Complaint Filed - Docketed on: 07/18/2024 July 17, 2024 (2024)

Complaint Filed - Docketed on: 07/18/2024 July 17, 2024 (1)

Complaint Filed - Docketed on: 07/18/2024 July 17, 2024 (2)

  • Complaint Filed - Docketed on: 07/18/2024 July 17, 2024 (3)
  • Complaint Filed - Docketed on: 07/18/2024 July 17, 2024 (4)
  • Complaint Filed - Docketed on: 07/18/2024 July 17, 2024 (5)
  • Complaint Filed - Docketed on: 07/18/2024 July 17, 2024 (6)
  • Complaint Filed - Docketed on: 07/18/2024 July 17, 2024 (7)
  • Complaint Filed - Docketed on: 07/18/2024 July 17, 2024 (8)
  • Complaint Filed - Docketed on: 07/18/2024 July 17, 2024 (9)
  • Complaint Filed - Docketed on: 07/18/2024 July 17, 2024 (10)
 

Preview

Filed 7/17/2024 3:16:55 PM Superior Court of the District of Columbia IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Division GUENET TADESSE 141 Finale Terrace Silver Spring, MD 20901 Plaintiffs, 2024-CAB-004501 5300 Wisconsin Avenue NW Owner, Case No.: LLC Serve On: Jeffrey Chod 1875 I Street, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20006 And DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Serve On: D.C. Office of Risk Management 441 4" Street, N.W. Suite 800 South Washington, D.C. 20001 Defendants COMPLAINT COMES NOW Plaintiff, Guenet Tadesse (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’), by andthrough her attorneys, Seann P. Malloy, Esq. and Anaek S. Johal, Esq. and the Malloy Law Offices,LLC, sues Defendants, 5300 Wisconsin Avenue NW Owner, LLC (hereinafter referred to as“Defendant 5300 Wisconsin Avenue NW Owner, LLC”) and District of Columbia (hereinafterreferred to as “Defendant District of Columbia”) and for reasons therefore states as follows: PARTIESPlaintiff is an adult resident of Montgomery County, Maryland. Defendant 5300 Wisconsin Avenue NW Owner, LLC is a duly licensed business that owns and operates the building located at 5300 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20015. 3 Defendant District of Columbia is a Federal district that controls and maintains orotherwise employs agents to control and maintain the public sidewalks in the District of Columbia. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4 Jurisdiction is vested in this Court pursuant to D.C. Code §11-921 (1981 edition). COUNTI Guenet Tadesse v. 5300 Wisconsin Avenue NW Owner, LLC (Negligence) 5 Paragraphs 1-4 (one through four) are incorporated by referenced as if fully restatedherein. 6. On May 24, 2022, at approximately 9:45 AM, Plaintiff was walking on a publicsidewalk on 5300 Block of Wisconsin Avenue, N.W in Washington, D.C. 20015 at or near itsintersection with Western Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 7 As Plaintiff was walking to on the public sidewalk owned and maintained byDefendant 5300 Wisconsin Avenue NW Owner, LLC, she tripped and fell on an uneven and poorlymaintained concrete paver. 8 There were no warning signs present at the time of the incident. 9 Plaintiff sustained significant injuries to her person as a result of this fall. 10. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was a public invitee of the Defendant and wasowed duties including but not limited to:(a) Properly and prudently warning all members of the public walking on the sidewalk that a potentially unsafe hazard existed at all times material hereto; (b) Posting and/or providing proper visible notice available to all members of the public walking on the sidewalk, stating that a potentially unsafe hazard existed at all times material hereto; (c) Properly inspecting the area around the potentially unsafe hazard; (d) Properly maintaining the sidewalk in a safe and prudent manner as to avoid injuries such as that suffered by Plaintiff. (ce) Maintaining a safe environment on the sidewalk for people foreseeably encountering the hazard; (f) Hiring competent and capable agents, servants and/or employees who could properly and prudently maintain the safety of the sidewalk; (g) Training competent and capable agents, servants and/or employees who could properly and prudently maintain the safety of the sidewalk at all times material hereto; and, (h) Not creating an unnecessary risk of danger to Plaintiff. ll. The injuries and damages stated herein were caused by and were the direct andproximate result of the negligence, willfulness and wantonness of Defendant 5300 WisconsinAvenue NW Owner, LLC, generally and in the following particulars: (a) In failing to properly and prudently warn all members of the public walking on the sidewalk that a potentially unsafe hazard existed at all times material hereto; (b) In failing to post and/or provide proper visible notice available to members of the public walking on the sidewalk, stating that a potentially unsafe hazard existed at all times material hereto;(c) In failing to properly inspect the area around the potentially unsafe hazard; (d) In failing to properly maintain sidewalk in a safe and prudent manner as to avoid injuries such as that suffered by Plaintiff; (e) In failing to maintain a safe environment for people foreseeably encountering the hazard; (f) In failing to hire competent and capable agents, servants and/or employees who could properly and prudently maintain the safety of the sidewalk; (g) In failing to train competent and capable agents, servants and/or employees who could properly and prudently maintain the safety of the premises at all times material hereto; and, (h) In creating an unnecessary risk of danger to Plaintiff. 12. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence, Plaintiff was caused tofall and sustained injury to all parts of her body, suffered and will suffer great pain of body and mind,and incurred and will incur medical and out-of-pocket expenses. WHEREFORE, the premises considered, Plaintiff demands judgment against theDefendant, 5300 Wisconsin Avenue NW Owner, LLC in a sum in excess of ONE HUNDREDTHOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000.00), pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs of thissuit. COUNT I Guenet Tadesse v. District of Columbia (Negligence)13. Paragraphs 1-12 (one through twelve) are incorporated by referenced as if fully restatedherein.14. On May 24, 2022, at approximately 9:45 AM, Plaintiff was walking on a publicsidewalk on 5300 Block of Wisconsin Avenue, N.W in Washington, D.C. 20015 at or near itsintersection with Western Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 15. As Plaintiff was walking to on the public sidewalk owned and maintained byDefendant District of Columbia, she tripped and fell on uneven and inadequately maintainedconcrete sidewalk. 16. There were no warning signs. 17. Plaintiff sustained significant injuries to her person as a result of this fall. 18. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was a public invitee of the Defendant and wasowed duties including but not limited to: (a) Properly and prudently warning all members of the public walking on the sidewalk that a potentially unsafe hazard existed at all times material hereto; (b) Posting and/or providing proper visible notice available to all members of the public walking on the sidewalk, stating that a potentially unsafe hazard existed at all times material hereto; (c) Properly inspecting the area around the potentially unsafe hazard; (d) Properly maintaining the sidewalk in a safe and prudent manner as to avoid injuries such as that suffered by Plaintiff. (ce) Maintaining a safe environment on the sidewalk for people foreseeably encountering the hazard; (f) Hiring competent and capable agents, servants and/or employees who could properly and prudently maintain the safety of the sidewalk; (g) Training competent and capable agents, servants and/or employees who couldproperly and prudently maintain the safety of the sidewalk at all times material hereto; and, (h) Not creating an unnecessary risk of danger to Plaintiff. 19. The injuries and damages stated herein were caused by and were the direct andproximate result of the negligence, willfulness and wantonness of Defendant District of Columbia,generally and in the following particulars: (a) In failing to properly and prudently warn all members of the public walking on the sidewalk that a potentially unsafe hazard existed at all times material hereto; (b) In failing to post and/or provide proper visible notice available to members of the public walking on the sidewalk, stating that a potentially unsafe hazard existed at all times material hereto; (c) In failing to properly inspect the area around the potentially unsafe hazard; (d) In failing to properly maintain sidewalk in a safe and prudent manner as to avoid injuries such as that suffered by Plaintiff; (e) In failing to maintain a safe environment for people foreseeably encountering the hazard; (f) In failing to hire competent and capable agents, servants and/or employees who could properly and prudently maintain the safety of the sidewalk; (g) In failing to train competent and capable agents, servants and/or employees who could properly and prudently maintain the safety of the premises at all times material hereto; and, (h) In creating an unnecessary risk of danger to Plaintiff. 20. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence, Plaintiff was caused tofall and sustained injury to all parts of her body, suffered and will suffer great pain of body and mind,and incurred and will incur medical and out-of-pocket expenses. WHEREFORE, the premises considered, Plaintiff demands judgment against theDefendant District of Columbia, in a sum in excess of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS($100,000.00), pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs of this suit. Respectfully Submitted, MALLOY LAW OFFICES, LLC By: /s/ Seann Patrick Malloy, Esq. Seann Patrick Malloy, Esq., #490343 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 1250 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 (p): (202) 464-0727 (£); (888) 607-8691 seann@malloy-law.com /s/ Anaek S. Johal, Esq. Anaek S. Johal, Esq., #1027320 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 1250 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 (p): (202) 464-0727 (£); (888) 607-8691 anaek@malloy-law.com JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs demand trial by jury on all issues so triable. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Anaek S. Johal, Esq. Anaek S. Johal, Esq., #1027320Superior Court of the District of Columbia CIVIL DIVISION - CIVIL ACTIONS BRANCH INFORMATION SHEET Guenet Tadesse Case Number: Plaintifi(s) vs Date: 07/17/2024 5300 Wisconsin Avenue NW Owner, LLC and District of Columbia v | One of the defendants is being sued Defendant(s) in their official capacity. Name: (Please Print) Relationship to Lawsuit Anaek S. Johal, Esq Firm Name: Attorney for Plaintiff Malloy Law Offices, LLC LO Self (Pro Se) Telephone No.: DC Bar No.: (202) 464-0727 oO Other: 1027320 TYPE OF CASE: []Non-Jury Person Jury oO 12 Person Jury Demand: $ 100,000.00 Other: PENDING CASE(S) RELATED TO THE ACTION BEING FILED Case No.: Judge: Calendar #: Case No.: Judge: Calendar #:NATURE OF SUIT: (Check One Box Only)CONTRACT COLLECTION/INS. SUB EMPLOYMENT DISPUTEOo Breach of Contract C1 Debt Collection [Breach of Contract(1 Breach of Warranty [J Insurance Subrogation Di Discrimination[1 Condo/Homeowner Assn. Fees _[] Motion/Application for Judgment by Confession Wage ClaimC1 Contract Enforcement CD Motion/Application Regarding Arbitration Award [_] Whistle BlowerCD Negotiable Instrument CO Wrongful TerminationREAL PROPERTY 7 FRIENDLY suIT1 Condo/Homeowner Assn. Foreclosure [[] Ejectment OD other [HOUSING CODE REGULATIONS1 Declaratory Judgment LZ Eminent Domain oO Quiet Title 0 our tamLZ Drug Related Nuisance Abatement oO Interpleader LC Specific Performance [STRUCTURED SETTLEMENTSADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AGENCY APPEALD7 Aadministrative Search Warrant LZ Release Mechanics Lien [7 Dangerous Animal Determination[14pp. for Entry of Jgt. Defaulted Compensation Benefits [_] Request for Subpoena C1 nces Residency Appeal(Enter Administrative Order as Judgment MALPRACTICE 1 Merit Personnel Act (OEA)[7 Libel of Information C1 Medical — Other CO Merit Personnel Act (OHR)Master Meter O wrongful Death F Other Agency Appeal[Petition Other (APPLICATION FOR INTERNATIONAL FOREIGN JUDGMENT CV-496/February 2023Information Sheet, ContinuedCIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE TORTDi currency Abuse of ProcessD0 other Assault/BatteryLD Real Property ConversionDD Vehicle False Arrest/Malicious ProsecutionNAME CHANGE/VITAL RECORD AMENDMENT Libel/Slander/DefamationL Birth Certificate Amendment Personal InjuryoO Death Certificate Amendment Toxic MassLD Gender Amendment Wrongful Death (Non-Medical Malpractice)[Name ChangeGENERAL CIVIL Product Liability STATUTORY CLAIMD1 Accounting Request for Liquidation LD Anti - SLAPP[1 Deceit (Misrepresentation) Li writ of Replevin C1 Consumer Protection ActO Fraud (Wrongful Eviction C1 Exploitation of Vulnerable AdultLH tevasion of Privacy CIVIL 1/COMPLEX CIVIL 1 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)D1 Lead Paint D1 Asbestos D1 other[Legal Malpractice MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE TAX SALE FORECLOSURELi Motion/Application Regarding Arbitration Award [Non-Residential 7 Tax Sale Annual [Other - General Civil LiResidentia DD Tax Sale Bid OffVEHICLE [CI TRAFFIC ADJUDICATION APPEALLi Personal Injury[7 Property Damage (REQUEST FOR FOREIGN JUDGMENT /s/ Anaek S. Johal, Esq. (#1027320) 07/17/2024 Filer/Attorney’s Signature Date CV-496/February 2023Superior Court of the District of Columbia ee m CIVIL DIVISION ve ey 8 Civil Actions Branch 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Suite 5000 Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 879-1133 Website: www.dccourts.gov Plaintiff vs. Case Number Defendant SUMMONS To the above named Defendant: You are hereby summoned and required to serve an Answer to the attached Complaint, either personally or through an attorney, within twenty one (21) days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you are being sued as an officer or agency of the United States Government or the District of Columbia Government, you have sixty (60) days after service of this summons to serve your Answer. A copy of the Answer must be mailed to the attorney for the plaintiff who is suing you. The attorney’s name and address appear below. If plaintiff has no attorney, a copy of the Answer must be mailed to the plaintiff at the address stated on this Summons. You are also required to file the original Answer with the Court in Suite 5000 at 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Mondays through Fridays or between 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon on Saturdays. You may file the original Answer with the Court either before you serve a copy of the Answer on the plaintiff or within seven (7) days after you have served the plaintiff. If you fail to file an Answer, judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. Clerk of the Court Name of Plaintiffs Attorney By Address Deputy Clerk Date Telephone‘075 HE, WHIT BAK (202) 879-4828 Veuillez appeler au (202) 879-4828 pour une traduction Dé c6 mdt bai dich, hay goi (202) 879-4828 HOS Pet Ale, (202)879-48288 HTML PAMICT FCP APTTTT (202) 879-4828 Lean IMPORTANT: IF YOU FAIL TO FILE AN ANSWER WITHIN THE TIME STATED ABOVE, OR IF, AFTER YOU ANSWER, YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT ANY TIME THE COURT NOTIFIES YOU TO DO SO, A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU FOR THE MONEY DAMAGES OR OTHER RELIEF DEMANDED IN THE COMPLAINT. IF THIS OCCURS, YOUR WAGES MAY BE ATTACHED OR WITHHELD OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OR REAL ESTATE YOU OWN MAY BE TAKEN AND SOLD TO PAY THE JUDGMENT. IF YOU INTEND TO OPPOSE THIS ACTION, DO NOT FAIL TO ANSWER WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME. If you wish to talk to a lawyer and feel that you cannot afford to pay a fee to a lawyer, promptly contact one of the offices of the Legal Aid Society (202-628-1161) or the Neighborhood Legal Services (202-279-5100) for help or come to Suite 5000 at 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., for more information concerning places where you may ask for such help. See reverse side for Spanish translation Vea al dorso la traduccidn al espaiiolCV-3110 [Rev. June 2017] Super. Ct. Civ. R.4TRIBUNAL SUPERIOR DEL DISTRITO DE COLUMBIA Se DIVISION CIVIL Seccién de Acciones Civiles 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Suite 5000, Washington, D.C. 20001 Sy SR S Teléfono: (202) 879-1133 Sitio web: www.dccourts.gov Fog 60° Demandante contra Ntimero de Caso: Demandado CITATORIO Al susodicho Demandado: Por la presente se le cita a comparecer y se le require entregar una Contestacion a la Demanda adjunta, sea en persona o por medio de un abogado, en el plazo de veintitin (21) dias contados después que usted haya recibido este citatorio, excluyendo el dia mismo de la entrega del citatorio. Si usted esta siendo demandado en calidad de oficial o agente del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica o del Gobierno del Distrito de Columbia, tiene usted sesenta (60) dias, contados después que usted haya recibido este citatorio, para entregar su Contestacién. Tiene que enviarle por correo una copia de su Contestacién al abogado de la parte demandante. El nombre y direccién del abogado aparecen al final de este documento. Si el demandado no tiene abogado, tiene que enviarle al demandante una copia de la Contestacién por correo a la direccién que aparece en este Citatorio. A usted también se le require presentar la Contestacion original al Tribunal en la Oficina 5000, sito en 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., entre las 8:30 a.m. y 5:00 p.m., de lunes a viernes 0 entre las 9:00 a.m. y las 12:00 del mediodia los sabados. Usted puede presentar la Contestacién original ante el Juez ya sea antes que usted le entregue al demandante una copia de la Contestacién o en el plazo de siete (7) dias de haberle hecho la entrega al demandante. Si usted incumple con presentar una Contestacion, podria dictarse un fallo en rebeldia contra usted para que se haga efectivo el desagravio que se busca en la demanda. SECRETARIO DEL TRIBUNAL Nombre del abogado del Demandante Por: Direccién Subsecretario Fecha Teléfono ‘075 HE, WHIT BAK (202) 879-4828 Veuillez appeler au (202) 879-4828 pour une traduction Dé c6 mot bai hay goi (202) 879-4828 taee> late ITE 202) 879-4828 SSSAMNGo PATICS TCV ATITT (202) 879-4828 Lea IMPORTANTE: SI USTED INCUMPLE CON PRESENTAR UNA CONTESTACION EN EL PLAZO ANTES MENCIONADO O, SI LUEGO DE CONTESTAR, USTED NO COMPARECE CUANDO LE AVISE EL JUZGADO, PODRIA DICTARSE UN FALLO EN REBELDIA CONTRA USTED PARA QUE SE LE COBRE LOS DANOS Y PERJUICIOS U OTRO DESAGRAVIO QUE SE BUSQUE EN LA DEMANDA. SI ESTO OCURRE, PODR{A RETENERSELE SUS INGRESOS, O PODRIA TOMARSELE SUS BIENES PERSONALES O BIENES RAICES Y SER VENDIDOS PARA PAGAR EL FALLO. SI USTED PRETENDE OPONERSE A ESTA ACCION, NO DEJE DE CONTESTAR LA DEMANDA DENTRO DEL PLAZO EXIGIDO. Si desea conversar con un abogado y le parece que no puede pagarle a uno, llame pronto a una de nuestras oficinas del Legal Aid Society (202-628-1161) o el Neighborhood Legal Services (202-279-5100) para pedir ayuda o venga a la Oficina 5000 del 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., para informarse sobre otros lugares donde puede pedirayuda al respecto. Vea al dorso el original en inglés See reverse side for English originalCV-3110 [Rev. June 2017] Super. Ct. Civ. R. 4

Related Contentin District of Columbia

Case

Lisa Lee Johnson v. Walmart, Inc.

Jul 17, 2024 |Tunnage, Donald Walker |Tort |2024-CAB-004499

Case

Alexis N Poston v. United Services Automobile Association

Jul 15, 2024 |Kravitz, Neal E |Vehicle |2024-CAB-004429

Case

Naimah Simkins et al. v. Tania Alvarado-Aguillon et al.

Jul 18, 2024 |Matini, Shana Frost |Tort |2024-CAB-004505

Case

Lorenzo Graham v. Nash Holdings LLC et al.

Jul 18, 2024 |Ross, Carl |Tort |2024-CAB-004502

Case

Antonio Johnson v. Brionna Parker et al.

Jul 12, 2024 |McKenna, Juliet J |Vehicle |2024-CAB-004398

Case

Tyrone Smith v. Leila Young

Jul 18, 2024 |McKenna, Juliet J |Vehicle |2024-CAB-004524

Case

Dennis Butler v. Mulugojam Adane Nigatu

Jul 18, 2024 |Tunnage, Donald Walker |Vehicle |2024-CAB-004532

Case

Henniette Djawa v. Adane Bogale

Jul 12, 2024 |Tunnage, Donald Walker |Vehicle |2024-CAB-004424

Ruling

BENTON, et al. vs CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, et al.

Jul 16, 2024 |Civil Unlimited (Other Non-Personal Injury/Pro...) |22CV005828

22CV005828: BENTON, et al. vs CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, et al. 07/16/2024 Hearing on Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice filed by Anthony Swetala (Plaintiff) + in Department 21Tentative Ruling - 07/02/2024 Noël WiseThe Motion to Be Admitted Pro Hac Vice filed by Ralph Milan, Joyce Benton, Melissa Greco,Anthony Swetala on 06/18/2024 is Granted.Pursuant to Government Code section 70617(e)(2), on or before the anniversary of the date ofthis order Pro Hac Vice Applicant ANTONIO VOZZOLO shall pay a renewal fee of fivehundred dollars ($500) for each year that Pro Hac Vice Applicant maintains pro hac vice statusin this case. The Court hereby sets a compliance hearing for 08/25/2025 at 01:30 PM inDepartment 21 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse. If the renewal fee has been paid at least 10calendar days before the hearing, no appearance will be required.PLEASE NOTE: This tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if uncontested by04:00pm the day before your hearing. If you wish to contest the tentative ruling, then both notifyopposing counsel directly and the court at the eCourt portal found on the court’s website:www.alameda.courts.ca.gov.If you have contested the tentative ruling or your tentative ruling reads, “parties to appear,”please use the following link to access your hearing at the appropriate date and time:https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/department21 . If no party has contested thetentative ruling, then no appearance is necessary.

Ruling

Figueroa vs. State of California (Department of Social Services), et al.

Jul 15, 2024 |22CV-0200829

SOCIAL SERVICES), ET AL.Case Number: 22CV-0200829This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of default and trial setting. This case wasfiled in October of 2022, but is still not at issue. Doe Defendant La-Z-Boy Incorporated was servedon December 4, 2023, but has not yet appeared. The Court has received and executed a stipulatedorder re filing of a Second Amended Complaint. The Court will therefore continue this matter 60days to allow said Complaint to be filed and served. The Court continues this matter to September16, 2024 at 9:00 p.m. in Dept. 64. The parties are to file with the Court a Status ConferenceStatement 5 days prior thereto. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

Ruling

ZHOIE PEREZ VS SANDRA NGAYAN, ET AL.

Jul 17, 2024 |24NWCV00022

Case Number: 24NWCV00022 Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 Dept: C ZHOIE PEREZ v. SANDRA NGAYAN, et al. CASE NO.: 24NWCV00022 HEARING: 7/17/24 @ 9:30 A.M. #6 TENTATIVE RULING Defendants Sandra Ngayan and Francisco Alejandro Ngayans demurrer to Plaintiffs first amended complaint is CONTINUED to July 23, 2024 at 9:30 A.M. in Dept. SE-C. Moving Party to give NOTICE. The motion is unopposed as of July 15, 2024. This is a status hearing. At the June 12, 2024 hearing, the Court learned that Plaintiff was incarcerated. According to Court records, it appears Plaintiff is held without bail in People v. Zhoie Perez, Case No. PA098371-01. Her Probation and Sentencing Hearing on June 26, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in San Fernando Courthouse, Dept. 1 was continued October 9, 2024. Plaintiff remains in custody for the criminal case. The Court has been in contact with Rosemary Chavez, new counsel for Plaintiff in the criminal matter, and has invited her to make a limited appearance in this case and to update the Court on the criminal matter.

Ruling

Jul 17, 2024 |22CV-0200316

MARTINEZ VS. PG&E CORPORATION, ET AL.Case Number: 22CV-0200316This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of coordinated proceeding. This matter iscurrently coordinated as JCCP No. 5165 in the San Francisco County Superior Court. The Courthas received status statements from Plaintiff and Defendants, which indicate the dismissal withprejudice of Plaintiff’s action (following summary judgment) is currently under appeal. The partiesrequest continuance pending appeal. Today’s hearing is continued to Monday, January 13, 2025,at 9:00 a.m. in Department 64. The parties are ordered to file a status report at least five courtdays prior to the continued hearing date. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.MASON VS. CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS LLC, ET

Ruling

ORTEGA vs MILLER

Jul 15, 2024 |CVPS2305851

Motion to Compel: Answer/Response toCVPS2305851 ORTEGA vs MILLERSpecial Interrogatories by THERESA MILLERTentative Ruling: No tentative ruling. A hearing will be conducted. Trial counsel are ordered to appearin person in Department PS1. No telephonic or video appearances will be permitted. Counsel shouldbe prepared to address in detail whether verified discovery responses were served in May 2024, priorto the time this motion was filed.Based on its review of the pleadings, the Court finds it is necessary to remind all counsel that civilityand professionalism among counsel should be the norm and not the exception. Counsel need notalways agree, but their disagreements, especially when relayed to the Court, should be free of rancorunbecoming of legal professionals.No further briefing of any kind may be filed.

Ruling

MANISCALCO, ANTHONY vs TURLOCK RV CENTER INC

Jul 17, 2024 |CV-24-002994

CV-24-002994 – MANISCALCO, ANTHONY vs TURLOCK RV CENTER INC – Defendants’ Turlock RV Center, Inc, Hudson Insurance Company and Bank of America’s Petition to Compel Arbitration – GRANTED.Defendants have established the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate between Plaintiff and Turlock RV Center, Inc. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.)With regard to Plaintiff’s claim of unconscionability, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that the fee and cost provisions in the agreement are inappropriate, as they have the effect of denying Plaintiff the rights and remedies he would have if he were to proceed in court. (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83; Serafin v Balco Properties, Ltd., LLC (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 165.) That being said, the Court finds that this element of unconscionability does not so permeate the arbitration agreement that the flawed attorney fees and costs provisions cannot be severed and the balance of the agreement enforced. (Serafin, supra, at 183-184.)Therefore, the Court exercises its discretion to grant the motion herein, conditioned on Plaintiff being afforded the opportunity to seek in arbitration all statutory remedies provided for under the CLRA, including an award of attorney’s fees and costs, should he prevail on his CLRA claim.As the remaining Defendants are not parties to the arbitration agreement, the matter is stayed pending completion of the arbitration proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.4.)

Ruling

JOHN VU VS JEFFREY GEGIELSKI

Jul 17, 2024 |22STCV20052

Case Number: 22STCV20052 Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 Dept: 74 McDaniel v. Colaianni et al. Defendants Motion to Correct and Confirm Arbitration Award BACKGROUND Plaintiff April McDaniel sued defendants Rodrigue Colaianni and Lisa Colaianni aka Lisa Leroy on September 14, 2022 for (1) breach of contract, (2) negligence, (3) fraud, (4) negligent misrepresentation, and (5) concealment. Plaintiff alleged Defendants knowingly sold her a home replete with construction defects after Defendants negligently remodeled it. On October 31, 2022, the parties stipulated to arbitrate their claims and stay court proceedings in the interim. The arbitrator, Ernest C. Brown, issued a twenty-six-page Final Award on April 19, 2024, awarding Plaintiff $391,114.50, accruing simple interest at 10% annually from the date of the award. (D.Ex. 10, 26:2-7 (Award).) On May 28, 2024, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Confirm the Arbitration Award With Corrections by Striking the Award of Attorneys fees and Pre-Judgment Interest. On July 3, 2024, Plaintiff opposed. On July 10, 2024, Defendants replied. LEGAL STANDARD ¿¿ Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.) If a petition or response under [section 1285] is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made ... , unless in accordance with this chapter it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding. (Id., § 1286.) [T]he court ... shall correct the award and confirm it as corrected if the court determines that: (a) There was an evident miscalculation of figures or an evident mistake in the description of any person, thing or property referred to in the award; (b) The arbitrators exceeded their powers but the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted; or (c) The award is imperfect in a matter of form, not affecting the merits of the controversy. (Id., ¶ 1286.6.) [A]n arbitrator's decision is not generally reviewable for errors of fact or law, whether or not such error appears on the face of the award and causes substantial injustice to the parties. (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase¿(1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 6.) An arbitrator does not exceed their powers by assigning an erroneous reason for their decision. (Id. at 28.) Arbitrators do not exceed their statutory powers merely by rendering an erroneous decision on a legal or factual issue, so long as the issue was within the scope of the controversy submitted to the arbitrators. (Roehl v. Ritchie (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 338, 348.) DISCUSSION 1. Attorneys Fees Defendants move the Court to strike the arbitrators $87,320.00 attorneys fees award. Defendants mistakenly suggest that the award of attorneys fees and the award of interest [by the arbitrator] are reviewed de novo but the authorities they cite refer to the standard a higher court applies when reviewing a lower courts fees determination. (Mot., 3:27-28.) When a trial court reviews an arbitrators decision, the standard is more deferential, as described above. (See Moncharsh, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 6.) Defendants argue Plaintiff is not entitled to fees because she did not attempt to mediate with them before resorting to legal action. The arbitrator found differently. The Final Award includes findings that on May 25, 2022, Plaintiffs counsel demanded prompt mediation, and between June and August 2022, Plaintiff requested that Respondents participate in an early mediation and Respondents and its [sic] counsel did nothing and refused to agree to mediate. (Award, 14:20-26, 15:7-14.) Defendants ask the Court to reverse the arbitrators factual determinations, not to correct them. The Court cannot do so. [P]arties who enter into arbitration agreements are presumed to know the arbitrators decision will be final and binding; arbitral finality is a core component of the parties agreement to submit to arbitration. (SingerLewak LLP v. Gantman (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 610, 616, quoting Moncharsh, supra, at pp. 6, 10.) The Court defers to the arbitrators finding of fact that Plaintiff tried to mediate and Defendants refused. The arbitrator was thus empowered to award fees. 2. Prejudgment Interest Defendants contend the arbitrators award is not clear and unequivocal as to the scope of interest awarded. (Mot., 10:23-25 [heading].) The contention is unavailing because the award is straightforward. The arbitrator awarded Plaintiff 10% simple annual interest beginning on the date of the award. That rate will continue after judgment. The arbitrator simply formalized the date on which damages were capable of being ascertained for purposes of post-award, prejudgment interest. 3. Attorneys Fees for This Motion A party entitled to attorneys fees in an arbitration award is similarly entitled to fees incurred to confirm it, where fees are otherwise authorized by the parties contract. (See Carole Ring & Associates v. Nicastro (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 253, 260-261.) The prevailing partys right to fees extends from Code of Civil Procedure section 1293.2, entitling a party to costs after a successful petition to confirm, and Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(10), incorporating attorneys fees within costs when authorized by contract. Here, the parties contract authorized a fees award. (See Mot. Ex. 1, ¶ 25 [reasonable fees to prevailing party [i]n any action, proceeding, or arbitration between the parties arising out of [their] Agreement].) The arbitrator determined Plaintiff to be the prevailing party and awarded fees. The Court awards Plaintiff the costs of litigating this petition based on section 1293.2, and per section 1033.5, those costs include Plaintiffs fees. Plaintiffs two attorneys charge a reasonable hourly rate of $400.00 based on their experience and qualifications. (Markow Dec., ¶¶ 17-19.) Counsel Ari Markow estimates his colleague spent 15.4 hours reading and analyzing Defendants motion, conducting legal research, and writing the opposition, and Markow himself spent 2.2 hours discussing the motion, case status, and strategy with Plaintiff, and reviewing and finalizing [counsels] declaration and related exhibits. (Id., ¶ 21 [typo omitted].) Markow estimated 3.5 hours reviewing a reply brief and appearing at the hearing. Plaintiffs counsels billing is slightly excessive. 2.2 hours spent meeting with the client about a single law and motion matter is unnecessary, as is 3.5 hours to review the reply and prepare for the hearing on a straightforward legal issue. The Court will award 15.0 hours, in total, to review the motion and reply and prepare the opposition, and 1.0 hours to prepare for and attend the hearing, which can be accomplished remotely. The Court awards $6,400.00 in attorneys fees. 4. Prejudgment Interest The Court also calculates interest from April 19, 2024, through date of judgment as follows: ten percent, divided by three-hundred sixty five, multiplied by the total award of $391,114.50, results in a $107.15 per diem accrual. Eighty-nine (89) days passed between the award on April 19, 2024 and the judgment on July 17, 2024; $107.15 multiplied by 89 is $9,536.35. CONCLUSION The Court denies Defendants petition to correct the arbitration award. The Court confirms the award as rendered and enters judgment for Plaintiff against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $413,450.85, inclusive of attorneys fees and interest accrued to the date of judgment.

Ruling

M. vs GONGCO FOODS

Jul 15, 2024 |CVRI2304396

MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT ON2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOROTHER PERSONALCVRI2304396 M. VS GONGCO FOODS INJURY/PROPERTYDAMAGE/WRONGFUL DEATH TORT(OVER $25,000) OF X. M. BY THEPEGGS COMPANY, INC.Tentative Ruling:The Motion is denied. The Second Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges the ultimate factssupporting a claim for punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3294.

Document

Lisa Lee Johnson v. Walmart, Inc.

Jul 17, 2024 |Tunnage, Donald Walker |Tort |2024-CAB-004499

Document

Bandhana Bajaj v. Calanit (J.J.s Mom) Kedem

Jul 18, 2024 |Williams, Yvonne |Tort |2024-CAB-004498

Document

PRINCESS CAT-EL v. LABCORP

Jul 18, 2024 |Dayson, Danya A |Tort |2024-CAB-004480

Document

Guenet Tadesse v. 5300 Wisconson Avenue NW Owner, LLC et al.

Jul 17, 2024 |Lee, Milton C |Tort |2024-CAB-004501

Document

Naimah Simkins et al. v. Tania Alvarado-Aguillon et al.

Jul 18, 2024 |Matini, Shana Frost |Tort |2024-CAB-004505

Document

Nefertiti Morris et al. v. Jose Martinez

Jul 18, 2024 |Williams, Yvonne |Vehicle |2024-CAB-004526

Document

Lorenzo Graham v. Nash Holdings LLC et al.

Jul 18, 2024 |Ross, Carl E |Tort |2024-CAB-004502

Document

Khalil Perry et al. v. Alejandro Chavez

Jul 14, 2024 |Matini, Shana Frost |Tort |2024-CAB-004412

Complaint Filed - Docketed on: 07/18/2024 July 17, 2024 (2024)

FAQs

How much is the Camp Lejeune lawsuit going to payout? ›

Camp Lejeune lawsuit settlement payouts for contaminated water exposure is estimated to be over $21 billion. Victims who pursue a Camp Lejeune toxic water claim will receive lucrative settlements which could be well over $1 million in some cases.

Has anyone received any money from the Roundup lawsuit? ›

March 2019: Jury awards a $2 billion verdict to over 9,000 plaintiffs who claimed that Roundup caused their cancer. Monsanto liable to pay. June 2020: Bayer agrees to a $10.9 billion Roundup settlement with over 125,000 plaintiffs who filed Roundup cases.

What are the payouts for Camp Lejeune 2024? ›

As of July 2024, a total of $14.7 million in Camp Lejeune payouts has been made, showing forward movement in the Camp Lejeune settlement timeline. Here are the latest Camp Lejeune litigation statistics: 261,293+ Administrative claims filed with the Navy. 1,825 Camp Lejeune lawsuits filed.

What is the average settlement per person for Roundup? ›

The average Roundup lawsuit payout is between $5,000 to $250,000 in compensation, however, it's important to note that every lawsuit is different.

What percentage do lawyers get for a Camp Lejeune settlement? ›

Attorney Fees Are 20-25% With Any Camp Lejeune Settlement or Judgment.

What are tier 2 claims at Camp Lejeune? ›

Tier II Claims

To qualify for Tier II benefits, claimants must provide medical evidence establishing a connection between their diagnosed conditions and exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune.

How long does it take to get a Roundup settlement check? ›

Successful plaintiffs may have to wait two to three years to receive a Roundup settlement. Bayer has offered settlements, but it may take years to settle all claims because there are more than 100,000 active Roundup lawsuits. Plaintiffs must sign documents for lawyers for both sides, which can be a lengthy procedure.

What is the average MDL payout? ›

How Much Are MDL Settlement Amounts? Victim compensation in an MDL varies wildly. Some average over $1 million per victim, and some are only a few thousand dollars. Most MDL class action settlement amounts are less than you would expect if you prevailed at trial.

What cancers qualify for Roundup settlement? ›

Cancers that qualify for Roundup lawsuits may include:
  • B-cell lymphoma.
  • Burkitt lymphoma.
  • Chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
  • Follicular lymphoma.
  • Hairy cell leukemia.
  • Lymphoblastic lymphoma.
  • Mantle cell lymphoma.
  • Marginal zone lymphoma.
Jul 8, 2024

What neurological disorders are caused by the Camp Lejeune lawsuit? ›

Neuropsychological Disorders: Children who lived or worked on Camp Lejeune during their childhood were more likely to develop neuropsychological disorders, such as attention deficit disorder (ADD), learning disability, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and autism.

Is the Camp Lejeune bill passed? ›

The Camp Lejeune Justice Act was signed into law by the Biden Administration as part of the Honoring Our PACT Act in August 2022.

How many claims have been filed against Camp Lejeune? ›

As of June 2024, Camp Lejeune litigation continues to expand, and the first families have started to receive compensation from their claims. While more than 1,800 lawsuits and over 232,000 administrative claims have been filed, time is running out for additional victims to take action.

What proof do you need for a Roundup lawsuit? ›

To file a lawsuit against the manufacturer of Roundup, individuals may collect certain pieces of evidence, including receipts of purchase, partially used containers, invoices for landscaping work, proof of employment in an industry with herbicide exposure, medical records showing a diagnosis linking cancer to Roundup ...

Has anyone received a settlement from Roundup? ›

As of March 2024, Monsanto has reached settlement agreements in nearly 100,000 Roundup lawsuits. Monsanto paid approximately $11 billion.

How much does Medicare take from a Roundup settlement? ›

The document features a compromise provision that allowed Medicare to only deduct 30% of the plaintiffs' settlement amount from the payout. It only took effect if the settlement failed to cover medical costs. The Roundup Medicare lien program got major updates between 2021 and 2022.

How many people filed for Camp Lejeune lawsuit? ›

As of July 2024, over 1,800 Camp Lejeune lawsuits have been filed in North Carolina federal court. In addition, over 261,000 administrative claims have been submitted. So far, the federal government has made Camp Lejeune settlement payouts totaling $14.7 million.

How much did the Family Dollar settlement pay? ›

WASHINGTON, Feb 26 (Reuters) - Family Dollar Stores LLC pleaded guilty on Monday to storing food, drugs and cosmetics in unsanitary conditions in a rodent-infested Arkansas warehouse and has agreed to pay $41.675 million, the U.S. Justice Department said. Family Dollar Stores, a subsidiary of Dollar Tree Inc. (DLTR.

What is the VA disability rating for Camp Lejeune water contamination? ›

The VA disability rating for Camp Lejeune water contamination is determined on a case-by-case basis, considering the severity and impact of the health condition. Veterans can receive a rating between 0% and 100%, which affects the amount of disability compensation they receive.

Top Articles
The Gleaner from Henderson, Kentucky
The Messenger from Madisonville, Kentucky
Happel Real Estate
Spectrum Store Appointment
Flanagan-Watts Funeral Home Obituaries
Royal Bazaar Farmers Market Tuckernuck Drive Richmond Va
Forum Phun Extra
Australian Gold zonbescherming review - Verdraaid Mooi
Www.myschedule.kp.org
Review: Chained Echoes (Switch) - One Of The Very Best RPGs Of The Year
50 budget recipes to feed a large crowd
Convert Ng Dl To Pg Ml
Cbse Score Conversion 2022
Uwa Schedule
Weather Channel Quincy
Bailu Game8
Karen Canelon Only
Greater Keene Men's Softball
The Guardian Crossword Answers - solve the daily Crossword
.Au Domain Godaddy
Sky Park Stl Coupon
Thermal Pants Mens Walmart
Blackboard Qcc
636-730-9503
Rochester Ny Missed Connections
Ck3 Culture Map
Only Murders In The Building Wiki
Buffalo Bills Football Reference
Best Auto Upholstery Shops Near Me
Ktbs Payroll Login
2014 Chevy Malibu Belt Diagram
When Is Meg Macnamara Due
Joy Jenkins Barnett Obituary
Welcome To Vioc Pos
Craigslist Hunting Land For Lease In Ga
What Is The Solution To The Equation Below Mc010-1.Jpg
Top Chef Airer Nyt Crossword Clue
Dpsmypepsico
Mellow Mushroom Nutrition Facts: What to Order & Avoid
Supercopbot Keywords
Alt J Artist Presale Code
Heffalumps And Woozles Racist
R/Moissanite
Directions To Pnc Near Me
Milwaukee Zoo Ebt Discount
Dermpathdiagnostics Com Pay Invoice
Best Blox Fruit For Grinding
Trinity Portal Minot Nd
Ap Chem 2022 Frq Scoring Guidelines
Dairy Queen Blizzards: Our Updated Rankings
H'aanit's Third Chapter | Gamer Guides: Your ultimate sou...
Rs3 Master Hidey Holes
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Sen. Ignacio Ratke

Last Updated:

Views: 5497

Rating: 4.6 / 5 (56 voted)

Reviews: 87% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Sen. Ignacio Ratke

Birthday: 1999-05-27

Address: Apt. 171 8116 Bailey Via, Roberthaven, GA 58289

Phone: +2585395768220

Job: Lead Liaison

Hobby: Lockpicking, LARPing, Lego building, Lapidary, Macrame, Book restoration, Bodybuilding

Introduction: My name is Sen. Ignacio Ratke, I am a adventurous, zealous, outstanding, agreeable, precious, excited, gifted person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.