Defendant's Application of Eric R. Locker to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice
Additionally, the undisputed facts establish that Plaintiff exited a stall, walked to the sink, turned toward the hand dryer, and struck the stool with her right foot. (UMF No. 5.)
The Court is unconvinced that this layout can be cleanly analogized to sidewalk or other floor defects. These surrounding circumstances--including the configuration of the restroom, the location of the stool relative to the path to the hand dryer, and visibility issues--are relevant to the trivial defect analysis. Given the conflicting analysis regarding the stool's placement and its interaction with the foreseeable route taken by restroom users, the Court declines to find that the defect was trivial as a matter of law.
Open and Obvious
Defendant argues that the condition was open and obvious and therefore negates duty. This appears to be at odds with the assertion that it was trivial. Defendant's evidence includes that the stool was visible and stationary beneath the sink and that Plaintiff did not see it before the incident. (UMF Nos. 3, 5.) The undisputed facts further show that Plaintiff entered the restroom, used a stall, walked to the sink, and then, after turning toward the hand dryer, struck the stool and fell. (UMF No. 5.)
Plaintiff, however, disputes the implications of these facts and presents evidence that the stool was not readily visible from a sink user's perspective and was obscured by the sink structure. (Response to UMF Nos. 6-8; AMF No. 41.) Plaintiff also contends that the restroom layout required patrons to traverse the area where the stool was located in order to access the hand dryer. (AMF No. 44.) Whether the condition was sufficiently obvious, and whether Defendant nonetheless owed a duty to remedy or warn of the condition, depends on disputed factual issues, including visibility and necessity of encountering the condition. Accordingly, triable issues of fact preclude summary judgment on this ground.
CV-25-007268 - CRUZ, VANESSA vs COVENANT CARE CALIFORNIA LLC - Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration - CONTINUED by request of the parties to July 9, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 21 of this Court.
CV-26-002498 - TUCCI, KATIE vs GILTON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT INC - Defendant's Application of Eric R. Locker to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice - GRANTED, and unopposed.
The unopposed application of Attorney Eric R. Locker to appear as counsel pro hac vice on behalf of Defendant Basic Benefits LLC is GRANTED. The Court finds that the application substantially complies with California Rules of Court, rule 9.40
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The Court further finds that the procedural requirements of rule 9.40(c), including notice and service on all parties and the State Bar, have been satisfied. Eric R. Locker is permitted to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this action, subject to compliance with all applicable California laws, rules, and professional responsibilities. The Court was unable to locate a proposed order in the court file for this application. The moving party is directed to submit a proposed order within five court days that comports with this ruling.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22: ***There are no tentative rulings in Department 22***
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:
CV-25-012139 - STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS vs GONSALVES, JOSEPH A - Plaintiff's Motion for Prejudgment Possession - HEARING REQUIRED. The Court requires clarification as to the lack of proof of service of the First Amended Complaint, Summons and moving papers on Mary Ann Gonsalves and Rosemarie Rocha who have been identified as interest holders in