Legal Opinion
Annocki v. Peterson Enterprises
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 5, 2014No. B251434PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
JOHNSON, J.
Plaintiffs Eileen Annocki and Joseph Annocki appeal judgment of dismissal of their third amended complaint (TAC) for damages based on the death of their son Joseph M. Annocki. The trial court held that defendant Peterson Enterprises, LLC (defendant), had no duty to plaintiffs’ decedent, who was killed in an automobile accident by a patron leaving defendant’s restaurant. We reverse, finding that plaintiffs should be permitted to amend their complaint to allege additional facts.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1. Plaintiffs’ TAC
Plaintiffs are the parents of decedent…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Rowland v. ChristianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Merrill v. Navegar, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1990
- Doe v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
- Alcaraz v. VeceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Hambrick v. Healthcare Partners Medical Group, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2015
- Vasilenko v. Grace Gamily ChurchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- E.D., an individual minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, CATHLEEN ANN MAGORIEN; CATHLEEN ANN MAGORIEN, an individual v. THE CITIZEN HOTEL, an entity form unknown; AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY, LLC, a limited liability company; MARRIOTT BONVOY BOUTIQUES, LLC, a limited liability company; MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 to 50, InclusiveDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2026
- Hambrick v. Healthcare Partners Medical GroupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Issakhani v. Shadow Glen Homeowners Assn.California Court of Appeal · 2021
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.