Motion,Ex Parte: IDA CHRISTINA FUA CRUZ VS. JOEL ENRIQUE ANDINO SANCHEZ et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                ROBERT M. PETERSON (Bar No.: 100084)
COLIN C. MUNRO (Bar No.: 195520)
CHRISTOPHER J. WEBER (Bar No.: 233998)

CARLSON, CALLADINE & PETERSON LLP ELECTRONICALLY

353 Sacramento Street, 16th Floor FILED
San Francisco, CA94111 : Superior Court of California,
Telephone: (415) 391-3911 County of San Francisco
Facsimile: (415) 391-3898 MAR 16 2015
Attorneys for Defendants ayer of the Court
TAXI EQUIPMENT LEASING LLC and YELLOW CAB Deputy Clerk
COOPERATIVE, INC.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

IDA CRISTINA CRUZ FUA, CASE NO,: CGC-11-515542
Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS TAXI EQUIPMENT
LEASING , LLC AND YELLOW CAB
v. COOPERATIVE, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO

PLAINTIFF”’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO, 12
JOEL ENRIQUE ANDINO SANCHEZ, and TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY THAT JOEL
individual, CAROLINE MILLER, an SANCHEZ DID NOT FILE A WORKERS’
individual, TAXI EQUIPMENT LEASING COMPENSATION CLAIM

LL, a Limited Liability Company; SAN
FRANCISCO INDEPENDENT TAXI Date: March 16, 2015
ASSOCIATION, a Corporation; YELLOW Time: 9:30 am.

CAB COOPERATIVE, INC., a Corporation; | Dept: 608

and DOES | through 50, Inclusive, Judge: Garrett L. Wong

Defendants.

Defendants oppose Plaintiff's motion in limine no. 12 to exclude testimony that
Defendant/Cross-Complainant Joel Sanchez did not file a workers’ compensation claim with

Yellow Cab Cooperative, Inc., as follows:

] Case No.: CGC-11-515542

DEFENDANTS YELLOW CAB AND TAXI EQUIPMENT LEASING’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12&

wo

STATEMENT OF FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MOTION
This case arises from a traffic collision involving a taxi driven by Defendant Joel Sanchez.
Plaintiff was a passenger in Mr, Sanchez’s taxi and claims personal injuries when Mr. Sanchez
rearended a vehicle. The taxi bore a Yellow Cab taxi color scheme and was using a taxi cab
medallion leased to Alan Da Silva. Mr. Da Silva employed Mr, Sanchez, as an independent
contractor to operate the taxi from time to time. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Sanchez was an
employee of Yellow Cab and that Yellow Cab is vicariously liable for his negligence.

Mr. Sanchez alleges that he was an employee of Yellow Cab at the time of the accident.

Yellow Cab denies that Mr. Sanchez was its employee. Yellow Cab specifically contends that Mr.
Sanchez was an independent contractor of Alan Da Silva.

Mr. Sanchez was injured in the accident, and was transported from the scene to a hospital
via ambulance. Mr. Sanchez did not, however, seek workers’ compensation benefits from Yellow
Cab, nor did he request that Yellow Cab compensate him for his injuries. Yellow Cab asserts that
the reason Mr. Sanchez did not was because he understood that he was not a Yellow Cab
employee, and that he would not be eligible for workers’ compensation coverage. Evidence that
Mr, Sanchez did not seek workers’ compensation benefits is directly relevant to his claim that he
was an employee of Yellow Cab.

I ARGUMENT

A. Testimony that Mr, Sanchez Did Not Seek Workers’ Compensation Benefits

from Yellow Cab is Relevant to His Claim That Yellow Cab Employed Him

Evidence Code § 350 provides: “No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence.”
Relevant evidence is defined by Evidence Code § 210 as “having any tendency in reason to prove
or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” (See, also
People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4" 495.) Here, Mr. Sanchez has filed a Cross-Complaint against
Yellow Cab for indemnification as its employee based upon Labor Code Section 2802. Thus,
evidence that Mr. Sanchez did not assert his rights as a purported employee of Yellow Cab

following the incident is directly relevant to his state of mind relative to his being an employee.

2 Case No. CGC-11-515542

DEFENDANTS YELLOW CAB AND TAX] EQUIPMENT LEASING’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12wn

While the right to control work details is the most important or most significant
consideration for determination of employee or independent-contractor status, there are several
related factors...Arzate .v. Bridge. Terminal. Transport, Inc. Q0\1). 192..Cal.. App. 4th. 419.
Secondary factors that must be considered include evaluation of the “kind of relationship the
parties believe they are creating.” Bowman y. Wyatt (2010) 186 Cal. App. 4th 286. If the parties,
by their actual conduct, act like employer and employee, such would tend to support a finding of
employment, and vice versa. (/d.). Thus, whether Mr. Sanchez believed himself to be an employee
of Yellow Cab is relevant, That Mr. Sanchez did not seek any benefits from his purported
employer following his injury speaks to Mr. Sanchez’s belief,

Plaintiff’s reliance on Evidence Code Section 1155 is misplaced. Section 1155 provides
that insurance is not admissible to prove negligence or wrongdoing. Defendants, however, are not
attempting to establish negligence with respect to the workers’ compensation issue. Rather,
Defendants merely seek to use the fact that Mr. Sanchez did not make a workers’ compensation
claim as evidence of the relationship between him and Yellow Cab, Plaintiff's claims of prejudice

are unfounded. Plaintiffs motion should be denied.

March 9, 2015 CARLSON, CALLADINE & PETERSON LLP

By:

ROBERT M. PETERSON

COLIN C. MUNRO

CHRISTOPHER J. WEBER

Attorneys for Defendants

TAXI EQUIPMENT LEASING LLC, YELLOW
CAB COOPERATIVE, INC.

3 Case No; CGC-11-515542

DEFENDANTS YELLOW CAB AND TAXI EQUIPMENT LEASING’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12PROOF OF SERVICE
Ida Cristina Cruz Fua v. Joel Enrique Andino Sanchez, et al.
San Francisco Superior Court Case No, CGC-11-515542

lam employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18

and not a party to the within action: “My business address is 353 Sacramento ‘Street, 16th Floor, | ~

San Francisco, California 94111.

On March 16, 2015, I served the following document!) DEFENDANTS TAXI
EQUIPMENT LEASING, LLC AND YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC.’S
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’*S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 12 TO EXCLUDE
TESTIMONY THAT JOEL SANCHEZ DID NOT FILE A WORKER’S COMPENSATION
CLAIM in the manner indicated below, on the interested parties in said action at the following
addresses (including fax numbers and email addresses, if applicable) as follows:

Todd P. Emanuel, Esq. Telephone: (650) 369-8900

Mark D. Rosenberg, Esq. Facsimile; (650) 369-8999

Emanuel Law Group Email: todd@TEinjurylaw.com

702 Marshall Street, Suite 400 Email: mark(@TEinjurylaw.com

Redwood City, CA 94063 Attorneys for Plaintiff Fua

D. Douglas Shureen, Esq. Telephone: — (707) 525-5400

McMillian & Shureen LLP Facsimile: (707) 576-7955

50 Santa Rosa Avenue, Suite 200 . Email: doug. shureen@memillanshureen.com

Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Attorneys for Defendant Joel Enrique Andino
Sanchez

Gregory H. McCormick, Esq. Telephone: (510) 444-6800

Burnham Brown Facsimile: (510) 835-6666

1901 Harrison Street, 14th Floor Email: gmecormick@burnhambrown.com

Oakland, CA 94612 Attorneys for Defendant Alan DaSilva and
San Francisco Independent Taxi Assn.

Mitchell E. Green, Esq. Telephone: (805) 823-0915

Law Offices of Mitchell E. Green Facsimile: (805) 823-0916

P. O. Box 630550 Email: mitchgreenlaw@aol.com

Simi Valley, CA 93063 Attorneys for Plaintiff Alstate Insurance Co,

Robert S. Aaron, Esq. Telephone: (415) 438-7801

Aaron. & Wilson, LLP Facsimile: (415) 438-7808

150 Post Street, Suite 400 Email: rsaaron@aaron-wilson.com

San Francisco, CA 94108 Co-counsel for Defendants Taxi Equipment

and Yellow Cab Cooperative, Inc.

BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Based on a Court Order or an
agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused
the documents to be sent to the persons at the email addresses listed. I did not receive,
within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication
that the transmission was unsuccessful.

PROOF OF SERVICENw

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 16, 2015, at San Francisco, California.

ae

SHARIL. HIBEL

PROOF OF SERVICE