Preview
10
ul
12
13
14
15
16
7
18
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Joseph V. Macha, Esq. SBN 176538
jmacha@foleymansfield.com
Jennifer M. McCormick, Esq. SBN 189693
jmecormick@foleymansfield.com
FOLEY & MANSFIELD, PLLP
181 West Huntington Drive, Suite 210
Monrovia, CA 91016
Telephone: (213) 283-2100
Facsimile: (213) 283-2101
Attorneys for Specially Appearing Defendants
E-FILED
3/24/2022 11:37 AM
Superior Court of California
County of Fresno
By: Louana Peterson, Deputy
NSR HOTELS (Specially Appearing); RASNA LLC; VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC;
HIMANSHU SARVAIYA AND JENITA SARVAIYA
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO
JAMES BRISCOE, Individually, and as
Successor in Interest to the Estate of HELEN
HALL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS;
RASNA, LLC; HIMANSHU SARVAITYA;
JENITA SARVATYA, DUANTE HALL,
nominal defendant; and DOES | through 50,
inclusive,
Defendants.
I, Jennifer M. McCormick, declare as follows:
Case No.: 22CECG00066
[Assigned to the Honorable Kristi Culver Kapetan, Dept.
403]
DECLARATION OF JENNIFER
MCCORMICK IN SUPPORT OF
SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT
NSR HOTELS AND DEFENDANTS VEER
HOSPITALITY, LLC; RASNA LLC;
HIMANSHU SARVATYA AND JENITA
SARVATYA’S DEMURRER
Date: September 20, 2022
Time: 3:30 p.m.
Dept.: 403
Complaint Filed: January 6, 2022
Trial Date: None Set
1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and am a partner
with the law firm of FOLEY & MANSFIELD, PLLP located at 2185 N. California Blvd., Suite 575,
Walnut Creek, CA 94596, attorneys of record in the above-entitled action for Specially Appearing
Defendant NSR HOTELS and Defendants VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS (Specially
appearing) RASNA LLC; HIMANSHU SARVAIYA AND JENITA SARVAIYA (hereinafter
“VEER”). I make this declaration based upon my own personal knowledge in my capacity as such.
1
DECLARATION OF JENNIFER MCCORMICK IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS DEMURRER,10
ul
12
13
14
15
16
7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ Complaint for
Wrongful Death, filed on January 6, 2022.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Duante Hall’s Complaint for
Wrongful Death, Fresno County, Case Number 22CECG00358, filed on February 2, 2022; see also
the accompanying Request to Take Judicial Notice. This complaint has been filed but has not yet been
served on Defendants.
I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing
is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed on March 24, 2022, at Alameda, California.
fennffer McCormick
2
DECLARATION OF JENNIFER MCCORMICK IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS DEMURRER,EXHIBIT APLD-PI-001
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address):
| Warren R. Paboojian, No. 128462 SBN:
Jason S. Bell, No. 213234
BARADAT & PABOOJIAN, INC.
720 W. ALLUVIAL AVE., FRESNO, CA 93711
TELEPHONE NO:(559) 431-5366 FAX NO. (Optiona):(559) 431-1702
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optiona): wrp@bplaw-inc.com / jsb@bplaw-inc.com
ATTORNEY FOR (Name):Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OFFRESNO
‘STREET ADDRESS:] 130 O Street
MAILING ADDRESS: | 130 O Street
CITY AND ZIP CODE:Fresno, 93721-2220
BRANCH NAME:B.F, Sisk Courthouse
PLAINTIFF: JAMES BRISCOE, Individually, and as Successor in Interest to
the Estate of Helen Hall
DEFENDANT: VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA, LLC;
HIMANSHU SARVATYA; JENITA SARVAIYA; DUANTE!' HALL (nominal
DOES 1TO $0, inclusive Defendant); and
COMPLAINT—Personal Injury, Property Damage, Wrongful Death
[(] AMENDED (Number):
Type (check all that apply): General Negligence; Negligent Infliction of
([-) MOTOR VEHICLE OTHER (specify): Emotional Distress; Premises
Property Damage Wrongful Death Liability; Serious Emotional
Personal Injury Other Damages (specify): Distress; Exemplary
FOR COURT USE ONLY
E-FILED
1/6/2022 10:50 AM .
Superior Court of California
County of Fresno
By: J amie Nelson, Deputy
Jurisdiction (check all that apply): Damages; Survivor
[) ACTION Is A LIMITED CIVIL CASE Action (CCP 377.34)
Amount demanded [__] does not exceed $10,000
[) exceeds $10,000, but does not exceed $25,000
ACTION IS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE (exceeds $25,000)
[] ACTION IS RECLASSIFIED by this amended complaint
[1] from limited to unlimited
[_] from unlimited to limited
CASE NUMBER:
22CECG00066
1. Plaintiff (name or names): JAMES BRISCOE, Individually, and as Successor in Interest to the Estate of Helen Hall
alleges causes of action against defendant (name or names): VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA, LLC;
HIMANSHU SARVAIYA; JENITA SARVAIYA; DUANTE!' HALL (nominal Defendant); and DOES 1 TO 50, inclusive
2. This pleading, including attachments and exhibits, consists of the following number of pages: 1]
3. Each plaintiff named above is a competent adult
a. except plaintiff (name): JAMES BRISCOE as Successor in Interest to the Estate of Helen Hall
(1) [_] a corporation qualified to do business in California
(2) [__] an unincorporated entity (describe):
(3) [_) a public entity (describe):
(4) [J aminor [] an adult
(a) (_] for whom a guardian or conservator of the estate or a guardian ad litem has been appointed
(b) (_] other (specify):
(5) other (specify): Successor in Interest to the Estate of Helen Hall
b. [__] except plaintiff (name):
(1) [] a corporation qualified to do business in California
(2) [__] an unincorporated entity (describe):
(3) [__] a public entity (describe):
(4) [J aminor [] an adult
(a) (_] for whom a guardian or conservator of the estate or a guardian ad litem has been appointed
(b) (__] other (specify):
(5) [] other (specify):
[J information about additional plaintiffs who are not competent adults is shown in Attachment 3. page 1012
mm 7 Optional 7 Code of Gil Procedure, § 425.12
Form Approved for Optional Use COMPLAINT—Personal Injury, Property saabdbaaaiininirs esr
‘Judicial Counell of California
PLD-PI-001 (Rev. January 1, 2007) Damage, Wrongful Death
Westlaw Doc & Form BullderPLD-PI-001
SHORT TITLE: BRISCOE v. VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC
CASE NUMBER:
4. (J Plaintiff (name):
is doing business under the fictitious name (specify):
and has complied with the fictitious business name laws.
5. Each defendant named above is a natural person
except defendant (name): Veer Hospitality, LLC
(1) a business organization, form unknown,
(2) [-_] a corporation
) [) an unincorporated entity (describe):
) (=) a public entity (describe):
) () other (specify):
b. except defendant (name):NSR Hotels
(1) a business organization, form unknown
(2) [--] a corporation
) [) an unincorporated entity (describe):
) [-) a public entity (describe):
(5) [J other (specify):
except defendant (name): Rasna, LLC
a business organization, form unknown
(2) [] a corporation
(3) [) an unincorporated entity (describe):
) [) a public entity (describe):
) [J other (specify):
d. [__] except defendant (name):
) [-) a business organization, form unknown
) [] a corporation
(3) [] an unincorporated entity (describe):
4) [__] a public entity (describe):
(5) [] other (specify):
[] 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 plaintiff.
Doe defendants (specify Doe numbers): 1-50
were the agents or employees of other
named defendants and acted within the scope of that agency or employment.
b. Doe defendants (specify Doe numbers):1-50
plaintiff.
are persons whose capacities are unknown to
7. [] Defendants who are joined under Code of Civil Procedure section 382 are (names):
8. This court is the proper court because
a. [__] atleast one defendant now resides in its jurisdictional area.
4 (J other (specify):
9. [) Plaintiff is required to comply with a claims statute, and
a. [__] has complied with applicable claims statutes, or
b. [_] is excused from complying because (specify):
the principal place of business of a defendant corporation or unincorporated association is in its jurisdictional area.
injury to person or damage to personal property occurred in its jurisdictional area.
PLD-PI-001 [Rev. January 1, 2007)
COMPLAINT—Personal Injury, Property
Page 2 of 3
Damage, Wrongful DeathPLD-PI-001
SHORT TITLE: BRISCOE v. VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC ‘CASE NUMBER:
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):
(J Motor Vehicle
General Negligence
ES Intentional Tort
() Products Liability
Premises Liability
Other (specify):
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (Dillon v. Legg); Exemplary Damages
reaoge
11, Plaintiff has suffered
a. (_X_] wage loss
b. loss of use of property
c. [27] hospital and medical expenses
d. general damage
e. property damage
f. loss of earning capacity
g. other damage (specify):
Loss of consortium of James Briscoe; Exemplary Damages; funeral and burial expenses, wrongful death damages including,
but not limited to, loss of love, comfort, society, support, affection, care and companionship arising from the death of Helen
Hall; and damages under the survivor action pursuant to CCP 377.34.
12. The damages claimed for wrongful death and the relationships of plaintiff to the deceased are
9) ig)
a. [__] listed in Attachment 12.
as follows:
James Briscoe is the husband of Helen Hall. Duante’ Hall (nominal Defendant) is the biological son of Helen Hall.
13. The relief sought in this complaint is within the jurisdiction of this court.
14. Plaintiff prays for judgment for costs of suit; for such relief as is fair, just, and equitable; and for
a. (1) compensatory damages
(2) punitive damages
The amount of damages is (in cases for personal injury or wrongful death, you must check (1)):
(1) according to proof
) [1] in the amount of: $
15,
The paragraphs of this complaint alleged on information and belief are as follows (specify paragraph numbers):
All checked paragraphs of this Complaint; Premises Liability Cause of Action; General Negligence Cause of Action;
and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Cause of Action.
pate: | /5/9-\
Jason S. Bell > So
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) { (SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF OR ATTORNEY)
PLD-PI-001 (Rev. January 1, 2007] COMPLAINT—Personal Injury, Property Page 3 of 3
Damage, Wrongful DeathPLD-PI-001(4)
SHORT TITLE: BRISCOE v. VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC CASE NUMBER:
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION—Premises Liability Page _4
(number)
ATTACHMENT TO Complaint [__] Cross - Complaint
(Use a separate cause of action form for each cause of action.)
Prem.L-1. Plaintiff (name): James Briscoe, Individually, and as Successor in Interest to the Estate of Helen Hall
alleges the acts of defendants were the legal (proximate) cause of damages to plaintiff.
On (date): September 4, 2021 plaintiff was injured on the following premises in the following
fashion (description of premises and circumstances of injury):
Plaintiff, James Briscoe, and decedent, Helen Hall (husband and wife) were burned and witnessed each other burned as a result of a
dangerous condition(s) on the Motel 6 property, located at 4245 North Blackstone Avenue, Fresno, California, wherein Plaintiffs were
paying customers of said motel at the time of the subject incident. Helen Hall died as a result of her injuries sustained in the subject
incident. Said dangerous condition occurred as a result of Defendants' and DOES 1-50 renovation/construction at said property. Defendants
and DOES 1-50 created and allowed a large trash pile to form in the parking lot near Plaintiffs' room, which contained flammable materials,
that Defendants and DOES 1-50 knew, or should have known about, and failed to address prior to the subject incident. As a direct result of
the dangerous conditions created by Defendants, and each of them, and DOES 1-50, a fire occurred at the trash pile, causing severe injuries
and burns to Plaintiffs, causing them to suffer damages in an amount to be determined at the time of trial.
Prem.L-2. Count One—Negligence The defendants who negligently owned, maintained, managed and
operated the described premises were (names):
VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA, LLC; HIMANSHU SARVAIYA; JENITA
SARVAIYA; and
Does 1 to _ 50, inclusive
Prem.L-3. [J Count Two—willful Failure to Warn [Civil Code section 846] The defendant owners who willfully
or maliciously failed to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity were
(names):
[Does to
Plaintiff, a recreational user, was [) an invited guest C4 a paying guest.
Prem.L-4. [5 count Three—Dangerous Condition of Public Property The defendants who owned public property
on which a dangerous condition existed were (names):
[Does to
a. [] The defendant public entity had [J actual [—] constructive notice of the existence of the
dangerous condition in sufficient time prior to the injury to have corrected it.
b. [7] The condition was created by employees of the defendant public entity.
Prem.L-5. a. Allegations about Other Defendants The defendants who were the agents and employees of the
other defendants and acted within the scope of the agency were (names):
VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA, LLC; HIMANSHU SARVAIYA; JENITA
SARVAIYA; and
Does 1 to __50, inclusive
b. [_] The defendants who are liable to plaintiffs for other reasons and the reasons for their liability are
(J described in attachment Prem.L-5.0 [__] as follows (names):
Page 1 oft
Form Approved for Optional Use. = i: i il Pre Ir a
ee eee paar CAUSE OF ACTION—Premises Liability Gade of Gra Procedure, § “2.12
PLD-PI-001(4) [Rev. January 1, 2007] d
Westlaw Doc & Form BuilderPLD-PI-001(2)
SHORT TITLE: BRISCOE v. VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC CASE NUMBER:
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION—General Negligence Page _s
(number) —_—_—_—
ATTACHMENT TO Complaint [_] Cross - Complaint
(Use a separate cause of action form for each cause of action.)
GN-1. Plaintiff (name): James Briscoe, Individually, and as Successor in Interest to the Estate of Helen Hall
alleges that defendant (name): VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA, LLC; HIMANSHU
SARVATYA; JENITA SARVAIYA; and
Does 1 to 50, 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): September 4, 2021
at (place): Motel 6, 4245 North Blackstone Ave., Fresno, California
(description of reasons for liability):
1. On September 4, 2021, Plaintiff, James Briscoe and his decedent wife, were paying customers, staying at the Motel 6,
located at 4245 North Blackstone Avenue, Fresno, California.
2. At all relevant times herein, Defendants, including DOES 1-50, and each of them, were an employee, owner, agent,
representative, partner, manager, consultant, joint venturer and/or alter ego of its co-defendants, or otherwise acting on
behalf of each and every remaining Defendant and, in doing the things hereinafter alleged, were acting within the course
and scope of their authorities as an employee, owner, co-owner, agent, representative, partner, manager, consultant, joint
venturer, and/or alter ego of its co-defendants, with the full knowledge, permission and consent of each and every
remaining Defendant, each co-defendant having ratified the acts of the other co-defendants, and are, therefore, jointly and
severally liable for the damages caused to Plaintiffs.
3. Defendants, including DOES 1-50, and each of them, were, at all times herein mentioned, acting in concert with, and
in conspiracy with, each and every one of the remaining Defendants and DOES 1-50.
4. On September 4, 2021, and at all times prior, Defendants, VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA,
LLC; HIMANSHU SARVAIYA; JENITA SARVAIYA; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, and each of them, negligently,
carelessly, and/or recklessly owned, maintained, managed, operated, inspected, renovated, constructed, and repaired the
Property known as Motel 6, located at 4245 North Blackstone Avenue, Fresno, California. Said property was in a
dangerous condition at all times herein mentioned as set forth herein.
5. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA, LLC;
HIMANSHU SARVATYA; JENITA SARVAIYA; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, and each of them, knew, or in the exercise
of reasonable care should have known, that said Defendants and DOES 1-50 had their construction/renovating
employees, agents and/or joint venturers inappropriately, inadequately and negligently dispose of construction materials
by creating a large trash pile with many flammable materials, in the parking lot near the Motel 6 building, where
Plaintiffs’ room was located.
Page 1 of 1
Form Approved for Optional Use Code of Civil Procedure 425.12
Judicial Counc of Calfornia CAUSE OF ACTION—General Negligence vw. courtnf.ca.gov
PLO'PI-001(2) (Rev. January 1, 2007] Westlaw Doc & Form BuilderSHORT TITLE: BRISCOE v. VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC GASE NUMBER:
1 || SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION—GENERAL NEGLIGENCE, Cont'd.
6. It was certain to any reasonable person and specifically to Defendants, VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS;
3 | RASNA, LLC; HIMANSHU SARVAIYA; JENITA SARVAIYA; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, and each of them, that the large
trash pile containing flammable materials created a dangerous condition to any person near it, including Plaintiffs.
7. It was certain to any reasonable person and specifically to Defendants, VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS;
5 |) RASNA, LLC; HIMANSHU SARVAIYA; JENITA SARVAIYA; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, and each of them, that the large
trash pile could/would catch fire and having been placed so close to the motel rooms, including Plaintiffs, was reasonably
6 || foreseeable to cause injuries to persons and property, including Plaintiffs, who were patrons of the motel. Despite the
Defendants’ and DOES 1-50, and each of their, knowledge and reasonable foreseeability of the trash pile catching fire,
7 || Defendants and DOES 1-50, and each of them, failed to take any remedial measures and failed to dispose of the trash pile
and/or warn and/or protect its customers of the motel of the dangerous condition at any time prior to the subject incident.
8
8. Asa result of Defendants’, VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA, LLC; HIMANSHU SARVAIYA;
JENITA SARVAIYA; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, and each of their, negligence, on September 4, 2021, the large trash pile
9 caught fire, burning each of the Plaintiffs’ bodies resulting in bodily injuries and property damage.
10 9. Defendants, VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA, LLC; HIMANSHU SARVAIYA; JENITA
SARVAIYA; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, and each of them, owed a duty to avoid harm to their customers who had paid money
Nh to stay at the subject Motel 6. Defendants, and each of them, and DOES 1-50, had a duty to reasonably and ‘properly hire,
employ, supervise, manage, and oversee their employees, agents and/or joint venturers. Said Defendants, and each of them,
121) and DOES 1-50, breached their duty of care by negligently hiring, managing, supervising, and hiring inexperienced and
unqualified persons to perform the renovation and construction work at the subject location, which renovation was ongoing at
131) the time of the subject incident. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants, and DOES 1-50, and each of their negligent
hiring, retention, supervision, entrustment, management, and training of their employees, agents, and joint venturers, including
14
to perform the renovation construction work and motel management, Plaintiffs were burned, sustaining both bodily injury and
property damage in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. Said Defendants and DOES 1-50, inclusive, negligence
15] was a substantial factor in causing each of the Plaintiffs’ damages.
16]| 10. As land owners and/or managers of land, Defendants, VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA, LLC;
HIMANSHU SARVAIYA; JENITA SARVAIYA; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, and each of them, owed a duty of care under
47|| common law and California Civil Code section 1714 to exercise due care in the management of their property so as to avoid
foreseeable injury to others. This duty required said Defendants to comply with all building, health, fire, and safety codes,
18 || ordinances, regulations, and other laws applying to the maintenance and operation of the subject motel lodging facility where
the subject incident took place. Said Defendants have breached their common law and statutory duties of due care by failing
49]| to correct the dangerous and substandard conditions. Said Defendants knew, or reasonably should have known, that their
paying customers, including Plaintiffs, would be injured as a result of their breach of the common law and statutory duties of
due care.
20
24 11. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants and DOES 1 to 50, and each of their conduct described herein, Plaintiff,
JAMES BRISCOE, sustained bodily injury as well as damages relating to the wrongful death of his wife, Helen Hall.
22)! 12. Asa further direct and proximate result of Defendants, and each of their conduct described herein, decedent Helen Hall
sustained serious burns, resulting in the amputation of her limbs. She eventually died as a result of her serious injuries,
23 incurring medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other recoverable damages according to proof and pursuant to CCP §
377.34,
24
25
26 || (Required for verified pleading) The items on this page stated on information and belief are (specify item numbers, not line
numbers):
7 This page may be used with any Judicial Council form or any other paper filed with the court. Page _6
Form Approved by the ADDITIONAL PAGE Westin Dos Bom baer
Judicial Council of California Attach to Judicial Council Form or Other Court Paper GRC 201, 501
MC-020 [New January 1, 1987]PLD-PI-001(2)
SHORT TITLE: BRISCOE v. VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC ‘CASE NUMBER:
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION—General Negligence — Page 7
(number) Oo
ATTACHMENT TO Complaint [_] Cross - Complaint
(Use a separate cause of action form for each cause of action.)
GN-1. Plaintiff (name): JAMES BRISCOE, Individually, and as Successor in Interest to the Estate of Helen Hall
alleges that defendant (name): VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA, LLC; HIMANSHU
SARVAITYA; JENITA SARVAIYA; and
Does to _50 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): September 4, 2021
at (place): Motel 6, 4245 North Blackstone Ave., Fresno, California
(description of reasons for liability):
1. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all paragraphs of the First Cause of Action for Premises Liability and the
Second Cause of Action for General Negligence, as if fully set forth herein and further allege as follows:
2. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, HIMANSHU SARVAIYA; JENITA SARVAIYA; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
(hereinafter collectively referred to as "Defendant Shareholders") are, and at all times herein mentioned were,
shareholders of the stock and/or owners of Defendant, VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; and RASNA,
LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Corporate Defendants") and/or promoters of Corporate Defendants and/or
subscribers to stock therein. There exists, and at all times herein mentioned existed, a unity of interests between
Defendant Shareholders and Corporate Defendants, such that any individuality and separateness between
Defendant Shareholders and Corporate Defendants have ceased, and Corporate Defendants are the alter ego of
Defendant Shareholders as follows:
a. Plaintiffs allege that Corporate Defendants are and, at all times herein mentioned were, a mere shell and
sham without capital, assets, stock, or stockholders. Said Corporate Defendants were conceived, intended, and
used by Defendant Shareholders as a device to avoid individual liability and for the purpose of substituting a
financially insolvent corporation in the place of Defendant Shareholders. At no time after Corporate Defendants
became incorporated was any stock authorized to be issued, or issued, nor has any permit for issuance of stock
been applied.
b. Plaintiffs allege that Corporate Defendants are, and at all times herein mentioned were, so inadequately
capitalized that, compared with the business to be done by Corporate Defendants and the risk of loss attendant
thereto, their capitalization was illusory or trifling.
c. Plaintiffs allege that Corporate Defendants are, and at all times mentioned herein were, the alter ego of
Defendant Shareholders and their exists, and at all times herein mentioned has existed, a unity of ownership
between said Defendants, such that any separateness has ceased to exist in that Defendant Shareholders used
assets of Corporate Defendants for their personal use, caused assets of Corporate Defendants to be transferred to
them without adequate consideration, and withdrew funds from Corporate Defendants’ bank accounts for their
personal use.
Page tof 1
Fe sroved for Optional Us Code of Civil Procedure 425.12
“Hraeeh Coens o Canleane CAUSE OF ACTION—General Negligence
www.courtinio.ca.gov
PLD-PI-001(2) [Rev. January 1, 2007] Westlaw Doc & Form BuilderSHORT TITLE: BRISCOE v. VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC CASE NUMBER:
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION--GENERAL NEGLIGENCE, Cont'd.
d. Plaintiffs allege that Corporate Defendants are, and at all times mentioned herein were, a mere shell, instrumentality, and
conduit through which Defendant Shareholders carried on their business in the name of Corporate Defendants exactly as they
conducted it previous to incorporation, exercising complete control and dominance of such business to such an extent that any
individuality or separateness of Corporate Defendants and Defendant Shareholders does not now, and at any time herein
mentioned did not, exist.
e. Plaintiffs allege that Corporate Defendants are, and at all times herein mentioned were, controlled, dominated, and
operated by Defendant Shareholders as their individual businesses and alter egos, in that the activities and business of
Corporate Defendants were carried out without the holding of directors or shareholders meetings, no records or minutes of any
Corporate proceedings were maintained, and Defendant Shareholders entered into personal transactions with Corporate
Defendants without the approval of other directors or shareholders.
f. Plaintiffs allege that adherence to the fiction of separate existence of Corporate Defendants as entities distinct from
Defendant Shareholders would permit abuse of the corporate privilege and would sanction fraud in that Defendant
Shareholders caused funds to be withdrawn from Corporate Defendants and distributed said funds without any consideration to
Corporate Defendants, all for the purpose of avoiding and preventing attachment and execution by creditors, including
Plaintiffs, thereby rendering Corporate Defendants insolvent and unable to meet its obligations.
g. Plaintiffs allege that adherence to the fiction of separate existence of Corporate Defendants as entities distinct from
Defendant Shareholders would permit abuse of the corporate privilege and produce an inequitable result.
h. Plaintiffs allege that adherence to the fiction of separate existence of Corporate Defendants as an entity distinct from
Defendant Shareholders would permit abuse of the corporate privilege and produce an inequitable result in that Defendant
Shareholders guaranteed certain of Corporate Defendants’ obligations thereby enabling Corporate Defendants to return to
active business without adequate financing or insurance and without capital stock.
3. As a result of the acts and omissions complained hereinabove, said Defendant Shareholders are jointly and severally liable,
for all relief sought herein against Corporate Defendants, by Plaintiffs.
(Required for verified pleading) The items on this page stated on information and belief are (specify item numbers, not line
numbers):
This page may be used with any Judicial Council form or any other paper filed with the court.
Page _&
Form Approved by the ADDITIONAL PAGE Westaw Doc Ferm Baldor
Judicial Council of California Attach to Judicial Council Form or Other Court Paper CRC 201, 501
MC-020 [New January 1, 1987]PLD-PI-001(2)
ATTACHMENT TO.
SHORT TITLE: BRISCOE v. VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC CASE NUMBER:
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION—General Nealiaence Page 9
(number) NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS oo
(Dillon v. Legg)
Complaint [] Cross - Complaint
(Use a separate cause of action form for each cause of action.)
GN-1, Plaintiff (name): JAMES BRISCOE, Individually
alleges that defendant (name): VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA, LLC; HIMANSHU
SARVAIYA; JENITA SARVAIYA; and
Does to 50 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): September 4, 2021
at (place): Motel 6, 4245 North Blackstone Ave., Fresno, California
(description of reasons for liability):
1. Plaintiff, James Briscoe, incorporates by reference all paragraphs of the First Cause of Action for Premises Liability,
the Second Cause of Action for General Negligence, and the Third Cause of Action for General Negligence as if fully
set forth herein, and further allege as follows:
2. Plaintiff, James Briscoe, allege that Defendants, VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA, LLC;
HIMANSHU SARVAIYA; JENITA SARVAIYA; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, and each of them, were the legal
(proximate) cause of damages to Plaintiff.
3. Plaintiff, James Briscoe, alleges that he suffered serious emotional distress as a result of perceiving an injury
to his wife, Helen Hall.
4. On September 4, 2021, Defendants negligently caused injuries to Plaintiffs, Helen Hall and James Briscoe, as
set forth in the Premises Liability and General Negligence Causes of Action herein.
5. Plaintiff, James Briscoe, was present at the time and place when the injury occurred and was aware that his
wife, Helen Hall, was being injured by Defendants' negligence as set forth in the Premises Liability and General
Negligence Causes of Action herein.
6. Plaintiff, James Briscoe, suffered serious emotional distress as a result of perceiving Helen Hall being injured
by Defendants’ negligence as set forth in the Premises Liability and General Negligence
7. Defendants and DOES 1-50, inclusive, and each of their conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff,
James Briscoe's, serious emotional distress.
Page 1 of 1
Form Apprc 1 Optional Us i, Code of Civil Procedure 425.12
en ee for Optional Use CAUSE OF ACTION—General Negligence
PLO-PI-001(2) [Rev. January 1, 2007]
www.courtinfo.ca.gov
Westlaw Doc & Form BuilderPLD-PI-001(6)
SHORT TITLE: BRISCOE v. VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC (CASE NUMBER:
Exemplary Damages Attachment Page 0
Complaint [__] Cross - Complaint
ATTACHMENT TO
EX-1. As additional damages against defendant (name):
VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA, LLC; HIMANSHU SARVAIYA; JENITA SARVAIYA
Plaintiff alleges defendant was guilty of
malice
[1] fraud
oppression
as defined in Civil Code section 3294, and plaintiff should recover, in addition to actual damages, damages
to make an example of and to punish defendant.
EX-2. The facts supporting plaintiff's claim are as follows:
Plaintiff, James Briscoe, Individually, and as Successor in Interest to the Estate of Helen Hall, incorporates by reference
all paragraphs of the First Cause of Action for Premises Liability, Second Cause of Action for General Negligence, Third
Cause of Action for General Negligence and Fourth Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, as if
fully set forth herein.
Prior to the subject incident on September 4, 2021, said Defendants, by and through their directors, officers, and/or
managing agents willfully and knowingly created a dangerous condition on the property known as the Motel 6, located at
4245 North Blackstone Avenue, Fresno, California, by willfully and knowingly creating and maintaining a trash pile
containing flammable materials in the parking lot of the Motel 6 located directly outside the room assigned to Plaintiffs in
willful and conscious disregard for the rights and safety of their tenants/paying customers, including Plaintiffs, and/or
aware of the probable dangerous consequences.
Prior to the subject incident on September 4, 2021, said Defendants, by and through their directors, officers, and/or
managing agents knew the subject property had created and was maintaining a large trash pile, which included flammable
materials, in the parking lot of the motel, directly outside of customers’ motel rooms, and willfully and knowingly failed to
correct or otherwise clean up and properly dispose of the flammable materials in a willful and conscious disregard for the
rights and safety of their tenants/paying customers, including Plaintiffs, and were aware of the probable dangerous
consequences.
Prior to the subject incident on September 4, 2021, said Defendants, by and through their directors, officers, and/or
managing agents knew the subject property had created and was maintaining a large trash pile, which included flammable
materials, in the parking lot of the motel, directly outside of customers’ motel rooms, and willfully and knowingly failed to
provide any warnings to their tenants/paying customers or otherwise clean up and properly dispose of the flammable
materials in a willful and conscious disregard for the rights and safety of their tenants/paying customers, including
Plaintiffs, and were aware of the probable dangerous consequences.
Prior to the subject incident on September 4, 2021, said Defendants, by and through their directors, officers, and/or
managing agents also willfully and knowingly did the following in willful and conscious disregard for the rights and safety
of their tenants/paying customers at the subject Motel 6 and were aware of the probable dangerous consequences:
a. Required their employees, agents, and/or joint venturers to perform renovations at the subject Motel 6 and
improperly and inadequately dispose of trash and flammable materials, all of whom were not properly trained, unqualified,
and not properly instructed and/or supervised to perform said work and tasks at said Motel 6.
EX-3. The amount of exemplary damages sought is
a. not shown, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.10.
’6 C$
Page 1 of 1
Form Approved for Opional U Code of Gi Procedure, § 4
“Jove Goune! of Calforia Exemplary Damages Attachment seo nn coun gor
PLD-PI-001(6) [Rev. January 1, 2007] Westlaw Doc & Form BuilderSHORT TITLE: BRISCOE v. VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC CASE NUMBER:
1 |EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ATTACHMENT, Cont'd.
IEX-2, Cont'd.
lb. Inspected the subject property and knew it was dangerous, because the trash pile contained flammable materials and was
3 reasonably foreseeable that the trash pile could/would catch fire and that any paying customer staying in the motel rooms near the|
tash pile would come in contact with the fire, due to its close proximity to the motel rooms, including Plaintiffs’ room.
Ic. Defendants, and each of them, assigned Plaintiffs to the motel room which was in very close relationship to the large
§ |[trash pile located in the parking lot just outside the customers’ room, knowing that the improper disposal of the trash and
|flammable items that were reasonably foreseeable and capable of catching fire, which would cause and, in fact did cause,
6 |\significant personal injuries to the Plaintiff customers when the fire occurred.
7 \As landowners and/or managers of land, said Defendants owed a duty of care under common law and California Civil Code
section 1714 to exercise due care in the management of their property so as to avoid foreseeable injury to others. This duty
g |requires said Defendants to comply with all building, health, fire and safety codes, ordinances, regulations, and other laws
applying to the maintenance and operation of a motel. Said Defendants, by and through their directors, officers, and/or managing|
lagents of said Defendants, have breached their common law and statutory duties of due care by failing to correct the dangerous
land substandard conditions. Said Defendants knew, or reasonably should have known, that their paying customers, including
Plaintiffs, would be injured as a result of their breach of the common law and statutory duties of care. Said Defendants acts and
jomissions as landowners and/or managers of land were malicious and oppressive.
|The aforementioned conduct was despicable and carried on by said Defendants, by and through their directors, officers and/or
managing agents of said Defendants, with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others, with extreme
12 |iindifference to the Plaintiffs” rights and an awareness of the probable dangerous consequences of their conduct, which said
[Defendants willfully and knowingly failed to avoid within the meaning of Civil Code section 3294, and as a result, Plaintiffs were
13 severely burned, sustained property damage, and ultimately caused the death of Helen Hall.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 | (Required for verified pleading) The items on this page stated on information and belief are (specify item numbers, not line
numbers):
ev This page may be used with any Judicial Council form or any other paper filed with the court. Page
Form Approved by the ADDITIONAL PAGE Weta Onc Form baer
Judicial Council of Galfornia Attach to Judicial Council Form or Other Court Paper GRC 201, 501
MC-020 [New January 1, 1987]EXHIBIT BCeO IN DH BF Bw NR
NY NYY YN NK KY He ee ee ewe ewe ew De
oN A YM FYB YN = SSC we AA AREBH FS
Nathaniel M. Leeds, SBN: 246138
Mitchell Leeds, LLP
290 7" Avenue E-FILED
San Francisco, CA 94118 2/2/2022 3:20PM
Tel: (415) 702-9928 eueenod su of California
i ‘ounty of Fresno
Fax: (415) 276-9099 By: Jamie Nelson, Deputy
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF FRESNO
DAUNTE’ J. HALL, FANNIE L. TONEY, Case No. Eos
OSSIE HALL, and ALEXANDER HALL,
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Plaintiffs,
1. Medical Negligence
v. 2. General Negligence
3. Premises Liability
VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC (d/b/a “Motel 6- 4. Srithong Doctrine
VEER”), NSR HOTELS, HIMANSHU 5. Survivorship Action
SARVAIYA, FRESNO COMMUNITY
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, and DOES
1 to 40, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendants.
&
JAMES ROBERT BRISCOE III,
Nominal Defendant, per CCP § 382
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiffs DAUNTE' J. HALL, FANNIE L. TONEY, OSSIE HALL, and
ALEXANDER HALL (“Plaintiffs”), allege generally against defendants VEER
HOSPITALITY, LLC (d/b/a “Motel 6- VEER”), NSR HOTELS, HIMANSHU SARVAIYA
and DOES | to 20 (collectively, “MOTEL DEFENDANTS”) and FRESNO COMMUNITY
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, and DOES 21 to 40 (collectively, “HOSPITAL
DEFENDANTS”) and nominal defendant, JAMES ROBERT BRISCOE III:
Mt
COMPLAINT oe DAMAGESCe ND HW FB BW we
YN YP YY YN NN DY j= eB Be ew ewe ew we ee
oY DH FB YH KF SESOwH AAA REBH LS
1) The entirety of this Complaint is pled upon information and belief, and each
allegation contained herein is likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity
for further investigation or discovery.
2) This case concerns fatal injuries suffered by Helen L. Hall ((DECEDENT”) on
September 4, 2021 in a fire in the parking lot of a hotel branded as a “Motel 6” at 4245 N.
Blackstone Ave., Fresno, CA 93726. The “Motel 6” at that location, including both the
structures and on-premises parking, will hereafter be referred to as “MOTEL 6.”
3) At all times relevant to this complaint, the MOTEL 6 was owned, operated and
managed by the MOTEL DEFENDANTS.
4) VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC, is business entity registered and organized under
the laws of the state of Colorado, registered to do business in California, owns, and/or operates
the MOTEL 6 under the Fresno County registered d/b/a “Motel 6- VEER.” VEER
HOSPITALITY lists 7335 E. Villanueva Drive, Orange, CA 92867, a residential address, as its
entity address with the California Secretary of State.
5) NSR HOTELS is an unregistered asset management company founded in 2010 by
HIMANSHU SARVAIYA, which publicly lists its office location as 7335 E. Villanueva Drive,
Orange, CA 92867, a residential address. Per the company website, HIMANSHU SARVAIYA
serves as the company President.
6) At all times relevant to this complaint, HIMANSHU SARVATYA lived at,
owned, and/or transacts business at 7335 E. Villanueva Drive, Orange, CA 92867, a residential
address.
7) PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that there exists, and at all times herein
mentioned, there existed, a unity of interest and ownership between HIMANSHU SARVAIYA
and the remaining MOTEL DEFENDANTS, and between the MOTEL DEFENDANTS and each
other, such that any individuality and separateness between said Defendants had ceased. The
MOTEL DEFENDANTS, which are the alter-egos of defendants HIMANSHU SARVATYA and
each other, are controlled and dominated by HIMANSHU SARVATYA and each other.
Adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of the above-mentioned business entities and
COMPLAINT Hee DAMAGESCe NAH BF wBwHY He
YBN YN YN NN NY B= ee Be Be ee ewe Ee
eo YW DH FF BW NH FE SoSH ADA BRB HH ES
individuals would permit an abuse of corporate privilege and would sanction fraud or promote
injustice in that both benefitted by the improper activities described in this complaint. Plaintiffs
are informed and believe that the MOTEL DEFENDANTS are inextricably connected with each
other such that any and all legal distinctions should be disregarded and each of the MOTEL
DEFENDANTS shall be vicariously liable for the conduct of the others.
8) The MOTEL DEFENDANTS invited members of the public, and guests at the
motel, onto the MOTEL 6 premises and at the times relevant to this complaint, allowed them to
park next to what fire investigators described as “a large debris pile of box springs mattresses,
desks, nightstands and other combustible materials.” Inadequately supervised, it appeared that a
homeless person made a temporary domicile in the pile as evidenced by what fire investigators
described as “makeshift walls from box spring mattresses and a cardboard box for a roof.”
9) Allowing such a hazard to exist and persist in a used and generally accessible part
of the parking lot of their hotel was breach of the MOTEL DEFENDANTS’ duty to their patrons
and members of the public to maintain their property free of hazards, and as such was negligent.
10) Based on the extent of the debris pile, and the fact that it presented an obvious
hazard which any reasonable hotel proprietor would have appreciated, and the fact that the debris
pile was related to a renovation, PLAINTIFFS believe and hereby allege that the MOTEL
DEFENDANTS, and each of them, created or permitted the debris pile to persist, had actual
knowledge of the hazards created by the debris pile, knew that it was highly probable that the
persistence of the debris pile would cause harm bodily harm, and knowingly disregarded that
risk.
11) _ Foreseeably, the debris pile home caught on fire on September 4, 2021.
12) At the time of the fire, DECEDENT was staying in room 135 of the MOTEL 6.
Concerned her car would get caught in the fire, DECEDENT made the fateful decision to attempt
to move it. When she got into the vehicle, she was unable to move it, or get out. By the time
DECEDENT was extracted from the car, she had suffered extensive burns. Decedent was
transferred to FRESNO COMMUNITY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER.
//
COMPLAINT yor DAMAGESCome YN DH BF WHY HY
RN YY YY NN DY] Bee ew ee ewe LW
oN DA AE BH |= SO xMe AAA POH AS
13) | DECEDENT spent the next 92 days in pain and discomfort in the hospital under
the care and treatment of the HOSPITAL DEFENDANT until she died on December 5, 2021
from illnesses and conditions caused by her exposure to heat and fire in the parking lot of the
Motel 6.
14) | DECEDENT is survived by her son, DUANTE J. HALL, and siblings, FANNIE
L. TONEY, OSSIE HALL, and ALEXANDER HALL.
15) | DECEDENT had been married JAMES ROBERT BRISCOE III. On March 8,
2021 BRISCOE filed for divorce, (Fresno County Superior Court No.: 21CEFL00921), and
served DECEDENT via mail on April 6, 2021 by acknowledgement and receipt, which she
returned on May 1, 2021. At the time of the April 6th service of divorce documents, BRISCOE
was an inmate housed in the California Health Care Facility at 7707 Austin Rd., Stockton,
California.
16) PLAINTIFFS allege that even if the marriage between DECEDENT and
BRISCOE had not yet been terminated by the Court, the couple was legally separated under the
definition set forth in Family Code section 70, and, as such BRISCOE did not have a reasonable
expectation that he would have received DECEDENT’s care, comfort, support or society had
DECEDENT not died as a result of the tortious conduct alleged herein.
17) PLAINTIFFS allege that BRISCOE does not have legal standing to bring a claim
in this action because he had legally separated from DECEDENT and initiated divorce
proceedings prior to DECEDENT’s injury. Even if BRISCOE is deemed to have standing,
PLAINTIFFS allege that he did not have a reasonable expectation that DECEDENT would have
provided him with care, comfort, support and society if DECEDENT had not died.
PLAINTIFFS have named BRISCOE as a nominal defendant, herein, to adjudicate any foreclose
any potential claim BRISCOE may assert arising out of the facts stated herein.
18) — The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or
otherwise, of the defendants herein named as DOE, are unknown to plaintiffs who, therefore, sue
said Defendants by such fictitious names; and leave of court will be asked to amend this
Complaint to show their true names and capacities when the same have become ascertained.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES,
4Cem IN DAH eF wBW
10
19) | PLAINTIFFS and DECEDENT are and were at all times relevant to this
Complaint residents of Fresno County.
20) Atall times mentioned herein, the HOSPITAL DEFENDANTS: (a) engaged in
owning, operating, maintaining, managing and doing business in the State of California; (b)
engaged in rendering medical, surgical, clinic, diagnostic, nursing and other care and services to
the general public for compensation; and (c) a corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, joint
venture, unincorporated association, or some other business entity doing business in the County
of Fresno, State of California and duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of
the County of Fresno and the State of California.
21) Atall times mentioned herein Does | through 10 inclusive and Does 21 through
30, and each of them, were employees and/or agents of Defendants, acting within the course and
scope of their agency/employment.
22) Atal times herein mentioned, Does 11 through 20 and Does 31 through 40,
inclusive, and each of them, were the co-joint-venturers, masters and employers of the other
Defendants, inclusive, and each of them, who, at all times herein mentioned, were acting within
the course and scope of their agency, employment and/or joint venture.
23) Defendant Fresno Community Regional Medical Center, their agents, employees
and ostensible agents, and Does 21 through 30, and each of them, at all times herein mentioned,
held themselves out to the public at large and to DECEDENT and plaintiffs, in particular, as
fully qualified physicians, surgeons, nurses, healthcare providers and healthcare facilities duly
licensed to practice their profession in the State of California, and exercising prudent, reasonable
judgment and care in the selection, employment and control of qualified, trained, experienced
nurses, nurse practitioners, nursing personnel, orderlies, assistants, aides and employees under
their supervision, control, direction, responsibility and authority while performing services and
caring for patients including, but not limited to, DECEDENT.
24) Defendant Fresno Community Medical Center and Does 21 through 40
negligently selected, reviewed and supervised their medical, nursing, assisting, technical, clerical
and administrative staff who were involved in DECEDENT’s care.
COMPLAINT ee DAMAGES,Some NUN DH BF WN
25) Defendant Motel 6 and Does | through 20 negligently selected, reviewed and
supervised their contractors, assistants, employees, agents, clerical and administrative staff who
had an unknown role in the creation of the dangerous condition(s) which led to DECEDENT’s
injuries and death.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Medical Negligence
(Against the HOSPITAL DEFENDANTS)
PLAINTIFFS, and each of them, alleges against the HOSPITAL DEFENDANTS:
26) Plaintiffs realleges and incorporates by reference each and every paragraph above
as though fully set forth herein.
27) By virtue of the foregoing, the HOSPITAL DEFENDANTS, and each of them,
owed a duty of ordinary care to DECEDENT, to use that degree of care and skill that a
reasonably prudent healthcare provider and/or caregiver would owe.
28) Defendants, the HOSPITAL DEFENDANTS, and each of them, breached this duty in
that they failed to conform to the standard of professional conduct of reasonably prudent nurses,
doctors, hospitals and healthcare providers providing healthcare in the me
Preview
10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Joseph V. Macha, Esq. SBN 176538 jmacha@foleymansfield.com Jennifer M. McCormick, Esq. SBN 189693 jmecormick@foleymansfield.com FOLEY & MANSFIELD, PLLP 181 West Huntington Drive, Suite 210 Monrovia, CA 91016 Telephone: (213) 283-2100 Facsimile: (213) 283-2101 Attorneys for Specially Appearing Defendants E-FILED 3/24/2022 11:37 AM Superior Court of California County of Fresno By: Louana Peterson, Deputy NSR HOTELS (Specially Appearing); RASNA LLC; VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; HIMANSHU SARVAIYA AND JENITA SARVAIYA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO JAMES BRISCOE, Individually, and as Successor in Interest to the Estate of HELEN HALL, Plaintiffs, vs. VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA, LLC; HIMANSHU SARVAITYA; JENITA SARVATYA, DUANTE HALL, nominal defendant; and DOES | through 50, inclusive, Defendants. I, Jennifer M. McCormick, declare as follows: Case No.: 22CECG00066 [Assigned to the Honorable Kristi Culver Kapetan, Dept. 403] DECLARATION OF JENNIFER MCCORMICK IN SUPPORT OF SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT NSR HOTELS AND DEFENDANTS VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; RASNA LLC; HIMANSHU SARVATYA AND JENITA SARVATYA’S DEMURRER Date: September 20, 2022 Time: 3:30 p.m. Dept.: 403 Complaint Filed: January 6, 2022 Trial Date: None Set 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and am a partner with the law firm of FOLEY & MANSFIELD, PLLP located at 2185 N. California Blvd., Suite 575, Walnut Creek, CA 94596, attorneys of record in the above-entitled action for Specially Appearing Defendant NSR HOTELS and Defendants VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS (Specially appearing) RASNA LLC; HIMANSHU SARVAIYA AND JENITA SARVAIYA (hereinafter “VEER”). I make this declaration based upon my own personal knowledge in my capacity as such. 1 DECLARATION OF JENNIFER MCCORMICK IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS DEMURRER,10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Wrongful Death, filed on January 6, 2022. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Duante Hall’s Complaint for Wrongful Death, Fresno County, Case Number 22CECG00358, filed on February 2, 2022; see also the accompanying Request to Take Judicial Notice. This complaint has been filed but has not yet been served on Defendants. I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed on March 24, 2022, at Alameda, California. fennffer McCormick 2 DECLARATION OF JENNIFER MCCORMICK IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS DEMURRER,EXHIBIT APLD-PI-001 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): | Warren R. Paboojian, No. 128462 SBN: Jason S. Bell, No. 213234 BARADAT & PABOOJIAN, INC. 720 W. ALLUVIAL AVE., FRESNO, CA 93711 TELEPHONE NO:(559) 431-5366 FAX NO. (Optiona):(559) 431-1702 E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optiona): wrp@bplaw-inc.com / jsb@bplaw-inc.com ATTORNEY FOR (Name):Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OFFRESNO ‘STREET ADDRESS:] 130 O Street MAILING ADDRESS: | 130 O Street CITY AND ZIP CODE:Fresno, 93721-2220 BRANCH NAME:B.F, Sisk Courthouse PLAINTIFF: JAMES BRISCOE, Individually, and as Successor in Interest to the Estate of Helen Hall DEFENDANT: VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA, LLC; HIMANSHU SARVATYA; JENITA SARVAIYA; DUANTE!' HALL (nominal DOES 1TO $0, inclusive Defendant); and COMPLAINT—Personal Injury, Property Damage, Wrongful Death [(] AMENDED (Number): Type (check all that apply): General Negligence; Negligent Infliction of ([-) MOTOR VEHICLE OTHER (specify): Emotional Distress; Premises Property Damage Wrongful Death Liability; Serious Emotional Personal Injury Other Damages (specify): Distress; Exemplary FOR COURT USE ONLY E-FILED 1/6/2022 10:50 AM . Superior Court of California County of Fresno By: J amie Nelson, Deputy Jurisdiction (check all that apply): Damages; Survivor [) ACTION Is A LIMITED CIVIL CASE Action (CCP 377.34) Amount demanded [__] does not exceed $10,000 [) exceeds $10,000, but does not exceed $25,000 ACTION IS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE (exceeds $25,000) [] ACTION IS RECLASSIFIED by this amended complaint [1] from limited to unlimited [_] from unlimited to limited CASE NUMBER: 22CECG00066 1. Plaintiff (name or names): JAMES BRISCOE, Individually, and as Successor in Interest to the Estate of Helen Hall alleges causes of action against defendant (name or names): VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA, LLC; HIMANSHU SARVAIYA; JENITA SARVAIYA; DUANTE!' HALL (nominal Defendant); and DOES 1 TO 50, inclusive 2. This pleading, including attachments and exhibits, consists of the following number of pages: 1] 3. Each plaintiff named above is a competent adult a. except plaintiff (name): JAMES BRISCOE as Successor in Interest to the Estate of Helen Hall (1) [_] a corporation qualified to do business in California (2) [__] an unincorporated entity (describe): (3) [_) a public entity (describe): (4) [J aminor [] an adult (a) (_] for whom a guardian or conservator of the estate or a guardian ad litem has been appointed (b) (_] other (specify): (5) other (specify): Successor in Interest to the Estate of Helen Hall b. [__] except plaintiff (name): (1) [] a corporation qualified to do business in California (2) [__] an unincorporated entity (describe): (3) [__] a public entity (describe): (4) [J aminor [] an adult (a) (_] for whom a guardian or conservator of the estate or a guardian ad litem has been appointed (b) (__] other (specify): (5) [] other (specify): [J information about additional plaintiffs who are not competent adults is shown in Attachment 3. page 1012 mm 7 Optional 7 Code of Gil Procedure, § 425.12 Form Approved for Optional Use COMPLAINT—Personal Injury, Property saabdbaaaiininirs esr ‘Judicial Counell of California PLD-PI-001 (Rev. January 1, 2007) Damage, Wrongful Death Westlaw Doc & Form BullderPLD-PI-001 SHORT TITLE: BRISCOE v. VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC CASE NUMBER: 4. (J Plaintiff (name): is doing business under the fictitious name (specify): and has complied with the fictitious business name laws. 5. Each defendant named above is a natural person except defendant (name): Veer Hospitality, LLC (1) a business organization, form unknown, (2) [-_] a corporation ) [) an unincorporated entity (describe): ) (=) a public entity (describe): ) () other (specify): b. except defendant (name):NSR Hotels (1) a business organization, form unknown (2) [--] a corporation ) [) an unincorporated entity (describe): ) [-) a public entity (describe): (5) [J other (specify): except defendant (name): Rasna, LLC a business organization, form unknown (2) [] a corporation (3) [) an unincorporated entity (describe): ) [) a public entity (describe): ) [J other (specify): d. [__] except defendant (name): ) [-) a business organization, form unknown ) [] a corporation (3) [] an unincorporated entity (describe): 4) [__] a public entity (describe): (5) [] other (specify): [] 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 plaintiff. Doe defendants (specify Doe numbers): 1-50 were the agents or employees of other named defendants and acted within the scope of that agency or employment. b. Doe defendants (specify Doe numbers):1-50 plaintiff. are persons whose capacities are unknown to 7. [] Defendants who are joined under Code of Civil Procedure section 382 are (names): 8. This court is the proper court because a. [__] atleast one defendant now resides in its jurisdictional area. 4 (J other (specify): 9. [) Plaintiff is required to comply with a claims statute, and a. [__] has complied with applicable claims statutes, or b. [_] is excused from complying because (specify): the principal place of business of a defendant corporation or unincorporated association is in its jurisdictional area. injury to person or damage to personal property occurred in its jurisdictional area. PLD-PI-001 [Rev. January 1, 2007) COMPLAINT—Personal Injury, Property Page 2 of 3 Damage, Wrongful DeathPLD-PI-001 SHORT TITLE: BRISCOE v. VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC ‘CASE NUMBER: 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): (J Motor Vehicle General Negligence ES Intentional Tort () Products Liability Premises Liability Other (specify): Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (Dillon v. Legg); Exemplary Damages reaoge 11, Plaintiff has suffered a. (_X_] wage loss b. loss of use of property c. [27] hospital and medical expenses d. general damage e. property damage f. loss of earning capacity g. other damage (specify): Loss of consortium of James Briscoe; Exemplary Damages; funeral and burial expenses, wrongful death damages including, but not limited to, loss of love, comfort, society, support, affection, care and companionship arising from the death of Helen Hall; and damages under the survivor action pursuant to CCP 377.34. 12. The damages claimed for wrongful death and the relationships of plaintiff to the deceased are 9) ig) a. [__] listed in Attachment 12. as follows: James Briscoe is the husband of Helen Hall. Duante’ Hall (nominal Defendant) is the biological son of Helen Hall. 13. The relief sought in this complaint is within the jurisdiction of this court. 14. Plaintiff prays for judgment for costs of suit; for such relief as is fair, just, and equitable; and for a. (1) compensatory damages (2) punitive damages The amount of damages is (in cases for personal injury or wrongful death, you must check (1)): (1) according to proof ) [1] in the amount of: $ 15, The paragraphs of this complaint alleged on information and belief are as follows (specify paragraph numbers): All checked paragraphs of this Complaint; Premises Liability Cause of Action; General Negligence Cause of Action; and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Cause of Action. pate: | /5/9-\ Jason S. Bell > So (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) { (SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF OR ATTORNEY) PLD-PI-001 (Rev. January 1, 2007] COMPLAINT—Personal Injury, Property Page 3 of 3 Damage, Wrongful DeathPLD-PI-001(4) SHORT TITLE: BRISCOE v. VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC CASE NUMBER: FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION—Premises Liability Page _4 (number) ATTACHMENT TO Complaint [__] Cross - Complaint (Use a separate cause of action form for each cause of action.) Prem.L-1. Plaintiff (name): James Briscoe, Individually, and as Successor in Interest to the Estate of Helen Hall alleges the acts of defendants were the legal (proximate) cause of damages to plaintiff. On (date): September 4, 2021 plaintiff was injured on the following premises in the following fashion (description of premises and circumstances of injury): Plaintiff, James Briscoe, and decedent, Helen Hall (husband and wife) were burned and witnessed each other burned as a result of a dangerous condition(s) on the Motel 6 property, located at 4245 North Blackstone Avenue, Fresno, California, wherein Plaintiffs were paying customers of said motel at the time of the subject incident. Helen Hall died as a result of her injuries sustained in the subject incident. Said dangerous condition occurred as a result of Defendants' and DOES 1-50 renovation/construction at said property. Defendants and DOES 1-50 created and allowed a large trash pile to form in the parking lot near Plaintiffs' room, which contained flammable materials, that Defendants and DOES 1-50 knew, or should have known about, and failed to address prior to the subject incident. As a direct result of the dangerous conditions created by Defendants, and each of them, and DOES 1-50, a fire occurred at the trash pile, causing severe injuries and burns to Plaintiffs, causing them to suffer damages in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. Prem.L-2. Count One—Negligence The defendants who negligently owned, maintained, managed and operated the described premises were (names): VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA, LLC; HIMANSHU SARVAIYA; JENITA SARVAIYA; and Does 1 to _ 50, inclusive Prem.L-3. [J Count Two—willful Failure to Warn [Civil Code section 846] The defendant owners who willfully or maliciously failed to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity were (names): [Does to Plaintiff, a recreational user, was [) an invited guest C4 a paying guest. Prem.L-4. [5 count Three—Dangerous Condition of Public Property The defendants who owned public property on which a dangerous condition existed were (names): [Does to a. [] The defendant public entity had [J actual [—] constructive notice of the existence of the dangerous condition in sufficient time prior to the injury to have corrected it. b. [7] The condition was created by employees of the defendant public entity. Prem.L-5. a. Allegations about Other Defendants The defendants who were the agents and employees of the other defendants and acted within the scope of the agency were (names): VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA, LLC; HIMANSHU SARVAIYA; JENITA SARVAIYA; and Does 1 to __50, inclusive b. [_] The defendants who are liable to plaintiffs for other reasons and the reasons for their liability are (J described in attachment Prem.L-5.0 [__] as follows (names): Page 1 oft Form Approved for Optional Use. = i: i il Pre Ir a ee eee paar CAUSE OF ACTION—Premises Liability Gade of Gra Procedure, § “2.12 PLD-PI-001(4) [Rev. January 1, 2007] d Westlaw Doc & Form BuilderPLD-PI-001(2) SHORT TITLE: BRISCOE v. VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC CASE NUMBER: SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION—General Negligence Page _s (number) —_—_—_— ATTACHMENT TO Complaint [_] Cross - Complaint (Use a separate cause of action form for each cause of action.) GN-1. Plaintiff (name): James Briscoe, Individually, and as Successor in Interest to the Estate of Helen Hall alleges that defendant (name): VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA, LLC; HIMANSHU SARVATYA; JENITA SARVAIYA; and Does 1 to 50, 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): September 4, 2021 at (place): Motel 6, 4245 North Blackstone Ave., Fresno, California (description of reasons for liability): 1. On September 4, 2021, Plaintiff, James Briscoe and his decedent wife, were paying customers, staying at the Motel 6, located at 4245 North Blackstone Avenue, Fresno, California. 2. At all relevant times herein, Defendants, including DOES 1-50, and each of them, were an employee, owner, agent, representative, partner, manager, consultant, joint venturer and/or alter ego of its co-defendants, or otherwise acting on behalf of each and every remaining Defendant and, in doing the things hereinafter alleged, were acting within the course and scope of their authorities as an employee, owner, co-owner, agent, representative, partner, manager, consultant, joint venturer, and/or alter ego of its co-defendants, with the full knowledge, permission and consent of each and every remaining Defendant, each co-defendant having ratified the acts of the other co-defendants, and are, therefore, jointly and severally liable for the damages caused to Plaintiffs. 3. Defendants, including DOES 1-50, and each of them, were, at all times herein mentioned, acting in concert with, and in conspiracy with, each and every one of the remaining Defendants and DOES 1-50. 4. On September 4, 2021, and at all times prior, Defendants, VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA, LLC; HIMANSHU SARVAIYA; JENITA SARVAIYA; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, and each of them, negligently, carelessly, and/or recklessly owned, maintained, managed, operated, inspected, renovated, constructed, and repaired the Property known as Motel 6, located at 4245 North Blackstone Avenue, Fresno, California. Said property was in a dangerous condition at all times herein mentioned as set forth herein. 5. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA, LLC; HIMANSHU SARVATYA; JENITA SARVAIYA; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, and each of them, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that said Defendants and DOES 1-50 had their construction/renovating employees, agents and/or joint venturers inappropriately, inadequately and negligently dispose of construction materials by creating a large trash pile with many flammable materials, in the parking lot near the Motel 6 building, where Plaintiffs’ room was located. Page 1 of 1 Form Approved for Optional Use Code of Civil Procedure 425.12 Judicial Counc of Calfornia CAUSE OF ACTION—General Negligence vw. courtnf.ca.gov PLO'PI-001(2) (Rev. January 1, 2007] Westlaw Doc & Form BuilderSHORT TITLE: BRISCOE v. VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC GASE NUMBER: 1 || SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION—GENERAL NEGLIGENCE, Cont'd. 6. It was certain to any reasonable person and specifically to Defendants, VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; 3 | RASNA, LLC; HIMANSHU SARVAIYA; JENITA SARVAIYA; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, and each of them, that the large trash pile containing flammable materials created a dangerous condition to any person near it, including Plaintiffs. 7. It was certain to any reasonable person and specifically to Defendants, VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; 5 |) RASNA, LLC; HIMANSHU SARVAIYA; JENITA SARVAIYA; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, and each of them, that the large trash pile could/would catch fire and having been placed so close to the motel rooms, including Plaintiffs, was reasonably 6 || foreseeable to cause injuries to persons and property, including Plaintiffs, who were patrons of the motel. Despite the Defendants’ and DOES 1-50, and each of their, knowledge and reasonable foreseeability of the trash pile catching fire, 7 || Defendants and DOES 1-50, and each of them, failed to take any remedial measures and failed to dispose of the trash pile and/or warn and/or protect its customers of the motel of the dangerous condition at any time prior to the subject incident. 8 8. Asa result of Defendants’, VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA, LLC; HIMANSHU SARVAIYA; JENITA SARVAIYA; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, and each of their, negligence, on September 4, 2021, the large trash pile 9 caught fire, burning each of the Plaintiffs’ bodies resulting in bodily injuries and property damage. 10 9. Defendants, VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA, LLC; HIMANSHU SARVAIYA; JENITA SARVAIYA; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, and each of them, owed a duty to avoid harm to their customers who had paid money Nh to stay at the subject Motel 6. Defendants, and each of them, and DOES 1-50, had a duty to reasonably and ‘properly hire, employ, supervise, manage, and oversee their employees, agents and/or joint venturers. Said Defendants, and each of them, 121) and DOES 1-50, breached their duty of care by negligently hiring, managing, supervising, and hiring inexperienced and unqualified persons to perform the renovation and construction work at the subject location, which renovation was ongoing at 131) the time of the subject incident. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants, and DOES 1-50, and each of their negligent hiring, retention, supervision, entrustment, management, and training of their employees, agents, and joint venturers, including 14 to perform the renovation construction work and motel management, Plaintiffs were burned, sustaining both bodily injury and property damage in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. Said Defendants and DOES 1-50, inclusive, negligence 15] was a substantial factor in causing each of the Plaintiffs’ damages. 16]| 10. As land owners and/or managers of land, Defendants, VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA, LLC; HIMANSHU SARVAIYA; JENITA SARVAIYA; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, and each of them, owed a duty of care under 47|| common law and California Civil Code section 1714 to exercise due care in the management of their property so as to avoid foreseeable injury to others. This duty required said Defendants to comply with all building, health, fire, and safety codes, 18 || ordinances, regulations, and other laws applying to the maintenance and operation of the subject motel lodging facility where the subject incident took place. Said Defendants have breached their common law and statutory duties of due care by failing 49]| to correct the dangerous and substandard conditions. Said Defendants knew, or reasonably should have known, that their paying customers, including Plaintiffs, would be injured as a result of their breach of the common law and statutory duties of due care. 20 24 11. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants and DOES 1 to 50, and each of their conduct described herein, Plaintiff, JAMES BRISCOE, sustained bodily injury as well as damages relating to the wrongful death of his wife, Helen Hall. 22)! 12. Asa further direct and proximate result of Defendants, and each of their conduct described herein, decedent Helen Hall sustained serious burns, resulting in the amputation of her limbs. She eventually died as a result of her serious injuries, 23 incurring medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other recoverable damages according to proof and pursuant to CCP § 377.34, 24 25 26 || (Required for verified pleading) The items on this page stated on information and belief are (specify item numbers, not line numbers): 7 This page may be used with any Judicial Council form or any other paper filed with the court. Page _6 Form Approved by the ADDITIONAL PAGE Westin Dos Bom baer Judicial Council of California Attach to Judicial Council Form or Other Court Paper GRC 201, 501 MC-020 [New January 1, 1987]PLD-PI-001(2) SHORT TITLE: BRISCOE v. VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC ‘CASE NUMBER: THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION—General Negligence — Page 7 (number) Oo ATTACHMENT TO Complaint [_] Cross - Complaint (Use a separate cause of action form for each cause of action.) GN-1. Plaintiff (name): JAMES BRISCOE, Individually, and as Successor in Interest to the Estate of Helen Hall alleges that defendant (name): VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA, LLC; HIMANSHU SARVAITYA; JENITA SARVAIYA; and Does to _50 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): September 4, 2021 at (place): Motel 6, 4245 North Blackstone Ave., Fresno, California (description of reasons for liability): 1. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all paragraphs of the First Cause of Action for Premises Liability and the Second Cause of Action for General Negligence, as if fully set forth herein and further allege as follows: 2. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, HIMANSHU SARVAIYA; JENITA SARVAIYA; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Defendant Shareholders") are, and at all times herein mentioned were, shareholders of the stock and/or owners of Defendant, VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; and RASNA, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Corporate Defendants") and/or promoters of Corporate Defendants and/or subscribers to stock therein. There exists, and at all times herein mentioned existed, a unity of interests between Defendant Shareholders and Corporate Defendants, such that any individuality and separateness between Defendant Shareholders and Corporate Defendants have ceased, and Corporate Defendants are the alter ego of Defendant Shareholders as follows: a. Plaintiffs allege that Corporate Defendants are and, at all times herein mentioned were, a mere shell and sham without capital, assets, stock, or stockholders. Said Corporate Defendants were conceived, intended, and used by Defendant Shareholders as a device to avoid individual liability and for the purpose of substituting a financially insolvent corporation in the place of Defendant Shareholders. At no time after Corporate Defendants became incorporated was any stock authorized to be issued, or issued, nor has any permit for issuance of stock been applied. b. Plaintiffs allege that Corporate Defendants are, and at all times herein mentioned were, so inadequately capitalized that, compared with the business to be done by Corporate Defendants and the risk of loss attendant thereto, their capitalization was illusory or trifling. c. Plaintiffs allege that Corporate Defendants are, and at all times mentioned herein were, the alter ego of Defendant Shareholders and their exists, and at all times herein mentioned has existed, a unity of ownership between said Defendants, such that any separateness has ceased to exist in that Defendant Shareholders used assets of Corporate Defendants for their personal use, caused assets of Corporate Defendants to be transferred to them without adequate consideration, and withdrew funds from Corporate Defendants’ bank accounts for their personal use. Page tof 1 Fe sroved for Optional Us Code of Civil Procedure 425.12 “Hraeeh Coens o Canleane CAUSE OF ACTION—General Negligence www.courtinio.ca.gov PLD-PI-001(2) [Rev. January 1, 2007] Westlaw Doc & Form BuilderSHORT TITLE: BRISCOE v. VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC CASE NUMBER: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION--GENERAL NEGLIGENCE, Cont'd. d. Plaintiffs allege that Corporate Defendants are, and at all times mentioned herein were, a mere shell, instrumentality, and conduit through which Defendant Shareholders carried on their business in the name of Corporate Defendants exactly as they conducted it previous to incorporation, exercising complete control and dominance of such business to such an extent that any individuality or separateness of Corporate Defendants and Defendant Shareholders does not now, and at any time herein mentioned did not, exist. e. Plaintiffs allege that Corporate Defendants are, and at all times herein mentioned were, controlled, dominated, and operated by Defendant Shareholders as their individual businesses and alter egos, in that the activities and business of Corporate Defendants were carried out without the holding of directors or shareholders meetings, no records or minutes of any Corporate proceedings were maintained, and Defendant Shareholders entered into personal transactions with Corporate Defendants without the approval of other directors or shareholders. f. Plaintiffs allege that adherence to the fiction of separate existence of Corporate Defendants as entities distinct from Defendant Shareholders would permit abuse of the corporate privilege and would sanction fraud in that Defendant Shareholders caused funds to be withdrawn from Corporate Defendants and distributed said funds without any consideration to Corporate Defendants, all for the purpose of avoiding and preventing attachment and execution by creditors, including Plaintiffs, thereby rendering Corporate Defendants insolvent and unable to meet its obligations. g. Plaintiffs allege that adherence to the fiction of separate existence of Corporate Defendants as entities distinct from Defendant Shareholders would permit abuse of the corporate privilege and produce an inequitable result. h. Plaintiffs allege that adherence to the fiction of separate existence of Corporate Defendants as an entity distinct from Defendant Shareholders would permit abuse of the corporate privilege and produce an inequitable result in that Defendant Shareholders guaranteed certain of Corporate Defendants’ obligations thereby enabling Corporate Defendants to return to active business without adequate financing or insurance and without capital stock. 3. As a result of the acts and omissions complained hereinabove, said Defendant Shareholders are jointly and severally liable, for all relief sought herein against Corporate Defendants, by Plaintiffs. (Required for verified pleading) The items on this page stated on information and belief are (specify item numbers, not line numbers): This page may be used with any Judicial Council form or any other paper filed with the court. Page _& Form Approved by the ADDITIONAL PAGE Westaw Doc Ferm Baldor Judicial Council of California Attach to Judicial Council Form or Other Court Paper CRC 201, 501 MC-020 [New January 1, 1987]PLD-PI-001(2) ATTACHMENT TO. SHORT TITLE: BRISCOE v. VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC CASE NUMBER: FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION—General Nealiaence Page 9 (number) NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS oo (Dillon v. Legg) Complaint [] Cross - Complaint (Use a separate cause of action form for each cause of action.) GN-1, Plaintiff (name): JAMES BRISCOE, Individually alleges that defendant (name): VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA, LLC; HIMANSHU SARVAIYA; JENITA SARVAIYA; and Does to 50 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): September 4, 2021 at (place): Motel 6, 4245 North Blackstone Ave., Fresno, California (description of reasons for liability): 1. Plaintiff, James Briscoe, incorporates by reference all paragraphs of the First Cause of Action for Premises Liability, the Second Cause of Action for General Negligence, and the Third Cause of Action for General Negligence as if fully set forth herein, and further allege as follows: 2. Plaintiff, James Briscoe, allege that Defendants, VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA, LLC; HIMANSHU SARVAIYA; JENITA SARVAIYA; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, and each of them, were the legal (proximate) cause of damages to Plaintiff. 3. Plaintiff, James Briscoe, alleges that he suffered serious emotional distress as a result of perceiving an injury to his wife, Helen Hall. 4. On September 4, 2021, Defendants negligently caused injuries to Plaintiffs, Helen Hall and James Briscoe, as set forth in the Premises Liability and General Negligence Causes of Action herein. 5. Plaintiff, James Briscoe, was present at the time and place when the injury occurred and was aware that his wife, Helen Hall, was being injured by Defendants' negligence as set forth in the Premises Liability and General Negligence Causes of Action herein. 6. Plaintiff, James Briscoe, suffered serious emotional distress as a result of perceiving Helen Hall being injured by Defendants’ negligence as set forth in the Premises Liability and General Negligence 7. Defendants and DOES 1-50, inclusive, and each of their conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff, James Briscoe's, serious emotional distress. Page 1 of 1 Form Apprc 1 Optional Us i, Code of Civil Procedure 425.12 en ee for Optional Use CAUSE OF ACTION—General Negligence PLO-PI-001(2) [Rev. January 1, 2007] www.courtinfo.ca.gov Westlaw Doc & Form BuilderPLD-PI-001(6) SHORT TITLE: BRISCOE v. VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC (CASE NUMBER: Exemplary Damages Attachment Page 0 Complaint [__] Cross - Complaint ATTACHMENT TO EX-1. As additional damages against defendant (name): VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC; NSR HOTELS; RASNA, LLC; HIMANSHU SARVAIYA; JENITA SARVAIYA Plaintiff alleges defendant was guilty of malice [1] fraud oppression as defined in Civil Code section 3294, and plaintiff should recover, in addition to actual damages, damages to make an example of and to punish defendant. EX-2. The facts supporting plaintiff's claim are as follows: Plaintiff, James Briscoe, Individually, and as Successor in Interest to the Estate of Helen Hall, incorporates by reference all paragraphs of the First Cause of Action for Premises Liability, Second Cause of Action for General Negligence, Third Cause of Action for General Negligence and Fourth Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, as if fully set forth herein. Prior to the subject incident on September 4, 2021, said Defendants, by and through their directors, officers, and/or managing agents willfully and knowingly created a dangerous condition on the property known as the Motel 6, located at 4245 North Blackstone Avenue, Fresno, California, by willfully and knowingly creating and maintaining a trash pile containing flammable materials in the parking lot of the Motel 6 located directly outside the room assigned to Plaintiffs in willful and conscious disregard for the rights and safety of their tenants/paying customers, including Plaintiffs, and/or aware of the probable dangerous consequences. Prior to the subject incident on September 4, 2021, said Defendants, by and through their directors, officers, and/or managing agents knew the subject property had created and was maintaining a large trash pile, which included flammable materials, in the parking lot of the motel, directly outside of customers’ motel rooms, and willfully and knowingly failed to correct or otherwise clean up and properly dispose of the flammable materials in a willful and conscious disregard for the rights and safety of their tenants/paying customers, including Plaintiffs, and were aware of the probable dangerous consequences. Prior to the subject incident on September 4, 2021, said Defendants, by and through their directors, officers, and/or managing agents knew the subject property had created and was maintaining a large trash pile, which included flammable materials, in the parking lot of the motel, directly outside of customers’ motel rooms, and willfully and knowingly failed to provide any warnings to their tenants/paying customers or otherwise clean up and properly dispose of the flammable materials in a willful and conscious disregard for the rights and safety of their tenants/paying customers, including Plaintiffs, and were aware of the probable dangerous consequences. Prior to the subject incident on September 4, 2021, said Defendants, by and through their directors, officers, and/or managing agents also willfully and knowingly did the following in willful and conscious disregard for the rights and safety of their tenants/paying customers at the subject Motel 6 and were aware of the probable dangerous consequences: a. Required their employees, agents, and/or joint venturers to perform renovations at the subject Motel 6 and improperly and inadequately dispose of trash and flammable materials, all of whom were not properly trained, unqualified, and not properly instructed and/or supervised to perform said work and tasks at said Motel 6. EX-3. The amount of exemplary damages sought is a. not shown, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.10. ’6 C$ Page 1 of 1 Form Approved for Opional U Code of Gi Procedure, § 4 “Jove Goune! of Calforia Exemplary Damages Attachment seo nn coun gor PLD-PI-001(6) [Rev. January 1, 2007] Westlaw Doc & Form BuilderSHORT TITLE: BRISCOE v. VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC CASE NUMBER: 1 |EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ATTACHMENT, Cont'd. IEX-2, Cont'd. lb. Inspected the subject property and knew it was dangerous, because the trash pile contained flammable materials and was 3 reasonably foreseeable that the trash pile could/would catch fire and that any paying customer staying in the motel rooms near the| tash pile would come in contact with the fire, due to its close proximity to the motel rooms, including Plaintiffs’ room. Ic. Defendants, and each of them, assigned Plaintiffs to the motel room which was in very close relationship to the large § |[trash pile located in the parking lot just outside the customers’ room, knowing that the improper disposal of the trash and |flammable items that were reasonably foreseeable and capable of catching fire, which would cause and, in fact did cause, 6 |\significant personal injuries to the Plaintiff customers when the fire occurred. 7 \As landowners and/or managers of land, said Defendants owed a duty of care under common law and California Civil Code section 1714 to exercise due care in the management of their property so as to avoid foreseeable injury to others. This duty g |requires said Defendants to comply with all building, health, fire and safety codes, ordinances, regulations, and other laws applying to the maintenance and operation of a motel. Said Defendants, by and through their directors, officers, and/or managing| lagents of said Defendants, have breached their common law and statutory duties of due care by failing to correct the dangerous land substandard conditions. Said Defendants knew, or reasonably should have known, that their paying customers, including Plaintiffs, would be injured as a result of their breach of the common law and statutory duties of care. Said Defendants acts and jomissions as landowners and/or managers of land were malicious and oppressive. |The aforementioned conduct was despicable and carried on by said Defendants, by and through their directors, officers and/or managing agents of said Defendants, with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others, with extreme 12 |iindifference to the Plaintiffs” rights and an awareness of the probable dangerous consequences of their conduct, which said [Defendants willfully and knowingly failed to avoid within the meaning of Civil Code section 3294, and as a result, Plaintiffs were 13 severely burned, sustained property damage, and ultimately caused the death of Helen Hall. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 | (Required for verified pleading) The items on this page stated on information and belief are (specify item numbers, not line numbers): ev This page may be used with any Judicial Council form or any other paper filed with the court. Page Form Approved by the ADDITIONAL PAGE Weta Onc Form baer Judicial Council of Galfornia Attach to Judicial Council Form or Other Court Paper GRC 201, 501 MC-020 [New January 1, 1987]EXHIBIT BCeO IN DH BF Bw NR NY NYY YN NK KY He ee ee ewe ewe ew De oN A YM FYB YN = SSC we AA AREBH FS Nathaniel M. Leeds, SBN: 246138 Mitchell Leeds, LLP 290 7" Avenue E-FILED San Francisco, CA 94118 2/2/2022 3:20PM Tel: (415) 702-9928 eueenod su of California i ‘ounty of Fresno Fax: (415) 276-9099 By: Jamie Nelson, Deputy Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO DAUNTE’ J. HALL, FANNIE L. TONEY, Case No. Eos OSSIE HALL, and ALEXANDER HALL, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Plaintiffs, 1. Medical Negligence v. 2. General Negligence 3. Premises Liability VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC (d/b/a “Motel 6- 4. Srithong Doctrine VEER”), NSR HOTELS, HIMANSHU 5. Survivorship Action SARVAIYA, FRESNO COMMUNITY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, and DOES 1 to 40, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendants. & JAMES ROBERT BRISCOE III, Nominal Defendant, per CCP § 382 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS Plaintiffs DAUNTE' J. HALL, FANNIE L. TONEY, OSSIE HALL, and ALEXANDER HALL (“Plaintiffs”), allege generally against defendants VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC (d/b/a “Motel 6- VEER”), NSR HOTELS, HIMANSHU SARVAIYA and DOES | to 20 (collectively, “MOTEL DEFENDANTS”) and FRESNO COMMUNITY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, and DOES 21 to 40 (collectively, “HOSPITAL DEFENDANTS”) and nominal defendant, JAMES ROBERT BRISCOE III: Mt COMPLAINT oe DAMAGESCe ND HW FB BW we YN YP YY YN NN DY j= eB Be ew ewe ew we ee oY DH FB YH KF SESOwH AAA REBH LS 1) The entirety of this Complaint is pled upon information and belief, and each allegation contained herein is likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. 2) This case concerns fatal injuries suffered by Helen L. Hall ((DECEDENT”) on September 4, 2021 in a fire in the parking lot of a hotel branded as a “Motel 6” at 4245 N. Blackstone Ave., Fresno, CA 93726. The “Motel 6” at that location, including both the structures and on-premises parking, will hereafter be referred to as “MOTEL 6.” 3) At all times relevant to this complaint, the MOTEL 6 was owned, operated and managed by the MOTEL DEFENDANTS. 4) VEER HOSPITALITY, LLC, is business entity registered and organized under the laws of the state of Colorado, registered to do business in California, owns, and/or operates the MOTEL 6 under the Fresno County registered d/b/a “Motel 6- VEER.” VEER HOSPITALITY lists 7335 E. Villanueva Drive, Orange, CA 92867, a residential address, as its entity address with the California Secretary of State. 5) NSR HOTELS is an unregistered asset management company founded in 2010 by HIMANSHU SARVAIYA, which publicly lists its office location as 7335 E. Villanueva Drive, Orange, CA 92867, a residential address. Per the company website, HIMANSHU SARVAIYA serves as the company President. 6) At all times relevant to this complaint, HIMANSHU SARVATYA lived at, owned, and/or transacts business at 7335 E. Villanueva Drive, Orange, CA 92867, a residential address. 7) PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that there exists, and at all times herein mentioned, there existed, a unity of interest and ownership between HIMANSHU SARVAIYA and the remaining MOTEL DEFENDANTS, and between the MOTEL DEFENDANTS and each other, such that any individuality and separateness between said Defendants had ceased. The MOTEL DEFENDANTS, which are the alter-egos of defendants HIMANSHU SARVATYA and each other, are controlled and dominated by HIMANSHU SARVATYA and each other. Adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of the above-mentioned business entities and COMPLAINT Hee DAMAGESCe NAH BF wBwHY He YBN YN YN NN NY B= ee Be Be ee ewe Ee eo YW DH FF BW NH FE SoSH ADA BRB HH ES individuals would permit an abuse of corporate privilege and would sanction fraud or promote injustice in that both benefitted by the improper activities described in this complaint. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the MOTEL DEFENDANTS are inextricably connected with each other such that any and all legal distinctions should be disregarded and each of the MOTEL DEFENDANTS shall be vicariously liable for the conduct of the others. 8) The MOTEL DEFENDANTS invited members of the public, and guests at the motel, onto the MOTEL 6 premises and at the times relevant to this complaint, allowed them to park next to what fire investigators described as “a large debris pile of box springs mattresses, desks, nightstands and other combustible materials.” Inadequately supervised, it appeared that a homeless person made a temporary domicile in the pile as evidenced by what fire investigators described as “makeshift walls from box spring mattresses and a cardboard box for a roof.” 9) Allowing such a hazard to exist and persist in a used and generally accessible part of the parking lot of their hotel was breach of the MOTEL DEFENDANTS’ duty to their patrons and members of the public to maintain their property free of hazards, and as such was negligent. 10) Based on the extent of the debris pile, and the fact that it presented an obvious hazard which any reasonable hotel proprietor would have appreciated, and the fact that the debris pile was related to a renovation, PLAINTIFFS believe and hereby allege that the MOTEL DEFENDANTS, and each of them, created or permitted the debris pile to persist, had actual knowledge of the hazards created by the debris pile, knew that it was highly probable that the persistence of the debris pile would cause harm bodily harm, and knowingly disregarded that risk. 11) _ Foreseeably, the debris pile home caught on fire on September 4, 2021. 12) At the time of the fire, DECEDENT was staying in room 135 of the MOTEL 6. Concerned her car would get caught in the fire, DECEDENT made the fateful decision to attempt to move it. When she got into the vehicle, she was unable to move it, or get out. By the time DECEDENT was extracted from the car, she had suffered extensive burns. Decedent was transferred to FRESNO COMMUNITY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER. // COMPLAINT yor DAMAGESCome YN DH BF WHY HY RN YY YY NN DY] Bee ew ee ewe LW oN DA AE BH |= SO xMe AAA POH AS 13) | DECEDENT spent the next 92 days in pain and discomfort in the hospital under the care and treatment of the HOSPITAL DEFENDANT until she died on December 5, 2021 from illnesses and conditions caused by her exposure to heat and fire in the parking lot of the Motel 6. 14) | DECEDENT is survived by her son, DUANTE J. HALL, and siblings, FANNIE L. TONEY, OSSIE HALL, and ALEXANDER HALL. 15) | DECEDENT had been married JAMES ROBERT BRISCOE III. On March 8, 2021 BRISCOE filed for divorce, (Fresno County Superior Court No.: 21CEFL00921), and served DECEDENT via mail on April 6, 2021 by acknowledgement and receipt, which she returned on May 1, 2021. At the time of the April 6th service of divorce documents, BRISCOE was an inmate housed in the California Health Care Facility at 7707 Austin Rd., Stockton, California. 16) PLAINTIFFS allege that even if the marriage between DECEDENT and BRISCOE had not yet been terminated by the Court, the couple was legally separated under the definition set forth in Family Code section 70, and, as such BRISCOE did not have a reasonable expectation that he would have received DECEDENT’s care, comfort, support or society had DECEDENT not died as a result of the tortious conduct alleged herein. 17) PLAINTIFFS allege that BRISCOE does not have legal standing to bring a claim in this action because he had legally separated from DECEDENT and initiated divorce proceedings prior to DECEDENT’s injury. Even if BRISCOE is deemed to have standing, PLAINTIFFS allege that he did not have a reasonable expectation that DECEDENT would have provided him with care, comfort, support and society if DECEDENT had not died. PLAINTIFFS have named BRISCOE as a nominal defendant, herein, to adjudicate any foreclose any potential claim BRISCOE may assert arising out of the facts stated herein. 18) — The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of the defendants herein named as DOE, are unknown to plaintiffs who, therefore, sue said Defendants by such fictitious names; and leave of court will be asked to amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities when the same have become ascertained. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, 4Cem IN DAH eF wBW 10 19) | PLAINTIFFS and DECEDENT are and were at all times relevant to this Complaint residents of Fresno County. 20) Atall times mentioned herein, the HOSPITAL DEFENDANTS: (a) engaged in owning, operating, maintaining, managing and doing business in the State of California; (b) engaged in rendering medical, surgical, clinic, diagnostic, nursing and other care and services to the general public for compensation; and (c) a corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, joint venture, unincorporated association, or some other business entity doing business in the County of Fresno, State of California and duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the County of Fresno and the State of California. 21) Atall times mentioned herein Does | through 10 inclusive and Does 21 through 30, and each of them, were employees and/or agents of Defendants, acting within the course and scope of their agency/employment. 22) Atal times herein mentioned, Does 11 through 20 and Does 31 through 40, inclusive, and each of them, were the co-joint-venturers, masters and employers of the other Defendants, inclusive, and each of them, who, at all times herein mentioned, were acting within the course and scope of their agency, employment and/or joint venture. 23) Defendant Fresno Community Regional Medical Center, their agents, employees and ostensible agents, and Does 21 through 30, and each of them, at all times herein mentioned, held themselves out to the public at large and to DECEDENT and plaintiffs, in particular, as fully qualified physicians, surgeons, nurses, healthcare providers and healthcare facilities duly licensed to practice their profession in the State of California, and exercising prudent, reasonable judgment and care in the selection, employment and control of qualified, trained, experienced nurses, nurse practitioners, nursing personnel, orderlies, assistants, aides and employees under their supervision, control, direction, responsibility and authority while performing services and caring for patients including, but not limited to, DECEDENT. 24) Defendant Fresno Community Medical Center and Does 21 through 40 negligently selected, reviewed and supervised their medical, nursing, assisting, technical, clerical and administrative staff who were involved in DECEDENT’s care. COMPLAINT ee DAMAGES,Some NUN DH BF WN 25) Defendant Motel 6 and Does | through 20 negligently selected, reviewed and supervised their contractors, assistants, employees, agents, clerical and administrative staff who had an unknown role in the creation of the dangerous condition(s) which led to DECEDENT’s injuries and death. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Medical Negligence (Against the HOSPITAL DEFENDANTS) PLAINTIFFS, and each of them, alleges against the HOSPITAL DEFENDANTS: 26) Plaintiffs realleges and incorporates by reference each and every paragraph above as though fully set forth herein. 27) By virtue of the foregoing, the HOSPITAL DEFENDANTS, and each of them, owed a duty of ordinary care to DECEDENT, to use that degree of care and skill that a reasonably prudent healthcare provider and/or caregiver would owe. 28) Defendants, the HOSPITAL DEFENDANTS, and each of them, breached this duty in that they failed to conform to the standard of professional conduct of reasonably prudent nurses, doctors, hospitals and healthcare providers providing healthcare in the me