Preview
Electronically Filed Superior Court of CA County of Contra Costa 1/26/2023 5:35 PM By: K. Jinkerson, Deputy
Robert S. Arns, State Bar No. 65071
1 rsa@arnslaw.com
2 Jonathan E. Davis, State Bar No. 191346
jed@arnslaw.com
3 Juan C. Flores, State Bar No. 333473
4 jcf@arnslaw.com
Adriana G. Valdez, State Bar No. 347324
5 agv@arnslaw.com
THE ARNS LAW FIRM Per local Rule, This case is assigned to
6 Judge Treat, Charles S, for all purposes.
A Professional Corporation
7 515 Folsom Street, 3rd Floor
San Francisco, California 94105
8
Phone: (415) 495-7800
9 Fax: (415) 495-7888
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff
11
12 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
CIVIL UNLIMITED
14
15 MARTIN OCHOA SUAREZ; No. C23-00191
16 Plaintiff, UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES
17
vs.
18 [REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL]
CANNON CONSTRUCTORS, INC. and
19
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive
20
Defendants.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 The following is a complaint for personal injury, brought by Plaintiff MARTIN
2 OCHOA SUAREZ, by and through his attorney, The Arns Law Firm, who allege on
3 information and belief as follows:
4 PARTIES
5 1. Plaintiff MARTIN OCHOA SUAREZ is a resident of the State of California.
6 2. Defendant CANNON CONSTRUCTORS, INC. is a California corporation whose
7 principal place of business is 17000 Ventura Blvd, Suite 301, Encino, California,
8 91316, and is in the business of conducting construction related activities within
9 the State of California.
10 3. The true names and capacities of Defendants sued in the Complaint under the
11 fictitious names of Does 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs who
12 therefore sue such Defendants by such fictitious names.
13 4. All the Defendants described above shall collectively be referred to as
14 “Defendants” in this complaint.
15 5. Whenever reference is made in this Complaint to any act of any corporate or other
16 business Defendant, such allegation shall mean that such corporation or other
17 business did the acts alleged in the Complaint through its officers, directors,
18 employees, agents, and/or representatives while they were acting within the actual
19 or ostensible scope of their authority.
20 6. At all relevant times, each of the Defendants had acted as an agent, representative,
21 or employee of each of the other Defendants and has acted within the course and
22 scope of said agency or representation or employment with respect to the causes
23 of action in this Complaint.
24 7. At all relevant times, each Defendant has committed the acts, caused others to
25 commit the acts, or permitted others to commit the acts referred to in this
26 Complaint.
27
28
-2-
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2 VENUE
3 8. Venue in this action is proper in the County of Contra Costa based upon the fact
4 that the injury suffered herein by MARTIN OCHOA SUAREZ occurred within
5 Contra Costa County.
6 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
7 9. On or about February 9, 2021, Plaintiff MARTIN OCHOA SUAREZ was acting
8 within the course and scope of his employment with his employer, Contractor’s
9 Scaffold Supply, Inc. Plaintiff was employed as a union carpenter, working at
10 11600 San Pablo Ave, El Cerrito, California (“Subject Project”).
11 10. On or about February 9, 2021, Defendant CANNON CONSTRUCTORS, INC.
12 was acting as the general contractor on the Subject Project.
13 11. On or about February 9, 2021, Plaintiff MARTIN OCHOA SUAREZ suffered
14 severe injuries to his shoulder, back, and left foot when he fell through an
15 unmarked roof opening on the Subject Project.
16 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
17 NEGLIGENCE
18 12. Plaintiff MARTIN OCHOA SUAREZ realleges and incorporates by reference the
19 paragraphs 1-11, inclusive, as fully set forth herein.
20 13. That at said time and place, as aforesaid, the Defendants, and each one of them,
21 owed a duty of reasonable care towards Plaintiff and others based upon
22 Defendant’s work performed on the subject premise where the injury-causing
23 incident occurred. Said duty was based upon Defendant’s contractual obligations,
24 custom, and practice in the industry, right to control the details of the work,
25 exercise control over the details of the work, authority to control the details of the
26 work, the coordination of the details of work, duty to perform inspection,
27
28
-3-
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 installation of the structure with the subject roof opening, and the commission of
2 affirmative acts that resulted in said injury to Plaintiff.
3 14. Additionally, said duty is based on the requirements of Civil Code § 1714,
4 requiring all persons to act in a reasonable manner towards others.
5 15. Additionally, said duty is based on the requirements of Defendants, and each of
6 them, to provide a safe place for Plaintiff to work pursuant to Labor Code § 640l.
7 16. Defendants, and each of them, breached said duty by negligently, carelessly, and
8 recklessly constructing, inspecting, maintaining, contracting, subcontracting,
9 supervising, controlling, engineering, designing, performing, planning, and
10 holding out for bid, construction work and supply men and materials for the job
11 site referred to herein, in that Defendants failed to perform inspections, coordinate,
12 and control the work being performed on said job site in a safe and proper manner,
13 thereby creating a risk of injury to persons working on said job site.
14 17. That at said time and place, as aforementioned, Defendants, and each of them,
15 were employers on a multi-employer worksite pursuant to Labor Code §§ 6400,
16 6401, 6402, 6403 and 6404 as Defendants, and each of them, created the subject
17 dangerous condition, had the authority to correct the subject dangerous condition,
18 were aware of the subject dangerous condition, or were responsible for remedying
19 the subject dangerous condition to which Plaintiff was exposed.
20 18. That at said time and place, Plaintiff was within the class of workers who were
21 intended to be protected by the Labor Code regulations and protected under the
22 dictates of Cal-OSHA regulations.
23 19. Defendants, and each of them, breached said duty by negligently violating the
24 dictates of Labor Code § 6400, et seq. by failing to provide Plaintiff a safe to work.
25 20. Additionally, by improperly securing, or failing to adequately secure, a cover
26 capable of supporting the greater of 400 pounds or twice the weight of employees,
27 and by failing to label said cover with legible letters stating “Opening, Do Not
28
-4-
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 Remove,” Defendants created, failed to correct, or maintained an unsafe workplace
2 in violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Article 19, Section 1632
3 and/or Title 8, Article 2, Section 3212, and other ordinances enacted to protect the
4 class of Plaintiffs here from the type of injury here incurred. These specific
5 obligations imposed on Defendants and apply to the hazardous condition of an
6 improperly secured roof opening that failed and caused Plaintiff MARTIN
7 OCHOA SUAREZ to fall. As a direct and proximate cause of said violations,
8 Plaintiff MARTIN OCHOA SUAREZ suffered severe physical injuries.
9 21. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence, breach of duty, and
10 said violations, Plaintiff sustained injury to his person, incurred wage loss, medical
11 expenses, other expenses when Plaintiff stepped on the roof opening and it
12 collapsed, causing him to fall and sustain serious personal injuries.
13
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
14
PREMISES LIABILITY
15
22. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 21
16
inclusive as if fully set forth herein.
17
23. That at said time and place, as aforesaid, the Defendants, and each of them, owed
18
a duty of reasonable care toward Plaintiff and others based upon Defendants’
19
ownership, the possession, maintenance, and operation of the subject premises
20
where the injury causing evidence occurred. Said duty was based upon
21
Defendants’ contractual obligations, custom and practice in the industry, right to
22
control the premises, exercise of control over the details of the premises, authority
23 to control the premises, the coordination of the activities occurring on the
24 premises, and the commission of affirmative acts that resulted in said injury to
25 Plaintiff.
26
27
28
-5-
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
24. Defendants, and each of them breached said duty by negligently, carelessly and
1
recklessly inspecting, maintaining, contracting, subcontracting, supervising,
2
controlling engineering, designing, performing work on the Subject Premises.
3
25. Defendants, and each of them, were negligent per se under the regulations
4
applicable to the Subject Premises.
5
26. Defendants were negligent for failure to do any safety inspection of the Subject
6
Premises as required by law, at any time.
7
8 27. Defendants, and each of them, breached said duty by negligently violating the
9 dictates of Labor Code § 6400, et seq. by failing to provide Plaintiff a safe to work.
10
28. Additionally, by improperly securing, or failing to adequately secure, a cover
11
capable of supporting the greater of 400 pounds or twice the weight of employees,
12
13 and by failing to label said cover with legible letters stating “Opening, Do Not
14 Remove,” Defendants created, failed to correct, or maintained an unsafe workplace
15
in violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Article 19, Section 1632
16
and/or Title 8, Article 2, Section 3212, and other ordinances enacted to protect the
17
18 class of Plaintiffs here from the type of injury here incurred. These specific
19 obligations imposed on Defendants and apply to the hazardous condition of an
20
improperly secured roof opening that failed and caused Plaintiff MARTIN
21
OCHOA SUAREZ to fall. As a direct and proximate cause of said violations,
22
23 Plaintiff MARTIN OCHOA SUAREZ suffered severe physical injuries.
24 29. As a result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff sustained severe injury to his
25
person, incurred wage loss, medical expenses, and other expenses, pain and
26
suffering, when he stepped on a roof opening and it collapsed causing him to fall
27
28 and sustain personal injuries.
-6-
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as
2 follows:
3 1. Plaintiff MARTIN OCHOA SUAREZ requests repayment of all special damages
4 incurred, according to proof, including, but not limited to, all past and future wage
5 loss, hospital and medical expenses.
6 2. Plaintiff MARTIN OCHOA SUAREZ requests all general damages according to
7 proof.
8 3. For all pre-judgment interest as allowed by law.
9 4. For all attorneys fees as allowed by law.
10 5. For costs of suit incurred herein.
11 6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
12 7. Plaintiff requests a jury trial on all issues allowed by law.
13
14
15
16 THE ARNS LAW FIRM
17
18
By:___________________________
19 JONATHAN E. DAVIS
Attorneys for Plaintiff
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7-
UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Preview
Electronically Filed Superior Court of CA County of Contra Costa 1/26/2023 5:35 PM By: K. Jinkerson, Deputy Robert S. Arns, State Bar No. 65071 1 rsa@arnslaw.com 2 Jonathan E. Davis, State Bar No. 191346 jed@arnslaw.com 3 Juan C. Flores, State Bar No. 333473 4 jcf@arnslaw.com Adriana G. Valdez, State Bar No. 347324 5 agv@arnslaw.com THE ARNS LAW FIRM Per local Rule, This case is assigned to 6 Judge Treat, Charles S, for all purposes. A Professional Corporation 7 515 Folsom Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, California 94105 8 Phone: (415) 495-7800 9 Fax: (415) 495-7888 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff 11 12 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA CIVIL UNLIMITED 14 15 MARTIN OCHOA SUAREZ; No. C23-00191 16 Plaintiff, UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 17 vs. 18 [REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL] CANNON CONSTRUCTORS, INC. and 19 DOES 1 to 100, inclusive 20 Defendants. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 The following is a complaint for personal injury, brought by Plaintiff MARTIN 2 OCHOA SUAREZ, by and through his attorney, The Arns Law Firm, who allege on 3 information and belief as follows: 4 PARTIES 5 1. Plaintiff MARTIN OCHOA SUAREZ is a resident of the State of California. 6 2. Defendant CANNON CONSTRUCTORS, INC. is a California corporation whose 7 principal place of business is 17000 Ventura Blvd, Suite 301, Encino, California, 8 91316, and is in the business of conducting construction related activities within 9 the State of California. 10 3. The true names and capacities of Defendants sued in the Complaint under the 11 fictitious names of Does 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs who 12 therefore sue such Defendants by such fictitious names. 13 4. All the Defendants described above shall collectively be referred to as 14 “Defendants” in this complaint. 15 5. Whenever reference is made in this Complaint to any act of any corporate or other 16 business Defendant, such allegation shall mean that such corporation or other 17 business did the acts alleged in the Complaint through its officers, directors, 18 employees, agents, and/or representatives while they were acting within the actual 19 or ostensible scope of their authority. 20 6. At all relevant times, each of the Defendants had acted as an agent, representative, 21 or employee of each of the other Defendants and has acted within the course and 22 scope of said agency or representation or employment with respect to the causes 23 of action in this Complaint. 24 7. At all relevant times, each Defendant has committed the acts, caused others to 25 commit the acts, or permitted others to commit the acts referred to in this 26 Complaint. 27 28 -2- UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 VENUE 3 8. Venue in this action is proper in the County of Contra Costa based upon the fact 4 that the injury suffered herein by MARTIN OCHOA SUAREZ occurred within 5 Contra Costa County. 6 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 7 9. On or about February 9, 2021, Plaintiff MARTIN OCHOA SUAREZ was acting 8 within the course and scope of his employment with his employer, Contractor’s 9 Scaffold Supply, Inc. Plaintiff was employed as a union carpenter, working at 10 11600 San Pablo Ave, El Cerrito, California (“Subject Project”). 11 10. On or about February 9, 2021, Defendant CANNON CONSTRUCTORS, INC. 12 was acting as the general contractor on the Subject Project. 13 11. On or about February 9, 2021, Plaintiff MARTIN OCHOA SUAREZ suffered 14 severe injuries to his shoulder, back, and left foot when he fell through an 15 unmarked roof opening on the Subject Project. 16 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 17 NEGLIGENCE 18 12. Plaintiff MARTIN OCHOA SUAREZ realleges and incorporates by reference the 19 paragraphs 1-11, inclusive, as fully set forth herein. 20 13. That at said time and place, as aforesaid, the Defendants, and each one of them, 21 owed a duty of reasonable care towards Plaintiff and others based upon 22 Defendant’s work performed on the subject premise where the injury-causing 23 incident occurred. Said duty was based upon Defendant’s contractual obligations, 24 custom, and practice in the industry, right to control the details of the work, 25 exercise control over the details of the work, authority to control the details of the 26 work, the coordination of the details of work, duty to perform inspection, 27 28 -3- UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 installation of the structure with the subject roof opening, and the commission of 2 affirmative acts that resulted in said injury to Plaintiff. 3 14. Additionally, said duty is based on the requirements of Civil Code § 1714, 4 requiring all persons to act in a reasonable manner towards others. 5 15. Additionally, said duty is based on the requirements of Defendants, and each of 6 them, to provide a safe place for Plaintiff to work pursuant to Labor Code § 640l. 7 16. Defendants, and each of them, breached said duty by negligently, carelessly, and 8 recklessly constructing, inspecting, maintaining, contracting, subcontracting, 9 supervising, controlling, engineering, designing, performing, planning, and 10 holding out for bid, construction work and supply men and materials for the job 11 site referred to herein, in that Defendants failed to perform inspections, coordinate, 12 and control the work being performed on said job site in a safe and proper manner, 13 thereby creating a risk of injury to persons working on said job site. 14 17. That at said time and place, as aforementioned, Defendants, and each of them, 15 were employers on a multi-employer worksite pursuant to Labor Code §§ 6400, 16 6401, 6402, 6403 and 6404 as Defendants, and each of them, created the subject 17 dangerous condition, had the authority to correct the subject dangerous condition, 18 were aware of the subject dangerous condition, or were responsible for remedying 19 the subject dangerous condition to which Plaintiff was exposed. 20 18. That at said time and place, Plaintiff was within the class of workers who were 21 intended to be protected by the Labor Code regulations and protected under the 22 dictates of Cal-OSHA regulations. 23 19. Defendants, and each of them, breached said duty by negligently violating the 24 dictates of Labor Code § 6400, et seq. by failing to provide Plaintiff a safe to work. 25 20. Additionally, by improperly securing, or failing to adequately secure, a cover 26 capable of supporting the greater of 400 pounds or twice the weight of employees, 27 and by failing to label said cover with legible letters stating “Opening, Do Not 28 -4- UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Remove,” Defendants created, failed to correct, or maintained an unsafe workplace 2 in violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Article 19, Section 1632 3 and/or Title 8, Article 2, Section 3212, and other ordinances enacted to protect the 4 class of Plaintiffs here from the type of injury here incurred. These specific 5 obligations imposed on Defendants and apply to the hazardous condition of an 6 improperly secured roof opening that failed and caused Plaintiff MARTIN 7 OCHOA SUAREZ to fall. As a direct and proximate cause of said violations, 8 Plaintiff MARTIN OCHOA SUAREZ suffered severe physical injuries. 9 21. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence, breach of duty, and 10 said violations, Plaintiff sustained injury to his person, incurred wage loss, medical 11 expenses, other expenses when Plaintiff stepped on the roof opening and it 12 collapsed, causing him to fall and sustain serious personal injuries. 13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 14 PREMISES LIABILITY 15 22. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 21 16 inclusive as if fully set forth herein. 17 23. That at said time and place, as aforesaid, the Defendants, and each of them, owed 18 a duty of reasonable care toward Plaintiff and others based upon Defendants’ 19 ownership, the possession, maintenance, and operation of the subject premises 20 where the injury causing evidence occurred. Said duty was based upon 21 Defendants’ contractual obligations, custom and practice in the industry, right to 22 control the premises, exercise of control over the details of the premises, authority 23 to control the premises, the coordination of the activities occurring on the 24 premises, and the commission of affirmative acts that resulted in said injury to 25 Plaintiff. 26 27 28 -5- UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 24. Defendants, and each of them breached said duty by negligently, carelessly and 1 recklessly inspecting, maintaining, contracting, subcontracting, supervising, 2 controlling engineering, designing, performing work on the Subject Premises. 3 25. Defendants, and each of them, were negligent per se under the regulations 4 applicable to the Subject Premises. 5 26. Defendants were negligent for failure to do any safety inspection of the Subject 6 Premises as required by law, at any time. 7 8 27. Defendants, and each of them, breached said duty by negligently violating the 9 dictates of Labor Code § 6400, et seq. by failing to provide Plaintiff a safe to work. 10 28. Additionally, by improperly securing, or failing to adequately secure, a cover 11 capable of supporting the greater of 400 pounds or twice the weight of employees, 12 13 and by failing to label said cover with legible letters stating “Opening, Do Not 14 Remove,” Defendants created, failed to correct, or maintained an unsafe workplace 15 in violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Article 19, Section 1632 16 and/or Title 8, Article 2, Section 3212, and other ordinances enacted to protect the 17 18 class of Plaintiffs here from the type of injury here incurred. These specific 19 obligations imposed on Defendants and apply to the hazardous condition of an 20 improperly secured roof opening that failed and caused Plaintiff MARTIN 21 OCHOA SUAREZ to fall. As a direct and proximate cause of said violations, 22 23 Plaintiff MARTIN OCHOA SUAREZ suffered severe physical injuries. 24 29. As a result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff sustained severe injury to his 25 person, incurred wage loss, medical expenses, and other expenses, pain and 26 suffering, when he stepped on a roof opening and it collapsed causing him to fall 27 28 and sustain personal injuries. -6- UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as 2 follows: 3 1. Plaintiff MARTIN OCHOA SUAREZ requests repayment of all special damages 4 incurred, according to proof, including, but not limited to, all past and future wage 5 loss, hospital and medical expenses. 6 2. Plaintiff MARTIN OCHOA SUAREZ requests all general damages according to 7 proof. 8 3. For all pre-judgment interest as allowed by law. 9 4. For all attorneys fees as allowed by law. 10 5. For costs of suit incurred herein. 11 6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 12 7. Plaintiff requests a jury trial on all issues allowed by law. 13 14 15 16 THE ARNS LAW FIRM 17 18 By:___________________________ 19 JONATHAN E. DAVIS Attorneys for Plaintiff 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -7- UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES