAEL W V PETOSA, STEPHEN J

Jul 25, 2024 |James W. Sherman |AUTO NEGLIGENCE |50-2024-CA-007033-XXXA-MB

Document

NEGRON, ELIZABETH JOANNA V MONTANEZ, ANGEL

Jul 29, 2024 |Bradley G. Harper |AUTO NEGLIGENCE |50-2024-CA-007116-XXXA-MB

MOTION IN LIMINE - REGARDING TESTIMONY REGARDING PAMELA MCCAULEY'S AFFIDAVIT F/B PLT September 23, 2018 (2024)

References

Top Articles
Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board opens entry for Pappy, Buffalo Trace antique collection limited-release lotteries
Swartz Funeral Home In Flint Michigan
Express Pay Cspire
neither of the twins was arrested,传说中的800句记7000词
Toa Guide Osrs
The Largest Banks - ​​How to Transfer Money With Only Card Number and CVV (2024)
7 Verification of Employment Letter Templates - HR University
Housing near Juneau, WI - craigslist
Melfme
What's New on Hulu in October 2023
Strange World Showtimes Near Cmx Downtown At The Gardens 16
Calmspirits Clapper
4156303136
Minecraft Jar Google Drive
My.tcctrack
Ostateillustrated Com Message Boards
Spergo Net Worth 2022
Nail Salon Goodman Plaza
Shasta County Most Wanted 2022
What Is Vioc On Credit Card Statement
Long Island Jobs Craigslist
Rufus Benton "Bent" Moulds Jr. Obituary 2024 - Webb & Stephens Funeral Homes
Military life insurance and survivor benefits | USAGov
Best Transmission Service Margate
Hannaford To-Go: Grocery Curbside Pickup
Ceramic tiles vs vitrified tiles: Which one should you choose? - Building And Interiors
10 Best Places to Go and Things to Know for a Trip to the Hickory M...
Maine Racer Swap And Sell
Fuse Box Diagram Honda Accord (2013-2017)
Visit the UK as a Standard Visitor
Stouffville Tribune (Stouffville, ON), March 27, 1947, p. 1
Kempsville Recreation Center Pool Schedule
Craigs List Tallahassee
Grandstand 13 Fenway
Manuel Pihakis Obituary
Bratislava | Location, Map, History, Culture, & Facts
Lucky Larry's Latina's
Tyler Sis 360 Boonville Mo
Craigslist Mexicali Cars And Trucks - By Owner
2007 Peterbilt 387 Fuse Box Diagram
Xxn Abbreviation List 2023
1Exquisitetaste
Best GoMovies Alternatives
Tricia Vacanti Obituary
Frigidaire Fdsh450Laf Installation Manual
Craigslist Houses For Rent Little River Sc
Sacramentocraiglist
Verizon Forum Gac Family
Heat Wave and Summer Temperature Data for Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
303-615-0055
Diesel Technician/Mechanic III - Entry Level - transportation - job employment - craigslist
March 2023 Wincalendar
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Prof. An Powlowski

Last Updated:

Views: 6153

Rating: 4.3 / 5 (64 voted)

Reviews: 95% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Prof. An Powlowski

Birthday: 1992-09-29

Address: Apt. 994 8891 Orval Hill, Brittnyburgh, AZ 41023-0398

Phone: +26417467956738

Job: District Marketing Strategist

Hobby: Embroidery, Bodybuilding, Motor sports, Amateur radio, Wood carving, Whittling, Air sports

Introduction: My name is Prof. An Powlowski, I am a charming, helpful, attractive, good, graceful, thoughtful, vast person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.