Preview
27-CV-24-12529 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 8/26/2024 1:38 PM CASE TYPE: CONTRACTSTATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURTCOUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICTAmina Asad Ahmed, ) Court File Number: ) The Honorable: Plaintiff, ) ) AMENDED SUMMONSv ) )Progressive Direct Insurance Company, ) ) Defendant. )THIS SUMMONS IS DIRECTED TO the above-named Defendant: 1. YOU ARE BEING SUED. The Plaintiff has started a lawsuit against you. ThePlaintiff's Complaint against you is attached to this summons. Do not throw these papers away.They are official papers that affect your rights. You must respond to this lawsuit even though itmay not yet be filed with the Court and there may be no court file number on this summons. 2. YOU MUST REPLY WITHIN 20 DAYS TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS. Youmust give or mail to the person who signed this summons a written response called an Answerwithin 20 days of the date on which you received this Summons. You must send a copy of yourAnswer to the person who signed this summons located at: Brantingham Law Office, P.A. 2200 E Franklin Avenue, Suite 202 Minneapolis, MN 55404 27-CV-24-12529 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 8/26/2024 1:38 PM 3. YOU MUST RESPOND TO EACH CLAIM. The Answer is your written responseto the Plaintiff's Complaint. In your Answer you must state whether you agree or disagree witheach paragraph of the Complaint. If you believe the Plaintiff should not be given everythingasked for in the Complaint, you must say so in your Answer. 4, YOU WILL LOSE YOUR CASE IF YOU DO NOT SEND A WRITTENRESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT TO THE PERSON WHO SIGNED THISSUMMONS. If you do not Answer within 20 days, you will lose this case. You will not get totell your side of the story, and the Court may decide against you and award the Plaintiffeverything asked for in the complaint. If you do not want to contest the claims stated in thecomplaint, you do not need to respond. A default judgment can then be entered against you forthe relief requested in the complaint. 5. LEGAL ASSISTANCE. You may wish to get legal help from a lawyer. If you do nothave a lawyer, the Court Administrator may have information about places where you can getlegal assistance. Even if you cannot get legal help, you must still provide a written Answer toprotect your rights or you may lose the case. 6. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION. The parties may agree to or beordered to participate in an alternative dispute resolution process under Rule 114 of theMinnesota General Rules of Practice. You must still send your written response to theComplaint even if you expect to use alternative means of resolving this dispute. 27-CV-24-12529 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota C Ce Kop 8/26/2024 1:38 PMDated: B TING OFFICE, P.A. Jeremy L. Brantingham #0299558 2200 E. Franklin Avenye, Suit 02 Minneapolis. MN 5540 (612) 339-9700 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF 27-CV-24-12529 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 8/26/2024 1:38 PM CASE TYPE: CONTRACTSTATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURTCOUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICTAmina Asad Ahmed, Court File Number: The Honorable: Plaintiff, ) AMENDED COMPLAINTv )Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Defendant. ) Plaintiff complains of Defendant, and for cause thereof alleges: 1. That on June 19, 2022 and at all time herein material, there was in full force andeffect a certain policy of automobile insurance, XXXXXXXXX, issued by DefendantProgressive Direct Insurance Company to Plaintiff. 2. This court is proper with respect to venue and jurisdiction. 3. Under the terms of the above-referenced policy, Defendant agreed to pay all sumsup to the maximum amount of uninsured coverage provided that Plaintiff is an occupant of theinsured vehicle should be legally entitled to recover as damages from the operator or owner of anuninsured automobile because of bodily injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident caused bythe negligence of the operator of the uninsured motor vehicle. 27-CV-24-12529 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 8/26/2024 1:38 PM 4, That on June 19, 2022 Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident inMiami, Florida and that said accident was a direct result of the carelessness and negligence of theoperator of an unknown vehicle which was uninsured. 5. That at the time of the June 19, 2022 accident, Plaintiff was riding as the frontseat passenger of a 2018 Bentley Bentayga, and that said vehicle was insured by ProgressiveDirect Insurance Company. 6. That as a direct and proximate result of the negligence in the operation of a motorvehicle, operated by an unknown vehicle, a collision occurred. The collision caused Plaintiff tobe bodily injured. Plaintiff sustained injuries to her neck, back, and right knee. Plaintiff alsosuffered from headaches. 7. As a result of this accident, Plaintiff has in the past and will in the future incurmedical and hospital expenses for treatment of her injuries and Plaintiff has in the past and willin the future endure great physical pain and suffering. WHEREFORE, each Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant in an amount greaterthan Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) for uninsured motorist benefits, together with interest,costs, and disbursem*nt incurred hereinpace TIN LAW FF CE, P.A. Jeremy L. Brantingham, #0299558 2200 E. Franklin Avenue4Spite 202 Minneapolis, MN 55404 (612) 339-9700 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF 27-CV-24-12529 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 8/26/2024 1:38 PM fsigrfed hereby acknowledges t gt costs, disbursem*nts, and reasonable attorney feesmay, d to the opposin 6-parties pursuant to Minnesota Statute § 549.21, subd. 2.Jerémy L. B
Related Contentin Hennepin County
Case
Nathan B. Johnson vs Jules Yang, Metropolitan Council, d/b/a Metro Transit Police Department
Aug 28, 2024 |Anderson, Jamie L. |Personal Injury |Personal Injury |27-CV-24-12792
Case
Gary Asher vs Secura Insurance Company
Aug 28, 2024 |Burke, Susan N. |Personal Injury |Personal Injury |27-CV-24-12718
Case
Adolfo Gochez Perez as Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Josue Gochez Perez, deceased vs Septran, Inc. a foreign corporation doing business in the state of Minnesota and Osman Ali
Aug 28, 2024 |Conroy, Lois R. |Wrongful Death |Wrongful Death |27-CV-24-12717
Case
Amina Asad Ahmed vs Progressive Direct Insurance Company
Aug 26, 2024 |Conroy, Lois R. |Personal Injury |Personal Injury |27-CV-24-12529
Case
Ashley Lynn Finley Crowe vs John Doe and STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
Aug 28, 2024 |Conley, Thomas J. |Personal Injury |Personal Injury |27-CV-24-12631
Case
Victoria B. Tapeh-Issiakou vs Walmart, Inc., d/b/a Walmart Supercenter #2198
Aug 28, 2024 |Peralta, Nelson |Personal Injury |Personal Injury |27-CV-24-12795
Case
Bertha Lunzer vs The Glenn Catholic Senior Communities, Inc. , d/b/a The Glenn Hopkins
Aug 27, 2024 |Conley, Thomas J. |Personal Injury |Personal Injury |27-CV-24-12669
Case
Shannon Tyrone Craig, Sr. vs Sheriff Witt - Hennepin Co. Sheriff
Aug 29, 2024 |Open |Personal Injury |Personal Injury |27-CV-24-12788
Case
Bertha Lunzer vs The Glenn Catholic Senior Communities, Inc.d/b/a The Glenn Hopkins.
Aug 27, 2024 |Sullivan, Rachna |Malpractice |Malpractice |27-CV-24-12601
Ruling
MICHEL ALEJANDRO VS TOTER, LLC
Aug 29, 2024 |6/18/2022 |24SMCV02759
Case Number: 24SMCV02759 Hearing Date: August 29, 2024 Dept: I The motion to strike is GRANTED. Plaintiff alleges negligence. According to the complaint, plaintiff was at a property on 2/1/24 to collect wheeled trash carts pursuant to his job. He claims that as he was handling one of the carts a defect in the product caused it to break. The metal cart handle allegedly struck plaintiff and caused an injury. Plaintiff alleges that defendant is the source of the cart and that defendant had notice of the defect because the cart broke regularly and had injured people across the country. Defendant moves to strike the allegations pertaining to punitive damages. The court will grant the motion. To allege punitive damages, the complaint must include specific factual allegations showing that the conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious. (Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864.) It cannot be pled generally. Here, the allegations are not sufficient. Plaintiff does not allege any particular reason why the defendant would know of the defect or the types of harm that were supposedly caused or the frequency of the product breaking. In short, other than a form-book allegation, there is nothing here. The court also notes that the cause of action is negligence. Punitive damages are not recoverable for negligence. The name in the caption of the cause of action is not dispositive, but it does appear that plaintiff needs to do more than plead negligence. The court is aware, of course, that discovery might well support a claim for punitive damages. If it is established that the product broke with significant frequency and that the defense knew it, and that when it broke it often caused significant injury, but yet defendant did nothing to fix the problem or warn users (not end users like plaintiff but rather those who bought the product) about the danger of misusing it or that it could break, perhaps that would be enough. After all, Ford was liable for punitive damages for designing a Pinto that had a tendency to explode into flame in the event of a rear end collision. But that does not turn every product defect case into a punitive damages case based on form book allegations. If that were enough, Brousseau would be of no purpose. The court will give plaintiff 30 days leave to amend because it must. But the better course would be to make it clear that this ruling is without prejudice to a motion for leave to amend to add punitive damages back in if discovery yields information that could lead to an inference of malice, fraud, or oppression (and the other elements needed to allege punitive damages).
Ruling
HEIDI L. RIVERA, ET AL. VS KHARAI LUTALO BURTON, ET AL.
Aug 27, 2024 |Renee C. Reyna |21STCV09315
Case Number: 21STCV09315 Hearing Date: August 27, 2024 Dept: 29 Rivera v. Burton 21STCV09315 Petition for Approval of Minors Compromise (Sarahi Rivera, Age 15) Tentative: The Court excuses the personal appearance of the claimant and the guardian ad litem. Counsel may appear by telephone or video conference call. Petitioner Heidi Rivera filed the Petition to Approve Minors Compromise on June 27, 2024. This hearing was initially set for July 19 and continued to August 27. The Court has reviewed the Petition and Proposed Order. The Court finds the settlement and fees reasonable and fair. All substantive and procedural requirements are satisfied. Accordingly, the petition is granted. Conclusion The Court GRANTS the petition to approve the minors compromise. The Court directs the Judicial Assistant to correct the date of the hearing on the proposed order. Moving party to give notice.
Ruling
ALFRED HUTCHINGS, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
Aug 26, 2024 |Renee C. Reyna |21STCV37250
Case Number: 21STCV37250 Hearing Date: August 26, 2024 Dept: 29 Hutchings v. City of Los Angeles 21STCV37250 Motion to Continue Trial filed by Defendant Flexi-Van Leasing, LLC Tentative The motion is granted. Background On October 8, 2021, Alfred Hutchings and Jennifer Hutchings (collectively Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against City of Los Angeles (City), Flexi-Van Leasing (Flexi-Van), and Pape Material Handling, Inc. (Pape) for Dangerous Condition of Public Property under Government Code section 835, Negligence, and Loss of Consortium arising from a forklift accident on February 10, 2021. On December 21, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint (FAC) for Dangerous Condition of Public Property under Government Code section 835, Negligence, and Loss of Consortium against City, Flexi-Van, and Pape. On March 8, 2022, City filed an answer to the FAC. On March 25, 2022, Flexi-Van filed an answer to the FAC. On June 24, 2022, Pape filed an answer to the FAC and filed a cross-complaint against City and Flexi-Van. City and Flexi-Van filed answers to the cross-complaint on July 22, 2022. On March 8, 2024, a notice of settlement between Plaintiffs and Pape was filed. Pape was dismissed from the complaint on May 2, 2024, and Papes cross-complaint was dismissed on May 15, 2024. On July 12, 2024, Flexi-Van filed a motion for summary judgment set to be heard on May 23, 2025. Trial is currently set for October 28, 2024. On August 1, 2024, Flexi-Van filed this joint motion to continue trial. No opposition has been filed. Legal Standard Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8), provides that the court has the power to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice. The power to determine when a continuance should be granted is within the discretion of the trial court. (Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1603.) A trial court has wide latitude in the matter of calendar control including the granting or denying of continuances. (Park Motors, Inc. v. Cozens (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 12, 18.) To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).) Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. (Ibid.) Circ*mstances that may support a finding of good cause include: (1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circ*mstances; (2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circ*mstances; (3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circ*mstances; (4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; (5) The addition of a new party if: (A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or (B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case; (6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circ*mstances that are relevant to the determination. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).) California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d) sets forth a non-exhaustive list of factors that the court may consider: (1) The proximity of the trial date; (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; (3) The length of the continuance requested; (4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; (6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; (7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; (10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and (11) Any other fact or circ*mstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).) A trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of section 437c. (Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529; accord Cole v. Superior Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 88.) Discussion Flexi-Van requests a trial continuance on a variety of grounds, including (1) to allow for further mediation between Plaintiffs and City and Flexi-Van, (2) to avoid a conflict that defense counsel has with a trial date in another matter in Ventura County Superior Court; and (3) so that Flexi-Vans motion for summary judgment, set to be heard on May 23, 2025, can be heard before trial. (Eilert Decl., ¶¶ 4, 7, & 8.) Trial is currently set for October 28, 2024. (Id., ¶ 8.) Flexi-Vans motion for summary judgment was timely filed, and thus, Flexi-Van has the right for the motion to be heard before trial. Plaintiffs do not oppose the continuance. The request to continue trial is GRANTED for good cause shown. Conclusion The Court GRANTS the motion to continue trial. The Court CONTINUES the trial to a date on or after June 30, 2025. The Final Status Conference and all discovery deadlines are reset based on the new trial date. Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.
Ruling
CONSTANCE BRADY VS DOE 1, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.
Aug 29, 2024 |22STCV04425
Case Number: 22STCV04425 Hearing Date: August 29, 2024 Dept: C Brady v. Doe 1, 22STCV04425 This action was filed on February 4, 2022. Trial is currently scheduled for November 18, 2024. There is a Motion to Consolidate this action with 3 later filed related actions set for hearing on June 3, 2025. Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Seal the Unredacted Declaration of Thomas B. Burtland and attached Exhibits and the Unredacted Version of Earle Merchant's Declaration in Connection with Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Consolidate is DENIED without prejudice. Alternatively, the Court schedules this to be heard as a regularly noticed motion. Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal will be heard on Thursday, December 5, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. SE-C. The Ex Parte Application will be DEEMED the Moving Papers. Opposition and Reply to be filed and served in accordance with the new hearing date. Moving Party to give notice. A trial continuance may be sought in Dept. SE-F.
Ruling
SANCHEZ SCOMA VS. PIT RIVER CASINO, ET AL.
Aug 29, 2024 |CVCV20-0196121
SANCHEZ SCOMA VS. PIT RIVER CASINO, ET AL.Case Number: CVCV20-0196121This matter is on calendar for review regarding status and trial setting. The Court notes that thedefault judgment against Mike Avelar on July 22, 2024, was improperly entered (no proof ofservice of summons was on file) and the default was therefore vacated. Additionally, the SecondAmended Complaint was filed without leave of Court and was therefore stricken. This matter isnot at issue. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to provide the Court with astatus of pleadings and service.
Ruling
Cecilia Jimenez vs Orlando Alvarez Orozco
Aug 28, 2024 |16CECG03729
Re: Cecilia Jimenez v. Orlando Alvarez Orozco Superior Court Case No. 16CECG03729Hearing Date: August 28, 2024 (Dept. 503)Motion: By Plaintiff for Default JudgmentTentative Ruling: To deny, without prejudice.Explanation: It appears that plaintiff’s declaration attempts to support her requested $100,015in damages on the basis of the “mental and psychological distress” she “endured” … “foran extremely long time.” (Jimenez, ¶ 7.) To the extent such damages are evenrecoverable (see Krouse v. Graham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 59, 69 [“a wrongful death recoverymay not include such elements as the grief or sorrow attendant upon the death of aloved one ….]), plaintiff’s declaration fails to describe with any precision the pecuniarylosses she allegedly incurred. These defects are similar to those identified in plaintiff’s request for defaultjudgment by declaration denied on January 25, 2023. In essence, despite defendant’sdefault, the proposed judgment must nevertheless be supported by sufficient evidenceto equip the court to arrive at a fair award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. (b); Civ. Code,§ 3283; Taliaferro v. Hoogs (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 559, 600.) The current judgmentapplication, like the one before it, fails to include sufficient evidence or description of thealleged damages. In addition, the current request continues to seek a costs award whichincludes unallowable “Witness Statement and Investigation” costs. (Code Civ. Proc., §1033.5, subd. (b)(2).) Accordingly, the court intends to deny the current application. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Proceduresection 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute orderadopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerkwill constitute notice of the order.Tentative RulingIssued By: jyh on 8/26/24 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)
Ruling
Dewell, et al. vs. USF Reddaway Inc., et al.
Aug 26, 2024 |22CV-0200533
DEWELL, ET AL. VS. USF REDDAWAY INC., ET AL.Case Number: 22CV-0200533This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of a federal proceeding. A Notice of Stayof Proceedings was filed on August 15, 2023. On August 21, 2023, the Court ordered this entireaction stayed. No status report has been filed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendarto provide the Court with a status of the federal bankruptcy proceeding.
Ruling
SANDRA TOLEDO vs AGUSTIN AGUILAR-CONTRERAS, et al
Aug 28, 2024 |24CV00692
24CV00692TOLEDO v. AGUILAR-CONTRERAS MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL- UNOPPOSED The unopposed motion to be relieved as counsel filed by Christopher Goodroe is grantedas it complies with California Rules of Court, Rule, 3.1362.Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal orderincorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating thetentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, inaccordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if theprevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing (unless the tentative issimply to “grant”). Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition ofsanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.
Document
Nathan B. Johnson vs Jules Yang, Metropolitan Council, d/b/a Metro Transit Police Department
Aug 28, 2024 |Anderson, Jamie L. |Personal Injury |Personal Injury |27-CV-24-12792
Document
Adolfo Gochez Perez as Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Josue Gochez Perez, deceased vs Septran, Inc. a foreign corporation doing business in the state of Minnesota and Osman Ali
Aug 28, 2024 |Conroy, Lois R. |Wrongful Death |Wrongful Death |27-CV-24-12717
Document
Bertha Lunzer vs The Glenn Catholic Senior Communities, Inc. , d/b/a The Glenn Hopkins
Aug 27, 2024 |Conley, Thomas J. |Personal Injury |Personal Injury |27-CV-24-12669
Document
Patricia DeAngelis, as Trustee for the Next-of-Kin of Robert Michael Alcure,deceased vs Rise Construction Services, LLC
Aug 26, 2024 |Sande, Christian M |Wrongful Death |Wrongful Death |27-CV-24-12509
Document
Bertha Lunzer vs The Glenn Catholic Senior Communities, Inc. , d/b/a The Glenn Hopkins
Aug 27, 2024 |Conley, Thomas J. |Personal Injury |Personal Injury |27-CV-24-12669
Document
Gary Asher vs Secura Insurance Company
Aug 28, 2024 |Burke, Susan N. |Personal Injury |Personal Injury |27-CV-24-12718
Document
Raquel Schaps vs Mitchell Le Dac Ho, JG Winslow Holdings, Inc., James W. George and Lisa Halverson
Feb 28, 2022 |Moore, James |Personal Injury |Personal Injury |27-CV-22-2446
Document
Amina Asad Ahmed vs Progressive Direct Insurance Company
Aug 26, 2024 |Conroy, Lois R. |Personal Injury |Personal Injury |27-CV-24-12529
