Preview
1 Hazel S. Chang, Esq. SBN: 271840
Morgan & Morgan Los Angeles, LLP
2 633 W. 5th Street, Suite 2652
Los Angeles, CA 90071
3 Telephone: (213) 266-4875
Facsimile: (213) 418-3908
4 Email: hchang@forthepeople.com
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff GEORGE HARTMAN
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
9
10
11 GEORGE HARTMAN, an individual, CASE NO.:
12
Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:
13 vs.
gg�
11.u::::= 1. NEGLIGENCE
14
::.·t-,�
a:� 0 illAN ANDRADE, an individual;
SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, 2. PREMISES LIABILITY
ii: "C-�
:=::
> c(
.,
�iiiu.
15
w:EIJ
a: individual; and
:i: s: g>
J!Z aj
��"! DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
16
:=:: � .9
17 Defendants.
18
19
COMES NOW Plaintiff GEORGE HARTMAN ("Plaintiff'), who respectfully alleges
20
the following:
21
GENERAL ASSERTIONS
22
1. This is an action for personal injury arising out of an incident that occurred on or
23
about September 3, 2022, and which proximately caused serious and permanent injury to
24
Plaintiffs person. The negligent acts and omissions of the Defendants mAN ANDRADE,
25
SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and DOES 1 through 50, herein alleged took place in or about
26
the City of Riverside, County of Riverside, State of California. Accordingly, venue within this
27
judicial district is proper.
28
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2. At all times relevant herein,Plaintiff GEORGE HARTMAN is an individual over
2 the age of 18 and a resident of the City of Riverside,County of Riverside,State of Caliomia.
3 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief
4 alleges that at all times relevant herein,Defendant JUAN ANDRADE,is an individual over the
5 age of 18 and a resident of the City of Riverside,County of Riverside,State of Caliomia.
6 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief
7 alleges that at all times relevant herein, Defendant SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, is an
8 individual over the age of 18 and a resident of the City of Riverside,County of Riverside,State
9 of Caliornia.
10 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief
11 alleges that Defendants JUAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and DOES 1
12 through 50, inclusive owned, managed, repaired, maintained and/or controlled the property or
13 was responsible for designing, constructing, maintaining, cleaning, repairing, or managing the
gg�
11.u::::=
::.·t-,�
a:� 0 14 property located at 20973 Bison Mesa Road, Riverside, CA 92507 (hereafter "SUBJECT
ii: "C-�
:=::
> c(
.,
�iiiu
w:EIJ
.
15 PREMISES") .
a: J!Z aj
s:
:i: g>
��"! 16 6. The true names and/or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or
:=:: � .9
17 otherwise of the Defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, are unknown to
18 Plaintiff who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil
19 Procedure § 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of these
20 Defendants fictitiously named herein as a DOE is legally responsible,negligent or in some other
21 actionable manner liable for the events and happenings hereinafter referred to, and proximately
22 and legally caused the injuries to Plaintiff as hereinafter alleged. Plaintiff will seek leave of the
23 Court to amend this Complaint to insert the true names and/or capacities of such fictitiouslyÂ
24 named Defendants when the same has been ascertained.
25 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief
26 alleges that at all times relevant hereto,each Defendant,including DOES 1 through 50, was the
27 owner,servant,agent,joint-venturer,employee or employer of each of its co-Defendants,and in
28 doing the acts hereinafter mentioned,each Defendant was acting within the scope of its authority
2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 and with the permission and consent of its co-Defendants, and each of them, and that said acts
2 of each Defendant was ratified by said Defendant's co-Defendants, and each of them and every
3 Defendant, as aforesaid, when acting as a principal, was negligent in the selection and hiring of
4 each and every other Defendant as an agent, employee and/or joint venturer.
5 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief
6 alleges that all of the acts, conduct, and nonfeasance herein carried out by each and every
7 representative, employee or agent of each and every corporate or business defendant, were
8 authorized, ordered, and directed by the respective defendant's corporate or business employers,
9 officers, directors and/or managing agents; that in addition thereto, said corporate or business
10 employers, officers, directors and/or managing agents had advance knowledge of, authorized,
11 and participated in the herein described acts, conduct and nonfeasance of their representatives,
12 employees, agents and each of them; and that in addition thereto, upon the completion of the
13 aforesaid acts, conduct and nonfeasance of the employees and agents, the aforesaid corporate
gg�
11.u::::=
14
::.·t-,�
a:� 0 and business employers, officers, directors and/or managing agents respectively ratified,
ii: "C-�
:=::
> c(
.,
�iiiu
w:EIJ
.
15 accepted the benefits of, condoned and approved of each and all of said acts, conduct or
a: J!Z aj
s:
:i: g>
��"! 16 nonfeasance of their co-employees, employers, and agents. In addition, at all times herein
:=:: � .9
17 relevant, each defendant, whether named herein or designated as a DOE, was a principal, master,
18 employer and joint venturer or every other defendant, and every defendant was acting within the
19 scope of said agency authority, employment and joint venture.
20 9. On or about September 3, 2022, Plaintiff GEORGE HARTMAN was lawfully on
21 the SUBJECT PREMISES as a resident. While using the SUBJECT PREMISES in a reasonably
22 foreseeable manner, Plaintiff GEORGE HARTMAN was seriously injured when another
23 resident attacked him unprovoked. Plaintiff was severely injured as a direct result of the
24 individual being allowed to live in the residence without the proper vetting. ("SUBJECT
25 CONDITION").
26 Ill
27 Ill
28 Ill
3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
2 Negligence
3 [Against All Defendants]
4 10. On the above date, Plaintiff was a resident of the SUBJECT PREMISES owned,
5 maintained, and operated by Defendants JUAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE,
6 and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive and each of them, and was lawfully on the SUBJECT
7 PREMISES at the time of the incident.
8 11. That at said time and place, as aforesaid, Defendants JUAN ANDRADE,
9 SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, owed a
10 duty of reasonable care toward Plaintiff and others based upon Defendants' ownership of their
11 property, their right to exercise control over the premises, their management and maintenance of
12 the property, their contractual obligations, custom and practice in the industry, and the
13 commission of affirmative acts that resulted in injury to Plaintiff.
gg�
11.u::::=
::.·t-,�
a:� 0 14 12. Additionally, the duty owed by Defendants JUAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA
ii: "C-�
:=::
> c(
.,
�iiiu
w:EIJ
.
15 PATINO ANDRADE, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, is based on Civil
a: J!Z aj
s:
:i: g>
��"! 16 Code§ 1714(a) which mandates that everyone is responsible for injury occasioned to another by
:=:: � .9
17 his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his/her/its property.
18 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief
19 alleges Defendants JUAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and DOES 1 through
20 50, inclusive, and each of them breached said duty when, individually and by the acts of their
21 agents and employees, they negligently, carelessly and recklessly constructed, inspected,
22 maintained, contracted, subcontracted, supervised, controlled, engineered, handled, and
23 designed the SUBJECT PREMISES in such a way that the SUBJECT CONDITION was
24 permitted to exist on the SUBJECT PREMISES.
25 14. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief
26 alleges that the SUBJECT PREMISES, including but not limited to the SUBJECT CONDITION,
27 was in a dangerous condition such that it posed an unreasonable risk of harm to others even when
28 used in a reasonably foreseeable manner.
4
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 15. Further, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and
2 belief alleges that the WAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and DOES 1
3 through 50, inclusive and each of them, were otherwise aware of the dangerous nature of the
4 SUBJECT CONDITION through prior inspections and investigation of the SUBJECT
5 PREMISES. Further, the SUBJECT CONDITION existed for a sufficient period of time that
6 Defendants, and each of them, had actual or constructive knowledge of the unsafe conditions, as
7 aforesaid.
8 16. Further, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and
9 belief alleges that the Defendants WAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and
10 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive and each of them, performed acts that affirmatively contributed
11 to the creation of the unsafe conditions or otherwise failed to remediate such conditions. Such
12 conduct is affirmative in nature, and created the dangerous condition leading to the injury of
13 Plaintiff.
gg�
11.u::::=
14
::.·t-,�
a:� 0 17. Further, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and
ii: "C-�
:=::
> c(
.,
�iiiu
w:EIJ
.
15 belief alleges that the Defendants WAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and
a: J!Z aj
s:
:i: g>
��"! 16 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive and each of them, failed to perform reasonable periodic
:=:: � .9
17 inspections and failed to implement a system of reasonable periodic inspections of the SUBJECT
18 PREMISES to discover and remedy dangerous conditions on the SUBJECT PREMISES, such
19 as the SUBJECT CONDITION.
20 18. Further, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and
21 belief alleges that the Defendants WAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and
22 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive and each of them, knew or in the exercise of reasonable care
23 should have known of the dangerous nature of the SUBJECT CONDITION and failed to warn
24 foreseeable users of the SUBJECT PREMISES of the SUBJECT CONDITION.
25 19. Further, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and
26 belief alleges that the Defendants WAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and
27 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive and each of them could have prevented the subject incident from
28 occurring and that the costs associated with maintaining the SUBJECT PREMISES in a safe
5
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 condition would have been minimal.
2 20. As a direct, legal, and proximate result of the negligent acts and/or omissions of
3 Defendants WAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and DOES 1 through 50,
4 inclusive and each of them, Plaintiff suffered severe injuries and attendant damages.
5 21. As a further direct, legal and proximate result of the combined and concurrent
6 wrongful conduct of all of the Defendants WAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE,
7 and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive of each of them, Plaintiff suffered and sustained loss and
8 damages within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of California, including, but not limited to
9 severe and permanent injury to the body and nervous system of Plaintiff.
10 22. In addition, as a direct, legal, and proximate result of the combined and concurrent
11 wrongful acts of the Defendants WAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and
12 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive of each of them, Plaintiff suffered and sustained the following
13 loss and damages within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of California:
gg�
11.u::::=
14
::.·t-,�
a:� 0 a. Medical and incidental expenses, in an amount to be established at the time of
ii: "C-�
:=::
> c(
.,
�iiiu
w:EIJ
.
15 trial according to proof;
a: J!Z
:i: s: g>
aj
��"! 16 b. Economic loss, including but not limited to loss of wages and salary expectancy
:=:: � .9
17 in an amount to be established at the time of trial according to proof;
18 c. Non-economic loss, in an amount to be established at the time of trial according
19 to proof;
20 d. Loss or damage to tangible personal property, in an amount to be established at
21 the time of trial according to proof; and
22 e. Pre-trial interest, in an amount to be established at the time of trial according to
23 proof.
24 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
25 Premises Liability
26 [Against all Defendants}
27 23. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference, as though fully set forth at length, each
28 and every allegation and statement contained in the preceding paragraphs.
6
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 24. On the above date, Plaintiff was a resident at the SUBJECT PREMISES owned,
2 operated, and maintaind by the Defendants JUAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO
3 ANDRADE, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive and each of them, and was lawfully on the
4 SUBJECT PREMISES at the time of the incident.
5 25. As an invitee and licensee of the premises, Defendants JUAN ANDRADE,
6 SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive and each of them, owed a
7 duty of reasonable care toward Plaintiff and others based upon Defendants' ownership,
8 possession, and operation of the subject premises where the injury-causing incident occurred.
9 Additionally, said duty is based on the requirements of Civil Code § 1714 requiring all persons
10 to act in a reasonable manner toward others and on the requirements of Rowland v. Christian
11 (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 regarding liability of landowner for those on the premises.
12 26. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief
13 alleges that on the aforementioned date, and while Plaintiff was using the SUBJECT PREMISES
gg�
11.u::::=
::.·t-,�
a:� 0 14 in a reasonably foreseeable manner, Defendants JUAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO
ii: "C-�
:=::
> c(
.,
�iiiu
w:EIJ
.
15 ANDRADE, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive and each of them so negligently and carelessly
a: J!Z aj
s:
:i: g>
��"! 16 owned, operated, supervised, cared for, inspected, handled, and maintained the SUBJECT
:=:: � .9
17 PREMISES so as to cause the SUBJECT CONDITION and, thereafter the subject incident,
18 which resulted in the Plaintiff being injured.
19 27. Further, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and
20 belief alleges that Defendants JUAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and DOES
21 1 through 50, inclusive and each of them failed to use reasonable care to discover any unsafe
22 conditions and to repair, replace, remedy, or give adequate warning of anything that could be
23 reasonably expected to harm others.
24 28. Further, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and
25 belief alleges that the SUBJECT CONDITION created an unreasonable risk of harm to those
26 using the SUBJECT PREMISES in a reasonably foreseeable manner.
27 29. Further, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and
28 belief alleges that on the aforementioned date, Defendants JUAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA
7
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 PATINO ANDRADE, and DOES 1 through 50, and each of them created, maintained, controlled
2 and allowed a dangerous condition of the SUBJECT PREMISES to exist. Defendants mAN
3 ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive of each of
4 them approved and oversaw the unsafe conditions existing at the time of the subject incident.
5 30. Further, at the time of the subject incident, the SUBJECT PREMISES was in a
6 dangerous condition due to the SUBJECT CONDITION, as it posed a serious risk of injury to
7 foreseeable users, including Plaintiff. The dangerous nature of the SUBJECT PREMISES was
8 known to the Defendants WAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and DOES 1
9 through 50, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been known to the Defendants
10 WAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive and
11 each of them. However, the dangerous nature of the SUBJECT PREMISES and/or the SUBJECT
12 CONDITION was not known to the Plaintiff.
13 31. As a direct, legal, and proximate result of the negligent acts and/or omissions of
gg�
11.u::::=
14
::.·t-,�
a:� 0 Defendants WAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and DOES 1 through 50,
ii: "C-�
:=::
> c(
.,
�iiiu
w:EIJ
.
15 inclusive and each of them, Plaintiff suffered severe injuries and attendant damages.
a: J!Z aj
s:
:i: g>
��"! 16 32. As a further direct, legal and proximate result of the combined and concurrent
:=:: � .9
17 wrongful conduct of all of the Defendants WAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE,
18 and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive of each of them, Plaintiff suffered and sustained loss and
19 damages within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of California, including, but not limited to
20 severe and permanent injury to the body and nervous system of Plaintiff.
21 33. In addition, as a direct, legal, and proximate result of the combined and concurrent
22 wrongful acts of the Defendants WAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and
23 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive of each of them, Plaintiff suffered and sustained the following
24 loss and damages within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of California:
25 a. Medical and incidental expenses, in an amount to be established at the time of
26 trial according to proof;
27 b. Economic loss, including but not limited to loss of wages and salary expectancy
28 in an amount to be established at the time of trial according to proof;
8
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 c. Non-economic loss, in an amount to be established at the time of trial according
2 to proof;
3 d. Loss or damage to tangible personal property, in an amount to be established at
4 the time of trial according to proof; and
5 e. Pre-trial interest, in an amount to be established at the time of trial according to
6 proof.
7 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff GEORGE HARTMAN hereby prays for judgment against all
8 Defendants and each of them as follows:
9 1. For repayment of all special damages incurred, including, but not limited to all
10 past and future wage loss, hospital and medical expenses.
11 2. For all general damages according to proof.
12 3. For all prejudgment interest as allowed by law.
13 4. For costs of suit incurred herein.
� gM
a.u::::
14 5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
• ;;
0
:I!"'�
a:� 0
iI ti�
15
3: 2<(
:5 ·"'(.)
=
Q) •
(I.I
w .c Q)
a: J!? <6
16 DATED: October 14, 2022 MORGAN & MORGAN LOS ANGELES, LLP
:E � g>
� �!
3: g .9
17
fA_y/_. tZ_· 1:fl
18 By: _ _
Hazel S. Chang, Esq.
19
Attorneys for Plaintiff
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
2 Plaintiff demands a trial by jury in this action.
3
4
5 DATED: October 14, 2022 MORGAN & MORGAN LOS ANGELES, LLP
6
7 By:_�-�-·�-· �-
Hazel S. Chang, Esq.
8
Attorneys for Plaintiff
9
10
11
12
13
� gM
a.u::::
• ;;
0
:I!"'�
a:� 0 14
iI ti�
3: 2<(
:5 ·"'(.)
=
Q) •
15
(I.I
w .c Q)
a: J!? <6
:E � g>
� �! 16
3: g .9
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Preview
1 Hazel S. Chang, Esq. SBN: 271840 Morgan & Morgan Los Angeles, LLP 2 633 W. 5th Street, Suite 2652 Los Angeles, CA 90071 3 Telephone: (213) 266-4875 Facsimile: (213) 418-3908 4 Email: hchang@forthepeople.com 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff GEORGE HARTMAN 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 9 10 11 GEORGE HARTMAN, an individual, CASE NO.: 12 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 13 vs. gg� 11.u::::= 1. NEGLIGENCE 14 ::.·t-,� a:� 0 illAN ANDRADE, an individual; SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, 2. PREMISES LIABILITY ii: "C-� :=:: > c( ., �iiiu. 15 w:EIJ a: individual; and :i: s: g> J!Z aj ��"! DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 16 :=:: � .9 17 Defendants. 18 19 COMES NOW Plaintiff GEORGE HARTMAN ("Plaintiff'), who respectfully alleges 20 the following: 21 GENERAL ASSERTIONS 22 1. This is an action for personal injury arising out of an incident that occurred on or 23 about September 3, 2022, and which proximately caused serious and permanent injury to 24 Plaintiffs person. The negligent acts and omissions of the Defendants mAN ANDRADE, 25 SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and DOES 1 through 50, herein alleged took place in or about 26 the City of Riverside, County of Riverside, State of California. Accordingly, venue within this 27 judicial district is proper. 28 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2. At all times relevant herein,Plaintiff GEORGE HARTMAN is an individual over 2 the age of 18 and a resident of the City of Riverside,County of Riverside,State of Caliomia. 3 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief 4 alleges that at all times relevant herein,Defendant JUAN ANDRADE,is an individual over the 5 age of 18 and a resident of the City of Riverside,County of Riverside,State of Caliomia. 6 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief 7 alleges that at all times relevant herein, Defendant SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, is an 8 individual over the age of 18 and a resident of the City of Riverside,County of Riverside,State 9 of Caliornia. 10 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief 11 alleges that Defendants JUAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and DOES 1 12 through 50, inclusive owned, managed, repaired, maintained and/or controlled the property or 13 was responsible for designing, constructing, maintaining, cleaning, repairing, or managing the gg� 11.u::::= ::.·t-,� a:� 0 14 property located at 20973 Bison Mesa Road, Riverside, CA 92507 (hereafter "SUBJECT ii: "C-� :=:: > c( ., �iiiu w:EIJ . 15 PREMISES") . a: J!Z aj s: :i: g> ��"! 16 6. The true names and/or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or :=:: � .9 17 otherwise of the Defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, are unknown to 18 Plaintiff who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil 19 Procedure § 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of these 20 Defendants fictitiously named herein as a DOE is legally responsible,negligent or in some other 21 actionable manner liable for the events and happenings hereinafter referred to, and proximately 22 and legally caused the injuries to Plaintiff as hereinafter alleged. Plaintiff will seek leave of the 23 Court to amend this Complaint to insert the true names and/or capacities of such fictitiously 24 named Defendants when the same has been ascertained. 25 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief 26 alleges that at all times relevant hereto,each Defendant,including DOES 1 through 50, was the 27 owner,servant,agent,joint-venturer,employee or employer of each of its co-Defendants,and in 28 doing the acts hereinafter mentioned,each Defendant was acting within the scope of its authority 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 and with the permission and consent of its co-Defendants, and each of them, and that said acts 2 of each Defendant was ratified by said Defendant's co-Defendants, and each of them and every 3 Defendant, as aforesaid, when acting as a principal, was negligent in the selection and hiring of 4 each and every other Defendant as an agent, employee and/or joint venturer. 5 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief 6 alleges that all of the acts, conduct, and nonfeasance herein carried out by each and every 7 representative, employee or agent of each and every corporate or business defendant, were 8 authorized, ordered, and directed by the respective defendant's corporate or business employers, 9 officers, directors and/or managing agents; that in addition thereto, said corporate or business 10 employers, officers, directors and/or managing agents had advance knowledge of, authorized, 11 and participated in the herein described acts, conduct and nonfeasance of their representatives, 12 employees, agents and each of them; and that in addition thereto, upon the completion of the 13 aforesaid acts, conduct and nonfeasance of the employees and agents, the aforesaid corporate gg� 11.u::::= 14 ::.·t-,� a:� 0 and business employers, officers, directors and/or managing agents respectively ratified, ii: "C-� :=:: > c( ., �iiiu w:EIJ . 15 accepted the benefits of, condoned and approved of each and all of said acts, conduct or a: J!Z aj s: :i: g> ��"! 16 nonfeasance of their co-employees, employers, and agents. In addition, at all times herein :=:: � .9 17 relevant, each defendant, whether named herein or designated as a DOE, was a principal, master, 18 employer and joint venturer or every other defendant, and every defendant was acting within the 19 scope of said agency authority, employment and joint venture. 20 9. On or about September 3, 2022, Plaintiff GEORGE HARTMAN was lawfully on 21 the SUBJECT PREMISES as a resident. While using the SUBJECT PREMISES in a reasonably 22 foreseeable manner, Plaintiff GEORGE HARTMAN was seriously injured when another 23 resident attacked him unprovoked. Plaintiff was severely injured as a direct result of the 24 individual being allowed to live in the residence without the proper vetting. ("SUBJECT 25 CONDITION"). 26 Ill 27 Ill 28 Ill 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 2 Negligence 3 [Against All Defendants] 4 10. On the above date, Plaintiff was a resident of the SUBJECT PREMISES owned, 5 maintained, and operated by Defendants JUAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, 6 and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive and each of them, and was lawfully on the SUBJECT 7 PREMISES at the time of the incident. 8 11. That at said time and place, as aforesaid, Defendants JUAN ANDRADE, 9 SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, owed a 10 duty of reasonable care toward Plaintiff and others based upon Defendants' ownership of their 11 property, their right to exercise control over the premises, their management and maintenance of 12 the property, their contractual obligations, custom and practice in the industry, and the 13 commission of affirmative acts that resulted in injury to Plaintiff. gg� 11.u::::= ::.·t-,� a:� 0 14 12. Additionally, the duty owed by Defendants JUAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA ii: "C-� :=:: > c( ., �iiiu w:EIJ . 15 PATINO ANDRADE, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, is based on Civil a: J!Z aj s: :i: g> ��"! 16 Code§ 1714(a) which mandates that everyone is responsible for injury occasioned to another by :=:: � .9 17 his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his/her/its property. 18 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief 19 alleges Defendants JUAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and DOES 1 through 20 50, inclusive, and each of them breached said duty when, individually and by the acts of their 21 agents and employees, they negligently, carelessly and recklessly constructed, inspected, 22 maintained, contracted, subcontracted, supervised, controlled, engineered, handled, and 23 designed the SUBJECT PREMISES in such a way that the SUBJECT CONDITION was 24 permitted to exist on the SUBJECT PREMISES. 25 14. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief 26 alleges that the SUBJECT PREMISES, including but not limited to the SUBJECT CONDITION, 27 was in a dangerous condition such that it posed an unreasonable risk of harm to others even when 28 used in a reasonably foreseeable manner. 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 15. Further, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and 2 belief alleges that the WAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and DOES 1 3 through 50, inclusive and each of them, were otherwise aware of the dangerous nature of the 4 SUBJECT CONDITION through prior inspections and investigation of the SUBJECT 5 PREMISES. Further, the SUBJECT CONDITION existed for a sufficient period of time that 6 Defendants, and each of them, had actual or constructive knowledge of the unsafe conditions, as 7 aforesaid. 8 16. Further, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and 9 belief alleges that the Defendants WAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and 10 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive and each of them, performed acts that affirmatively contributed 11 to the creation of the unsafe conditions or otherwise failed to remediate such conditions. Such 12 conduct is affirmative in nature, and created the dangerous condition leading to the injury of 13 Plaintiff. gg� 11.u::::= 14 ::.·t-,� a:� 0 17. Further, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and ii: "C-� :=:: > c( ., �iiiu w:EIJ . 15 belief alleges that the Defendants WAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and a: J!Z aj s: :i: g> ��"! 16 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive and each of them, failed to perform reasonable periodic :=:: � .9 17 inspections and failed to implement a system of reasonable periodic inspections of the SUBJECT 18 PREMISES to discover and remedy dangerous conditions on the SUBJECT PREMISES, such 19 as the SUBJECT CONDITION. 20 18. Further, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and 21 belief alleges that the Defendants WAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and 22 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive and each of them, knew or in the exercise of reasonable care 23 should have known of the dangerous nature of the SUBJECT CONDITION and failed to warn 24 foreseeable users of the SUBJECT PREMISES of the SUBJECT CONDITION. 25 19. Further, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and 26 belief alleges that the Defendants WAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and 27 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive and each of them could have prevented the subject incident from 28 occurring and that the costs associated with maintaining the SUBJECT PREMISES in a safe 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 condition would have been minimal. 2 20. As a direct, legal, and proximate result of the negligent acts and/or omissions of 3 Defendants WAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and DOES 1 through 50, 4 inclusive and each of them, Plaintiff suffered severe injuries and attendant damages. 5 21. As a further direct, legal and proximate result of the combined and concurrent 6 wrongful conduct of all of the Defendants WAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, 7 and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive of each of them, Plaintiff suffered and sustained loss and 8 damages within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of California, including, but not limited to 9 severe and permanent injury to the body and nervous system of Plaintiff. 10 22. In addition, as a direct, legal, and proximate result of the combined and concurrent 11 wrongful acts of the Defendants WAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and 12 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive of each of them, Plaintiff suffered and sustained the following 13 loss and damages within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of California: gg� 11.u::::= 14 ::.·t-,� a:� 0 a. Medical and incidental expenses, in an amount to be established at the time of ii: "C-� :=:: > c( ., �iiiu w:EIJ . 15 trial according to proof; a: J!Z :i: s: g> aj ��"! 16 b. Economic loss, including but not limited to loss of wages and salary expectancy :=:: � .9 17 in an amount to be established at the time of trial according to proof; 18 c. Non-economic loss, in an amount to be established at the time of trial according 19 to proof; 20 d. Loss or damage to tangible personal property, in an amount to be established at 21 the time of trial according to proof; and 22 e. Pre-trial interest, in an amount to be established at the time of trial according to 23 proof. 24 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 25 Premises Liability 26 [Against all Defendants} 27 23. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference, as though fully set forth at length, each 28 and every allegation and statement contained in the preceding paragraphs. 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 24. On the above date, Plaintiff was a resident at the SUBJECT PREMISES owned, 2 operated, and maintaind by the Defendants JUAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO 3 ANDRADE, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive and each of them, and was lawfully on the 4 SUBJECT PREMISES at the time of the incident. 5 25. As an invitee and licensee of the premises, Defendants JUAN ANDRADE, 6 SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive and each of them, owed a 7 duty of reasonable care toward Plaintiff and others based upon Defendants' ownership, 8 possession, and operation of the subject premises where the injury-causing incident occurred. 9 Additionally, said duty is based on the requirements of Civil Code § 1714 requiring all persons 10 to act in a reasonable manner toward others and on the requirements of Rowland v. Christian 11 (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 regarding liability of landowner for those on the premises. 12 26. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief 13 alleges that on the aforementioned date, and while Plaintiff was using the SUBJECT PREMISES gg� 11.u::::= ::.·t-,� a:� 0 14 in a reasonably foreseeable manner, Defendants JUAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ii: "C-� :=:: > c( ., �iiiu w:EIJ . 15 ANDRADE, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive and each of them so negligently and carelessly a: J!Z aj s: :i: g> ��"! 16 owned, operated, supervised, cared for, inspected, handled, and maintained the SUBJECT :=:: � .9 17 PREMISES so as to cause the SUBJECT CONDITION and, thereafter the subject incident, 18 which resulted in the Plaintiff being injured. 19 27. Further, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and 20 belief alleges that Defendants JUAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and DOES 21 1 through 50, inclusive and each of them failed to use reasonable care to discover any unsafe 22 conditions and to repair, replace, remedy, or give adequate warning of anything that could be 23 reasonably expected to harm others. 24 28. Further, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and 25 belief alleges that the SUBJECT CONDITION created an unreasonable risk of harm to those 26 using the SUBJECT PREMISES in a reasonably foreseeable manner. 27 29. Further, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and 28 belief alleges that on the aforementioned date, Defendants JUAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 PATINO ANDRADE, and DOES 1 through 50, and each of them created, maintained, controlled 2 and allowed a dangerous condition of the SUBJECT PREMISES to exist. Defendants mAN 3 ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive of each of 4 them approved and oversaw the unsafe conditions existing at the time of the subject incident. 5 30. Further, at the time of the subject incident, the SUBJECT PREMISES was in a 6 dangerous condition due to the SUBJECT CONDITION, as it posed a serious risk of injury to 7 foreseeable users, including Plaintiff. The dangerous nature of the SUBJECT PREMISES was 8 known to the Defendants WAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and DOES 1 9 through 50, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been known to the Defendants 10 WAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive and 11 each of them. However, the dangerous nature of the SUBJECT PREMISES and/or the SUBJECT 12 CONDITION was not known to the Plaintiff. 13 31. As a direct, legal, and proximate result of the negligent acts and/or omissions of gg� 11.u::::= 14 ::.·t-,� a:� 0 Defendants WAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and DOES 1 through 50, ii: "C-� :=:: > c( ., �iiiu w:EIJ . 15 inclusive and each of them, Plaintiff suffered severe injuries and attendant damages. a: J!Z aj s: :i: g> ��"! 16 32. As a further direct, legal and proximate result of the combined and concurrent :=:: � .9 17 wrongful conduct of all of the Defendants WAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, 18 and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive of each of them, Plaintiff suffered and sustained loss and 19 damages within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of California, including, but not limited to 20 severe and permanent injury to the body and nervous system of Plaintiff. 21 33. In addition, as a direct, legal, and proximate result of the combined and concurrent 22 wrongful acts of the Defendants WAN ANDRADE, SENAIDA PATINO ANDRADE, and 23 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive of each of them, Plaintiff suffered and sustained the following 24 loss and damages within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of California: 25 a. Medical and incidental expenses, in an amount to be established at the time of 26 trial according to proof; 27 b. Economic loss, including but not limited to loss of wages and salary expectancy 28 in an amount to be established at the time of trial according to proof; 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 c. Non-economic loss, in an amount to be established at the time of trial according 2 to proof; 3 d. Loss or damage to tangible personal property, in an amount to be established at 4 the time of trial according to proof; and 5 e. Pre-trial interest, in an amount to be established at the time of trial according to 6 proof. 7 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff GEORGE HARTMAN hereby prays for judgment against all 8 Defendants and each of them as follows: 9 1. For repayment of all special damages incurred, including, but not limited to all 10 past and future wage loss, hospital and medical expenses. 11 2. For all general damages according to proof. 12 3. For all prejudgment interest as allowed by law. 13 4. For costs of suit incurred herein. � gM a.u:::: 14 5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. • ;; 0 :I!"'� a:� 0 iI ti� 15 3: 2<( :5 ·"'(.) = Q) • (I.I w .c Q) a: J!? <6 16 DATED: October 14, 2022 MORGAN & MORGAN LOS ANGELES, LLP :E � g> � �! 3: g .9 17 fA_y/_. tZ_· 1:fl 18 By: _ _ Hazel S. Chang, Esq. 19 Attorneys for Plaintiff 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 2 Plaintiff demands a trial by jury in this action. 3 4 5 DATED: October 14, 2022 MORGAN & MORGAN LOS ANGELES, LLP 6 7 By:_�-�-·�-· �- Hazel S. Chang, Esq. 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff 9 10 11 12 13 � gM a.u:::: • ;; 0 :I!"'� a:� 0 14 iI ti� 3: 2<( :5 ·"'(.) = Q) • 15 (I.I w .c Q) a: J!? <6 :E � g> � �! 16 3: g .9 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES