Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Stewart Vs Uber

    Uploaded by

    SuperAdventureDoug
    65 views13 pages

    Original Title

    Stewart vs Uber

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    65 views13 pages

    Stewart Vs Uber

    Uploaded by

    SuperAdventureDoug

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 13
    TUM SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. Document Scanning Lead Sheet Oct-28-2015 9:56 am Case Number: CGC-15-548659 Filing Date: Oct-28-2015 9:46 Filed by: ARLENE RAMOS | Juke Box: 001 Image: 05133324 COMPLAINT SAM STEWART VS. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ET AL 001005133324 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned. suPons e SUM100 (CITACION JUDICIAL) (col B STS Ober NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): corporation; ROBERTO ORDUNA DAVID, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: SAM STEWART, an (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): individual 'NOTIGEI You have been sued, The court may decide againel you wihout your being heard unless you respond wahin 0 days, Read the information below. "You have 20 CALENDAR DAYS alter this eummans andl Jeg papers are serve on you to fle a waton response at this court and have a copy served onthe plain ltr oF phone cal wil no protect you. Your writen response ust bein proper legal or Hf you want the cout 1 heat your {aco There may be a court foem tht you can use for your response. You an find those cout forma and more information atte Caloris Courts rine Sei Cera we Ey ), Your count law Bbrary. oF he courthouse nearest you. you cannot pay the fg fee, ask {he court ear fora fee waver form. IT you do not Ho you reeponae on time, you may lose the case by defaul, and your wages, money, a Propet | may be taken without further warnng from the cour. "hereafter egl requrerern. You may want o cal an stemey igh way. you do nt know an atone, you may wart calan eto ‘efor orca you camot sore sou ray be lghe fe ga serdens form nonprott gel srs propa You ean bese ibs a Logu Utices Web se nr lanetpeaiora cp ra Calera Courts Ove Sasi Corer, {Reve noc groupe atthe Gakoria (weww.courtinfo. Ca. goviseltheip), oF by ‘local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has 2 statutory lhen for waived fees and baton ay sotto action award of $10,000 or mare a Gv cave, The cours bon must be pel fee the cour wl mse te ese ‘fins hn ‘si ‘conto do 30 clas, a cafe puede cece an su cos sh escuchar tu vera” Lee le romecn @ “Tene 90 DAS DE CALENDARIO despu de que fe errequen esta clactn y papeles loses ara prosentr ue respuesta por esto on asta carfsyhacor gue so onreque une cape a Comancarte i ara una made elf noe profegen Su respuesta por avarto Bore qv eter Sn forte iogacoacto desea gue procesen tu caso on ecole, Es posta quo hye un frmear ave usted pueda tear para Sy respuesta. Puede encores orate decoy més rome on of Cano de Aju de ae Coro do Colle wn co cv ‘Bbhotog do loyes db condadoo en ecote que quece mas cos. Se puede pega ota Ge prsortoc, psa eect {ue un farmuaro de eronctn ge pave de ates Sino presenta su response tmpo,posd orca el coop incumplaent yi cote Phi Gs regaatos gees, Esrcarondable Go tte 6 un sbogadenmedatart. S10 conooe a in abogade, puede amar wun sano do ‘um lo ou a on. rambge a sbogades S110 puede pogre un abdgn. spose Ge compa con eo pars cbtaner sera gees gratatos den hte {fr fra do lr one o0 web do Cole Loge! Servions, Frenne 9 aro doe ce ae Ce Sensing opnanone cot an cota 2! ogee bolas, AVISG. Por yc Boro aorecho a recame is cucas yee coos tron per frpone i reverion sobre repre $1.00 mle ecb ta sro canna Ge BU aS de Go Ta HE : carne = inom ann de sone 3) G1 5-5486 Superior Court of the state of California “15 59 400 McAllister Street san Francisco, CA 94102-4514 ‘eer. estos: ond aphors numba of pli alorey of pan wtb an atorny. {Elomi a Gros hore dealer dt eboga dl domandae, © dl aamanorte av No no aogede, Adam Shea, Ryan Casey, Patrick Gunning (310) 477-1700 Panish Shea & Boyle, LLP, 11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 700, L.A., CA 90025 Corcounse: “Farid Yaghoubell (219) "389¢3765, Fax. (877). 989-2778 Downtown L.A. Law Group, 3470 wilshize Bivde, Ste* 634, L.A, CA 90010 are CLERK OF Gen Dept bare: OCT 282015 THE COURT 7 " F {Stoo ot snica issn ee Pea Saves of Sars Yom POSTTOT 7 dacrge de sa chaon ie ol faraaar ot of Save ot srmons, POS-010). WOTIGE'TO SHE PERSON SERVED. You are sured 1. |__| as an individual defendant. — as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): 3.) on behalt of (speci): under: |” | COP 416.10 (corporation) | CCP 416.60 (minor) | CGP 416 20 (defunct corporation) 1} CGP 416.70 (conservatee) || CCP 416-40 (essocition or partnership) [| CCP 416,80 (authorized person) |] ote (specify) 4. [| by personel delivery on (date): rots SIEme ( R | G | N A L ‘SUMMONS: sds FARED STOTT 1699 fox Lor Angeles, Cotteia 90025 PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP TIT Sonto Morica Boutvore Ste 700, 110477:1700 phone. AYNISIYO A ee wane n 10 WW 12 B 14 15 16 7 18 19 PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP ADAM SHEA, State Bar No. 166800 |shea@psblaw.com RYAN A. CASEY, State Bar No. 271865 casey@psblaw.com PATRICK K. GUNNING, State Bar No. 280457 ning@psblaw.com FiTT1 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 700 F D Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: 310.477.1700 Facsimile: 310.477.1699 OGT 28 2015 [DOWNTOWN L.A. LAW GROUP CLERK/OF THE COURT FARID YAGHOUBTIL, State Bar No. 282476 ‘farid@downtownlalaw.com 3470 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 634 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: 213.389.3765 Facsimile: 877.389.2775 Attorneys for Plaintiff Sam Stewart SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO SAM STEWART, an individual, Case No. CGC -1 5-5 4 8659 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: v 1, NEGLIGENCE UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a corporation; ROBERTO ORDUNA DAVID, | 2. NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, SUPERVISION, AND RETENTION inclusive, Defendants. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMES NOW Plaintiff, SAM STEWART, an individual, for causes of action against. Defendants, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a corporation; ROBERTO ORDUNA DAVID, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, who complains and alleges as follows: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. This personal injury action arises from a violent automobile vs. motoreycle collision which occurred on April 27, 2014, in which Plaintiff sustained significant life altering COMPLAINT Angeles, Cooma 90025 + 310477.1699 fox 10477.1700 phone ‘Sento Morica Boulevard, Se 700 PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP oes 10 w 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 injuries, including but not limited to, severe and chronic pain in the legs, knees and feet as well as broken digits on his feet. 2. Plaintiff SAM STEWART, at all times herein relevant, was and is a resident of San Francisco, California. 3. Defendant UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., (hereafter “UBER”) at all times herein relevant, was and is a resident of San Francisco, California, 4, Defendant ROBERTO ORDUNA DAVID (here after "ROBERTO", at all times herein relevant, was and is a resident of Daly City, California. 5. The true names and capacities, whether individual, plural, corporate, partnership, associate, or otherwise, of DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. The full extent of the facts linking such fictitiously sued Defendants is unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE was, and is, negligent, or in some other actionable manner, responsible for the events and happenings hereinafter referred to, and thereby negligently, or in some other actionable manner, legally and proximately caused the hereinafier described injuries and damages to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will hereafter seek leave of the Court to amend this Complaint to show the Defendants’ true names and capacities after the same have been ascertained. 6. Plaintiffs informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., at all times herein relevant was and is a corporation registered in the State of California, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant UBER is authorized to and has systematically conducted business on a regular basis in the State of California, under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California. 7. Defendant ROBERTO, at all times herein relevant, was and is a resident of Daly City, California, Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant ROBERTO was the employee and/or agent of Defendant UBER at the time of the incident that is wt 2 COMPLAINT 3104771699 fox i i i 700 phone. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP ‘Sone Monica Bovlevrd, Ste 700 eer aueon 10 n 12 2B 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 the subject of this lawsuit, that Defendant ROBERTO was acting within the course and scope of his employment for Defendant UBER at the time of the incident that is subject of this lawsuit, 8, Plaintiffs informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times mentioned herein, Defendants UBER, ROBERTO, and cach of them, including DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, were the agents, servants, employees and/or joint venturers of their co-Defendants, and leach of them, was acting within the course, scope and authority of said agency, employment and/or venture, and that each and every Defendant, as aforesaid, when acting as a principal, was negligent in the selection and hiring, retention, training and supervision of each and every other Defendant as an agent, employee, and/or joint venturer. Specifically, Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Defendant ROBERTO, at all relevant times mentioned herein, was the agent, employee, and/or joint venturer of Defendants UBER and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 9. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that, at all times relevant and mentioned herein, Defendant ROBERTO was an employee of Defendant UBER and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and in doing the acts alleged herein was acting within the course and scope of employment for said employers. 10. __Plaintiffis further informed, believes, and thereon alleges that, at all times mentioned herein, the DEFENDANTS’ VEHICLE was being operated by Defendant ROBERTO with the consent, knowledge and permission of Defendant UBER, and DOES | through 50, inclusive. 11, Onthe morning of April 27, 2014, Plaintiff SAM STEWART (hereinafter Plaintiff”), was proceeding southbound on Guerrero Street approaching the green light at the intersection of 16" street. Plaintiff was riding his 2011 Ducati 848 motorcycle vehicle identification number ZDMIXBMV 1BB015832 (hereinafter “Subject Motorcycle”). Plaintiff was wearing a helmet, abiding by the speed limit and traveling in a reasonable and safe manner when he approached the intersection of Guerrero Street and 16th (hereinafter “Subject Intersection”). At this time, Defendant ROBERTO ORDUNA was waiting to make a left-hand turn in a 2008 TOYOTA PRIUS, vehicle identi ation number JTDKB20U0878 11642, (hereinafter 3 COMPLAINT ‘31047 1499 fox ‘Sonte Monica Boulevard, Sule 702 ‘Angeles, Cattomia 9025 i : PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP wauwron 10 i 12 1B 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “Defendants’ Vehicle”). As Plaintiff was lawfully proceeding through the Subject Intersection, Defendant ROBERTO attempted a left-hand tun in violation of California Vehicle Code § 21801(a), unsafe left turn. As a result of Defendant ROBERTO’s negligent actions, Plaintiff struck the passenger side of the Defendants’ Vehicle. Plaintiff suffered severe and catastrophic injuries as a result of the collision including, but not limited to, a crushed pelvis, severe and chronic pain in the legs, knees and feet, as well as broken digits on his feet. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Nealizence Against Defendants UBER, ROBERTO and DOES 1 Through 50) 12, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation and statement contained in the prior paragraphs. 13, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times mentioned herein, Defendants UBER, ROBERTO, and DOES | through 50, inclusive, owed a duty of care to all reasonably foreseeable people, including Plaintiff, to own, lease, manage, maintain, control, entrust, and operate the Defendants’ Vehicle in a reasonable manner. 14, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times mentioned herein, Defendants UBER, ROBERTO, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, negligently owned, leased, managed, maintained, controlled, entrusted, and operated the Defendants’ Vehicle so as to breach the above-mentioned duties of care. 15. Plaintiffis informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants UBER, ROBERTO, and DOES 1 through 50, said negligent conduct in regards to the ownership, lease, management, maintenance, control, entrustment and operation of the Defendants’ Vehicle was the direct, legal and proximate cause of the injuries and damages to Plaintiff as herein alleged. 16. The aforementioned conduct of Defendants, and each of them, caused Plaintiff to suffer traumatic injuries, including but not limited to severe and chronic pain in the legs, knees ‘and feet, as well as broken digits on his feet. 17, Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the violation of, California Vehicle Code §21801(a) by Defendant ROBERTO was a substantial factor in causing COMPLAINT Lot Angeles. Cofflemio 90025 10477 1700 phone = 31047169 fox PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP ‘onto Morico Boulevard, ute 700, Stein ewe a a 10 u 2 1B 4 1s 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff accordingly alleges that Defendant ROBERTO was per se negligent for failing to yield to Plaintiff when he had the right of way and attempting to execute an unsafe Jeft-hand tum in violation of, including but not limited to, California Vehicle Code § 21801(a) about the time of the aforementioned vehicle collision. Plaintiff also alleges that at all times herein he was a person belonging to the class of persons sought to be protected by the said vehicle code section and that the violation of said vehicle code was a direct, legal and proximate cause of the injuries and damages complained of herein. 18. Asadirect, legal and proximate result of the careless and negligent conduct of Defendant ROBERTO and DOES | through 50, inclusive, as aforesaid, Plaintiff was compelled to, and did, employ the services of hospitals, physicians, surgeons, nurses, and the like, to care for and treat him, the exact amount of such losses to be stated according to proof, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.10. 19. Asadireot, legal and proximate result of the careless and negligent conduct of Defendant ROBERTO and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, as aforesaid, Plaintiff suffered lost earnings and eaming capacity, the exact amount of such losses to be stated according to proof, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.10. 20. Asadirect, legal and proximate result of the megligent conduct of Defendant ROBERTO and DOES | through 50, inclusive, Plaintiff was injured in his health, strength, and activity, sustaining injuries to her body, and shock and injury to his nervous system and person, all of which have caused, and continue to cause her great physical, mental, and nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that said injuries will result in permanent disability to him, all to his general damage in an amount which will be stated according to proof, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.10. Wt mt mt we ue COMPLAINT td Bate aus an it Bass BE 8 a Sonor et oe norte 10 ro 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ai 2 B 4 25 26 27 28 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT HIRING / RETENTION / TRAINING / SUPERVISION STEWART Against ;CHNOLOGIES, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them) 21. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation and statement contained in the prior paragraphs. 22. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times mentioned herein, Defendant ROBERTO was an employee and/or agent of Defendant UBER, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, and was acting within the course and scope of his duties for his employers and/or principals, when driving, operating, controlling, maintaining, and transporting the Defendants’ Vehicle. 23. Plaintiff's informed and believes, and thereon alleges. that at all times herein relevant, Defendant UBER and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, owed a duty of care to all reasonably foreseeable people, including Plaintiff, in the hiring, retention, training and supervision of their agents, employees, servants, and/or independent contractors, including Defendant ROBERTO, which the Defendants assigned to drive, operate, control and maintain the Defendants’ Vehicle. 24, Plaintiffs informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant UBER and DOES | through 50, inclusive, and each of them, knew or should have known that Defendant ROBERTO was unfit for the specific tasks to be performed during the course of his employment, namely driving, operating, controlling, maintaining, and transporting the Defendants! Vehicle. Thus, Defendant UBER and DOES | through 50, inclusive, and each of them, breached their duty to all reasonably foreseeable people, including the Plaintiff. 25, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times mentioned herein, Defendant UBER and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, were negligent and reckless in the hiring, retention, training, and supervision of their agents, employees, servants and/or independent contractors, including Defendant ROBERTO, which the Defendants assigned to drive, operate, control and maintain the Defendants’ Vehicle. 6 COMPLAINT 3104771699 fox Los Angeles, Conia 90025 PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 1111 Senta Manica Boulevard Ste 700, 2310477:1700 phone Sowewannewn u 12 1B 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 26. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the aforementioned negligent hiring, retention, training, and supervision of Defendant ROBERTO by Defendant UBER and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, directly, legally and proximately caused or contributed to causing the injuries and damages alleged herein. 27. Asa direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, and violation of the law by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff was injured to his health, strength and activity, sustaining injury to his body, and shock and injury to his person, all of which have caused and continue to cause Plaintiff great physical, mental, and emotional pain and suffering, Plaintiffs further informed, believes, and thereon alleges that said injuries will result in permanent disability, the exact amount of which will be stated according to proof, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §425.10. 28. Asa direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, and violation of the law by the Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff was compelled to and did employ the services of physicians, surgeons, and other medical personnel, and was compelled to and did incur other incidental expenses related to the necessary care and treatment of such injuries, the exact amount of which will be stated according to proof, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure $425.10. 29. Asa direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, and violation of the law by the Defendants, Plaintiff, by reason of his injuries, will necessarily incur additional like ‘expenses for an indefinite period of time in the future, the exact amount of which expenses will be stated according to proof, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §425.10. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against all Defendants as follows: 1. Forall medical, professional and incidental expenses, past and future, according to Proof; 2. Forloss of earnings and earning capacity, past and future, according to proof, 3. Forall other special damages, past and future, according to proof, 7 ‘COMPLAINT 1 4, Forall past and future general damages, including physical and mental pain and 2|| suffering; 3 5. Foralll costs of suit, according to proof, 4 6. All statutorily allowed damages; and 5 7. Forsuch other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. 6 7|| DATED: October 27. 2015 PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 8 9 By: 10 n ‘Atfomes for Plaintiff 12 1B 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 ‘onto Merica Boulevard, Ste 700 [os Angeles coftoma 90028 '310477:1700 pone = 3104771699 kx PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 23 24 25 2 28 8 COMPLAINT: Los Angers, Cotta 90025, 11111 Sonic Morico Boulevard Suite 700, ‘3104771700 phone. + 3107369 ex PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP Soe a awe u 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25, 26 27 DATED: October 27, 2015 DE FOR. ‘TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury as to all causes of action. PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP 9 COMPLAINT e e ue TRTORREY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY a, Site Bor mi oS FOR COURT TRE ORY TAdam Shea, Ryan Casey, Patrick Gunning (280457) Panish Shea & Boyle, LLP 11111 santa Monica Boulevard, suite 700 een eee Fade ohidnD ‘SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Francisco ‘smecraconess: 400 McAllister Street OCT 28 2018 emamparcooe San Francisco, CA 94102-4514 CLERKOF THE COURT mucnwwe Civic Center Courthouse oe, CASENAME: Stewart v. Uber, et al. GWIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation Case NR (CX) Unlimited mite (_} Counter (_] Joinder Filed with frst appearance by defendant 26,000) “rless) (Cal, Rules of Cour, ruie 3.402) cern, ‘lems 1-6 bolow must be completed (see Instructions on page 2). Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: ‘Ato Tor Contract Provitonaly Complex Chil Ligation [| ao 2) [Jreacn of contracuwarany (05) (Cal, Rules of Cour, rules 3.40-3409) | uninaured maori 46) {Ruse 2.740 cotectons (9) [J Antrutraderegiaton 03) ther PUPDIWD (Parton Iniury/Property 3. oolaconn ‘Consruction defect (1) Banaptiongt Bah Tor [=| emacs ones tanto “JAsvestes (08) [other contract (27) Secures Higaton (28) | Product aby (24) Real Property =| exwroneentaToe tort (20) (| medical mabraction 45) (eminent domaintoverse | Insurance coveroge cla arg from the {other preoawo (23 tnderaton (4) hove leted provisional compos ca ‘Non-PUPDAND (Other) Tort LJ Wrongful eviction (33) types (41) {| Business torvunair business practice (97) [| Other rel property (26) Enforcement of Judgment Jona hts (06) Uniawtul Detainee | Entorcement of usment (20) {Datamation (13) [ commercit(31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint (rau 16) (| Resident 2) [| pico @n J itetecual propey (19) [owes 8) [-) Oter compaint ro specod above (42) [___] Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition [_]Other non-PUPDWD tort (35) {7} Asset forfeiture (05) |_| Partnership and corporate goverance (21) Employment || Pettion re: arbitration award (11) |__| Other petition (not specified above) (43) Wrong eminatin (36) | Wet of mana (2) L._Jother employment (18) |__ Other judicial review (39) 2, This case] is [X]fenot complex under rule 3.400 ofthe Calfornia Rules of Court Whe cases complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management 2. [| Large numberof separately represented pares 4, |__| Large number of winesse >. =] Extensive motion practice raising dificult or novel e. |] Coordination with related actions pending none or more courts iseves that willbe time-consuming te resolve in other counties, sates or counties, orn a federal court c. | | Substantial amount of documentary evidence t. ‘Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision Remedies sought (check all that apply): a. (X'] monetary b.{ | nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. [—) puni 3 4. Number of causes of action (specify): Two (2) 5, Thiscase (—] is [XK] isnot a class action suit. 6 Di . If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You, ate: October 27, 2015 Patrick Gunning TRE OR PRT RE NOTICE 7” + Plain must file this cover sheet with the fst paper led inthe action or procaeding (exch small ciaims cases or cases fled Under the Probate Code, Famly Coda, or Welare and nstutions Code). (Ca Rules of Cour, ule 3 220) Fale toe may result in'sanctons. « File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule, + Ilthis case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. ofthe Calfomia Rules of Court, you must serve a copy ofthis cover sheet on all ‘other parties to te action or proceeding, ‘+ Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only. form CM-015,) Feat iemoy oe CIVIL GASE COVER SHEET oe Reese ti Anbar 2 SEE ORIGINAL Gr FAXED steers ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE covucer M10 ‘To Plaintiis and Others Filing First Papers. If you are filing a fst paper (for exemple, a complaint) in a civil case, you must ‘complete and fle, along with your first paper, the Civ Case Cover Sheot contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile Staistics about the lypes and numbers of cases fled, You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In em 1, you must check ‘one box forthe case type that best describes the case. ifthe case fits both a general and a more specifi type of case listed in tern 1, heck the more specific one. Ifthe case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action. ‘To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be filed only with your intial paper. Failure to flea cover sheet wth the fist paper fled ina civil case may subject a party, ite counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 ofthe California Rules of Cour. To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A “collections case" under rue 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money owed ina eum stated to be certain thal is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and ttomey’s fees, arising from a transaction in wich property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort ‘damages, 2) puntive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personel property, or (6) a prejudgment wit of attachment. ‘The identification of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general ime-for-service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant fles a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case willbe subject {o the requirements for service and obtaining judgment in rule 3.740. To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cates only, partis must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex. I plain bolieves the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Cour, tis must be indicated by Completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. Ia plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served withthe complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may fle end serve no later than the time of is first appearance a joinder in the Plains designation, a counter-designatin tht the case is not complex, or, ifthe pleintif has made no designation, a designation that the case i complex. ‘CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Auto Tort Contract Provisionaly Complex Cl Litigation (Cal, ‘Auto (22}—Personalijuy/Property ‘Broach of ContaciWarranty (06) Rules of Court Rules 3400-3403) ‘DemagelWrengful Death ‘Broach of RenialLease “antares Trade Rogulaon (03) Uninsired Motorist (46) (fhe “Gonvac (not unl cetainar Construction Defect (10) 209 inves en uninsured or wrongful oven) Clams Invoing Mass Tot (40) re CContactaraniy Breach—Solor his Levon Nes “riration, chock ts em Paint rat raud or otigence) zutioe Ligation 2) , cen each of Cone EnvironentaToxte Tot (30) en ae eget InornceGovrge Cate ter PUPOIWD (Persona injury ther Broach of ConractWarant (arzing tom provisionly complex Property Damagarongu Bost) Colne eg money ave, open ‘ato ype ted aba) (4) ook asouni) (2) forcement of Judgment tn Eee rene | re, Aabests Perna! iat "aaa 7 NeevCoecons “Abt of Judgment (ut of Wrong Death Insurance Coverage (ot provsonaly ‘County) Procuet Lbs (rt asbestos or ‘compen (18) Confession of tudgent (on- tocranvrormenta) (28) ‘Rute Subrogation ome rls) Medea Malpracton (8) ‘tne Coverage Sister Sate Juagmont Nedeal Mapacies- ‘orter Contact (37) ‘Administrative Agency Award ‘Pytisans& Surgeons "Contractual Fraud (oot urpad taxes). (tne Protessona Hea Coro ‘ther Contract Dispute PeltiontGertfication of Eni of ‘apractos 3 Property Jrdgmont on Unald Tasos ther PUPDIND (2) Empat Comatose Ctver Enforcorent of Judgment 2 sity (e.g. ondernaton (4) case a ee werd cHton 3 an gay Maotlangoue Cv Complaint Sear Real Property (eg, que RICO (7 tanto Say ayo "wit Posmreon athe Proper ter Comput ot (e.. assout, vandalism) ees (not scecfed Intent ton ot Mosigage Frecooun omy tEmatenal Distress area ctaratory Relat On Negligent nition of iret Rent pet rot gto Inunetve Rett Only (non. Emotional Daess forocosa waste Other PUPDIND Uniawful Detainee “conmer \Non-PUPDIWD (Other) Tort ‘Commercial (31) (Other Commercial Compisint ‘Business TorvUnfair Business Residential (32) Seabee uae Droge 60) fb case nave og oar ced corcht

    You might also like