You are on page 1of 17
ATE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Dec-31-2015 3:03 pm Case Number: CGC-15-549690 Filing Date: Dec-31-2015 2:59 Filed by: RONNIE OTERO Juke Box: 001 Image: 05217255 COMPLAINT EVA VALENTI VS. PURUSHOTTAM POUDEL ET AL 001005217255 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned. SUM-101 SUMMONS ASE on, (CITACION JUDICIAL) a ame NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): PURUSHOTTAM POUDEL, SIDE.CR, LLC, SIDECAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and DOES 1 to 60, inclusive YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): EVA VALENTI Read the information 'NOTIGET Yau have been sued. The court may decide against you wihout your being heard unless you respond within 0 day below. ‘You have 20 CALENDAR DAYS after tis summons and legal papers are served on you to flea witen response at this court and have a copy served on the plant. letter or phone call wil not protect you. Your wren response must be in prope legal form # you want the court to heer your ‘case. There may be a court frm that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the Calfornia Courts Online SeltHelp Center (wvw.courtnfo.ca.govselee) your county law trary, or the courthouse nearest you. I you cannot pay the fling fee, ask the court clerk fora fee waiver form. Ifyou donot fle your response on time, you may lose the case by defaul and your wages, money, and property ‘may be taken without further waming ftom the court. ‘There are other legal requcements. You may want to call an attomey right away. i you do nat know an atorney, you may want to call an attorney referral serves. If you cannot aford an attorney, you may be eligible fr foe lgal services from a nonproft legal servi ‘these nonproft groups at the California Legal Services Web sie (www lewhelpcaliiomi.org), the California Courts Onine Sef (on coun ca gowselMep), of by contacting you local cout or couny bar assocation, NOTE: The court has a sauory en fer waved fes and {Costs on any sottement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more ina civil case. The court's len must be paid before the cour wil dims the case. IAVISO! Lo han demandado. Sino responde dentro de 30 des, le corte puede decir en su contra sin escuchar su versén, Lea le nformaciin @ Continuacion. Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen este citacién y papeles lagales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o une lamade telefénice no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito ene que estar fn formato legal correcta 3 desee que procesen su caso en le cori. Es posible que haya un formularo que usted puede usar para su respuesta ‘Puede encontrar estos formularos de le cote y mas informacion an el Cento de Ayuda de la Cortes de California (www sucorte.ca.go\), nla ‘iboteca de leyes de eu candado o en le corte que fe quad més cerca, ino puede pagar la cuota de presantacié,pida al secrearo de fa cote {que le 06 un formutaro de exencién de pago de cuotas. Sino presenta su respuesta a tiampo, puede perder el caso por Incumpmlonto le corte fe ‘Board guitar su suelo, dnaro ybienes sin mas advertence ‘Hay otros requisites legates. Es recomendable que lame a un abogado inmeciatamente. Sino conoce @ un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de remisién a abogados. Sine puede pagar a un abogedo, es posible que cumpa con los raqusitos para obtener servicios legales gratutos de un ‘programs de servicios legaes sn es de lucro. Puade encontrar estos grupos sin fines de luc en el silo web de Calfomie Legal Services, {hee lawhelpcaltorna.org), on el Centro de Ayuda de las Corlos de Caloris, (ww. aveare.ca gov) 0 poniéndose an contacto con la corte oe! Colegio de abogados iceles. AVISO: Por ley, le corte tiene derecho a rectemar las cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre Guotuer recipe do $1000 ms vl ocice esate erode ove caren i eoveians fazer raven lato arias de quo carte pede era’ asa “The nome and adoress of the court came 9 S496 y (Elnombrey dreccén del cote es: Superior Court of California, pine at 0 County of San Francisco, Unlimited Civil Division 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 ‘The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (Elnombre, la dreccién y 6! niimero de teléfono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): Judith Graziano, Esq., The Hassell Law Group, 4079 19th Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94132 DATE: EC 3.0 2015 (Fechi ‘summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010)) tse el formutaro Proof of Service of Summons, NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served “iannie Otere 1. (2) as an individual defendant. 2, [asthe person sued under the fcttious neme of (spect): 3, [J on behatf of (specify) under: L] CCP 416.10 (corporation) [CCP 416.60 (minor) [1 ccP 416.20 (defunct corporation) [_] CCP 416.70 (conservatee) (CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) [=] CCP 416 20 (authorized person) J other (speci) 4.) by personal delivery on (date): ages "taal Crunatotcatrae ‘SUMMONS Son eae as state ar uy 300 PLD-PI-001 ["airomnev ox marry armour ATTORNEY pane Sine aw nanan ren) “Bawa L. Hassell, Esq. (SEN 200080)" ‘The Hassell Law Group, a P.C. 4079 19th Avenue San Francisco, CA 94132 Vy TeLemone no 415-334-4111 reno eesnat 415-469-98 1S unt scones our, dawn @hasselllawgroup.com 45 occ 1 pH 3 0 ~Avrorney FoR (name EVA VALENTI JF THE COURT SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, coUNTY oF SAN FRANCISCO py, | _ospéty stneeraooress: 400 McAllister Street cmryasoze cove. San Francisco, CA 94102 srancinane: Unlimited Civil Division = PLAINTIFF: EVA VALENTI beFenvant: PURUSHOTTAM POUDEL, SIDE.CR, LLC, SIDECAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and oes 110 30, incl. COMPLAINT—Personal Injury, Property Damage, Wrongful Death () AMENDED (Number): ‘Type (check all that apply): [21 MOTOR VEHICLE = [QZf OTHER (specityy: GEN. NEEL, guprs’ [= Property Damage [—] Wrongful Death Nest. Hiewé, TRMNIM, (Z Personal injury” [=] other Damages ( Jurisdiction (check ail that apply): CT AcTION s a LIMITED CIVIL CASE Perenmon oF Amount demanded [__] does not exceed $10,000 UME Extlnyge exceeds $10,000, but does not exceed $25,000 [Z1 ACTION Is AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE (exceeds $25,000) (1 ACTION Is RECLASSIFIED by this amended complaint [ from limited to untimited =) from unlimited to limited CEC-15-549690 1. Plaintiff (name or names): EVA VALENTI alleges causes of action against defendant (name or names): PURUSHOTTAM POUDEL, SIDE.CR, LLC, SIDECAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and DOES 1 to 30, incl. 2. This pleading, including attachments and exhibits, consists ofthe following number of pages: 3. Each plant named above is a competent adult 2. (J except paint (name): (1) [2 corporation qualified to do business in California, (2) (_ an unincorporated entity (describe): @ Ea public entity describe) (4) J) aminor [—] an adutt (@) [2] for whom a guardian or conservator ofthe estate or a guardian ad litem has been appointed (e) [J other (specify): (6) other specity b. [=] except piaintit name): (1) (=) a corporation qualified to do business in California (2) [2] an unincorporated entity (describe): @) LJ} a public entity (describe): () J aminor [—] an adult (@) [21 for whom a guardian or conservator ofthe estate or @ guardian ad litem has been appointed (&) [] other (specity): (6) [J other (specify): 1 information about additional plaintiffs who are not competent adults is shown in Attachment 3. sets "SiaeaiGanc efeatara ‘COMPLAINT—Personal injury, Property Toa Farn as abbr Sanary 27 Damage, Wrongful Death PLD-PI-001 ‘SHORT TLE: VALENTI v. POUDEL, et al. CASE NBER 4, (5 Plaintitt (name): is doing business under the fcttious name (specify): ‘and has complied withthe fictiious business name laws. ‘5. Each defendant named above isa natural person except defendant (name): Side.cr, LLC (1) [a business organization, form unknown (2) [J acomoration (3) [) an unincorporated entity (describe): (4) (a public entity (describe): ‘except defendant (name): Sidecar Tech., Inc. (1) [1 a business organization, form unknown @) Za comporation 3) [1] an unincorporated entity (describe) (4) (2) a pubiic entity (describe): © other (specify): A Limited Liability Company (©) (J other (specify): b. [1] except defendant (name) (1) (=) a business organization, form unknown 2) C2) acomoration (3) [2 an unincorporated entity (describe): 4. (1 except defendant (name): (1) [2 a business organization, form unknown @) ES acorporation 3) anunincorporated entity (describe) (4) a public entity (describe): (4) (a public entity (describe): (5) (J other (specity): ©) (J other (speci): Information about additional defendants who are not natural persons is contained in Attachment 5; 6. The true names of defendants sued as Does are unknown to plaintif, @. (2) Doe defendants (specify Doe numbers): | to 30, inclusive were the agents or employees of other ‘named defendants and acted within the Scope ofthat agency or employment. b. Doe defendants (specify Doe numbers):1 to 30, inclusive are persons whose capacities are unknown to plaintif 7. [1 Defendants who are joined under Code of Civil Procedure section 382 are (names): 8, This courts the proper court because 2. [1 atleast one defendant now resides init jurisdictional area, the principal place of business of a defendant corporation or unincorporated association is in its jurisdictional area, ©. [Zinjury to person or damage to personal property occurred in its jurisdictional area. 4. [5 other (specify): 9. 1 Plaintfis required to comply with a claims statute, and ‘2 (has complied with applicable claims statutes, or b. [J is excused from complying because (speci): POD PrT ee sia 1 BT ‘COMPLAINT—Personal injury, Property Petes Damage, Wrongful Death PLD-PI-001 ‘SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER VALENTI v. POUDEL, et al. 10. The following causes of action are attached and the statements above apply to each (each complaint must have one or more causes of action attached): Motor Vehicle General Negligence cc. [_] Intentional Tort 4. [2] Products Liability Employer's Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision, and Retention of Unfit Employee 11. Plaintifhas suffered 2. LZ) wage loss b. EJ] loss of use of property c. [Z) hospital and medical expenses general damage property damage loss of eaming capaciy ‘other damage (speciy) To be determined. 12, [The damages claimed for wrongful death and the relationships of plant to the deceased are a. [1] listed in Attachment 12. b. (7) as follows: 19. The relief sought in this complaint is with the jurisdiction of this court. 414, Plaintiff prays for judgment for costs of sul; for such relief as is fair, jus, and equitable; and for 2. (1) CZ) compensatory damages 2) CJ punitive damages ‘The. it of damages is (in cases for personal injury or wrongful death, you must check (1)): (1) LZ according 0 proot {@) [J inthe amount of: $ 18. [21] The paragraphs of his complaint alaged on information and bei are as follows (spect paragraph numbers): 1-13. Date: December 31, 2015 ~ Judith Graziano, Esq. » PEGA PTT one GOTT On TT LDP Rev done 07 ‘COMPLAINT—Personal inju or Damage, Wrongful Death PLD-PI-001(1) ‘SHORT THLE: VALENTI v. POUDEL, et al. CASE NOMOER, FIRST. (rumber) ATTACHMENT TO CAUSE OF ACTION—WMotor Vehicle somplaint [—] Cross - Complaint (Use a separate cause of action form for each cause of action.) Plaintiff (name): EVA VALENTI MV- 1. Plaintif alleges the acts of defendants were negligent; the acts were the legal (proximate) cause of injuries ‘and damages to plaintif; the acts occurred ‘on (date): 03/24/15 at (place): Intersection of Stanyan Street and Lone Mountain Terrace in San Francisco, California. MV- 2. DEFENDANTS The defendants who operated a motor vehicle are (names): PURUSHOTTAM POUDEL, and TZ) does 1 to 10, inclusive b. ‘The defendants who employed the persons who operated a motor vehicle in the course of their employment are (names): SIDE.CR, LLC, SIDECAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and Does a to 30, inclusive The defendants who owned the motor vehicle which was operated with their permission are (names): PURUSHOTTAM POUDEL, and to 10, inclusive ho entrusted the motor vehicle are (names) SIDE.CR, LLC, SIDECAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and TZ) Does 11 ‘The defendants who were the agents and employees of the other defendants and acted within the scope to 3 inch ‘of the agency were (names): PURUSHOTTAM POUDEL, and Does f. [Z) The detendar [fisted in Attachment MV-2F ‘Not yet known. to 10, inclusive ho are i as follows: 1o plainiffs for other reasons and the reasons forthe lability are to 30, inclusive Page 4 reget ott Fomor one ‘CAUSE OF ACTION—Motor Vehicle crs ema 8 2 Puo'Bor er say 207) PLD-PI-004(2) ‘SHORT TITLE: ASE NOMBER: VALENTI v. POUDEL, et al. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION—General Negligence page _5 a —_—_ ATTACHMENT TO. Complaint [—] Cross - Complaint (Use a separate cause of action form for each cause of action.) GN-1. Plaintiff (name): Eva Valenti alleges that defendant (namo): Purshottam Poudel, Side.cr, LLC, Sidecar Technologies, Inc., and TZ does 1 to 30, inclusive was the legal (proximate) cause of damages to plaintiff By the following acts or omissions to act, defendant negligently caused the damage to plain on (date): 03/24/15 at (place): Intersection of Stanyan Street and Lone Mountain Terrace in San Francisco, CA (description of reasons for liability): On March 24, 2015, at approximately 8:00 p.m., Plaintiff Eva Valenti was a pedestrian legally crossing Stanyan Street in a marked crosswalk at the intersection of Stanyan Street and Lone Mountain Terrace in San Francisco, CA. As Ms. Valenti crossed Stanyan Street, she was struck by a 2007 Nissan Altima, traveling at a high rate of speed such that the impact threw Eva Valenti’s body a significant distance upon impact. The collision caused Ms. Valenti to suffer serious bodily injuries, including, but not limited to: a mild traumatic brain injury resulting in cognitive impairment, local intra-cortical hemorrhage (brain bleed), loss of consciousness, hairline left fibula fracture, post-concussion syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder, among other injuries. Stanyan Street is a two way street, with a single lane of travel in each direction where the accident occurred. The speed limit on Stanyan Street is 25 miles per hour. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges the driver of the Nissan was traveling in excess of the posted speed limit at or about the time of the accident. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously named defendants are responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged and that Plaintiff's damages were legally and proximately caused by the fictitiously named defendants’ conduct. CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE reget ts Somes ‘CAUSE OF ACTION—General Negligence econ uo 01a) ev Dry 2007 Mc-025 SHORT TITLE: CASENMOER, | VALENTI v. POUDEL, et al. ATTACHMENT (Number): 1 (This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.) ATTACHMENT TO GN-1 Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, defendants, and each of them, were the agents and employees of each of the remaining defendants and were at all times acting within the course and scope of said agency and employment, and each defendant has ratified and approved the acts and/or omissions of his/her/its agents. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, each defendant was the successor-in-interest to each of the remaining defendants, and on that basis is liable for each act or omission of said defendant. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, defendants Side.cr, LLC, and Does 11-20, and each of them, is a ride sharing and delivery service that uses a proprietary mobile application to help conduct its services. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, Sidecar Technologies, Inc., and Does 21-30, and each of them, were the parent company of Side.cr, LLC, and Does 11-20, and each of them. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, defendants Purushottam Poudel (“Poudel”) and Does 1-10, and each of them, owned and operated the vehicle which struck and injured Plaintiff. Plaintiff is further informed, believes and thereon alleges that defendant Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, worked as driver(s) for Sidecar.cr, LLC, Sidecar Technologies, Inc., and Does 11-30, and each of them. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that previously on or about 6/11/14 defendant Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, were cited for violating California Vehicle Code (“CVC”) Section 21453(a) for failing to stop at a red traffic light, and cited on or about 9/17/14 for violating CVC Section 22450(a) for failing to stop at a stop sign. Plaintiff is further informed, believes and thereon alleges that, mere months after hitting Plaintiff Eva Valenti, defendant Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, were subsequently involved in another traffic accident on or about 7/17/15 and were determined to be at fault. Plaintiff is informed believes and thereon alleges that defendants Side.cr, LLC, Sidecar Technologies, Inc., and Does 11-30, and each of them, hired defendants Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, as drivers to permit defendants to operate their ride-sharing and delivery business, and that defendants Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, were cited for the afore-mentioned 6/11/14 and 9/17/14 motor vehicle moving violations prior to the date of hire, or shortly thereafter during employment with defendants Side.cr, LLC, Sidecar Technologies, Inc., and Does 11-30, and each of them. Defendants Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, are liable for this accident as the owners and operators of the vehicle which stuck plaintiff. These defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of their vehicle to avoid injury to persons on/near the roadway. Defendants’ duties include but are not limited to following all laws of the road, including but not limited to CVC Sections 21950(a), 21950(c), and 22350. Section 21950(a) provides that “The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the CONTINUTED ON NEXT PAGE (ifthe item that this Attachment concems is made under penalty of perjury, all statements in this Page 6 of _13 ‘Attachment are made under penalty of perjury.) (td pages us equtrec) Fanepanaip Opes [ATTACHMENT ‘nt gor Meas Ren ny to Judiclal Council Form Mc-025 SHORT TITLE: Paar | VALENTI v. POUDEL, et al. ATTACHMENT (Number): 2 (This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.) ATTACHMENT TO GN-1 Section 21950(c) provides “The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked ... crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.” Section 22350 provides “No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property,” and a duty to obey other traffic laws intended to guard against pedestrian injury. These duties were owed to all persons foreseeably injured by the acts and omissions of Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, including pedestrian Eva Valenti. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges, these defendants breached their duties of care by negligently failing to operate the subject Nissan Altima in a safe manner, Defendants breaches include but are not limited to, failing to yield to Plaintiff, a pedestrian in a marked crosswalk, failing to slow and stop the Nissan Altima before hitting Plaintiff, failing to drive at a reasonable and safe speed for the conditions, including nighttime, failing to observe Plaintiff in the marked crosswalk accident, and failing to take other actions to avoid a collision with pedestrian Eva Valenti. Defendants Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, were also Negligent Per Se, as defendants violated CVC Sections 21950(a), 21950(c), and 22350 and Plaintifi's injury was the result of defendants’ violation of these vehicle codes. Plaintiff's injury resulted from an occurrence of which these vehicle codes were designed to protect against and prevent, Laws requiring drivers to stop and/or yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk are intended to prevent motorists from colliding with pedestrians, as are laws requiring drivers to travel at safe speeds in order that they may apply brakes in time to avoid a collision. The speed limit on Stanyan Street was 25 miles per hour. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that defendants Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, were traveling in excess of the posted speed limit at or about the time of the accident. Driving above the speed limit on a single lane street was reckless, careless and dangerous, particularly at night when visibility is reduced. Finally, Plaintiff, a pedestrian lawfully using a marked crosswalk to cross the roadway, belonged to the class of persons for whose protection CVC Sections 21950(a), 21950(c), and 22350 were adopted. The aforesaid negligent acts and omissions of defendants Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, were substantial factors in causing Plaintiff's injury. Further, the risk of harm of the type suffered by Plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable to defendants Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them. Defendants Sidecar.cr, LLC, Sidecar Technologies, Inc. and Does 11-30 and each of them, as the employers and/or principals of driver Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, are vicariously liable to Plaintiff under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the above negligence acts and omissions of employee/agent Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them. CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE {it tem that this Attachment concems is made under penalty of perjury, all statements inthis Page_7_ ot _13 Attachment are made under penalty of perjury.) (Add pages as required) "peeceaecr bere “ATTACHMENT ‘eg Cas ha a to Judicial Council Form Mc-025 SHORT TITLE: eee VALENTI v. POUDEL, et al. ATTACHMENT (Number: 3 (This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Counc form) ATTACHMENT TO GN-1 Defendants Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, injured Plaintiff during the course and scope of their authority as employee/agent and in the transaction of the business of the employment and/or agency. Further, the above acts and omissions of defendants Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, were risks typical of, and broadly incidental to, the working environment and an outgrowth of employment/agency. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of defendants Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, Plaintiff Eva Valenti suffered serious bodily injury and sustained general damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligence of defendants Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and related expenses for physicians, surgeons, hospital care, and other medical services and supplies. The full amount of these expenses is not yet known at this time. Plaintiff prays leave to amend this complaint to state the true amount when it becomes known to her. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligence of these defendants, Plaintiff has suffered a loss of earnings, and Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that she will continue such a loss for an indefinite time in the future. Plaintiff's earning capacity has also been reduced, all to Plaintiffs further special damages in amounts currently unknown and to be determined. Plaintiff prays leave to amend this complaint to assert the true amounts when they are ascertained. (ifthe item that this Attachment concems is made under penalty of perjury, all statements in this ‘Attachment are made under penalty of peyjury.) (Ada pages as required) Poa ipentle Seieaum ‘ATTACHMENT ae eS to Judicial Council Form PLD-P1-001(2) ‘SHORT TITLE: CASE NNER VALENTI v. POUDEL, et al. EMPLOYERS THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION— fees AEN Hie Poe A aba ATTACHMENTTO [ZI Camptant C) crsa- compra TRAIWING, LUPE SION AND RETENTION oF (Use 0 seperate cause of ection form foreach cause of econ ) Un iT EmPCoyee GN-1. Plaintiff (name): Eva Valenti ‘alleges that defendant (name): Side.cr, LLC, Sidecar Technologies, Inc., and TZ) Does 11 to 30, inclusive was the legal (proximate) cause of damages to plaintiff. By the following acts or omissions to act, defendant negligently caused the damage to plaintiff. on (date): 03/24/15 at (place): Intersection of Stanyan Street and Lone Mountain Terrace in San Francisco, CA (description of reasons for lability): ‘On March 24, 2015, at approximately 8:00 p.m., Plaintiff Eva Valenti was a pedestrian legally crossing Stanyan Street in a marked crosswalk at the intersection of Stanyan Street and Lone Mountain Terrace in San Francisco, CA. As Ms. Valenti crossed Stanyan Street, she was struck by a 2007 Nissan Altima, traveling at a high rate of speed such that the impact threw Eva Valenti’s body a significant distance upon impact. The collision caused Ms, Valenti to suffer serious bodily injuries, including, but not limited to: a mild traumatic brain injury resulting in cognitive impairment, local intra-cortical hemorrhage (brain bleed), loss of consciousness, hairline left fibula fracture, post-concussion syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder, among. other injuries. Stanyan Street is a two way street, with a single lane of travel in each direction where the accident occurred. The speed limit on Stanyan Street is 25 miles per hour. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges the driver of the Nissan was traveling in excess of the posted speed limit at or about the time of the accident. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously named defendants are responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged and that Plaintiff's damages ‘were legally and proximately caused by the fictitiously named defendants’ conduct. CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE seam! ee CAUSE OF ACTION- EMPLs’ NEAL. HiRiN6 1 TRmNIE, ecnenncere SPER. AND RETEANON FF UNIT EMPLOYEE c.025 on TITLE: Caen VALENTI v. POUDEL, et al. ATTACHMENT (Number) (This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council fom.) ATTACHMENT TO EMPL.'S NEGL. HIRING/TRAINING/SUPERVISON/RETENTION Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, defendants, and each of them, were the agents and employees of each of the remaining defendants and were at all times acting within the course and scope of said agency and employment, and each defendant has ratified and approved the acts and/or omissions of his/her/its agents. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, each defendant was the successor-in-interest to each of the remaining defendants, and on that basis is liable for each act or omission of said defendant. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, defendants Side.cr, LLC, and Does 11-20, and each of them, is a ride sharing and delivery service that uses a proprietary mobile application to help conduct its services. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, Sidecar Technologies, Inc., and Does 21-30, and each of them, were the parent company of Side.cr, LLC, and Does 11-20, and each of them. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, defendants Purushottam Poudel (“Poudel”) and Does 1-10, and each of them, owned and operated the vehicle which negligently struck and injured Plaintiff. Plaintiff is further informed, believes and thereon alleges that defendant Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, worked as a driver(s) for Sidecar.ct, LLC, Sidecar Technologies, Inc., and Does 11-30, and each of them. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that previously on or about 6/11/14 defendant Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, were cited for violating California Vehicle Code (“CVC”) Section 21453(a) for failing to stop at a red traffic light, and cited on or about 9/17/14 for violating CVC Section 22450(a) for failing to stop ata stop sign. Plaintiff is further informed, believes and thereon alleges that, mere months after hitting Plaintiff Eva Valenti, defendant Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, were subsequently involved in another traffic accident on or about 7/17/15 and were determined to be at fault, On the date of the subject accident, defendants Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, negligently operated their vehicle and breached their duties of care to persons on/about the roadway, such as Eva Valenti. Defendants breaches include but are not limited to, failing to yield to Plaintiff, a pedestrian in a marked crosswalk, failing to slow and stop the Nissan Altima before hitting Plaintiff, failing to drive at a reasonable and safe speed for the conditions, including nighttime, failing to observe Plaintiff in the marked crosswalk before the accident, and failing to take other actions to avoid a collision with pedestrian Eva Valenti, Defendants Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, also violated CVC Sections 21950(a), 21950(c), and 22350, among other laws. CONTINUTED ON NEXT PAGE ons ts ttcime occa sep cto steers vwe_| Oa 3 Attachment are made under penalty of perjury.) (Add pages as required) "Seno ‘ATTACHMENT meee MEE Re oy 2 to Judicial Council Form Mc-025 ‘SHORT TITLE: ASE MOMOER, | VALENTI v. POUDEL, et al. ATTACHMENT (Number): ‘Le (This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.) ATTACHMENT TO EMPL.'S NEGL. HIRING/TRAINING/SUPERVISON/RETENTION Section 21950(a) provides that “The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the toadway within any marked crosswalk.” Section 21950(c) provides “The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked ... crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.” Section 22350 provides “No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.” Plaintiff is informed believes and thereon alleges that defendants Side.cr, LLC, Sidecar Technologies, Inc., and Does 11-30, and each of them, hired defendants Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, as drivers to permit defendants to operate their ride-sharing and delivery business, and that defendants Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, were cited for the afore-mentioned 6/11/14 and 9/17/14 motor vehicle moving violations prior to the date of hire, or shortly thereafter during employment with defendants Side.cr, LLC, Sidecar Technologies, Inc., and Does 11-30, and each of them, Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges, defendants Side.cr, LLC, Sidecar Technologies, Inc., and Does 11-30, and each of them, had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the hiring, evaluation, training and supervision of their employees and agents providing ride-sharing and delivery services to ensure that said persons did not present a danger to pedestrians and others who could foreseeably be injured by employee and agent negligence, including Plaintiff. Defendants Side.cr, LLC, Sidecar Technologies, Inc., and Does 11-30, and each of them, also had a duty to exercise reasonable care to properly investigate the driving background/history of their drivers, such as Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, before hiring to determine their fitness for the job. After hiring, defendants Side.cr, LLC, Sidecar Technologies, Inc., and Does 11-30, and each of them, had a further duty to adequately supervise/evaluate/monitor/train employees/agents to ensure safe driving, to discover any unfitness for the job that may result in injury to others, and a duty to take other corrective action to prevent the risk of injury to pedestrians and others, including but not limited to training, discipline and/or termination of employment and/or agency. These duties were owed to all persons foreseeably injured by the acts and omissions of Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, including pedestrian Eva Valenti. Due to their history of moving vehicle citations and at fault accidents, defendants Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, were and are incompetent and unfit to perform driving services, and defendants’ incompetence and unfitness caused injury to plaintiff Eva Valenti. Defendants Side.cr, LLC, Sidecar Technologies, Inc., and Does 11-30, and each of them, knew or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known that Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, were incompetent and unfit to perform the driving duties CONTINUTED ON NEXT PAGE {ithe tem that this Attachment concems is made under penalty of pen, all statements inthis Page} ot 13 ‘Altachment are made under penalty of perjury.) aane aa Fam persis Spal “ATTACHMENT mecoumen aoe ‘easier toy 0) to Judicial Council Form ‘SHORT TITLE: ‘CASE NUBER [~ VALENTI v. POUDEL, et al. ATTACHMENT (Number): _ (This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.) ATTACHMENT TO EMPL.'S NEGL. HIRING/TRAINING/SUPERVISON/RETENTION for which they were employed/ hired before hiring them, and that if hired, these defendants would pose an undue risk of injury to persons lawfully using the roadway, such as pedestrian Eva Valenti. Twas foreseeable that defendants Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, while employed and performing ride-sharing and delivery services, might hit and seriously injure a pedestrian such as Plaintiff because defendants Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, had a demonstrated history of moving violations and disregarding traffic laws designed to protect persons from injury. Further, the prior moving violations were the type of violations that were particularly likely to injure pedestrians, as stop signs and stop lights are often erected to permit safe pedestrian crossings. On the date of the accident, defendants Side.cr, LLC, Sidecar Technologies, Inc., and Does 11-30, and each of them, breached their duties by negligently failing to use reasonable care to hire, train, supervise, evaluate and retain defendants Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, as drivers in their ride-sharing and delivery business in conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others, including Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Defendants Side.cr, LLC, Sidecar Technologies, Inc., and Does 11-30, and each of them, breached their duties by, among other acts/omissions, negligently failing to perform a proper background check of defendants Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, to discover moving violations, which if conducted would have revealed the two prior moving violations - both of which involved the failure to lawfully stop and yield as required by law and were intended to prevent injury to persons and property. Defendants Side.cr, LLC, Sidecar Technologies, Inc., and Does 11-30, and each of them, also breached their duties by negligently failing to properly and continually monitor the driving of defendants Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, during their employment and/or agency to discover moving violations and accidents occurring during employment/agency, and to determine whether defendants Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, were fit to continue to perform driving services. ‘These defendants further breached their duties by failing to properly train and supervise defendants Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, after hire to help ensure that defendants Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, did not cause injury to those persons foreseeably injured while they performed their driving services. If defendants Side.cr, LLC, Sidecar Technologies, Inc., and Does 11-30, and each of them, had discovered the 2014 moving violations of employee/agents Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, prior to the subject accident, defendants Side.cr, LLC, Sidecar Technologies, Inc., and Does 11-30, and each of them, further breached their duties by negligently failing to terminate the employment and/or agency of Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them. The accident of 7/7/15 only months after defendants Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, struck and injured plaintiff Eva Valenti, along with the prior traffic violations of these defendants for failing to stop at a stop light and sign, shows Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them, have been unsafe drivers for an extensive Period of time. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges,that this specifically includes the CONTINUTED ON NEXT PAGE (if the item that this Attachment concems is made under penalty of pequry, all statements inthis roe 12 0 13 Attachment are made under penalty of perjury) (Add pages 08 104 Forepeecie Opimarure “ATTACHMENT mmcruttcsonr ‘MES Re ay 30 to Judicial Council Form ‘SHORT TITLE: ‘CASE NOWBER VALENTI v. POUDEL, et al. ATTACHMENT (Number): (This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.) ATTACHMENT TO EMPL.'S NEGL. HIRING/TRAINING/SUPERVISON/RETENTION period of time these defendants worked for defendants Side.cr, LLC, Sidecar Technologies, Inc., and Does 11-30, and each of them. By negligently failing to perform the aforesaid actions in violation of their duties to Plaintiff, employers and/or principals Side.cr, LLC, Sidecar Technologies, Inc., and Does 11-30, and each of them, ratified and authorized the negligent acts and omissions of defendants Poudel and Does 1-10, and each of them. ‘The aforementioned negligent acts and omissions of defendants Side.cr, LLC, Sidecar Technologies, Inc., and Does 11-30, and each of them, were substantial factors in causing Plaintiff's injury. Further, the risk of harm of the type suffered by Plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable to defendants Side.cr, LLC, Sidecar Technologies, Inc., and Does 11-30, and each of them. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of defendants Side.cr, LLC, Sidecar Technologies, Inc., and Does 11-30, and each of them, Plaintiff Eva Valenti suffered serious bodily injury and sustained general damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. Asa further direct and proximate result of the negligence of these defendants, Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and related expenses for physicians, surgeons, hospital care, and other medical services and supplies. The full amount of these expenses is not yet known at this time. Plaintiff prays leave to amend this complaint to state the true amount when it becomes known to her. Asa further direct and proximate result of the negligence of these defendants, Plaintiff has suffered a loss of earnings, and Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that she will continue such a loss for an indefinite time in the future. Plaintiff's earning capacity has also been reduced, all to Plaintifi’s further special damages in amounts currently unknown and fo be determined. Plaintiff prays leave to amend this complaint to assert the true amounts when they are ascertained. (ifthe item that this Attachment concems is made under penalty of perjury, all statements in this Page _ 3 or 13 Attachment are made under penalty of pesiury,) (Ac pages 3 req "Sessiecanet Eaters ‘ATTACHMENT cago ease 997 28 to Judicial Council Form awn i Hassel va. (SBN 30000)” e The Hassell Law Group, a PC. 4079 19th Avenue San Francisco, CA 94132 retemvowe vo, 415-334-4111 scronuey FoR nam). EVA VALENTI IsuPeRion COURT OF CALIFORNIA, county oF SAN FRANCISCO streerAooness 400 Mcallister Street envavozr cove San Francisco, CA 94102 snaxcu ue. Unlimited Civil Division FOR COURT USE ONY raxno: 415-469-9885, CASE NAME: EVA VALENTI v. PURUSHOTTAM POUDEL, et al. CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ‘Complex Case Designation ASE NOROER demanded emandedis | Fed wit fret appearance by defender ‘exceeds $25,000) _ $25,000 or less) (Cal Ruies of Cour. le 3.402) O1G@E~ 7 §~5496 90 Ttems 1-8 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). [I- Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: ‘Auto Tort ‘Contract ‘Auto (22) [EI Breach of contactwarranty (08) [} Uninsured motorist 46) Rule 3.740 collections (08) ‘Other PUPDIWD (Personal injury/Property Other colections (08) Provistonally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Cour, rules 3.400-2.403) ‘AnttrustTrade regulation (03) Construction defect (10) DemagerWrongfl Death) Tort surance coverage (18) TE) mass tort 40) ‘Aaboctos (04) 1 otter contract (37) [secures itigation (28) Product tabiity (4) Real Property [J EnvironmentairToxic tort (30) Medical malpractice (48) (1 Eminent domainverse oe coverage aims arising trom the other PuPonND (23) condemnation (14) sted provisionally complex case Non-PUPDIWD (Other) Tort 2) Wrongtat eviction (33) ") Business torvunfar business practice (or) L_] Otver resi propery (26) Enforcement of Judgment 2 coirignts (08) ‘Unlawful Detainer [1 Enforcement ot judgment (20) {Z) peetamation (13) ‘Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint 2 Frava (16) Residential (32) C rico a7) inet propery (19) Tongs 8) eee Prefessiona negligence (25) ‘Juda! Review iascaiceiseis cra peas Other non-PUPDIWD tot (35) ‘Ast forfeiture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21) Expomet Retin re: arbitration award (11) [—] mer petton (ot spect above) 48) ‘Wrongful termination (98) 1 wrt of mandate (02) other amotoyment (15) [1 other jusicia review 39) Z Thiscase [lis LZJisnot complex under rule 3.400 ofthe Cafornia Rules of Court. the case le complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management a.) Large number of separately represeried parties ». [7] Extensive motion practice raising diffeut or novel issues that willbe time-consuming o resolve ¢.(2] substantial amount of documentary evigence —¢. [—] Remedies sought (check all that apply): a[Z] monetary b.[_] nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief ¢.[—]punitive Number of causes of action (specify): Three (3) -Motor Vehicle, Gen. Negl., Emyf. Negl. Hiring, Training, etc. This case Cis isnot a class action suit If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case, December 31, 2015 idith Graziano, Es TPE PANT ATE] 4. [1 Large number of witnesses: e. (_] Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court ‘Substantial postiudgment judicial supervision rp oeae TORPIRTY ng (exbAal ls cases cass fed react ae rete an NOTICE ‘* Plaintif must fle this cover sheet with the first paper fled inthe action under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Codé in sanctions. * Flie this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. * If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all, other parties to the 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. “tin Sounal of Catoria Bitatotes hayes CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET epee Le INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET — To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. if you are fling a first paper (for example, @ complain!) in a civil case, you must ‘complete and fle, along with your first paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile statistics about the types and numbers of cases fled. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you must check ‘one box for the case type that best describes the case. Ifthe case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in tem 1, ‘check 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 fle a cover sheet with the first paper fled in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court. To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A “collections case" under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money ‘owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in ‘which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (6) a prejudgment wrt of attachment. The identification of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it wll be exempt from the general ‘time-for-service requirements. and case management rules, unless a defendant fies a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740. To Parties in Complex Cases. in complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the ‘case is complex. ifa plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by ‘completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. Ifa plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the ‘complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the Plaintiffs designation, a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, ifthe plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that the case is complex. ‘Auto Tort ‘Aulo (22)-Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death Uninsured Motorist (48) tho "ca89 involves an uninsured ‘motorist clam subject 10 arbivation, chock this tam instead of Auto) ‘Other PUPDIWD (Personal Injury! Property Damagerrongtul Death) ror ‘Asbestos (04) ‘Asbestos Property Damage ‘Asbestos Personal inury? ‘Wrongful Death Product Lily (not asbestos or ‘oxiefenvirermental) (24) Medical Malpractice (48) Medical Malpractice Physicians & Surgeons ‘Other Professional Health Care Malpractice ‘Other PUPORWD (23) Premises Liability (e.g, sip ‘and fll) Intentional Bodily Ijury/PONWD (eg. assaut, vandalism) Intentional Infetion of ‘Emotional Distress Negligent Infiction of Emotional Diste ‘other PUPDAND Non-PUPDAWD (Other) Tort Business Tor/Unfair Business Defamation (eg. 3) Frau (16) Intellectual Property (19) CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Contract ‘Breach of ContractWarranty (08) ‘Breach of Rental/Lease ‘Contract (not unlawful! detainer ‘or wrongful eviction) ContracttWarranty Bresch-Seller Plaintt (not reud or negligence) Negligent Breach of Contraci/ Warranty Other Breach of Contract Warranty Collections (eg, money owed, open book accounts) (06) Collection Case-SellerPiantt ‘Otner Promissory Note/Cobections ‘Case Insurance Goverage (no provisionally ‘comple (18) ‘Auto Subrogation ‘Other Coverage Other Contract (37) ‘Contractual Frau ‘Other Contract Dispute Real Property Eminent Domairvnverse ‘Condemnation (14) ‘Wrongful Eviction (33) Other Real Property (e.9., quiet tite) (26) ‘Wt of Possession of Real Property, Mortgage Foreclosure Quiet Tite (Other Real Property (not eminent domain landordtenant, or foreciosure) Unlawful Detainer ‘Commercial 31) Residential (32) Drugs (38) (the case involves ilogal ‘drugs, check this tem otherwise, report as Commercial or Residotio) Judicial Review ‘Asset Farfeture (05) Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11) Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court Rules 3.400-3.403) “Anitrust/Trade Regulation (03) Construction Defect (10) Giaims Involving Mass Tort (40) Securities Ligation (28) wironmenta/Toxic Tort (30) Insurance Coverage Cisims. (arising from provisionally complex ‘ase type listed above) (41) Enforcement of Judgment Enforcement of Judgment (20) Abstract of Judgment (Out of ‘County Confession of Judgment (non- domestic relations) Sister State Judgment ‘Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes) Petion/Certfcaion of Enty of Judgment on Unpaid Taxes (tey Enforcement of Judgment Miscollaneous Civil Complaint RICO (27) Other Compisint (not specited ‘bove) (42). Declaratory Relef Only Injunetive Relat Only (non- ‘harassment Mechanics Lien Other Commercial Complaint ‘Case (non-torthon-complex) ‘Other Ci Complaint (nen-tortnon-complex) Miscollaneous Civil Petition Partnership and Corporate ‘Governance (21) (Other Peition (not specified above) (43) Civ Herasement Workplace Violence Professonal Negigence (25) Wt ot Margate (62) ae Legal Malpractice Wit Acminstratve Mandarnus ee (ther Professional Maractie Vit-Mandarus on Lted Court Pelion er Name Change ‘not meteor leon), ‘Case Mater for Reset From est emo nezon POMS TeR Wit-Other Listed Court Case ‘cam ployment Review Other Civ Peton ‘Wrongful Termination (36) ‘Other Judicial Review (39) Cle Other Employment (18) Teview ot Heath Steer Order Notce of Appeal-Labor Commissions: Appeals Baa Dar OT CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Parte

You might also like