Preview
1 Walter T. Clark, Esq. (SBN 53303)
wclark@walterclark.com
2 Vivian W. Lin, Esq. (SBN 323382)
vlin@walterclark.com
3 WALTER CLARK LEGAL GROUP
A Professional Law Corporation
4 71-861 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
5 Telephone: (760) 862-9254
Facsimile: (760) 862-1121
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
7 MARICELA MAESTAS
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
10
11 MARICELA MAESTAS, an individual; ) Case No.:
)
12 ) PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR
PLAINTIFF, ) DAMAGES
13 )
v. ) 1. NEGLIGENCE – Motor Vehicle
14 ) 2. NEGLIGENCE – General
JUNE GRABLE PETTIS, an individual; )
15 and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, )
) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
16 )
DEFENDANTS. )
17 )
)
18 )
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 Plaintiff, MARICELA MAESTAS, complains of Defendant, JUNE GRABLE PETTIS,
2 and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and alleges as follows:
3 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4 1. This Court has jurisdiction over all Defendants because each Defendant is either a
5 citizen of California, has sufficient minimum contacts in California, or otherwise intentionally
6 avails itself of the California market so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over it by the
7 California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
8 2. Venue is proper in this Court because, upon information and belief, the named
9 Defendants reside, transact business, or have offices in this county and the acts and omissions
10 alleged herein took place in this county.
11 COMMON ALLEGATIONS
12 3. Plaintiff MARICELA MAESTAS (hereinafter referred to as “MAESTAS”) is an
13 individual residing in the City of Indio, County of Riverside, State of California.
14 4. At all relevant times, MAESTAS was driving a 2018 Acura MDX (hereinafter
15 referred to as “ACURA’), bearing California license plate number 8CQZ699.
16 5. Plaintiff MAESTAS is informed and believes, and on such information and belief
17 alleges, that Defendant JUNE GRABLE PETTIS (hereinafter referred to as “PETTIS”) is, and at
18 all times herein mentioned was, a resident of the County of Riverside, State of California.
19 6. Plaintiff MAESTAS is informed and believes, and on such information and belief
20 alleges, that at all times and places herein mentioned, the Defendants PETTIS and DOES 1
21 through 50 were the owners, maintainers, controllers, and operators of a certain 2007 BMW 3-
22 series (“BMW”), bearing California license number 5WPB374, with the permission and consent
23 and at the direction of the remaining Defendants.
24 7. The true names and capacities of Defendant DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, whether
25 individual, corporate, associates, public entities, or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiff
26 MAESTAS at the time of filing this Complaint. Plaintiff MAESTAS therefore sues these
27 Defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiff MAESTAS will ask leave of court to amend this
28 complaint to show their true names or capacities when the same has been ascertained. Plaintiff
2
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 MAESTAS is informed and believes, and on such information and belief alleges, that each of the
2 fictitiously named Defendants are negligently or otherwise responsible in some manner for the
3 occurrences herein alleged and that Plaintiff MAESTAS’ injuries and/or damages, as herein
4 alleged, were proximately caused by the fictitiously named Defendants.
5 8. Each reference in this Complaint to “Defendant,” “Defendants” or a specially
6 named Defendant also refers to the DOE Defendants named in the same cause of action.
7 9. At all times herein mentioned, the intersection of Washington Street and 187 feet
8 north of Highway 111, was then, and is now, a public street in Riverside County, California.
9 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
10 [Negligence – Motor Vehicle]
11 Plaintiff MAESTAS alleges against Defendant PETTIS and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive:
12 10. Plaintiff MAESTAS incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all
13 preceding paragraphs, and each and every part hereof with the same force and effect as though
14 set out at length herein.
15 11. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, owed a duty of due
16 care to Plaintiff MAESTAS to act in a reasonable, prudent, and careful manner in the entrustment,
17 ownership, operation, maintenance, and control of the vehicle which they owned and/or operated
18 so as to avoid causing harm or creating a foreseeable risk of harm to others, including Plaintiff
19 MAESTAS.
20 12. On or about March 12, 2021, Plaintiff MAESTAS was driving northbound on
21 Washington Street in a careful and prudent manner in the aforementioned ACURA.
22 13. At said time and place, Defendant PETTIS and DOES 1 TO 50, inclusive, driving
23 southbound on Washington Street, drove negligently by driving at a speed too fast for conditions,
24 lost control of the BMW, causing the BMW to cross the median and enter into the northbound
25 lanes on Washington Street, into the path of MAESTAS, so as to cause a collision and cause
26 harm to Plaintiff MAESTAS.
27 ///
28 ///
3
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 14. At the time of this collision, Defendant PETTIS violated California Vehicle Code
2 Sections 21650 (a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway) and 22350 (unsafe
3 speed).
4 15. Defendants, and each of them, so negligently and carelessly entrusted, owned,
5 operated, maintained and controlled said vehicle so as to cause significant personal injuries and
6 damages to Plaintiff MAESTAS.
7 16. By reason of said negligence and carelessness of the aforesaid Defendants, and
8 each of them, and as a proximate result thereof, Plaintiff MAESTAS received severe injuries to
9 her body. The injuries received by Plaintiff MAESTAS have greatly impaired her health,
10 strength and activity and have thereby caused and continue to cause her great mental, physical
11 and nervous pain and suffering and an extreme shock to her nervous system. Plaintiff MAESTAS
12 is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that said injuries will result in some disability to
13 her, all to her damages in an amount according to proof.
14 17. As a further, direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each
15 of them, as herein alleged, Plaintiff MAESTAS was required to, and did employ, and continues
16 to employ, physicians and others for medical care of said injuries, and did incur medical and
17 incidental expenses in an amount according to proof. Plaintiff MAESTAS is informed, and
18 thereon alleges, that she will incur further medical and incidental expenses for the care and
19 treatment of said injuries, the amount of which is unknown at this time, all to her further damages
20 in an amount according to proof.
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
4
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 18. As a further, direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each
2 of them, as herein alleged, Plaintiff MAESTAS is prevented from performing her usual
3 occupation, or any occupation whatsoever, or has otherwise suffered a reduction in her capacity
4 to work, and as a result has been damaged in an amount according to proof. Plaintiff MAESTAS
5 is informed and believes, and on such information and belief alleges, that by reason of said
6 carelessness and negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff MAESTAS will, in the
7 future, be prevented from attending to her usual occupation for an undetermined period of time,
8 or will continue to have a reduced capacity to earn income, all to her further damages in an
9 amount according to proof.
10 19. As a further, direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff
11 MAESTAS has been subjected to severe emotional distress and will continue to suffer severe
12 and permanent humiliation, mental pain and anguish, and will continue to live in a constant state
13 of emotional tension and distress
14 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
15 [Negligence - General]
16 As and for a separate and distinct Cause of Action, Plaintiff MAESTAS alleges against
17 Defendant PETTIS and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive:
18 20. Plaintiff MAESTAS incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all
19 preceding paragraphs, and each and every part hereof with the same force and effect as though
20 set out at length herein.
21 21. Defendants and each of them, unreasonably created, and placed Plaintiff
22 MAESTAS in a dangerous situation by negligently, carelessly, recklessly, and unlawfully
23 owning, operating, maintaining, managing, entrusting, and controlling the subject BMW so as to
24 cause it to collide with a vehicle (bearing California license number 8CQZ699), owned, operated,
25 and occupied by Plaintiff MAESTAS.
26 22. Defendants knew or should have known the operation of the subject BMW on a
27 public roadway created a particular risk of harm to others. Alternatively, Defendants knew or
28 should have known of the dangerous condition posed by the subject BMW prior to the subject
5
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 incident. Defendants’ negligent, careless, reckless, operating, maintenance, management,
2 entrustment, and control of the subject BMW posed a foreseeable risk of harm to users of public
3 roadways and, in fact, caused Plaintiff MAESTAS serious harm.
4 23. Plaintiff MAESTAS’ harm and injuries are of the type that ordinarily would not
5 have happened unless someone was negligent. Said harm and injuries were caused by something
6 that only Defendants controlled and Plaintiff MAESTAS’ voluntary actions did not cause or
7 contribute to the events that harmed her. Therefore, Defendants were negligent.
8 24. Defendants violated local, state, and federal statutes, regulations, or ordinances.
9 Said violations were each a substantial factor in bringing about harm or injuries to Plaintiff
10 MAESTAS and said violations were not excused. Said violations constitute negligent acts or
11 omissions.
12 25. By reason of Defendants’ negligence and carelessness, and as a proximate result
13 thereof, Plaintiff MAESTAS received severe injuries to her body. The injuries received by
14 Plaintiff MAESTAS have greatly impaired her health, strength, and activity and has thereby
15 caused and continues to cause her great mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering and an
16 extreme shock to her nervous system. Plaintiff MAESTAS is informed and believes that the said
17 injuries will result in some disability to her, all to her damage in an amount according to proof.
18 26. As a further, direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants,
19 Plaintiff MAESTAS is required to, and did employ, and continues to employ, physicians and
20 others for medical care of said injuries, and did incur medical and incidental expenses in an
21 amount according to proof. Plaintiff MAESTAS is informed that she will incur further medical
22 and incidental expenses for the care and treatment of said injuries, the amount of which is
23 unknown at this time, all to her further damages in an amount according to proof.
24 27. As a further, direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants,
25 Plaintiff MAESTAS, suffered a reduction in her capacity to work, and, as a result, has been
26 damaged in an amount according to proof. By reason of said carelessness and negligence of
27 Defendants, Plaintiff MAESTAS will, in the future, have a reduced capacity to earn income, all
28 to her further damage in an amount according to proof.
6
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 28. As a further, direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants,
2 Plaintiff MAESTAS has been subjected to severe emotional distress and will continue to suffer
3 severe and permanent humiliation, mental pain and anguish, and will continue to live in a constant
4 state of emotional tension and distress.
5
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MAESTAS prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of
6
them, as follows:
7
1. For non-economic damages in an amount according to proof;
8
2. For economic damages in an amount according to proof;
9
3. For interest and prejudgment interest;
10
4. For costs of suit herein incurred; and
11
5. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.
12
13 Date: January 4, 2023 WALTER CLARK LEGAL GROUP
14
15
16 Vivian W. Lin
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
17 MARICELA MAESTAS
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
2 Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.
3 Date: January 4, 2023 WALTER CLARK LEGAL GROUP
4
5
Vivian W. Lin
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, MARICELA MAESTAS
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Preview
1 Walter T. Clark, Esq. (SBN 53303) wclark@walterclark.com 2 Vivian W. Lin, Esq. (SBN 323382) vlin@walterclark.com 3 WALTER CLARK LEGAL GROUP A Professional Law Corporation 4 71-861 Highway 111 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 5 Telephone: (760) 862-9254 Facsimile: (760) 862-1121 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 7 MARICELA MAESTAS 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 10 11 MARICELA MAESTAS, an individual; ) Case No.: ) 12 ) PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PLAINTIFF, ) DAMAGES 13 ) v. ) 1. NEGLIGENCE – Motor Vehicle 14 ) 2. NEGLIGENCE – General JUNE GRABLE PETTIS, an individual; ) 15 and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, ) ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 16 ) DEFENDANTS. ) 17 ) ) 18 ) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Plaintiff, MARICELA MAESTAS, complains of Defendant, JUNE GRABLE PETTIS, 2 and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and alleges as follows: 3 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4 1. This Court has jurisdiction over all Defendants because each Defendant is either a 5 citizen of California, has sufficient minimum contacts in California, or otherwise intentionally 6 avails itself of the California market so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over it by the 7 California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 8 2. Venue is proper in this Court because, upon information and belief, the named 9 Defendants reside, transact business, or have offices in this county and the acts and omissions 10 alleged herein took place in this county. 11 COMMON ALLEGATIONS 12 3. Plaintiff MARICELA MAESTAS (hereinafter referred to as “MAESTAS”) is an 13 individual residing in the City of Indio, County of Riverside, State of California. 14 4. At all relevant times, MAESTAS was driving a 2018 Acura MDX (hereinafter 15 referred to as “ACURA’), bearing California license plate number 8CQZ699. 16 5. Plaintiff MAESTAS is informed and believes, and on such information and belief 17 alleges, that Defendant JUNE GRABLE PETTIS (hereinafter referred to as “PETTIS”) is, and at 18 all times herein mentioned was, a resident of the County of Riverside, State of California. 19 6. Plaintiff MAESTAS is informed and believes, and on such information and belief 20 alleges, that at all times and places herein mentioned, the Defendants PETTIS and DOES 1 21 through 50 were the owners, maintainers, controllers, and operators of a certain 2007 BMW 3- 22 series (“BMW”), bearing California license number 5WPB374, with the permission and consent 23 and at the direction of the remaining Defendants. 24 7. The true names and capacities of Defendant DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, whether 25 individual, corporate, associates, public entities, or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiff 26 MAESTAS at the time of filing this Complaint. Plaintiff MAESTAS therefore sues these 27 Defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiff MAESTAS will ask leave of court to amend this 28 complaint to show their true names or capacities when the same has been ascertained. Plaintiff 2 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 MAESTAS is informed and believes, and on such information and belief alleges, that each of the 2 fictitiously named Defendants are negligently or otherwise responsible in some manner for the 3 occurrences herein alleged and that Plaintiff MAESTAS’ injuries and/or damages, as herein 4 alleged, were proximately caused by the fictitiously named Defendants. 5 8. Each reference in this Complaint to “Defendant,” “Defendants” or a specially 6 named Defendant also refers to the DOE Defendants named in the same cause of action. 7 9. At all times herein mentioned, the intersection of Washington Street and 187 feet 8 north of Highway 111, was then, and is now, a public street in Riverside County, California. 9 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 10 [Negligence – Motor Vehicle] 11 Plaintiff MAESTAS alleges against Defendant PETTIS and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive: 12 10. Plaintiff MAESTAS incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all 13 preceding paragraphs, and each and every part hereof with the same force and effect as though 14 set out at length herein. 15 11. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, owed a duty of due 16 care to Plaintiff MAESTAS to act in a reasonable, prudent, and careful manner in the entrustment, 17 ownership, operation, maintenance, and control of the vehicle which they owned and/or operated 18 so as to avoid causing harm or creating a foreseeable risk of harm to others, including Plaintiff 19 MAESTAS. 20 12. On or about March 12, 2021, Plaintiff MAESTAS was driving northbound on 21 Washington Street in a careful and prudent manner in the aforementioned ACURA. 22 13. At said time and place, Defendant PETTIS and DOES 1 TO 50, inclusive, driving 23 southbound on Washington Street, drove negligently by driving at a speed too fast for conditions, 24 lost control of the BMW, causing the BMW to cross the median and enter into the northbound 25 lanes on Washington Street, into the path of MAESTAS, so as to cause a collision and cause 26 harm to Plaintiff MAESTAS. 27 /// 28 /// 3 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 14. At the time of this collision, Defendant PETTIS violated California Vehicle Code 2 Sections 21650 (a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway) and 22350 (unsafe 3 speed). 4 15. Defendants, and each of them, so negligently and carelessly entrusted, owned, 5 operated, maintained and controlled said vehicle so as to cause significant personal injuries and 6 damages to Plaintiff MAESTAS. 7 16. By reason of said negligence and carelessness of the aforesaid Defendants, and 8 each of them, and as a proximate result thereof, Plaintiff MAESTAS received severe injuries to 9 her body. The injuries received by Plaintiff MAESTAS have greatly impaired her health, 10 strength and activity and have thereby caused and continue to cause her great mental, physical 11 and nervous pain and suffering and an extreme shock to her nervous system. Plaintiff MAESTAS 12 is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that said injuries will result in some disability to 13 her, all to her damages in an amount according to proof. 14 17. As a further, direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each 15 of them, as herein alleged, Plaintiff MAESTAS was required to, and did employ, and continues 16 to employ, physicians and others for medical care of said injuries, and did incur medical and 17 incidental expenses in an amount according to proof. Plaintiff MAESTAS is informed, and 18 thereon alleges, that she will incur further medical and incidental expenses for the care and 19 treatment of said injuries, the amount of which is unknown at this time, all to her further damages 20 in an amount according to proof. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 4 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 18. As a further, direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, and each 2 of them, as herein alleged, Plaintiff MAESTAS is prevented from performing her usual 3 occupation, or any occupation whatsoever, or has otherwise suffered a reduction in her capacity 4 to work, and as a result has been damaged in an amount according to proof. Plaintiff MAESTAS 5 is informed and believes, and on such information and belief alleges, that by reason of said 6 carelessness and negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff MAESTAS will, in the 7 future, be prevented from attending to her usual occupation for an undetermined period of time, 8 or will continue to have a reduced capacity to earn income, all to her further damages in an 9 amount according to proof. 10 19. As a further, direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff 11 MAESTAS has been subjected to severe emotional distress and will continue to suffer severe 12 and permanent humiliation, mental pain and anguish, and will continue to live in a constant state 13 of emotional tension and distress 14 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 15 [Negligence - General] 16 As and for a separate and distinct Cause of Action, Plaintiff MAESTAS alleges against 17 Defendant PETTIS and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive: 18 20. Plaintiff MAESTAS incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all 19 preceding paragraphs, and each and every part hereof with the same force and effect as though 20 set out at length herein. 21 21. Defendants and each of them, unreasonably created, and placed Plaintiff 22 MAESTAS in a dangerous situation by negligently, carelessly, recklessly, and unlawfully 23 owning, operating, maintaining, managing, entrusting, and controlling the subject BMW so as to 24 cause it to collide with a vehicle (bearing California license number 8CQZ699), owned, operated, 25 and occupied by Plaintiff MAESTAS. 26 22. Defendants knew or should have known the operation of the subject BMW on a 27 public roadway created a particular risk of harm to others. Alternatively, Defendants knew or 28 should have known of the dangerous condition posed by the subject BMW prior to the subject 5 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 incident. Defendants’ negligent, careless, reckless, operating, maintenance, management, 2 entrustment, and control of the subject BMW posed a foreseeable risk of harm to users of public 3 roadways and, in fact, caused Plaintiff MAESTAS serious harm. 4 23. Plaintiff MAESTAS’ harm and injuries are of the type that ordinarily would not 5 have happened unless someone was negligent. Said harm and injuries were caused by something 6 that only Defendants controlled and Plaintiff MAESTAS’ voluntary actions did not cause or 7 contribute to the events that harmed her. Therefore, Defendants were negligent. 8 24. Defendants violated local, state, and federal statutes, regulations, or ordinances. 9 Said violations were each a substantial factor in bringing about harm or injuries to Plaintiff 10 MAESTAS and said violations were not excused. Said violations constitute negligent acts or 11 omissions. 12 25. By reason of Defendants’ negligence and carelessness, and as a proximate result 13 thereof, Plaintiff MAESTAS received severe injuries to her body. The injuries received by 14 Plaintiff MAESTAS have greatly impaired her health, strength, and activity and has thereby 15 caused and continues to cause her great mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering and an 16 extreme shock to her nervous system. Plaintiff MAESTAS is informed and believes that the said 17 injuries will result in some disability to her, all to her damage in an amount according to proof. 18 26. As a further, direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, 19 Plaintiff MAESTAS is required to, and did employ, and continues to employ, physicians and 20 others for medical care of said injuries, and did incur medical and incidental expenses in an 21 amount according to proof. Plaintiff MAESTAS is informed that she will incur further medical 22 and incidental expenses for the care and treatment of said injuries, the amount of which is 23 unknown at this time, all to her further damages in an amount according to proof. 24 27. As a further, direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, 25 Plaintiff MAESTAS, suffered a reduction in her capacity to work, and, as a result, has been 26 damaged in an amount according to proof. By reason of said carelessness and negligence of 27 Defendants, Plaintiff MAESTAS will, in the future, have a reduced capacity to earn income, all 28 to her further damage in an amount according to proof. 6 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 28. As a further, direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, 2 Plaintiff MAESTAS has been subjected to severe emotional distress and will continue to suffer 3 severe and permanent humiliation, mental pain and anguish, and will continue to live in a constant 4 state of emotional tension and distress. 5 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MAESTAS prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of 6 them, as follows: 7 1. For non-economic damages in an amount according to proof; 8 2. For economic damages in an amount according to proof; 9 3. For interest and prejudgment interest; 10 4. For costs of suit herein incurred; and 11 5. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper. 12 13 Date: January 4, 2023 WALTER CLARK LEGAL GROUP 14 15 16 Vivian W. Lin Attorneys for Plaintiff, 17 MARICELA MAESTAS 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 2 Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury. 3 Date: January 4, 2023 WALTER CLARK LEGAL GROUP 4 5 Vivian W. Lin 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, MARICELA MAESTAS 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL