Preview
CA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Jul-18-2013 03:42 pm
Case Number: CGC-12-521356
Filing Date: Jul-18-2013 03:41 pm
Filed by: MICHAEL RAYRAY
Juke Box: 001 Image: 04131619
COMPLAINT
NATHAN MARSHALL et al VS. DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC. et al
001004131619
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.27
28
CYNTHIA McGUINN (SBN 099324)
MILES B. COOPER (SBN 209085)
ROUDA, FEDER, TIETJEN & McGUINN
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 4000
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: 415-398-5398
Facsimile: 415-398-8169
mce.team@rftmlaw.com
www.rfimlaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
NATHAN MARSHALL and
ALEX MARSHALL
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
NATHAN MARSHALL and ALEX
MARSHALL, individually and as successors in
"SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CASE NO. CGC-12-521356
201 UL 18 PHI2: 24
¢
interest to decedents DENNIS T. MARSHALL | FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
and KAREN MARSHALL,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC., FAEGH
BEHBAHANI, and DOES 1-20, inclusive,
Defendants.
Three years ago, Cincinnati residents Dennis and Karen Marshall arrived in San Francisco
DAMAGES and DEMAND FOR JURY
TRIAL
(Wrongful Death and Survival)
BY FAX
at SFO. Like many arrivals, they decided to take a cab to their hotel. After waiting in the cab line,
they got into a DeSoto cab and started downtown. But while they were still on the freeway, the
cab started smoking. Instead of immediately pulling over, the driver kept going. Four miles later,
the driver finally pulled over near Potrero Hill.
It was too late. The cab went out of controlled and crashed into a concrete abutment. The
cab burst into flames, and the Marshalls lost their lives. They are survived by their adult sons
Nathan and Alex, who are bringing this wrongful death and survival action.
M1
1
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
{W0326295.DOC}27
28
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiffs NATHAN MARSHALL and ALEX MARSHALL, individually and as
successors in interest to decedents DENNIS T. MARSHALL and KAREN MARSHALL, allege
generally against defendants DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC.; SELBY AND HUDSON
CORPORATION; FAEGH BEHBAHANI, and DOES 3-20, inclusive:
1. The entirety of this complaint is pled upon information and belief and each
allegation contained here is likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
further investigation or discovery.
Parties and Venue
2. Plaintiff NATHAN MARSHALL is, and at all times mentioned here was, a
resident of San Diego, California. Plaintiff NATHAN MARSHALL is plaintiff's decedents
DENNIS T. MARSHALL and KAREN MARSHALL’s surviving adult son, and is decedents’
successor in interest.
3. Plaintiff ALEX MARSHALL is, and at all times mentioned here was, a resident of
San Diego, California. Plaintiff NATHAN MARSHALL is plaintiff's decedents DENNIS T.
MARSHALL and KAREN MARSHALL’s surviving adult son, and is decedents’ successor in
interest.
4. Plaintiff's decedent DENNIS T. MARSHALL was a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio,
and plaintiff NATHAN MARSHALL’s father.
5. Plaintiff's decedent KAREN MARSHALL was a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio, and
plaintiff NATHAN MARSHALL’s mother.
6. Defendant DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC. is, and at all relevant times
mentioned here was, a corporation, organized under the laws of California, with its principal
place of business in San Francisco, California. At all times relevant to the allegations of this
complaint, DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC. was a common carrier as defined by Civil Code §
2168.
7. Defendant SELBY AND HUDSON CORPORATION is, and at all relevant times
mentioned here was, a corporation, organized under the laws of California, with its principal
2
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
{W0326295.DOC}27
28
place of business in San Francisco, California. Defendant SELBY AND HUDSON
CORPORATION was originally sued as defendant DOE 2, as its true name and capacity was at
the time of the filing of the Complaint in this matter then unknown to plaintiffs.
8. DeSoto Cab Cooperative Company, Inc. is the predecessor corporation of both
defendant DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC. and defendant SELBY AND HUDSON
CORPORATION. In 2008, the general membership of DeSoto Cab Cooperative Company, Inc.
approved the reorganization of the company into two separate entities.
9. At all relevant times, defendant DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC. (then called
New DeSoto Cab Cooperative Company, Inc.) and defendant SELBY AND HUDSON
CORPORATION were owned by the same individuals and/or entities, had the same board of
directors, and shared the same address. Defendant DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC. was
responsible for taxicab operations; defendant SELBY AND HUDSON CORPORATION was the
owner and landlord of the building used by defendant DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC.
Although separate legal entities, these two companies were engaged in a single enterprise, and
each can therefore be held liable for the torts of the other under the single-enterprise rule. (See
Las Palmas Assocs. v. Las Palmas Center Assocs. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1220, 1249-1250.) An
inequitable result will inure if the acts in question are treated as those of one corporation alone.
Hereafter in this First Amended Complaint, this single enterprise will be referred to as
“DESOTO.”
10. Defendant FAEGH BEHBAHANT is, and at all times mentioned here was, a
resident of Daly City, California. At all times relevant to the allegations of this complaint,
FAEGH BEHBAHANI was a common carrier as defined by Civil Code § 2168.
11. Defendant FAEGH BEHBAHANT is, and at all times mentioned here was, an
employee or agent of defendant DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC.
12. Atall times mentioned in this Complaint, defendant FAEGH BEHBAHANI was
acting within the scope and course of his employment or agency with defendant DESOTO CAB
COMPANY, INC.
13. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, partnership, joint
3
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
{W0326295.DOC}27
28
venture, or otherwise of defendants DOES 3 through 20 inclusive, are unknown to plaintiffs who
therefore sue defendants by such fictitious names.
14, Each of the defendants named here as a DOE is legally responsible in some
manner for the events and happenings referred to here, and proximately and legally caused injury
and damage to plaintiff as alleged here. Plaintiffs pray leave to amend this complaint when their
true names have been ascertained.
15. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times here
mentioned, certain of the defendants DOES are the successors in interest to each of the remaining
defendants and on that basis, are liable for any act, or omission of said defendants alleged here.
16. At all times mentioned here, defendants, and each of them, were the agents and
employees of the remaining defendants and were at all times acting within the course and scope
of said agency and employment.
17. Venue in this jurisdiction is proper under Code of Civil Procedure § 395 in that
San Francisco County is the county where the incident occurred and the county in which one of ‘
the defendants resides.
General Factual Allegations
18. On June 14, 2010, at or about 10:30 a.m., plaintiffs’ decedents, DENNIS T.
MARSHALL and KAREN MARSHALL, arrived in San Francisco at San Francisco International
Airport.
19. At approximately 10:30 a.m., plaintiffs’ decedents got into a cab owned and
operated by defendants DESOTO and driven by defendant FAEGH BEHBAHANI.
20. San Francisco Transportation Code § 1113 provides: “No vehicle may be operated
as a Taxi or Ramp Taxi after the vehicle has reached 325,000 miles.” This regulation is a safety
statute designed to prevent the kind of occurrence that caused the Marshall’s death, i.e., the use of
taxicabs rendered unsafe because of excessive mileage and wear-and tear, and the Marshalls were
of the class of persons the statute was designed to protect, i.e., taxicab passengers.
21. | DESOTO mechanics had rolled back the odometer of the cab taken by the
Marshalls in violation of California Vehicle Code § 28051 and 49 U.S.C. § 32703. Had this
4
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
{W0326295.DOC}10
1
27
28
50,000-mile, illegal rollback not occurred, the cab would not have been in compliance with
Section 1113, and would not have been in operation on the day the Marshalls were killed.
22. After leaving the airport, the cab proceeded northbound on 1-280, heading to an
eventual destination of the Mark Hopkins Hotel in San Francisco.
23. Near Candlestick Park, FAEGH BEHBAHANI noticed smoke “pouring out of the
front” of the cab, but he continued driving it anyway.
24, — The cab exited the freeway at the Mariposa exit, approximately four miles after
FAEGH BEHBAHANI first perceived that the cab was smoking.
25. The brakes on the cab apparently failed, and the cab crashed into a steel and
concrete freeway support pillar.
26. The cab burst into flames. Three sheriff's deputies, who were behind the cab in an
empty jail van, stopped and pulled DENNIS T. MARSHALL and KAREN MARSHALL from
the burning vehicle. The driver, defendant FAEGH BEHBAHANI, was able to get out of the cab
on his own.
27. The Marshalls were transported to San Francisco General Hospital. KAREN
MARSHALL died at SFGH shortly after she arrived. DENNIS T. MARSHALL died at
approximately 4:20 p.m. that afternoon.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment as set forth below.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION — WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL --
COMMON CARRIER (MOTOR VEHICLE)
Plaintiffs NATHAN MARSHALL and ALEX MARSHALL, individually and as
successors in interest to decedents DENNIS T. MARSHALL and KAREN MARSHALL, allege
as a first cause of action against defendants DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC.; SELBY AND
HUDSON CORPORATION; FAEGH BEHBAHANT, and DOES 3-20, inclusive:
28. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 to 27 above, as though fully set
forth here.
29. At the time of the incident, defendants, and each of them, were the owners,
operators, entrustors, or individuals responsible for the maintenance and operation of the DeSoto
5
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
{W0326295.DOC}27
28
cab that crashed at the I-280 Mariposa exit on June 14, 2010.
30. Defendants, and each of them, were common carriers within the meaning of Civil
Code § 2168 at the time of the incident and, as such, each had a duty to use the highest care and
the vigilance of a very cautious person to transport plaintiff's decedents. Defendants, and each of
them, had a duty to do all that human care, vigilance, and foresight reasonably could do under the
circumstances to a avoid harm to plaintiff's decedents.
31. Defendants, and each of them, breached their duty by their actions at and near the
time of the incident as described above and said actions resulted in the collision and plaintiff's
decedents’ deaths. Specifically, defendants, and each of them, failed to maintain the DeSoto cab
in proper and safe mechanical condition, failed to ensure the DeSoto cab was safe for the
transport of passengers for hire, and intentionally rolled back the odometer of the vehicle as
alleged above. Further, defendant FAEGH BEHBAHANI failed to stop the DeSoto cab
immediately upon perceiving the vehicle was emitting smoke, or to otherwise bring the vehicle
safely to a stop.
31. Decedents DENNIS T. MARSHALL and KAREN MARSHALL survived the
accident, and before their deaths, incurred medical expenses as a direct result of this incident.
32. Asa proximate and direct legal result of the negligent acts or omissions set forth
herein, plaintiffs NATHAN MARSHALL and ALEX MARSHALL, individually and as
successors in interest to decedents DENNIS T. MARSHALL and KAREN MARSHALL, have
suffered economic damages for the wrongful death of DENNIS T. MARSHALL and KAREN
MARSHALL, including, but not limited to, medical expenses, loss of financial support, gifts,
benefits, funeral and burial expenses, and loss of ability to provide household services, that
exceed the minimum jurisdiction of this Court.
33. Asa further proximate and direct legal result of the negligent acts or omissions set
forth herein, plaintiffs NATHAN MARSHALL and ALEX MARSHALL, individually and as
successors in interest to decedents DENNIS T. MARSHALL and KAREN MARSHALL, has
suffered noneconomic damages for the wrongful death of DENNIS T. MARSHALL and KAREN
MARSHALL, including, but not limited to, loss of love, companionship, comfort, care,
6
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
{W0326295.DOC}27
28
assistance, protection, affection, society, moral support, training, and guidance that exceed the
minimum jurisdiction of this Court.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray judgment as set forth below.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs pray judgment against defendants, and each of them, as follows:
1. For noneconomic damages according to proof at time of trial;
2. For economic damages according to proof at time of trial;
3. For costs of suit herein;
4. For pre-judgment interest in accordance with Civil Code §§ 3287, 3288,
and 3291; and
5. For such further relief as the Court may deem proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs NATHAN MARSHALL and ALEX MARSHALL, individually and as
successors in interest to decedents DENNIS T. MARSHALL and KAREN MARSHALL,
demand a jury trial on each and all of the causes of action set forth in this First Amended
Complaint.
DATED: July /7, 2013
ROUDA, FEDER, TIETJEN, and McGUINN
oy Mh og
Miles B. Coofer
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
7
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
{W0326295.DOC}
Preview
CA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Jul-18-2013 03:42 pm Case Number: CGC-12-521356 Filing Date: Jul-18-2013 03:41 pm Filed by: MICHAEL RAYRAY Juke Box: 001 Image: 04131619 COMPLAINT NATHAN MARSHALL et al VS. DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC. et al 001004131619 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.27 28 CYNTHIA McGUINN (SBN 099324) MILES B. COOPER (SBN 209085) ROUDA, FEDER, TIETJEN & McGUINN 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 4000 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: 415-398-5398 Facsimile: 415-398-8169 mce.team@rftmlaw.com www.rfimlaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS NATHAN MARSHALL and ALEX MARSHALL IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO NATHAN MARSHALL and ALEX MARSHALL, individually and as successors in "SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO. CGC-12-521356 201 UL 18 PHI2: 24 ¢ interest to decedents DENNIS T. MARSHALL | FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR and KAREN MARSHALL, Plaintiffs, v. DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC., FAEGH BEHBAHANI, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants. Three years ago, Cincinnati residents Dennis and Karen Marshall arrived in San Francisco DAMAGES and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Wrongful Death and Survival) BY FAX at SFO. Like many arrivals, they decided to take a cab to their hotel. After waiting in the cab line, they got into a DeSoto cab and started downtown. But while they were still on the freeway, the cab started smoking. Instead of immediately pulling over, the driver kept going. Four miles later, the driver finally pulled over near Potrero Hill. It was too late. The cab went out of controlled and crashed into a concrete abutment. The cab burst into flames, and the Marshalls lost their lives. They are survived by their adult sons Nathan and Alex, who are bringing this wrongful death and survival action. M1 1 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL {W0326295.DOC}27 28 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS Plaintiffs NATHAN MARSHALL and ALEX MARSHALL, individually and as successors in interest to decedents DENNIS T. MARSHALL and KAREN MARSHALL, allege generally against defendants DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC.; SELBY AND HUDSON CORPORATION; FAEGH BEHBAHANI, and DOES 3-20, inclusive: 1. The entirety of this complaint is pled upon information and belief and each allegation contained here is likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. Parties and Venue 2. Plaintiff NATHAN MARSHALL is, and at all times mentioned here was, a resident of San Diego, California. Plaintiff NATHAN MARSHALL is plaintiff's decedents DENNIS T. MARSHALL and KAREN MARSHALL’s surviving adult son, and is decedents’ successor in interest. 3. Plaintiff ALEX MARSHALL is, and at all times mentioned here was, a resident of San Diego, California. Plaintiff NATHAN MARSHALL is plaintiff's decedents DENNIS T. MARSHALL and KAREN MARSHALL’s surviving adult son, and is decedents’ successor in interest. 4. Plaintiff's decedent DENNIS T. MARSHALL was a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio, and plaintiff NATHAN MARSHALL’s father. 5. Plaintiff's decedent KAREN MARSHALL was a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio, and plaintiff NATHAN MARSHALL’s mother. 6. Defendant DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC. is, and at all relevant times mentioned here was, a corporation, organized under the laws of California, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. At all times relevant to the allegations of this complaint, DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC. was a common carrier as defined by Civil Code § 2168. 7. Defendant SELBY AND HUDSON CORPORATION is, and at all relevant times mentioned here was, a corporation, organized under the laws of California, with its principal 2 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL {W0326295.DOC}27 28 place of business in San Francisco, California. Defendant SELBY AND HUDSON CORPORATION was originally sued as defendant DOE 2, as its true name and capacity was at the time of the filing of the Complaint in this matter then unknown to plaintiffs. 8. DeSoto Cab Cooperative Company, Inc. is the predecessor corporation of both defendant DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC. and defendant SELBY AND HUDSON CORPORATION. In 2008, the general membership of DeSoto Cab Cooperative Company, Inc. approved the reorganization of the company into two separate entities. 9. At all relevant times, defendant DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC. (then called New DeSoto Cab Cooperative Company, Inc.) and defendant SELBY AND HUDSON CORPORATION were owned by the same individuals and/or entities, had the same board of directors, and shared the same address. Defendant DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC. was responsible for taxicab operations; defendant SELBY AND HUDSON CORPORATION was the owner and landlord of the building used by defendant DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC. Although separate legal entities, these two companies were engaged in a single enterprise, and each can therefore be held liable for the torts of the other under the single-enterprise rule. (See Las Palmas Assocs. v. Las Palmas Center Assocs. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1220, 1249-1250.) An inequitable result will inure if the acts in question are treated as those of one corporation alone. Hereafter in this First Amended Complaint, this single enterprise will be referred to as “DESOTO.” 10. Defendant FAEGH BEHBAHANT is, and at all times mentioned here was, a resident of Daly City, California. At all times relevant to the allegations of this complaint, FAEGH BEHBAHANI was a common carrier as defined by Civil Code § 2168. 11. Defendant FAEGH BEHBAHANT is, and at all times mentioned here was, an employee or agent of defendant DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC. 12. Atall times mentioned in this Complaint, defendant FAEGH BEHBAHANI was acting within the scope and course of his employment or agency with defendant DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC. 13. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, partnership, joint 3 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL {W0326295.DOC}27 28 venture, or otherwise of defendants DOES 3 through 20 inclusive, are unknown to plaintiffs who therefore sue defendants by such fictitious names. 14, Each of the defendants named here as a DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the events and happenings referred to here, and proximately and legally caused injury and damage to plaintiff as alleged here. Plaintiffs pray leave to amend this complaint when their true names have been ascertained. 15. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times here mentioned, certain of the defendants DOES are the successors in interest to each of the remaining defendants and on that basis, are liable for any act, or omission of said defendants alleged here. 16. At all times mentioned here, defendants, and each of them, were the agents and employees of the remaining defendants and were at all times acting within the course and scope of said agency and employment. 17. Venue in this jurisdiction is proper under Code of Civil Procedure § 395 in that San Francisco County is the county where the incident occurred and the county in which one of ‘ the defendants resides. General Factual Allegations 18. On June 14, 2010, at or about 10:30 a.m., plaintiffs’ decedents, DENNIS T. MARSHALL and KAREN MARSHALL, arrived in San Francisco at San Francisco International Airport. 19. At approximately 10:30 a.m., plaintiffs’ decedents got into a cab owned and operated by defendants DESOTO and driven by defendant FAEGH BEHBAHANI. 20. San Francisco Transportation Code § 1113 provides: “No vehicle may be operated as a Taxi or Ramp Taxi after the vehicle has reached 325,000 miles.” This regulation is a safety statute designed to prevent the kind of occurrence that caused the Marshall’s death, i.e., the use of taxicabs rendered unsafe because of excessive mileage and wear-and tear, and the Marshalls were of the class of persons the statute was designed to protect, i.e., taxicab passengers. 21. | DESOTO mechanics had rolled back the odometer of the cab taken by the Marshalls in violation of California Vehicle Code § 28051 and 49 U.S.C. § 32703. Had this 4 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL {W0326295.DOC}10 1 27 28 50,000-mile, illegal rollback not occurred, the cab would not have been in compliance with Section 1113, and would not have been in operation on the day the Marshalls were killed. 22. After leaving the airport, the cab proceeded northbound on 1-280, heading to an eventual destination of the Mark Hopkins Hotel in San Francisco. 23. Near Candlestick Park, FAEGH BEHBAHANI noticed smoke “pouring out of the front” of the cab, but he continued driving it anyway. 24, — The cab exited the freeway at the Mariposa exit, approximately four miles after FAEGH BEHBAHANI first perceived that the cab was smoking. 25. The brakes on the cab apparently failed, and the cab crashed into a steel and concrete freeway support pillar. 26. The cab burst into flames. Three sheriff's deputies, who were behind the cab in an empty jail van, stopped and pulled DENNIS T. MARSHALL and KAREN MARSHALL from the burning vehicle. The driver, defendant FAEGH BEHBAHANI, was able to get out of the cab on his own. 27. The Marshalls were transported to San Francisco General Hospital. KAREN MARSHALL died at SFGH shortly after she arrived. DENNIS T. MARSHALL died at approximately 4:20 p.m. that afternoon. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment as set forth below. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION — WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL -- COMMON CARRIER (MOTOR VEHICLE) Plaintiffs NATHAN MARSHALL and ALEX MARSHALL, individually and as successors in interest to decedents DENNIS T. MARSHALL and KAREN MARSHALL, allege as a first cause of action against defendants DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC.; SELBY AND HUDSON CORPORATION; FAEGH BEHBAHANT, and DOES 3-20, inclusive: 28. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 to 27 above, as though fully set forth here. 29. At the time of the incident, defendants, and each of them, were the owners, operators, entrustors, or individuals responsible for the maintenance and operation of the DeSoto 5 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL {W0326295.DOC}27 28 cab that crashed at the I-280 Mariposa exit on June 14, 2010. 30. Defendants, and each of them, were common carriers within the meaning of Civil Code § 2168 at the time of the incident and, as such, each had a duty to use the highest care and the vigilance of a very cautious person to transport plaintiff's decedents. Defendants, and each of them, had a duty to do all that human care, vigilance, and foresight reasonably could do under the circumstances to a avoid harm to plaintiff's decedents. 31. Defendants, and each of them, breached their duty by their actions at and near the time of the incident as described above and said actions resulted in the collision and plaintiff's decedents’ deaths. Specifically, defendants, and each of them, failed to maintain the DeSoto cab in proper and safe mechanical condition, failed to ensure the DeSoto cab was safe for the transport of passengers for hire, and intentionally rolled back the odometer of the vehicle as alleged above. Further, defendant FAEGH BEHBAHANI failed to stop the DeSoto cab immediately upon perceiving the vehicle was emitting smoke, or to otherwise bring the vehicle safely to a stop. 31. Decedents DENNIS T. MARSHALL and KAREN MARSHALL survived the accident, and before their deaths, incurred medical expenses as a direct result of this incident. 32. Asa proximate and direct legal result of the negligent acts or omissions set forth herein, plaintiffs NATHAN MARSHALL and ALEX MARSHALL, individually and as successors in interest to decedents DENNIS T. MARSHALL and KAREN MARSHALL, have suffered economic damages for the wrongful death of DENNIS T. MARSHALL and KAREN MARSHALL, including, but not limited to, medical expenses, loss of financial support, gifts, benefits, funeral and burial expenses, and loss of ability to provide household services, that exceed the minimum jurisdiction of this Court. 33. Asa further proximate and direct legal result of the negligent acts or omissions set forth herein, plaintiffs NATHAN MARSHALL and ALEX MARSHALL, individually and as successors in interest to decedents DENNIS T. MARSHALL and KAREN MARSHALL, has suffered noneconomic damages for the wrongful death of DENNIS T. MARSHALL and KAREN MARSHALL, including, but not limited to, loss of love, companionship, comfort, care, 6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL {W0326295.DOC}27 28 assistance, protection, affection, society, moral support, training, and guidance that exceed the minimum jurisdiction of this Court. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray judgment as set forth below. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiffs pray judgment against defendants, and each of them, as follows: 1. For noneconomic damages according to proof at time of trial; 2. For economic damages according to proof at time of trial; 3. For costs of suit herein; 4. For pre-judgment interest in accordance with Civil Code §§ 3287, 3288, and 3291; and 5. For such further relief as the Court may deem proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs NATHAN MARSHALL and ALEX MARSHALL, individually and as successors in interest to decedents DENNIS T. MARSHALL and KAREN MARSHALL, demand a jury trial on each and all of the causes of action set forth in this First Amended Complaint. DATED: July /7, 2013 ROUDA, FEDER, TIETJEN, and McGUINN oy Mh og Miles B. Coofer Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL {W0326295.DOC}