From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McLendon v. Duncan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 17, 2013
NO. 2:11 -CV-03240-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2013)

Opinion

NO. 2:11 -CV-03240-JAM-EFB

01-17-2013

KELLY M. MCLENDON, Plaintiff, v. RACHELLE DUNCAN; DEREK DUNCAN; JUANITA FAGAN; JEFFREY FAGAN; AND DEBBIE PETERS, Defendants.

GAVAN R. MUNTER (SBN 134924) TIZA SERRANO THOMPSON & ASSOCIATES Employees of the Corporate Law Department State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Attorneys for Defendant Debra Sue Peters


GAVAN R. MUNTER (SBN 134924)
TIZA SERRANO THOMPSON & ASSOCIATES
Employees of the Corporate Law Department
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Attorneys for Defendant
Debra Sue Peters

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Debbie Peters ("Defendant") and the Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Plaintiff Kelly M. McLendon ("Plaintiff") came on for hearing on January 9, 2013 in Department 6 of the above-entitled Court, Judge John A. Mendez presiding. Frederick H Lundblade, Esq. of Black, Chapman, Webber & Stevens appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Gavan R. Munter, Esq. of Tiza Serrano Thompson & Associates appeared on behalf of Defendant Debbie Peters ("Defendant.")

The Court, having reviewed and considered all moving papers submitted by Defendant Peters in support of her Motion for Summary Judgment; all papers submitted by Plaintiff McLendon in opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and all papers submitted by him in support of his Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and all papers submitted by Defendant Peters in reply to Plaintiff's opposition and Cross Motion; and having heard the arguments of counsel, finds as follows:

1) As to Plaintiff's cause of action for Common Law Strict Liability, the Court finds that the cause of action is inapplicable to Defendant Peters;
2) As to Plaintiff's causes of action for Negligence and Premises Liability, the Court analyzed the moving papers submitted by the parties in light of the factors set forth in Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 108, and finds that Defendant Peters did not owe a legal duty to Plaintiff McClendon under the circumstances surrounding the subject incident.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant Debbie Peters Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; and Plaintiff Kelly M. McLendon's Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED.

John A. Mendez

United States District Court Judge
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

______________________

Frederick Lundblade, Esq.


Summaries of

McLendon v. Duncan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 17, 2013
NO. 2:11 -CV-03240-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2013)
Case details for

McLendon v. Duncan

Case Details

Full title:KELLY M. MCLENDON, Plaintiff, v. RACHELLE DUNCAN; DEREK DUNCAN; JUANITA…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 17, 2013

Citations

NO. 2:11 -CV-03240-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2013)