legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Kamhout v. The Vons Companies

Kamhout v. The Vons Companies
10:01:2010



Kamhout v


















Kamhout v. The Vons Companies











Filed 9/28/10
Kamhout v. The Vons Companies CA 2/1













NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 ONE






>






CHANDRA KAMHOUT,



Plaintiff
and Appellant,



v.



THE VONS COMPANIES, INC. et al.,



Defendants
and Appellants.




B208927



(Super. Ct. No. SC087085)








APPEALS from an order and judgment
of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County.
Cesar C. Sarmiento, Judge.
Order reversed with directions; judgment affirmed.

________

Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris
& Hoffman, V. James DeSimone, Michael D. Seplow and David Sarnoff for
Plaintiff and Appellant.

Acker & Whipple, Jerri L.
Johnson and Vanessa M. Case for Defendants and Appellants.

________





A jury returned a verdict against
Chandra Kamhout on her complaint against The Vons Companies, Inc. (Vons) and E.
& J. Gallo Winery (Gallo). Kamhout
appeals from the judgment, and Vons and Gallo cross-appeal, challenging the
superior court's determination that their memorandum
of costs was untimely. We reverse
the court's rejection of the memorandum of costs and remand for further
proceedings, but we otherwise affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

On
September 27, 2005, Kamhout
filed suit against Vons and Gallo. The
record on appeal does not contain Kamhout's complaint, but the special verdict
form indicates that the sole cause of action submitted to the jury was a claim
for negligence. The jury found that both
Vons and Gallo were negligent but that their negligence was not a substantial
factor in causing harm to Kamhout.

At
trial, Kamhout testified as follows concerning the facts underlying her
claim: In the morning of November 19, 2004, Kamhout was
shopping at a Vons grocery store. As she
walked past a wine display, her right flip-flop â€




Description A jury returned a verdict against Chandra Kamhout on her complaint against The Vons Companies, Inc. (Vons) and E. & J. Gallo Winery (Gallo). Kamhout appeals from the judgment, and Vons and Gallo cross-appeal, challenging the superior court's determination that their memorandum of costs was untimely. Court reverse the court's rejection of the memorandum of costs and remand for further proceedings, but Court otherwise affirm the judgment.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2026 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2026 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale