On December 09, 2022 a
CMC stmt 3-24-23 with POS
was filed
involving a dispute between
Cunanan, Christian,
Cunanan, John Matthew,
Estate Of Rolando Glorioso,
Estate Of Susana Glorioso,
Glorioso-Emerson, Regina,
Pioquinto, Katryne,
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board,
San Francisco Area Rapid Transit District,
San Mateo County Transit District,
and
Bay Area Transit Consultants,
Bechtel-Parsons Brinckerhoff-Todd-Warren,
C&B Consulting Engineers,
City And County Of San Francisco,
City Of Millbrae,
City Of San Bruno,
County Of San Mateo,
Does 1-20,
Finger & Moy Architects,
Hntb Corporation,
Intelli-Tech,
Jiu Korve Associates,
Manna Consultants, Inc.,
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board,
San Francisco Area Rapid Transit District,
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District,
San Mateo County Transit District,
Scott Co. Of California,
Scott-Norman Mechanical, Inc.,
Slg Brisbane Mechanical Co. Jv,
State Of California,
Thomas K. Dyer, Inc.,
Tutor-Saliba Slattery,
Tutor-Saliba Slattery Jv,
Valley Power Systems North, Inc.,
West Yost Associates,
for (23) Unlimited Other PI/PD/WD
in the District Court of San Mateo County.
Preview
ERIN E. HOLBROOK, Chief Counsel
1 G. MICHAEL HARRINGTON, Deputy Chief Counsel
SAMUEL C. LAW, Assistant Chief Counsel (SBN 149161)
2 California Department of Transportation – Legal Division
3 111 Grand Avenue, Suite 11-100, Oakland, CA 94612-3717
Mail: P.O. Box 24325, Oakland, CA 94623-1325
4 Email: Samuel.C.Law@dot.ca.gov
Telephone: (510) 433-9100
5
Attorneys for Defendant STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
6 acting by and through the Department of Transportation,
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10
11 REGINA GLORIOSO-EMERSON; ESTATE ) Case No. 22-CIV-05181
12 OF ROLANDO GLORIOSO; CHRISTIAN
CUNANAN; KATRYNE PIOQUINTO;
)
)
13 JOHN MATTHEW CUNANAN; and )
ESTATE OF SUSANA GLORIOSO )
14 )
Plaintiffs, )
15 ) DEFENDANT STATE OF
vs. ) CALIFORNIA’S CASE MANAGEMENT
16 ) CONFERENCE STATEMENT
CITY OF MILLBRAE; STATE OF )
17 CALIFORNIA; CITY AND COUNTY OF )
SAN FRANCISCO; COUNTY OF SAN )
18 MATEO; CITY OF SAN BRUNO; SAN )
19 FRANCISCO AREA RAPID TRANSIT
DISTRICT; SAN MA TEO COUNTY
)
)
20 TRANSIT DISTRICT; PENINSULA ) Date: March 24, 2023
CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD; and ) Time: 2:00 pm
21 DOES 1-20 ) Dept: 21
Defendants. ) Judge: Hon. Robert D. Foiles
22 )
)
23
24 BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE
25 This is a wrongful death and dangerous condition of public property case. The complaint
26 alleges that decedents drowned in their vehicle in the below-grade underpass of Hillcrest Boulevard
27 that runs roughly parallel to and between Aviador Avenue and Hemlock Avenue in Millbrae, San
28 Mateo County, California, on December 23, 2021.
1
DEFENDANT STATE’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1 It appears that this defendant did not own or control the accident location at the time of the
2 accident, and it is in the process of preparing a declaration to that effect. Defendant State cannot be
3 held liable under Tolan v. State of California ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d
4 980, 983, and should be dismissed.
5 This defendant recently answered on February 16, 2023, and requests the Court to continue
6 this conference for 90 days.
7
8 SUBJECTS TO BE CONSIDERED AT THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
9 UNDER CALIFORNIA RULE OF COURT §3.750
10
11 (1) Whether all parties named in the complaint or cross-complaint have been served, have appeared,
12 or have been dismissed.
13 Response: This defendant does not have the relevant information.
14 (2) Whether any additional parties may be added or the pleadings may be amended.
15 Response: This defendant does not intend to add any parties or amend its Answer at this
16 time.
17 (3) The deadline for the filing of any remaining pleadings and service of any additional parties.
18 Response: This defendant does not have any additional pleadings or intend to serve any
19 additional parties at this time.
20 (4) Whether severance, consolidation, or coordination with other actions is desirable.
21 Response: Not applicable.
22 (5) The schedule for discovery proceedings to avoid duplication and whether discovery should be
23 stayed until all parties have been brought into the case.
24 Response: As the subject accident location does not appear to be owned or controlled by this
25 defendant, it intends to conduct discovery as to plaintiff only if it is not dismissed.
26 (6) The schedule for settlement conferences or alternative dispute resolution.
27 Response: As this accident location does not appear to be owned or controlled by this
28 defendant, it should be dismissed.
2
DEFENDANT STATE’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1 (7) Whether to appoint liaison or lead counsel.
2 Response: This defendant does not believe it is necessary to appoint a liaison or lead counsel.
3 (8) The date for the filing of any dispositive motions.
4 Response: This defendant intends to file a Motion for Summary Judgment if it is not
5 dismissed by June 2023.
6 (9) The creation of preliminary and updated lists of the persons to be deposed and the subjects to be
7 addressed in each deposition.
8 Response: As the subject accident location does not appear to be owned or controlled by this
9 defendant, it intends to conduct written discovery as to plaintiff only if it is not dismissed.
10 (10) The exchange of documents and whether to establish an electronic document depository.
11 Response: As the subject accident location does not appear to be owned or controlled by this
12 defendant, it intends to conduct written discovery as to plaintiff only if it is not dismissed.
13 (11) Whether a special master should be appointed and the purposes for such appointment.
14 Response: This defendant does not believe it is necessary to appoint a special master.
15 (12) Whether to establish a case-based Web site and other means to provide a current master list of
16 addresses and telephone numbers of counsel.
17 Response: This defendant does not believe it is necessary to establish a case-based Web site.
18 (13) The schedule for further conferences.
19 Response: This defendant recently answered on February 16, 2023, and requests the Court to
20 continue this conference for 90 days.
21
22 DATED: March 3, 2023 ERIN E. HOLBROOK
G. MICHAEL HARRINGTON
23 SAMUEL C. LAW
24
Type text here
By: _________________________________
25 SAMUEL C. LAW
26 Attorneys for Defendant State of California,
acting by and through the Department of
27 Transportation, sued herein as State of
California Department of Transportation
28
3
DEFENDANT STATE’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1 Case Name: Glorioso-Emerson, Regina, et al v. City of Millbrae, et al
Case No.: San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 22-CIV-05181
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
3
I, the undersigned, say: I am, and was at all times herein mentioned, employed in the City of
4 Oakland, and County of Alameda, over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action or
proceedings; that my business address is 111 Grand Avenue, Suite 11-100, Oakland, California
5 94612; Mail: P.O. Box 24325, Oakland, CA 94623-1325; that on the date set forth below, I served
the within:
6
DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S
7 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
8 on all interested parties in said action by:
9
[XX] (BY ELECTRONIC-MAIL) by attaching a copy of the document(s) in PDF format sent
10 from Christelle.meda@dot.ca.gov the email addresses confirmed by the parties listed below,
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - LEGAL DIVISION
11 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, subdivision (e)(1), effective
111 Grand Avenue, Suite 11-100, Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 433-9100, Facsimile: (510) 433-9167
September, 18, 2020, allowing for electronic service of a notice or document that may be
Mail: P.O. Box 24325, Oakland, CA 94623-1325
12 served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or facsimile transmission.
13
COUNSEL / PARTIES CONTACT INFORMATION
14 Carpenter & Zuckerman
Robert J. Ounjian, Esq. 8827 West Olympic Boulevard
15 Beverly Hills, California 90211
Attorney for Plaintiffs T: (310) 273-1230; F: (310) 858-1063
16 Email: robert@cz.law
Lem Garcia Law, PC
17 Lemuel L. Garcia, Esq. 1720 West Cameron A venue, Suite 210
West Covina, California 91790
18 Attorneys for Plaintiffs T: (626) 337-1111; F: (626) 337-1112
Email: lem@1emgarcialaw.com
19
Civil Complex Case Department
20 San Mateo County Superior Court
21 Email: complexcivil@sanmateocourt.org
22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct.
23
Executed on March 03, 2023, at Oakland, California.
24
25
26 _________________________________
CHRISTELLE MEDA, Declarant
27
28
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
ERIN E. HOLBROOK, Chief Counsel 1 G. MICHAEL HARRINGTON, Deputy Chief Counsel SAMUEL C. LAW, Assistant Chief Counsel (SBN 149161) 2 California Department of Transportation – Legal Division 3 111 Grand Avenue, Suite 11-100, Oakland, CA 94612-3717 Mail: P.O. Box 24325, Oakland, CA 94623-1325 4 Email: Samuel.C.Law@dot.ca.gov Telephone: (510) 433-9100 5 Attorneys for Defendant STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 6 acting by and through the Department of Transportation, 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 11 REGINA GLORIOSO-EMERSON; ESTATE ) Case No. 22-CIV-05181 12 OF ROLANDO GLORIOSO; CHRISTIAN CUNANAN; KATRYNE PIOQUINTO; ) ) 13 JOHN MATTHEW CUNANAN; and ) ESTATE OF SUSANA GLORIOSO ) 14 ) Plaintiffs, ) 15 ) DEFENDANT STATE OF vs. ) CALIFORNIA’S CASE MANAGEMENT 16 ) CONFERENCE STATEMENT CITY OF MILLBRAE; STATE OF ) 17 CALIFORNIA; CITY AND COUNTY OF ) SAN FRANCISCO; COUNTY OF SAN ) 18 MATEO; CITY OF SAN BRUNO; SAN ) 19 FRANCISCO AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT; SAN MA TEO COUNTY ) ) 20 TRANSIT DISTRICT; PENINSULA ) Date: March 24, 2023 CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD; and ) Time: 2:00 pm 21 DOES 1-20 ) Dept: 21 Defendants. ) Judge: Hon. Robert D. Foiles 22 ) ) 23 24 BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE 25 This is a wrongful death and dangerous condition of public property case. The complaint 26 alleges that decedents drowned in their vehicle in the below-grade underpass of Hillcrest Boulevard 27 that runs roughly parallel to and between Aviador Avenue and Hemlock Avenue in Millbrae, San 28 Mateo County, California, on December 23, 2021. 1 DEFENDANT STATE’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 It appears that this defendant did not own or control the accident location at the time of the 2 accident, and it is in the process of preparing a declaration to that effect. Defendant State cannot be 3 held liable under Tolan v. State of California ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 4 980, 983, and should be dismissed. 5 This defendant recently answered on February 16, 2023, and requests the Court to continue 6 this conference for 90 days. 7 8 SUBJECTS TO BE CONSIDERED AT THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 9 UNDER CALIFORNIA RULE OF COURT §3.750 10 11 (1) Whether all parties named in the complaint or cross-complaint have been served, have appeared, 12 or have been dismissed. 13 Response: This defendant does not have the relevant information. 14 (2) Whether any additional parties may be added or the pleadings may be amended. 15 Response: This defendant does not intend to add any parties or amend its Answer at this 16 time. 17 (3) The deadline for the filing of any remaining pleadings and service of any additional parties. 18 Response: This defendant does not have any additional pleadings or intend to serve any 19 additional parties at this time. 20 (4) Whether severance, consolidation, or coordination with other actions is desirable. 21 Response: Not applicable. 22 (5) The schedule for discovery proceedings to avoid duplication and whether discovery should be 23 stayed until all parties have been brought into the case. 24 Response: As the subject accident location does not appear to be owned or controlled by this 25 defendant, it intends to conduct discovery as to plaintiff only if it is not dismissed. 26 (6) The schedule for settlement conferences or alternative dispute resolution. 27 Response: As this accident location does not appear to be owned or controlled by this 28 defendant, it should be dismissed. 2 DEFENDANT STATE’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 (7) Whether to appoint liaison or lead counsel. 2 Response: This defendant does not believe it is necessary to appoint a liaison or lead counsel. 3 (8) The date for the filing of any dispositive motions. 4 Response: This defendant intends to file a Motion for Summary Judgment if it is not 5 dismissed by June 2023. 6 (9) The creation of preliminary and updated lists of the persons to be deposed and the subjects to be 7 addressed in each deposition. 8 Response: As the subject accident location does not appear to be owned or controlled by this 9 defendant, it intends to conduct written discovery as to plaintiff only if it is not dismissed. 10 (10) The exchange of documents and whether to establish an electronic document depository. 11 Response: As the subject accident location does not appear to be owned or controlled by this 12 defendant, it intends to conduct written discovery as to plaintiff only if it is not dismissed. 13 (11) Whether a special master should be appointed and the purposes for such appointment. 14 Response: This defendant does not believe it is necessary to appoint a special master. 15 (12) Whether to establish a case-based Web site and other means to provide a current master list of 16 addresses and telephone numbers of counsel. 17 Response: This defendant does not believe it is necessary to establish a case-based Web site. 18 (13) The schedule for further conferences. 19 Response: This defendant recently answered on February 16, 2023, and requests the Court to 20 continue this conference for 90 days. 21 22 DATED: March 3, 2023 ERIN E. HOLBROOK G. MICHAEL HARRINGTON 23 SAMUEL C. LAW 24 Type text here By: _________________________________ 25 SAMUEL C. LAW 26 Attorneys for Defendant State of California, acting by and through the Department of 27 Transportation, sued herein as State of California Department of Transportation 28 3 DEFENDANT STATE’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 Case Name: Glorioso-Emerson, Regina, et al v. City of Millbrae, et al Case No.: San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 22-CIV-05181 2 PROOF OF SERVICE 3 I, the undersigned, say: I am, and was at all times herein mentioned, employed in the City of 4 Oakland, and County of Alameda, over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action or proceedings; that my business address is 111 Grand Avenue, Suite 11-100, Oakland, California 5 94612; Mail: P.O. Box 24325, Oakland, CA 94623-1325; that on the date set forth below, I served the within: 6 DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S 7 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 8 on all interested parties in said action by: 9 [XX] (BY ELECTRONIC-MAIL) by attaching a copy of the document(s) in PDF format sent 10 from Christelle.meda@dot.ca.gov the email addresses confirmed by the parties listed below, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - LEGAL DIVISION 11 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, subdivision (e)(1), effective 111 Grand Avenue, Suite 11-100, Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 433-9100, Facsimile: (510) 433-9167 September, 18, 2020, allowing for electronic service of a notice or document that may be Mail: P.O. Box 24325, Oakland, CA 94623-1325 12 served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or facsimile transmission. 13 COUNSEL / PARTIES CONTACT INFORMATION 14 Carpenter & Zuckerman Robert J. Ounjian, Esq. 8827 West Olympic Boulevard 15 Beverly Hills, California 90211 Attorney for Plaintiffs T: (310) 273-1230; F: (310) 858-1063 16 Email: robert@cz.law Lem Garcia Law, PC 17 Lemuel L. Garcia, Esq. 1720 West Cameron A venue, Suite 210 West Covina, California 91790 18 Attorneys for Plaintiffs T: (626) 337-1111; F: (626) 337-1112 Email: lem@1emgarcialaw.com 19 Civil Complex Case Department 20 San Mateo County Superior Court 21 Email: complexcivil@sanmateocourt.org 22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 23 Executed on March 03, 2023, at Oakland, California. 24 25 26 _________________________________ CHRISTELLE MEDA, Declarant 27 28 1 PROOF OF SERVICE