On June 11, 2020 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Duke Realty Limited Partnership,
Insurance Company Of The West,
Madrigal, Adriana Quintero,
Marquez, Rafael Carvajal,
and
Does 2-100,
Duke Realty Corporation,
Duke Realty Limited Partnership,
Genie Industries, Inc.,
Gregg Electric, Inc.,
I.E. General Engineering Inc.,
King Equipment, Llc,
Terex Corporation,
General Engineering, Inc,
Gregg Electric, Inc., I.E.,
King Equipment, Inc.,
Roes 2 To 100,
for Personal Injury Non-Motor Vehicle Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
G
W
d
1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD SMITH LLP
JOHN S LOWENTHAL SB 120628 7
guPE
2 E Mail John Lowenthal cr lewisbrisbois com GOUNIY aF N gENNARDINO
C lS7RIC7
SAN BERN IRQI
TRACI WHALEY PATINO SB 207512
3 E Mail Traci Patino a lewisbrisbois com
SEP 7 2020
650 East Hospitality Lane Suite 600
4 San Bernardino California 92408
Telephone 909 387 1130 t
5 Facsimile 909 387 1138 pQputy y
X
6 Attorneys for Defendant GREGG ELECTRIC m
o
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
10
11 RAFAEL CARVAJAL MARQUEZ Case No CIVDS2010310
ADRIANA QUINTERO MADRIGAL
12 REPLY TO PLAINTIFF S OPPOSITION
Plaintiffs TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
13 COMPLAINT
vs
14 Date September 24 2020
Time 9 00 a m
15 GEN INDUSTRIES INC TEREX Dept S23
CORPORATION DUKE REALTY
16 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP DUKE REALTY Action Filed 06 11 2020
CORPORATION GREGG ELECTRIC INC Trial Date None Set
17 LE GENERAL ENGINEERING INC and
DOES 1 100 inclusive Defendants
18
Defendants
19
20 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD
21 Defendant GREGG ELECTRIC INC Defendant hereby submits the following
22
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Reply to Plaintiffs RAFAEL CARVAJAL
23 MARQUEZ ADRIANA QUINTERO MADRIGAL s Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant s
24 Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs Complaint Opposition
25
26
27 U
28
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
4822 5437 3323 1
SMM L1P
5 r W
roR
REPLY TO PLAINTIFF S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I INTRODUCTION
3 Defendant Gregg Electric Inc was a subcontractor performing work on the Duke Realty
4 Project on or about July 17 2018 Gregg Electric Inc was not Plaintiffls employer supervisor
5 or the general contractor on the project nor did it manufacture design distribute rent lease
6 convey purchase or sell the subject Genie Lift that plaintiff alleges he fell from and sustain
7 injuries Despite Plaintiffs arguments in the Opposition to the Motion to Strike Portions of the
8 Plaintiffs Complaint Plaintiffs have failed to plead specific facts to bring a claim for punitive
9 damages as against Gregg Electric Inc
10 IL TIiE COMPLAINT DOES NOT MEET OR COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM
11 PLEADING REOUIREMENTS OF CIVIL PROCEDUI2E 3294 a and b
12 Plaintiffs point out a number of factual allegations they pled in the Complaint none of
13 which would apply to Gregg Electric Inc Even assuming the facts are true as pled which
14
Defendant wholeheartedly denies there is just not enough factual allegations to support any claim
15 of punitive damages or to show that an officer director or managing agent of Gregg Electric Inc
16 exhibited any malice as defined under Civil Code 3294 These conclusory statements are not
17 sufficient to establish punitive damages and do not rise to the level necessary
18 In sum Plaintiffs fail to provide any information to support their allegations that
19 authorized persons acted despicably in willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of
20 others Civil Code 3294 c 1
21 Further in Plaintiffs Opposition Plaintiffs state
22 Long before 2018 Defendant received numerous complaints about the
dangerous natures of the Genie Lift including but not limited to the likelihood that
23 the Genie Lift can be used andlor misused without all its safety measures
engaged Indeed Plaintiffalleges with specificity Defendant s awareness of eight
24
8 separate instances involving catastrophically injured and or killed persons
involvmg Genie Lifts in which the claimed injuries occurred as a result of design
25 defects and the failureto warn thereo that allowed the lift to be used and or
misused without all ofits safety measures engaged exactly what the Complaint
26 alleges happened to Plaintiff in this lawsuit take any appropriate action and
instead ignored a long history of repeated injuries complaints and lawsuits
27
demonstrating that the Genie Lift was dangerous and defectively designed such
that it was likely to cause future injuries to its users Defendant s intentionally
28 concealed their knowledge about the Genie Lift s dangerous and defective design
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD
4822 5437 3323 1 2
SIWM I1P
ioR EYS i v
REPLY TO PLAINTIFF S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COIVIPLAINT
Document Filed Date
September 17, 2020
Case Filing Date
June 11, 2020
Category
Personal Injury Non-Motor Vehicle Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
G W d 1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD SMITH LLP JOHN S LOWENTHAL SB 120628 7 guPE 2 E Mail John Lowenthal cr lewisbrisbois com GOUNIY aF N gENNARDINO C lS7RIC7 SAN BERN IRQI TRACI WHALEY PATINO SB 207512 3 E Mail Traci Patino a lewisbrisbois com SEP 7 2020 650 East Hospitality Lane Suite 600 4 San Bernardino California 92408 Telephone 909 387 1130 t 5 Facsimile 909 387 1138 pQputy y X 6 Attorneys for Defendant GREGG ELECTRIC m o 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT 10 11 RAFAEL CARVAJAL MARQUEZ Case No CIVDS2010310 ADRIANA QUINTERO MADRIGAL 12 REPLY TO PLAINTIFF S OPPOSITION Plaintiffs TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF 13 COMPLAINT vs 14 Date September 24 2020 Time 9 00 a m 15 GEN INDUSTRIES INC TEREX Dept S23 CORPORATION DUKE REALTY 16 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP DUKE REALTY Action Filed 06 11 2020 CORPORATION GREGG ELECTRIC INC Trial Date None Set 17 LE GENERAL ENGINEERING INC and DOES 1 100 inclusive Defendants 18 Defendants 19 20 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD 21 Defendant GREGG ELECTRIC INC Defendant hereby submits the following 22 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Reply to Plaintiffs RAFAEL CARVAJAL 23 MARQUEZ ADRIANA QUINTERO MADRIGAL s Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant s 24 Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs Complaint Opposition 25 26 27 U 28 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD 4822 5437 3323 1 SMM L1P 5 r W roR REPLY TO PLAINTIFF S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I INTRODUCTION 3 Defendant Gregg Electric Inc was a subcontractor performing work on the Duke Realty 4 Project on or about July 17 2018 Gregg Electric Inc was not Plaintiffls employer supervisor 5 or the general contractor on the project nor did it manufacture design distribute rent lease 6 convey purchase or sell the subject Genie Lift that plaintiff alleges he fell from and sustain 7 injuries Despite Plaintiffs arguments in the Opposition to the Motion to Strike Portions of the 8 Plaintiffs Complaint Plaintiffs have failed to plead specific facts to bring a claim for punitive 9 damages as against Gregg Electric Inc 10 IL TIiE COMPLAINT DOES NOT MEET OR COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM 11 PLEADING REOUIREMENTS OF CIVIL PROCEDUI2E 3294 a and b 12 Plaintiffs point out a number of factual allegations they pled in the Complaint none of 13 which would apply to Gregg Electric Inc Even assuming the facts are true as pled which 14 Defendant wholeheartedly denies there is just not enough factual allegations to support any claim 15 of punitive damages or to show that an officer director or managing agent of Gregg Electric Inc 16 exhibited any malice as defined under Civil Code 3294 These conclusory statements are not 17 sufficient to establish punitive damages and do not rise to the level necessary 18 In sum Plaintiffs fail to provide any information to support their allegations that 19 authorized persons acted despicably in willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of 20 others Civil Code 3294 c 1 21 Further in Plaintiffs Opposition Plaintiffs state 22 Long before 2018 Defendant received numerous complaints about the dangerous natures of the Genie Lift including but not limited to the likelihood that 23 the Genie Lift can be used andlor misused without all its safety measures engaged Indeed Plaintiffalleges with specificity Defendant s awareness of eight 24 8 separate instances involving catastrophically injured and or killed persons involvmg Genie Lifts in which the claimed injuries occurred as a result of design 25 defects and the failureto warn thereo that allowed the lift to be used and or misused without all ofits safety measures engaged exactly what the Complaint 26 alleges happened to Plaintiff in this lawsuit take any appropriate action and instead ignored a long history of repeated injuries complaints and lawsuits 27 demonstrating that the Genie Lift was dangerous and defectively designed such that it was likely to cause future injuries to its users Defendant s intentionally 28 concealed their knowledge about the Genie Lift s dangerous and defective design LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD 4822 5437 3323 1 2 SIWM I1P ioR EYS i v REPLY TO PLAINTIFF S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COIVIPLAINT