Perez v. Langerica CA2/5

Filed 2/17/22 Perez v. Langerica CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

DAMIAN PEREZ, B304082

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC659198) v.

NICHOLAS LANGERICA,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Judge. Affirmed.

Kassouni Law and Timothy V. Kassouni for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Berman, Berman, Berman, Schneider & Lowary, Mark E. Lowary, Kelly M. Henry and David H. Ryan for Defendant and Respondent.

__________________________

INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Damien Perez appeals after the trial court granted summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of defendant Nicholas Langerica. On appeal, plaintiff does not contest the merits of summary judgment. Rather, he argues that Langerica should not have been allowed to answer plaintiff’s first amended complaint because Langerica was defaulted on the original complaint fifteen months earlier. We affirm the trial court’s decision denying plaintiff’s motion to strike Langerica’s answer, concluding plaintiff’s first amended complaint contained a material change and effectively vacated the default. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. Plaintiff’s Lawsuit On July 13, 2016, someone shot plaintiff outside of the rehabilitation home run by Victory Outreach Salinas where plaintiff was residing; the gunshot paralyzed him. On April 26, 2017, plaintiff sued Victory Outreach International, Victory Outreach Salinas, the rehabilitation home’s manager, and Langerica (a pastor who worked for Victory Outreach). The complaint alleged the following causes of action: (1) negligence against all defendants, (2) negligent hiring against Victory Outreach International and Victory Outreach Salinas, (3) negligent supervision/training against Victory Outreach International and Victory Outreach Salinas, and (4) respondeat superior against Victory Outreach International and Victory Outreach Salinas. The first cause of action for negligence was the only cause of action brought against Langerica. Plaintiff alleged that Langerica was a Victory Outreach employee and supervised the rehabilitation home’s manager. The complaint stated that plaintiff was a gang member with a visible gang tattoo on his neck, and that plaintiff sought to remove his tattoo numerous