Preview
Taylor J. Morgan, Esq. SBN 349057
MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C.
1851 East First Street, Suite 1150
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Phone: (800) 637-9176
Fax: (262) 673-3766
Email tmorgan@mwI-law.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Zurich American Insurance Company
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF KERN
10
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE Case No. BCV-23-104082
11
COMPANY,
12 PROOF OF SERVICE OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA LABOR
13 CODE § 3853
vs.
14
LOVEPREET SINGH DHILLON, an
15
individual; EKAM BAR WESTERN
16 TRANSPORT, a California Corporation; and
DOES | through 30, inclusive,
17
Defendants
18
19
I declare that I am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to this action.
20
My business address is 1851 E. First Street, Suite 1150, Santa Ana, CA 92705.
21
22 On February 21, 2024, I served the following document(s) which are
23 attached:
24 1. Item 1 — Letter to EE re certified copy of Complaint
25 2. Item 2 — Complaint Filed on December 4, 2023
26 on the interested parties in this action as indicated below, as follows:
27 MI
28
PROOF OF SERVICE OF COMPLAINT
1
///
Anthony Campo
2401 Alpine Meadow Ct
Wasco, CA 93280
x BY CERTIFIED MAIL: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection
and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S.
Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Orange, California in the
ordinary course of business. I am aware that service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date
or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
BY FACSIMILE: I served said document(s) to be transmitted via facsimile pursuant to
10 Rule 2008 of the California Rules of Court. The telephone number of the sending facsimile
machine was xxxxxxxx. The name(s) and facsimile machine telephone number(s) of the person(s)
11 served are set forth in the service list. A transmission report was properly issued by the sending
12 facsimile machine, and the transmission was reported as complete and without error.
13 ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Only by e-mailing the document(s) to the
person at the e-mail address(es) listed, during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, this office
14 will be working remotely, not able to send physical mail as usual, and is therefore only using
electronic mail. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful
15 was received within a reasonable time after transmission.
16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
is true and correct.
17
Executed on February 21, 2024, at Santa Ana, California.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE OF COMPLAINT
2
1851 East First Street (800) 637-9176
Suite 1150 (262) 673-3766
Santa Ana, CA 92705 ® www.mwl-law.com
MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
February 21, 2024
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
Anthony Campo
2401 Alpine Meadow Ct
Wasco, CA 93280
Re. Zurich American Insurance Company v. Lovepreet Singh Dhillon, et al.
Case Number: BCV-23-104082
Dear Mr. Campo.
Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer, S.C. represents Zurich American Insurance Company, the
workers’ compensation insurance carrier for your employer Mid Cal Labor Solutions.
Pursuant to California Labor Code §3853 we are providing you with a courtesy copy of the
Complaint filed on December 4, 2023 in Superior Court of California, County of Kern. You have
a right at any time before trial on the facts to join as a party plaintiff, if you choose to do so.
Please contact our office if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
MATTHIESEN. WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C.
—T SB
ZO
Taylor} Morgan, Esq
California Office
tmorgan@mwl-law.com
TIM/ysv
Hartford, WI | New Orleans, LA | Santa Ana, CA | Austin, TX | Jacksonville, FL | Boston, MA
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
12/4/2023 2:27 PM
Kern County Superior Court
Katherine A. Sandoval, Esq. SBN 303656 By Julia Barrera, Deputy
Taylor J. Morgan, Esq. SBN 349057
MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C
1851 E. First Street, Suite 1150
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Phone: (800) 637-9176
Fax: (262) 673-3766
Email: tmorgan@mwl-law.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Zurich American Insurance Company
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF KERN
10
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE Case No. BCV-23-104082
11 COMPANY,
COMPLAINT FOR:
12
Plaintiff, (1) NEGLIGENCE
13 (2) NEGLIGENCE PER SE
Vv. (3) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT OF A
14 MOTOR VEHICLE
LOVEPREET SINGH DHILLON, an (4) NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING,
15 individual; EKAM BAR WESTERN AND SUPERVISION
TRANSPORT, a California Corporation; and
16 DOES 1 through 30, inclusive,
17 Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
18 Unlimited Jurisdiction Case
19
Plaintiff Zurich American Insurance Company, as subrogee of Mid Cal Labor Solutions,
20
(‘Plaintiff’), complains and alleges as follows:
21
PARTIES
22
1 Plaintiff is and was, at all relevant times, a duly organized and authorized workers’
23
compensation insurer licensed to do business in California. Plaintiff was obligated under a duly|
24
issued and valid insurance policy (the “Policy”) to pay workers’ compensation benefits to
25
employees of Mid Cal Labor Solutions (“Insured Employer”), including Anthony Campo
26
(“Employee”).
27
28
COMPLAINT
I
2 Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Employee Anthony
Campo, at all relevant times, is and was a resident of the city of Wasco, County of Kern, State of|
California, and was employed by the Employer.
3 Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant,
LOVEPREET SINGH DHILLON (hereinafter “DHILLON”), is, at all times relevant hereto, is
and was a resident of the city of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State of California. At all relevant
times mentioned herein, Defendant DHILLON was the operator, driver, and/or permissive user of]
the Freightliner truck that injured Employee Campo.
4 Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant, EXAM
10 BRAR WESTERN TRANSPORT (hereinafter “EKAM BRAR’”), is, at all times relevant hereto,
ll is a business located at 2118 Canoas Garden Avenue, San Jose, CA 95125. At all relevant times
12 mentioned herein, Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant EXAM BRAR is doing
13 business as EKAM BRAR WESTERN TRANSPORT.
14 5 Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein
15 as Does | through 30, inclusive, and therefore sues such Defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiff]
16 will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of these’
17 fictitiously named Defendants when they have been ascertained.
18 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of the
19 fictitiously named Defendant was responsible in some manner for the occurrences and damages
20 herein alleged, and that each proximately caused injury and damages to the Employee, to the
21 Insured Employer, and to Plaintiff as herein alleged. Each and every allegation against any
22 Defendant includes a like allegation against each of the fictitiously named Defendant.
23 7 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all times
24 herein mentioned, each of the Defendants, including the fictitiously named Defendants, was the
25 agent, employee, servant, co-venturer, and/or employee of each of the other Defendants, and was
26 at all times herein mentioned acting within the scope of said agency, venture, and/or employment!
27 and with actual or ostensible authority and/or agency, and that each of the Defendants permitted,
28 consented to and/or ratified the actions and/or conduct of the others. Defendants LOVEPREET|
COMPLAINT
2
SINGH DHILLON, EKAM BRAR WESTERN TRANSPORT, and Does | through 30 are
referred to collectively as “Defendants.”
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8 Venue in this Court is proper because the acts and omissions of the Defendants
alleged herein occurred in Kern County, California, and resulted in injuries to Employee, and
damages to Plaintiff in Kern County, California.
9. Subject matter in this action is properly heard in this Court, as the action
incorporates an amount in controversy, as set forth in this complaint, exceeds $25,000.
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
10 Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon, alleges:
11 10. At all times relevant herein, including but not limited to October 5, 2022,
12 Employee was employed by Insured Employer.
13 ll. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff insured the Insured Employer against liability
14 for workers’ compensation claims arising under the California Labor Code and the Workers’
15 Compensation Act.
16 12. DHILLON was operating a 2022 Freightliner Tractor, license number YP59995,
17 with a White Utility Trailer, License number 4UU6842, (hereinafter “EKAM TRACTOR-
18 TRAILER”) at the direction of EKAM BRAR on October 5, 2022.
19 13. EKAM BRAR owned, occupied, managed, controlled, maintained, operated and/or
20 entrusted the EKAM TRACTOR -TRAILER driven by DHILLON.
21 14, DHILLON was driving the aforesaid EKAM TRACTOR -TRAILER, at the!
22 direction of and with knowledge, permission and consent of EKAM BRAR.
23 15. On or about October 5, 2022, Employee was operating a 2010 Freightliner Truck
24 Tractor, with a White Dump Trailer in the course and scope of his employment with Insured
25 Employer, while traveling on State Route 46 Westbound in Kern County, California.
26 16. Defendant DHILLON was traveling on State Route 46 Eastbound in Kern County,
27 California, when he made an unsafe turn and lost control of the EKAM TRACTOR-TRAILER,
28 causing the EKAM TRACTOR-TRAILER to turn into oncoming traffic, and slammed into the
COMPLAINT
3
left front of the Employee’s vehicle before careening in the opposite direction and striking
another vehicle.
17. As result of the collision caused by Defendant, Employee suffered bodily injuries,
resulting in Plaintiff making workers’ compensation payments.
18. As a result of the claim by Employee workers’ compensation benefits, Plaintiff
paid workers’ compensation benefits to Employee so far in the amount of $44,112.05 ($4,112.05
in Medical; $40,000.00 in Indemnity
19. By virtue of its payments, the terms of the Policy, the agreement of Insured
Employer, and principles of equity, Plaintiff has become, and is, subrogated to all rights,
10 remedies, and causes of action accruing to its Insured Employer and to the Employee, and against
11 Defendants, to the extent of its payments under the Policy, and is entitled to reimbursement of
12 funds expended on the Employee’s workers’ compensation claims for personal injuries, as
13 damages from the Defendants.
14 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
15 NEGLIGENCE
16 (Against All Defendants)
17 20. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in the preceding
18 paragraphs and incorporates them herein by reference as though set forth in full.
19 21. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that the collision was
20 caused by the recklessness, carelessness and negligence of Defendants, for that among other
21 actions and omissions Defendants:
22 a operated the motor vehicle at a high, dangerous and excessive rate of speed under the
23 circumstances then and there existing;
24 failed to reduce speed to avoid collision;
25 failed to observe due care and precaution and to maintain proper and adequate control
26 of the motor vehicle;
27 failed to safely make turning movements of the EKAM TRACTOR-TRAILER;
28 failed to keep a proper lookout for other vehicles lawfully upon the highway; and
COMPLAINT
4
f. in other respects not known to the Plaintiff but which may become known before or at
the time of trial.
22. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that Defendants,
breached his duties of care, as set forth above.
23. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breaches of duties, Employee
sustained significant bodily injuries. These injuries arose out of, and occurred in the course and
scope of, Employee’s employment with the Insured Employer.
24, As a further proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff became
obligated to pay, and did pay, workers’ compensation benefits to and on behalf of Employee so
10 far in the amount of $44,112.05 ($4,112.05 in Medical; $40,000.00 in Indemnity).
11 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
12 NEGLIGENCE PER SE
13 (Against All Defendants)
14 25. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in the preceding
15 paragraphs and incorporates them herein by reference as though set forth in full,
16 26. Plaintiff
is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that Defendants were
17 subject to laws and safety regulations pertaining to California Vehicle codes including California
18 Vehicle Code section 22107, and — further — that such laws and regulations were intended to
19 prevent bodily injury to persons such as Employee.
20 27. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that the Employee is
21 a member of a class for whose benefit those laws and safety regulations were passed.
22 28. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that Defendants!
23 violated one or more laws and regulations and breached their duties of care that were owed to the
24 Employee, as set forth above.
25 29. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that the Employee
26 suffered the same type of harm that the laws and regulations were intended to prevent resulting in,
27 without limitation, physical and financial harm, as set forth above, from the conduct of|
28 Defendants, which was a substantial factor in causing that harm.
COMPLAINT
5
30. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breaches of duty, Employee
sustained bodily injuries. These injuries arose out of, and in the course and scope of, Employee’s
employment with the Insured Employer.
31. As a further proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff became
obligated to pay, and did pay, workers’ compensation benefits to and on behalf of Employee so
far in the amount of $44,112.05 ($4,112.05 in Medical; $40,000.00 in Indemnity).
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE ENTRUSTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE
(As To Defendant EKAM BRAR And Does 1-30)
10 32. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in the previous
ll paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein.
12 33. As alleged above, Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon, alleges
13 Defendant DHILLON was negligent in operating the EKAM TRACTOR -TRAILER.
14 34. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon, alleges that EKAM BRAR
15 owned, occupied, managed, controlled, maintained, operated and/or entrusted the EKAM
16 TRACTOR -TRAILER and DHILLON had possession of the EKAM TRACTOR-TRAILER
17 with permission from EKAM BRAR.
18 35. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon, alleges that EKAM BRAR
19 knew, or in the exercise of reasonable caution should have known, or had reason to know, that
20 DHILLON was not fit to operate the EKAM TRACTOR-TRAILER.
21 36. Despite EKAM BRAR being aware that DHILLON was not fit to operate a motor
22 vehicle, EKAM BRAR negligently entrusted the EKAM TRACTOR-TRAILER to DHILLON
23 and negligently permitted DHILLON to drive the EKAM TRACTOR-TRAILER.
24 37. As a direct result of EXAM BRAR negligently entrusting DHILLON to operate
25 EKAM TRACTOR-TRAILER, and who operated EKAM TRACTOR-TRAILER in a negligent
26 and reckless manner, Employee sustained bodily injuries.
27
28
COMPLAINT
6
38. As a further proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff became
obligated to pay, and did pay, workers’ compensation benefits to and on behalf of Employee so
far in the amount of $44,112.05 ($4,112.05 in Medical; $40,000.00 in Indemnity).
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, AND SUPERVISION
(As To Defendants EKAM BAR WESTERN TRANSPORT Does 11 Through 20)
39, Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in the previous
paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein,
40. EKAM BRAR had a duty to properly hire, train and supervise DHILLON, who
10 caused the collision, as described above.
11 41. EKAM BRAR breached its duty to properly hire, train and supervise DHILLON,
12 who caused the collision as described above.
13 42. As a result of EKAM BRAR’s negligent hiring, training and supervision of|
14 HANSEN, who caused the collision described above, Plaintiff was damaged.
15 43. As a further proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff became
16 obligated to pay, and did pay, workers’ compensation benefits to and on behalf of Employee and
17 its Insured Employer, in the total sum of $44,112.05 ($4,112.05 in Medical; $40,000.00 in
18 Indemnity), and Plaintiff may become obligated to pay further benefits in sums not yet fully
19 determined, but which will be specified by amendment when determined or proved.
20 By virtue of its payments, the terms of the Policy, and principles of equity, Plaintiff has become,
21 and is, subrogated to all rights, remedies, and causes of action accruing to its Insureds, and
22 against Defendants, to the extent of its payments under the Policy, and is entitled to
23 reimbursement of funds expended on its Insureds’ Claims as damages from Defendants.
24 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
25 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, on each and
26 every cause of action, as follows:
27 A An award of damages in, an amount to be determined at trial, including actual and
28 consequential damages, not less than $44,112.05;
COMPLAINT
7
All costs of suit incurred herein;
Attorney’s fees as permitted by statute or contract;
Pre-judgment interest as provided by law; and
An award of such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
Dated: December 4, 2023 MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, SC.
By:
Taylor J. Morgan, Esq.
10 Attorney for Plaintiff
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT
8
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff demands trial by jury.
Dated: December 4, 2023 MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, SC.
By: 3
Taylor J. Morgan, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT
9
Preview
Taylor J. Morgan, Esq. SBN 349057 MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. 1851 East First Street, Suite 1150 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Phone: (800) 637-9176 Fax: (262) 673-3766 Email tmorgan@mwI-law.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Zurich American Insurance Company SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 10 ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE Case No. BCV-23-104082 11 COMPANY, 12 PROOF OF SERVICE OF COMPLAINT Plaintiff, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA LABOR 13 CODE § 3853 vs. 14 LOVEPREET SINGH DHILLON, an 15 individual; EKAM BAR WESTERN 16 TRANSPORT, a California Corporation; and DOES | through 30, inclusive, 17 Defendants 18 19 I declare that I am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to this action. 20 My business address is 1851 E. First Street, Suite 1150, Santa Ana, CA 92705. 21 22 On February 21, 2024, I served the following document(s) which are 23 attached: 24 1. Item 1 — Letter to EE re certified copy of Complaint 25 2. Item 2 — Complaint Filed on December 4, 2023 26 on the interested parties in this action as indicated below, as follows: 27 MI 28 PROOF OF SERVICE OF COMPLAINT 1 /// Anthony Campo 2401 Alpine Meadow Ct Wasco, CA 93280 x BY CERTIFIED MAIL: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Orange, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. BY FACSIMILE: I served said document(s) to be transmitted via facsimile pursuant to 10 Rule 2008 of the California Rules of Court. The telephone number of the sending facsimile machine was xxxxxxxx. The name(s) and facsimile machine telephone number(s) of the person(s) 11 served are set forth in the service list. A transmission report was properly issued by the sending 12 facsimile machine, and the transmission was reported as complete and without error. 13 ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Only by e-mailing the document(s) to the person at the e-mail address(es) listed, during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, this office 14 will be working remotely, not able to send physical mail as usual, and is therefore only using electronic mail. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful 15 was received within a reasonable time after transmission. 16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. 17 Executed on February 21, 2024, at Santa Ana, California. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE OF COMPLAINT 2 1851 East First Street (800) 637-9176 Suite 1150 (262) 673-3766 Santa Ana, CA 92705 ® www.mwl-law.com MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW February 21, 2024 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL Anthony Campo 2401 Alpine Meadow Ct Wasco, CA 93280 Re. Zurich American Insurance Company v. Lovepreet Singh Dhillon, et al. Case Number: BCV-23-104082 Dear Mr. Campo. Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer, S.C. represents Zurich American Insurance Company, the workers’ compensation insurance carrier for your employer Mid Cal Labor Solutions. Pursuant to California Labor Code §3853 we are providing you with a courtesy copy of the Complaint filed on December 4, 2023 in Superior Court of California, County of Kern. You have a right at any time before trial on the facts to join as a party plaintiff, if you choose to do so. Please contact our office if you have any questions. Sincerely, MATTHIESEN. WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. —T SB ZO Taylor} Morgan, Esq California Office tmorgan@mwl-law.com TIM/ysv Hartford, WI | New Orleans, LA | Santa Ana, CA | Austin, TX | Jacksonville, FL | Boston, MA ELECTRONICALLY FILED 12/4/2023 2:27 PM Kern County Superior Court Katherine A. Sandoval, Esq. SBN 303656 By Julia Barrera, Deputy Taylor J. Morgan, Esq. SBN 349057 MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C 1851 E. First Street, Suite 1150 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Phone: (800) 637-9176 Fax: (262) 673-3766 Email: tmorgan@mwl-law.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Zurich American Insurance Company SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 10 ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE Case No. BCV-23-104082 11 COMPANY, COMPLAINT FOR: 12 Plaintiff, (1) NEGLIGENCE 13 (2) NEGLIGENCE PER SE Vv. (3) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT OF A 14 MOTOR VEHICLE LOVEPREET SINGH DHILLON, an (4) NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, 15 individual; EKAM BAR WESTERN AND SUPERVISION TRANSPORT, a California Corporation; and 16 DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, 17 Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 18 Unlimited Jurisdiction Case 19 Plaintiff Zurich American Insurance Company, as subrogee of Mid Cal Labor Solutions, 20 (‘Plaintiff’), complains and alleges as follows: 21 PARTIES 22 1 Plaintiff is and was, at all relevant times, a duly organized and authorized workers’ 23 compensation insurer licensed to do business in California. Plaintiff was obligated under a duly| 24 issued and valid insurance policy (the “Policy”) to pay workers’ compensation benefits to 25 employees of Mid Cal Labor Solutions (“Insured Employer”), including Anthony Campo 26 (“Employee”). 27 28 COMPLAINT I 2 Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Employee Anthony Campo, at all relevant times, is and was a resident of the city of Wasco, County of Kern, State of| California, and was employed by the Employer. 3 Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant, LOVEPREET SINGH DHILLON (hereinafter “DHILLON”), is, at all times relevant hereto, is and was a resident of the city of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State of California. At all relevant times mentioned herein, Defendant DHILLON was the operator, driver, and/or permissive user of] the Freightliner truck that injured Employee Campo. 4 Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant, EXAM 10 BRAR WESTERN TRANSPORT (hereinafter “EKAM BRAR’”), is, at all times relevant hereto, ll is a business located at 2118 Canoas Garden Avenue, San Jose, CA 95125. At all relevant times 12 mentioned herein, Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant EXAM BRAR is doing 13 business as EKAM BRAR WESTERN TRANSPORT. 14 5 Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein 15 as Does | through 30, inclusive, and therefore sues such Defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiff] 16 will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of these’ 17 fictitiously named Defendants when they have been ascertained. 18 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of the 19 fictitiously named Defendant was responsible in some manner for the occurrences and damages 20 herein alleged, and that each proximately caused injury and damages to the Employee, to the 21 Insured Employer, and to Plaintiff as herein alleged. Each and every allegation against any 22 Defendant includes a like allegation against each of the fictitiously named Defendant. 23 7 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all times 24 herein mentioned, each of the Defendants, including the fictitiously named Defendants, was the 25 agent, employee, servant, co-venturer, and/or employee of each of the other Defendants, and was 26 at all times herein mentioned acting within the scope of said agency, venture, and/or employment! 27 and with actual or ostensible authority and/or agency, and that each of the Defendants permitted, 28 consented to and/or ratified the actions and/or conduct of the others. Defendants LOVEPREET| COMPLAINT 2 SINGH DHILLON, EKAM BRAR WESTERN TRANSPORT, and Does | through 30 are referred to collectively as “Defendants.” JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8 Venue in this Court is proper because the acts and omissions of the Defendants alleged herein occurred in Kern County, California, and resulted in injuries to Employee, and damages to Plaintiff in Kern County, California. 9. Subject matter in this action is properly heard in this Court, as the action incorporates an amount in controversy, as set forth in this complaint, exceeds $25,000. ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 10 Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon, alleges: 11 10. At all times relevant herein, including but not limited to October 5, 2022, 12 Employee was employed by Insured Employer. 13 ll. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff insured the Insured Employer against liability 14 for workers’ compensation claims arising under the California Labor Code and the Workers’ 15 Compensation Act. 16 12. DHILLON was operating a 2022 Freightliner Tractor, license number YP59995, 17 with a White Utility Trailer, License number 4UU6842, (hereinafter “EKAM TRACTOR- 18 TRAILER”) at the direction of EKAM BRAR on October 5, 2022. 19 13. EKAM BRAR owned, occupied, managed, controlled, maintained, operated and/or 20 entrusted the EKAM TRACTOR -TRAILER driven by DHILLON. 21 14, DHILLON was driving the aforesaid EKAM TRACTOR -TRAILER, at the! 22 direction of and with knowledge, permission and consent of EKAM BRAR. 23 15. On or about October 5, 2022, Employee was operating a 2010 Freightliner Truck 24 Tractor, with a White Dump Trailer in the course and scope of his employment with Insured 25 Employer, while traveling on State Route 46 Westbound in Kern County, California. 26 16. Defendant DHILLON was traveling on State Route 46 Eastbound in Kern County, 27 California, when he made an unsafe turn and lost control of the EKAM TRACTOR-TRAILER, 28 causing the EKAM TRACTOR-TRAILER to turn into oncoming traffic, and slammed into the COMPLAINT 3 left front of the Employee’s vehicle before careening in the opposite direction and striking another vehicle. 17. As result of the collision caused by Defendant, Employee suffered bodily injuries, resulting in Plaintiff making workers’ compensation payments. 18. As a result of the claim by Employee workers’ compensation benefits, Plaintiff paid workers’ compensation benefits to Employee so far in the amount of $44,112.05 ($4,112.05 in Medical; $40,000.00 in Indemnity 19. By virtue of its payments, the terms of the Policy, the agreement of Insured Employer, and principles of equity, Plaintiff has become, and is, subrogated to all rights, 10 remedies, and causes of action accruing to its Insured Employer and to the Employee, and against 11 Defendants, to the extent of its payments under the Policy, and is entitled to reimbursement of 12 funds expended on the Employee’s workers’ compensation claims for personal injuries, as 13 damages from the Defendants. 14 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 15 NEGLIGENCE 16 (Against All Defendants) 17 20. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in the preceding 18 paragraphs and incorporates them herein by reference as though set forth in full. 19 21. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that the collision was 20 caused by the recklessness, carelessness and negligence of Defendants, for that among other 21 actions and omissions Defendants: 22 a operated the motor vehicle at a high, dangerous and excessive rate of speed under the 23 circumstances then and there existing; 24 failed to reduce speed to avoid collision; 25 failed to observe due care and precaution and to maintain proper and adequate control 26 of the motor vehicle; 27 failed to safely make turning movements of the EKAM TRACTOR-TRAILER; 28 failed to keep a proper lookout for other vehicles lawfully upon the highway; and COMPLAINT 4 f. in other respects not known to the Plaintiff but which may become known before or at the time of trial. 22. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that Defendants, breached his duties of care, as set forth above. 23. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breaches of duties, Employee sustained significant bodily injuries. These injuries arose out of, and occurred in the course and scope of, Employee’s employment with the Insured Employer. 24, As a further proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff became obligated to pay, and did pay, workers’ compensation benefits to and on behalf of Employee so 10 far in the amount of $44,112.05 ($4,112.05 in Medical; $40,000.00 in Indemnity). 11 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 12 NEGLIGENCE PER SE 13 (Against All Defendants) 14 25. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in the preceding 15 paragraphs and incorporates them herein by reference as though set forth in full, 16 26. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that Defendants were 17 subject to laws and safety regulations pertaining to California Vehicle codes including California 18 Vehicle Code section 22107, and — further — that such laws and regulations were intended to 19 prevent bodily injury to persons such as Employee. 20 27. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that the Employee is 21 a member of a class for whose benefit those laws and safety regulations were passed. 22 28. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that Defendants! 23 violated one or more laws and regulations and breached their duties of care that were owed to the 24 Employee, as set forth above. 25 29. Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that the Employee 26 suffered the same type of harm that the laws and regulations were intended to prevent resulting in, 27 without limitation, physical and financial harm, as set forth above, from the conduct of| 28 Defendants, which was a substantial factor in causing that harm. COMPLAINT 5 30. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breaches of duty, Employee sustained bodily injuries. These injuries arose out of, and in the course and scope of, Employee’s employment with the Insured Employer. 31. As a further proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff became obligated to pay, and did pay, workers’ compensation benefits to and on behalf of Employee so far in the amount of $44,112.05 ($4,112.05 in Medical; $40,000.00 in Indemnity). THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE ENTRUSTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE (As To Defendant EKAM BRAR And Does 1-30) 10 32. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in the previous ll paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein. 12 33. As alleged above, Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon, alleges 13 Defendant DHILLON was negligent in operating the EKAM TRACTOR -TRAILER. 14 34. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon, alleges that EKAM BRAR 15 owned, occupied, managed, controlled, maintained, operated and/or entrusted the EKAM 16 TRACTOR -TRAILER and DHILLON had possession of the EKAM TRACTOR-TRAILER 17 with permission from EKAM BRAR. 18 35. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon, alleges that EKAM BRAR 19 knew, or in the exercise of reasonable caution should have known, or had reason to know, that 20 DHILLON was not fit to operate the EKAM TRACTOR-TRAILER. 21 36. Despite EKAM BRAR being aware that DHILLON was not fit to operate a motor 22 vehicle, EKAM BRAR negligently entrusted the EKAM TRACTOR-TRAILER to DHILLON 23 and negligently permitted DHILLON to drive the EKAM TRACTOR-TRAILER. 24 37. As a direct result of EXAM BRAR negligently entrusting DHILLON to operate 25 EKAM TRACTOR-TRAILER, and who operated EKAM TRACTOR-TRAILER in a negligent 26 and reckless manner, Employee sustained bodily injuries. 27 28 COMPLAINT 6 38. As a further proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff became obligated to pay, and did pay, workers’ compensation benefits to and on behalf of Employee so far in the amount of $44,112.05 ($4,112.05 in Medical; $40,000.00 in Indemnity). FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, AND SUPERVISION (As To Defendants EKAM BAR WESTERN TRANSPORT Does 11 Through 20) 39, Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in the previous paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein, 40. EKAM BRAR had a duty to properly hire, train and supervise DHILLON, who 10 caused the collision, as described above. 11 41. EKAM BRAR breached its duty to properly hire, train and supervise DHILLON, 12 who caused the collision as described above. 13 42. As a result of EKAM BRAR’s negligent hiring, training and supervision of| 14 HANSEN, who caused the collision described above, Plaintiff was damaged. 15 43. As a further proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff became 16 obligated to pay, and did pay, workers’ compensation benefits to and on behalf of Employee and 17 its Insured Employer, in the total sum of $44,112.05 ($4,112.05 in Medical; $40,000.00 in 18 Indemnity), and Plaintiff may become obligated to pay further benefits in sums not yet fully 19 determined, but which will be specified by amendment when determined or proved. 20 By virtue of its payments, the terms of the Policy, and principles of equity, Plaintiff has become, 21 and is, subrogated to all rights, remedies, and causes of action accruing to its Insureds, and 22 against Defendants, to the extent of its payments under the Policy, and is entitled to 23 reimbursement of funds expended on its Insureds’ Claims as damages from Defendants. 24 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 25 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, on each and 26 every cause of action, as follows: 27 A An award of damages in, an amount to be determined at trial, including actual and 28 consequential damages, not less than $44,112.05; COMPLAINT 7 All costs of suit incurred herein; Attorney’s fees as permitted by statute or contract; Pre-judgment interest as provided by law; and An award of such other and further relief as may be just and proper. Dated: December 4, 2023 MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, SC. By: Taylor J. Morgan, Esq. 10 Attorney for Plaintiff 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT 8 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff demands trial by jury. Dated: December 4, 2023 MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, SC. By: 3 Taylor J. Morgan, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT 9