Magnaye-Pitcher v. Trinidad CA2/8

Filed 10/7/25 Magnaye-Pitcher v. Trinidad CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

MARICEL MAGNAYE- B335500 PITCHER, Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. 20STCV31054

v.

DANILO SOLIS TRINIDAD et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael B. Harwin, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Stanley D. Bowman, Stanley D. Bowman for Plaintiff and Appellant. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Jeffry A. Miller, Corinne C. Bertsche, Daniel R. Velladao; Law Offices of Scott C. Stratman, Varduhi Rose Petrosyan for Defendants and Respondents.

____________________ In a slip and fall negligence case, the exclusion of the plaintiff’s causation and damages expert is not prejudicial where the jury found the defendants were not negligent. Maricel Magnaye-Pitcher suffered a broken tooth and three fractures to her jaw: one on the top, and one on each side of her bottom jaw. She required surgery. Through the time of the trial, she experienced continuing pain and difficulty eating. Magnaye-Pitcher sued her landlords Danilo Solis Trinidad and Lydia Flores Trinidad for personal injury, alleging a wobbly wooden step on the property caused her fall. At trial, the court gave the jury special verdict forms. The first question was whether the defendants were negligent. The jury said no. The jury went no further. On appeal, Magnaye-Pitcher alleges the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her motion to augment her expert witness list. Magnaye-Pitcher originally designated dentist Dr. Kevin Cebula to provide opinions on her present and future injuries. Cebula stopped responding to Magnaye-Pitcher’s counsel. Magnaye-Pitcher sought to replace Cebula with a different expert. The trial court denied the motion, finding Magnaye-Pitcher had not acted diligently. Magnaye-Pitcher appeals, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion to augment her expert witness list. We need not reach this question.