pleadings & motions writing samples
TRANSCRIPT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1- COMPLAINT
JOHANN CHRISTINE ALCARAZ (Bar No. 1234567) SFSU LEGAL EXTENSION 835 Market St. San Francisco, California 94103 Telephone: 415 405 7700 Facsimile: 415 371 1012 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Rachel Smith
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MARIN
Rachel Smith,
Plaintiff, v. Robert Jones, City of Mill Valley, and Does 1 through 10,
Defendants.
Case No. 1234567 Limited Civil Case COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Plaintiff Rachel Smith (“Smith”) brings this claim against defendants Robert Jones
(“Jones”) and City of Mill Valley (“Mill Valley”), and allege as follows:
JURISDICTION
1. This court has jurisdiction under Article 6 of the California Constitution, which provides
for original and general jurisdiction for the superior courts.
VENUE
2. Venue is proper pursuant to CCP §394 and CCP §395 because Mill Valley is situated in
Marin County and the injury occurred in the same county.
PARTIES
3. Smith is, and at all time relevant herein was, a resident of the County of Marin,
California.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2- COMPLAINT
4. Jones is, and at all time relevant herein was, a resident of the County of Sonoma,
California.
5. Mill Valley is, and at all time relevant herein was, a public entity.
6. The true names and capacities of Does 1 through 10 herein are unknown to Smith at this
time, and Smith therefore sues such defendants by these fictitious names. At the time that the true
names and capacities of Does 1 through 10 are ascertained, Smith will amend this Complaint to
identify the true names.
STATEMENT OF FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
7. On August 25, 2015, at approximately 3:55 p.m., an officer was dispatched to a major
injury traffic collision that occurred at the intersection of Summit Ave. and Tamalpais Ave. Smith
was driving a Toyota Camry vehicle northbound on Summit Ave. turning left on Tamalpais Ave.
in Mill Valley, California. Jones was riding a bike southbound on Summit Ave. towards the same
intersection.
8. Smith stated that she observed Jones and a fellow biker approaching at high speed as she
made an early turn on Tamalpais Ave. As a result, she hit the brakes to stop in hopes that the
bikers could avoid her.
9. In a letter written by Smith a week after the incident (September 1), she mentions that
she tried to help Jones, but he said he was fine and the fault was not hers. Because he said he was
ok, she drove home.
10. Smith also states that she left for college shortly after the collision under the
impression that Jones was not injured. Upon discovering the contrary, she was overwhelmed with
guilt and emotional distress, and could no longer effectively focus on her schoolwork. She also
began to feel discomfort in her spine and neck which began affecting her part-time job of being a
restaurant server. After consultation at a clinic, the presiding chiropractor deemed the collision to
be the immediate source judging by the proximity of time.
11. Jones stated that he was riding at 15 to 20 miles per hour southbound on Summit Ave.
He admits that this was his first time riding the trail, and was on and off the brakes as he
approached Tamalpais Ave. He believes he was off the brakes when Smith’s vehicle came into
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3- COMPLAINT
view, but acknowledges that his fingers were on the brake handles. So, approximately 30 to 60
feet before impact, he applied his brakes. Jones struck Smith’s vehicle behind the right wheel.
Before impact, he fell onto the ground, which caused him to summon aid at a nearby residence.
12. According to the Traffic Collision Report, Jones was taken by the paramedics to a
general hospital for the following injuries: broken left arm (compound), bruised left hip, and
abrasions.
13. The investigating officers of the incident reported that “it is unlikely that someone who
has never been on this road would take [the Tamalpais] corner at a speed any greater than 15 miles
per hour.”
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(NEGLIGENCE)
14. Plaintiff Smith realleges paragraphs 1 through 13.
15. Prior to the collision, on Sunday, August 19, 2015, an article in Petaluma Weekly
illustrates a struggle between Jones and a NASCAR engine-shop employee, Larry Lackey. In the
article, Jones claims to have been sucker-punched by Lackey sustaining injuries of a broken left
arm and a black left eye.
16. Smith alleges Jones was negligent for failure to use reasonable care in determining his
riding speed in an area he admits to not have ridden before, while also naturally recuperating from
injuries sustained less than a week prior to the incident.
17. Jones told smith he was ok and the collision was not her fault; so, she left for college
under the impression that he was not injured. When she discovered that was not the case, she was
overcome with overwhelming guilt and emotional distress, which affected her ability to focus in
school.
18. Smith also began experiencing discomfort in her spine and neck shortly after leaving
for college. She visited a clinic and was told that her sudden stop in an effort to avoid the collision
may have misaligned her vertebra.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4- COMPLAINT
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY)
19. Plaintiff Smith realleges paragraphs 1 through 18.
20. The Traffic Collision Report of the incident marks the “Roadway Conditions” as
having no controls present and noting hazardous material present. The Collision Narrative
explicates that “there are no traffic controls” and “there is no lane divider at the scene of the
collision or immediately adjacent to it.”
21. On or about September 19, 2015, roughly three weeks after the collision incident, a
written Claim for Damages setting forth the matters herein alleged was duly and regularly
presented to and filed on behalf of plaintiff Smith with defendant Mill Valley, in accordance with
the Tort Claims Acts (i.e., Government Code §945.4).
22. On or about November 7, 2015, Mill Valley mailed a letter rejecting these claims.
23. The complaint in this matter is timely filed within the time prescribed by law after
denial of said claim.
24. At all times herein mentioned, agents of defendant Mill Valley and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, knew that that roads of Summit Ave. and Tamalpais Ave. were
commonly used as public streets by vehicles and bikers.
25. The intersection presents a dangerous condition of public property in that it lacked the
aforementioned traffic controls and markings in addition to a 20% increase in downgrade going
southbound on Summit Ave—the same direction Jones was riding his bike. Additionally, the
Collision Narrative notes that the Tamalpais-Summit intersection “is at a curve so the sight line is
limited”.
26. Due to the limited sight distance of approximately 70 ft., Smith’s early left-turn did not
initially allow her to see Jones approaching. However, once she caught sight of him, she chose to
evade collision by stopping in hopes that Jones would avoid her. But, with his high riding speed in
conjunction with the decreasing downgrade and lack of traffic controls, Jones’ reaction time slot
was not conducive to a collision evasion, thus sustaining immediate injuries for him and delayed
injuries for Smith.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5- COMPLAINT
27. At all times herein mentioned, defendant Mill Valley and Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
knew or should have known about the current conditions of these roads and the respective
intersection.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
28. WHEREFORE, Smith prays for judgment against the defendants, and each of them, as
hereinafter set forth:
1. For general damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
2. For special damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
3. For prejudgment interest as provided by law;
4. For costs of suit, expenses, and attorneys’ fees incurred herein;
5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: June 28, 2016 SFSU LEGAL EXTENSION By: JOHANN ALCARAZ
Attorney for Rachel Smith
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1- ANSWER
JOHANN CHRISTINE ALCARAZ (Bar No. 1234567) SFSU LEGAL EXTENSION 835 Market St. San Francisco, California 94103 Telephone: 415 405 7700 Facsimile: 415 371 1012 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Respondent RACHEL SMITH
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MARIN
RACHEL SMITH (“Smith”, “Respondent”, or “Defendant”) answers the Complaint of
ROBERT JONES (“Jones”, “Petitioner”, or “Plaintiff”), and each and every allegation therein, as
follows:
1. Respondent lacks sufficient information or belief to admit or deny the allegations, and
on that basis denies each and every allegation of Paragraph 1 of the Complaint.
2. Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
3. Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
4. Respondent denies each and every allegation of Paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 of the Complaint.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Contributory Negligence)
Plaintiff was careless, negligent, or otherwise at fault with respect to the matters alleged in
the Complaint, and that such carelessness, negligence, and fault legally contributed to the
happening of the incident and to the loss and damage alleged and complained of, completely
ROBERT JONES, an individual,
Petitioners, v. RACHEL SMITH, an individual,
Respondent.
Case No. ANSWER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2- ANSWER
barring or proportionately reducing Plaintiffs’ right of recovery herein, if any such right is found
to exist.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Statute of Limitations)
The Complaint, and each alleged cause of action set forth therein, is barred by the
applicable statutes of limitations.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Mitigate)
Plaintiff failed to take such steps, or took such steps, such that Plaintiffs’ damages, if any
there were, were not mitigated or were increased as a result of Plaintiffs’ conduct, and by virtue of
this failure, Plaintiffs’ recovery must be barred or reduced by those damages that Plaintiffs have
failed to mitigate.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Assumption of Risk)
Assuming, arguendo, that Plaintiffs suffered any damages as alleged in the Complaint,
which this answering Defendant denies, Plaintiffs voluntarily and with knowledge assumed any
and all risk for injuries, losses, and/or damages as alleged in the Complaint.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Notify)
As to any damages alleged, which damages this answering Defendant denies, there was a
failure to give notice within a reasonable time after Plaintiffs knew of them, or reasonably should
have known of them, thus barring any recovery against this answering Defendant under Plaintiffs’
Complaint and each alleged cause of action therein.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Respondent hereby requests that:
1. Plaintiff takes nothing by reason of their Complaint;
2. Judgment be entered in favor of this answering Defendant;
3. This answering Defendant be awarded fees and costs of suit; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3- ANSWER
4. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: July 5, 2016 SFSU LEGAL EXTENSION By: JOHANN ALCARAZ
Attorney for Rachel Smith
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE
JOHANN CHRISTINE ALCARAZ (Bar No. 1234567) SFSU LEGAL EXTENSION 835 Market St. San Francisco, California 94103 Telephone: 415 405 7700 Facsimile: 415 371 1012 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Rachel Smith
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Robert Jones,
Plaintiff, v. Rachel Smith, City of Mill Valley, and Does 1 through 10,
Defendants.
Case No. 7654321 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE Hearing Date: August 15, 2016 Time: 9:30 A.M. Dept: 302 Judge: Hon. Harold E. Kahn Reservation Number 13579-01 Action Filed: June 28, 2016
TO THE PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 15, 2016 at 9:30 A.M., in Department 302 of the
above court, located at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, California, Defendant RACHEL
SMITH will move the Court for an order transferring venue to the Count of Marin pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure section 394 subdivision (a), section 395 subdivision (a), section 396a
subdivision (b), and section 397 subdivisions (a) and (c). The motion will be made on the grounds
that San Francisco Superior Court is not the proper Court for the trial of this action, and Marin
County Superior Court is the proper Court.
This motion will be based on this notice and motion, the accompanying memorandum of
points and authorities, and the pleadings and papers on file in this action.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE
WHEREFORE, Defendant RACHEL SMITH prays that the motion be granted, and she be
granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
Dated: July 19, 2016 SFSU LEGAL EXTENSION By: JOHANN ALCARAZ
Attorney for Rachel Smith
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1- Memo. of Points and Auth. in Supp. of Defendant’s Mot. to Change Venue (Case No. 7654321)
JOHANN CHRISTINE ALCARAZ (Bar No. 1234567) SFSU LEGAL EXTENSION 835 Market St. San Francisco, California 94103 Telephone: 415 405 7700 Facsimile: 415 371 1012 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Rachel Smith
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Robert Jones,
Plaintiff, v. Rachel Smith, City of Mill Valley, and Does 1 through 10,
Defendants.
Case No. 7654321 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE Hearing Date: August 15, 2016 Time: 9:30 A.M. Dept: 302 Judge: Hon. Harold E. Kahn Reservation Number 13579-01 Action Filed: June 28, 2016
INTRODUCTION
In his Complaint, Plaintiff ROBERT JONES (“Jones”) requests relief for Negligence
specifically towards Defendant RACHEL SMITH (“Smith”). He further requests relief for
Dangerous Condition of Public Property specifically towards Defendant CITY OF MILL
VALLEY (“Mill Valley”). Plaintiff erroneously filed the Complaint in the city and county of San
Francisco. Venue of the aforementioned Cause of Actions is governed by Code of Civil Procedure
sections 394 and 395, respectively. As such, proper venue is in the County of Marin. Therefore,
Defendant makes this motion to change venue to the County of Marin, and requests that the Court
grant this motion and order the case transferred to the County of Marin.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2- Memo. of Points and Auth. in Supp. of Defendant’s Mot. to Change Venue (Case No. 7654321)
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 25, 2015, an officer was dispatched to a major injury traffic collision that
occurred between JONES and SMITH at the intersection of Summit Ave. and Tamalpais Ave. in
Mill Valley, California.
MILL VALLEY is, and at all times relevant herein was, a public entity located in the
County of Marin. Code of Civil Procedure section 3941 states that an action against a city has a
proper venue in the county where that respective city is situated. (Code Civ. Proc., § 394, subd.
(a).)
SMITH is, and at all times relevant herein was, a resident of the County of Marin.
JONES is, and at all times relevant herein was, a resident of the County of Marin.
JONES alleges that SMITH’s negligence caused him personal injury. Section 395 provides
that the proper court for personal injury proceedings is either in the county where the defendants
reside or the county where the injury occurs. (§395, subd. (a).)
The complaint was filed in San Francisco. Defendant SMITH does not consent to this
venue. According to section 396a, if it appears from the complaint that the superior court is not
the proper court, and unless the defendant consents, then the court where the action is commenced
shall, on its own motion or on motion of the defendant, transfer said action to the proper court.
(§396a, subd. (b).)
Furthermore, section 397 delineates the cases in which venue may be changed such as
“when the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court” and “when the convenience of
witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.” (§397, subds. (a), (c).)
ARGUMENT
CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTIONS 394 AND 395 GOVERN PROPER VENUE FOR BOTH CAUSE OF ACTIONS IN THIS CASE.
1 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3- Memo. of Points and Auth. in Supp. of Defendant’s Mot. to Change Venue (Case No. 7654321)
Based on JONES’ purported cause of actions, Negligence and Dangerous Condition of
Public Property, and pursuant to sections 394 and 395, the proper venue resides in the county
where (1) the defendant SMITH resides, (2) the injury occurs, or (3) the public entity defendant
MILL VALLEY is situated. As such, the county of Marin satisfies all three possibilities thus being
the proper venue.
CONCLUSION
Venue was erroneously placed in the county of San Francisco. Venue is governed by
application of Code of Civil procedure sections 394 and 395, and the grounds to transfer venue is
substantiated by sections 396a and 397. For the foregoing reasons, defendant SMITH respectfully
requests that this Court grant her motion and transfer this matter to Marin County Superior Court.
Dated: July 19, 2016 SFSU LEGAL EXTENSION By: JOHANN ALCARAZ
Attorney for Rachel Smith
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1- Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion & Motion to Compel (Case No. 7654321)
JOHANN CHRISTINE ALCARAZ (Bar No. 1234567) SFSU LEGAL EXTENSION 835 Market St. San Francisco, California 94103 Telephone: 415 405 7700 Facsimile: 415 371 1012 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Robert Jones
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MARIN
Robert Jones,
Plaintiff, v. Rachel Smith, City of Mill Valley, and Does 1 through 10,
Defendants.
DISCOVERY MOTION Case No. 7654321 ROBERT JONES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE Hearing Date: September 7, 2016 Time: 1:30 P.M. Dept: B Judge: Hon. Roy O. Chernus Trial Date: TBD Action Filed: March 28, 2016
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2- Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion & Motion to Compel (Case No. 7654321)
TO DEFENDANT RACHEL SMITH AND HER ATTORNEY OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 7, 2016 at 1:30 P.M., in Department B of the
above court, located at 3501 Civic Center Drive, San Rafael, California, plaintiff ROBERT
JONES will move the Court for an order compelling defendant RACHEL SMITH to provide
responses to plaintiff’s SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 2030.290 subdivision (b). This motion is made on the grounds that defendant
failed to serve a timely response within thirty (30) days in accordance with Code of Civil
Procedure section 2030.260.
This motion will be based upon this Notice and Motion, the accompanying Memorandum
of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion, Declaration of Attorney Johann Christine Alcaraz,
and the pleadings and papers on file in this action.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff ROBERT JONES prays that the motion be granted, and he be
granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
Dated: August 1, 2016 SFSU LEGAL EXTENSION By: JOHANN CHRISTINE ALCARAZ
Attorney for Robert Jones
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1- Memo. of Points and Auth. in Supp. of Plaintiff’s Mot. to Compel (Case No. 7654321)
JOHANN CHRISTINE ALCARAZ (Bar No. 1234567) SFSU LEGAL EXTENSION 835 Market St. San Francisco, California 94103 Telephone: 415 405 7700 Facsimile: 415 371 1012 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Robert Jones
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MARIN
Robert Jones,
Plaintiff, v. Rachel Smith, City of Mill Valley, and Does 1 through 10,
Defendants.
DISCOVERY MOTION Case No. 7654321 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE Hearing Date: September 7, 2016 Time: 1:30 P.M. Dept: B Judge: Hon. Roy O. Chernus Trial Date: TBD Action Filed: March 28, 2016
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2- Memo. of Points and Auth. in Supp. of Plaintiff’s Mot. to Compel (Case No. 7654321)
INTRODUCTION
With this Motion, plaintiff ROBERT JONES (“JONES”) seeks an order against defendant
RACHEL SMITH (“SMITH”) compelling responses to SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET
ONE served on June 30, 2016. To date, no response of any kind has been served to the plaintiff or
his attorney of record. As there is no legal or factual basis for defendant to refuse to provide any
substantive response whatsoever, JONES respectfully asks this Court to order defendant SMITH
to provide responses to JONES’ first set of interrogatories consistent with the requirements of
Code of Civil procedure section 2030.290 subdivision (b).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND1
On August 25, 2015, an officer was dispatched to a traffic collision that occurred between
JONES and SMITH at the intersection of Summit Ave. and Tamalpais Ave. in Mill Valley,
California. As a result of the collision, JONES suffered major injuries.
A. Plaintiff Initiates Action and Propounds Discovery
JONES filed the complaint on March 28, 2016 with claims of Negligence and Dangerous
Condition of Public Property against SMITH and CITY OF MILL VALLEY, respectively. On
June 20, 2016, plaintiff propounded written discovery requests, including SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE and served to defendant SMITH’s attorney of record by
overnight mail. (Alcaraz Decl., ¶3, Exh. A.) There was no agreement set forth regarding any
extension of time for plaintiff to respond. (Id. at ¶3)
B. Meet and Confer Attempts Fail to Produce Responses
On July 15, 2016, twenty-five (25) days after serving the written discovery requests,
defendant’s attorney checked in to touch base with plaintiff’s counsel via email to no avail.
(Alcaraz Decl., ¶4, Exh. B.) In an effort to comply with Code of Civil procedure section 2016.040
and Marin County Rule, Civil 1.13 subdivision (A), plaintiff and his counsel initiated a meet and
confer dialogue with defendant by letter on July 20, 2016—thirty days after the interrogatories
were served (the deadline to receive defendant’s responses). The letter indicated that if no 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all of the facts contained herein are supported by the accompanying Declaration of Johann Christine Alcaraz (“Alcaraz Decl.”).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3- Memo. of Points and Auth. in Supp. of Plaintiff’s Mot. to Compel (Case No. 7654321)
response is received by noon the next week (Wednesday, July 27), plaintiff would proceed with
filing a motion to compel (Id. at ¶5, Exh. C.) A week passed with no reply from the defendant or
her counsel. (Id. at ¶6.)
On July 27, 2016, with the deadline for filing a motion to compel pressing, plaintiff sent
defendant’s counsel a letter via email attachment to discuss available hearing dates for the Motion.
(Alcaraz Decl., ¶6, Exh. D.) Defendant’s counsel replied the next morning explaining that they
just returned from vacation and agreed to September 7, 2016 as the hearing date. No other
information was provided as to the defendant’s lack of response. (Ibid.)
ARGUMENT
CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 2030.290 GOVERN PROPER PROTOCOL IN THE EVENT OF OPPOSING COUNSEL FAILING TO SERVE A
TIMELY RESPONSE
The situation is clear and simple: defendant SMITH and her counsel have failed to respond
to SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE propounded by plaintiff JONES on June 20, 2016.
Plaintiff and his counsel have attempted to show a reasonable and good faith attempt at an
informal resolution of the issue to no avail, and thus have initiated this Motion pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure 2030.290 subdivision (b), which states: “The party propounding the
interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories” given that the
party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§2030.290, subd. (b).)
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, JONES respectfully requests that this Court grant this Motion to
Compel and order defendant SMITH to provide a response to SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES,
SET ONE.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4- Memo. of Points and Auth. in Supp. of Plaintiff’s Mot. to Compel (Case No. 7654321)
Dated: August 1, 2016 SFSU LEGAL EXTENSION By: JOHANN CHRISTINE ALCARAZ
Attorney for ROBERT JONES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1- Declaration of Johann Christine Alcaraz in Support of Motion to Compel (Case No. 7654321)
JOHANN CHRISTINE ALCARAZ (Bar No. 1234567) SFSU LEGAL EXTENSION 835 Market St. San Francisco, California 94103 Telephone: 415 405 7700 Facsimile: 415 371 1012 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Robert Jones
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MARIN
Robert Jones,
Plaintiff, v. Rachel Smith, City of Mill Valley, and Does 1 through 10,
Defendants.
DISCOVERY MOTION Case No. 7654321 DECLARATION OF ATTORNEY JOHANN CHRISTINE ALCARAZ IN SUPPORT OF ROBERT JONES’ MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE Hearing Date: September 7, 2016 Time: 1:30 P.M. Dept: B Judge: Hon. Roy O. Chernus Trial Date: TBD Action Filed: March 28, 2016
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2- Declaration of Johann Christine Alcaraz in Support of Motion to Compel (Case No. 7654321)
I, JOHANN CHRISTINE ALCARAZ, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts in the State of
California. I am an attorney at the SFSU Legal Extension and counsel of record for plaintiff
ROBERT JONES in this matter. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated below, and if called
upon as a witness, I could and would testify competently thereto. I submit this declaration in
support of the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET
ONE.
2. This matter involves a Negligence action specifically towards defendant RACHEL
SMITH relating to a traffic collision incident at the intersection of Summit Ave. and Tamalpais
Ave. in Mill Valley, California that occurred on August 25, 2015.
3. On June 20, 2016, I served ROBERT JONES’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
TO RACHEL SMITH, SET ONE on defendant’s counsel by overnight mail. Attached hereto as
Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of JONES’ Interrogatories. There was no correspondence
relating to an extension of time for serving a response.
4. On July 15, 2016, since a lack of correspondence ensued and the response deadline
was nearing (five (5) days away), I emailed opposing counsel just to touch base and check in on
the status of their responses. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of my July 15,
2016 email. I did not receive a reply.
5. On July 20, 2016, I sent a letter to defendant’s counsel to meet and confer
regarding defendant’s response to SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE. In my letter, I
asked counsel to contact me by the following Wednesday, July 27, 2016, to let me know whether
defendant will be providing a response of any kind or if an extension will be needed. I also
advised that if I did not receive a response by July 27, I would proceed with filing a motion to
compel. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of my July 20, 2016 letter.
6. I did not receive a response by July 27, 2016. Given the approaching deadline to
file a motion to compel, I emailed defendant’s counsel a letter that day (Wednesday, July 27,
2016) notifying them of the initiation of the motion to compel. I also advised plaintiff concerning
available court dates for hearing Jones’ Motion. Defendant’s counsel finally replied the morning
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3- Declaration of Johann Christine Alcaraz in Support of Motion to Compel (Case No. 7654321)
after (July 28, 2016) explaining that they had just returned from vacation and that defendant
agreed to September 7, 2016 as the hearing date for Jones’ Motion. Attached hereto as Exhibit D
is a true and correct copy of the email thread (and attached letter) between myself and defendant’s
counsel.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 2nd day of August 2016, at San Francisco, California.
SFSU LEGAL EXTENSION By: JOHANN CHRISTINE ALCARAZ
Attorney for ROBERT JONES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1- Plaintiff Robert Jones’ Special Interrogatories – SET ONE (Case No. 7654321)
JOHANN CHRISTINE ALCARAZ (Bar No. 1234567) SFSU LEGAL EXTENSION 835 Market St. San Francisco, California 94103 Telephone: 415 405 7700 Facsimile: 415 371 1012 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Robert Jones
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MARIN
Robert Jones,
Plaintiff, v. Rachel Smith, City of Mill Valley, and Does 1 through 10,
Defendants.
Case No. 7654321 ROBERT JONES’ SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO RACHEL SMITH, SET ONE Trial Date: TBD Action Filed: March 28, 2016
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff Robert Jones
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Rachel Smith
SET NO.: ONE (1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2- Plaintiff Robert Jones’ Special Interrogatories – SET ONE (Case No. 7654321)
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.010 et seq., plaintiff ROBERT JONES
(“Jones”) hereby requests that defendant RACHEL SMITH (“Smith”) respond fully, in writing,
and under oath to the following Special Interrogatories within thirty (30) days after service.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
IDENTIFY the name and quantity of each type of drug or medication taken or used by
YOU during the last six (6) months, specifying the frequency and purpose of use.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
IDENTIFY the approximate/average frequency in which YOU personally drive through or
drive past the intersection of Summit Avenue and Tamalpais Avenue located in Mill Valley,
California in any given month within the past year.
Dated: June 20, 2016 SFSU LEGAL EXTENSION By: JOHANN CHRISTINE ALCARAZ
Attorney for Robert Jones