Preview
William O. Woodland, Esq., Bar No. 175103 F LE l D
FORD, WALKER, HAGGERTY & BEHAR Stépoalmgyfi
8951?
0F CALIFORNIA
One World Trade Center SAN BERNARDfi'NBCEBrsATRR?g-P
Twenty-Seventh Floor APR 2 3 292]
Long Beach, California 9083 1-2700
\OWQQUI-PUJNH
(562) 983-2500
Attorneys for Defendant,
W
9999” H
-
M
HMNmny 99pm
ANTONIO ZUNIGA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA mji
330:!
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO \1
(3
CHARLES ANTHONY HILL, III and DONNA Case No. CIVDSZOI6910
LYNN DENNIS—HILL,
JUDGE DONALD ALVAREZ
Plaintiffs,
DEPT. $23
vs.
DEFENDANT ZUNIGA’S NOTICE OF
ANTONIO ZUNIGA and DOES 1 through '10,
MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE
PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST
Defendants.
AMENDED COMPLAINT;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
NNNNNNNNNI—IHHb—‘HWHL—dwv—o
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF
RENEE E. JENSEN
OOQONU‘IAWNHOWOONJQU’I-PWNu—ao
[Concurrentlyfiled with Requestfor Judicial
Notice; [Proposed] Order]
Hearing Date: May 24, 2021
Time: 9:00 am.
Dept: 823
Action Filed: 8/ 18/20
Trial Date: None
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that 0n May 24, 2021 at 9:00 a.m., in Department $23 of the San
Bernardino Superior Court, located at 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, Defendant,
1
DEFENDANT ZUNIGA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
ANTONIO ZUNIGA (“Defendant”) will move for an Order striking the identified portions of the
Complaint of Plaintiffs, CHARLES ANTHONY HILL, III and DONNA LYNN DENNIS-HILL
(“Plaintiffs”), on the grounds that said portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint seeks damages Which are not
recoverable against Defendant as a matter of law.
\OOOQO\U1-5UJN>-‘
The portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint that Defendant herein seeks to strike are as follows:
9 On page 2, 11 '12 in its entirety, which reads as follows: “On the evening of February 14, 2020,
Defendant Antonio Zuniga intentionally chose to get into his Toyota Tundra, with a blood
alcohol concentration greater than .08, after consuming a large amount of alcohol. Zuniga
knew prior to consuming the intoxicating beverages that he would be driving and that by
driving in an impaired state, he would be exposing others to the danger ofhis inability to safely
operate his multi-ton Toyota Tundra. Zuniga was educated on the dangers of drinking and
driving prior to February 14, 2020.”
9 On page 2, 11 16, line 24, the phrase, “because he was impaired,”
9 On page 2, 1]
17 in its entirety, which reads as follows: “Zuniga was driving in an observably
impaired state in the minutes preceding the collision, such that he should have immediately
pulled over and stopped his vehicle long before the collision occurred.”
NNNNNNNNNHr—Ir—dr—Ip—dv—dt—Ib—dr—Ip—t
9 On page 3, ‘J 18 in its entirety, which reads as follows: “Even before the subject collision
occurred, witnesses who called 91 1 stated they observed Zuniga’s driving and felt he posed an
OO\IO\Ul#U)N*-‘O\OOOQO\UIbUJN'—‘O
immediate threat to others on the road, and almost caused other collisions before the collision
that is the subject of this lawsuit. Witnesses stated that they intended to call 911 regarding
Zuniga’s alarming and erratic driving patterns before the subject crash occurred.”
9 On page 3, 11
19 in its entirety, which reads as follows: “In the minutes preceding the head-on
collision, witnesses stated that Zuniga looked like he was driving in an impaired state, that he
was driving like a drunk, that he was driving back and forth and zig-zagging among lanes, and
even driving on the center island before driving fully onto the wrong side of the road, into on-
coming traffic, and causing the subject head-on collision.”
9 On page 3, 1] 20, lines 10-1 l, the phrase, “The investigating officer smelled a strong odor of
alcohol emitting from Zuniga’s breath and person.”
2
DEFENDANT ZUNIGA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Preview
William O. Woodland, Esq., Bar No. 175103 F LE l D FORD, WALKER, HAGGERTY & BEHAR Stépoalmgyfi 8951? 0F CALIFORNIA One World Trade Center SAN BERNARDfi'NBCEBrsATRR?g-P Twenty-Seventh Floor APR 2 3 292] Long Beach, California 9083 1-2700 \OWQQUI-PUJNH (562) 983-2500 Attorneys for Defendant, W 9999” H - M HMNmny 99pm ANTONIO ZUNIGA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA mji 330:! COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO \1 (3 CHARLES ANTHONY HILL, III and DONNA Case No. CIVDSZOI6910 LYNN DENNIS—HILL, JUDGE DONALD ALVAREZ Plaintiffs, DEPT. $23 vs. DEFENDANT ZUNIGA’S NOTICE OF ANTONIO ZUNIGA and DOES 1 through '10, MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST Defendants. AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND NNNNNNNNNI—IHHb—‘HWHL—dwv—o vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF RENEE E. JENSEN OOQONU‘IAWNHOWOONJQU’I-PWNu—ao [Concurrentlyfiled with Requestfor Judicial Notice; [Proposed] Order] Hearing Date: May 24, 2021 Time: 9:00 am. Dept: 823 Action Filed: 8/ 18/20 Trial Date: None TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that 0n May 24, 2021 at 9:00 a.m., in Department $23 of the San Bernardino Superior Court, located at 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, Defendant, 1 DEFENDANT ZUNIGA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ANTONIO ZUNIGA (“Defendant”) will move for an Order striking the identified portions of the Complaint of Plaintiffs, CHARLES ANTHONY HILL, III and DONNA LYNN DENNIS-HILL (“Plaintiffs”), on the grounds that said portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint seeks damages Which are not recoverable against Defendant as a matter of law. \OOOQO\U1-5UJN>-‘ The portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint that Defendant herein seeks to strike are as follows: 9 On page 2, 11 '12 in its entirety, which reads as follows: “On the evening of February 14, 2020, Defendant Antonio Zuniga intentionally chose to get into his Toyota Tundra, with a blood alcohol concentration greater than .08, after consuming a large amount of alcohol. Zuniga knew prior to consuming the intoxicating beverages that he would be driving and that by driving in an impaired state, he would be exposing others to the danger ofhis inability to safely operate his multi-ton Toyota Tundra. Zuniga was educated on the dangers of drinking and driving prior to February 14, 2020.” 9 On page 2, 11 16, line 24, the phrase, “because he was impaired,” 9 On page 2, 1] 17 in its entirety, which reads as follows: “Zuniga was driving in an observably impaired state in the minutes preceding the collision, such that he should have immediately pulled over and stopped his vehicle long before the collision occurred.” NNNNNNNNNHr—Ir—dr—Ip—dv—dt—Ib—dr—Ip—t 9 On page 3, ‘J 18 in its entirety, which reads as follows: “Even before the subject collision occurred, witnesses who called 91 1 stated they observed Zuniga’s driving and felt he posed an OO\IO\Ul#U)N*-‘O\OOOQO\UIbUJN'—‘O immediate threat to others on the road, and almost caused other collisions before the collision that is the subject of this lawsuit. Witnesses stated that they intended to call 911 regarding Zuniga’s alarming and erratic driving patterns before the subject crash occurred.” 9 On page 3, 11 19 in its entirety, which reads as follows: “In the minutes preceding the head-on collision, witnesses stated that Zuniga looked like he was driving in an impaired state, that he was driving like a drunk, that he was driving back and forth and zig-zagging among lanes, and even driving on the center island before driving fully onto the wrong side of the road, into on- coming traffic, and causing the subject head-on collision.” 9 On page 3, 1] 20, lines 10-1 l, the phrase, “The investigating officer smelled a strong odor of alcohol emitting from Zuniga’s breath and person.” 2 DEFENDANT ZUNIGA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT