Wolfson v. Tres Robles
Wolfson v. Tres Robles
02:10:2006
Wolfson v. Tres Robles
Filed 2/2/06 Wolfson v. Tres Robles IV HOA CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
FRED WOLFSON,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
TRES ROBLES IV HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
B184484
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. PC033407)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Michael J. Farrell, Judge. Affirmed.
Barry Bartholomew & Associates and Kathryn Albarian for Defendants and Appellants.
Berkley & Berkley and Stuart Berkeley for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
Defendants and appellants Tres Robles IV Homeowners Association (Association) and Ross Morgan & Company, Inc. (Morgan) (sometimes collectively referred to as Association) appeal an order granting a motion by plaintiff and respondent Fred Wolfson (Wolfson) for a new trial on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to support a defense verdict.
The essential issue presented is whether the order granting a new trial sufficiently specifies the reasons the motion was granted.
We conclude the specification of reasons is adequate and therefore affirm the new trial order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 27, 2003, Wolfson, a condominium homeowner and resident, filed suit against the Association and Morgan, the property management company for his condominium complex. Wolfson pled causes of action for general negligence and premises liability for injuries he allegedly sustained on January 27, 2003 when a gate fronting a trash bin enclosure fell on him.
The Association and Morgan answered the complaint, denying the allegations and asserting various affirmative defenses.
On March 3, 2005, the matter came on for a jury trial. In addition to Wolfson, various witnesses testified for the plaintiff, including James Smith (Smith), an employee of Countryside Greenway, the contractor which was hired to repair the broken gate. Smith testified the gate weighed between 120 and 150 pounds, and that after the accident, when he went to repair it, he found it propped in position, â€
02:10:2006
Filed 2/2/06 Wolfson v. Tres Robles IV HOA CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
FRED WOLFSON,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
TRES ROBLES IV HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
B184484
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. PC033407)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Michael J. Farrell, Judge. Affirmed.
Barry Bartholomew & Associates and Kathryn Albarian for Defendants and Appellants.
Berkley & Berkley and Stuart Berkeley for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
Defendants and appellants Tres Robles IV Homeowners Association (Association) and Ross Morgan & Company, Inc. (Morgan) (sometimes collectively referred to as Association) appeal an order granting a motion by plaintiff and respondent Fred Wolfson (Wolfson) for a new trial on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to support a defense verdict.
The essential issue presented is whether the order granting a new trial sufficiently specifies the reasons the motion was granted.
We conclude the specification of reasons is adequate and therefore affirm the new trial order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 27, 2003, Wolfson, a condominium homeowner and resident, filed suit against the Association and Morgan, the property management company for his condominium complex. Wolfson pled causes of action for general negligence and premises liability for injuries he allegedly sustained on January 27, 2003 when a gate fronting a trash bin enclosure fell on him.
The Association and Morgan answered the complaint, denying the allegations and asserting various affirmative defenses.
On March 3, 2005, the matter came on for a jury trial. In addition to Wolfson, various witnesses testified for the plaintiff, including James Smith (Smith), an employee of Countryside Greenway, the contractor which was hired to repair the broken gate. Smith testified the gate weighed between 120 and 150 pounds, and that after the accident, when he went to repair it, he found it propped in position, â€
| Description | A civil law decision for damages. |
| Rating |
