Preview
1 Jeffrey M. Lenkov (State Bar No. 156478)
jeffrey.lenkov@manningkass.com
2 Daniel J. Sullivan (State Bar No. 251455)
daniel.sullivan@manningkass.com
3 MANNING & KASS
ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
4 801 S. Figueroa St, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017-3012
5 Telephone: (213) 624-6900
Facsimile: (213) 624-6999
6
Attorneys for Defendants, MAURICIO G. CEJA
7 MADRIGAL, CARRERA GARCIA
TRANSPORT, LLC and WADE
8 TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC.
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF SONOMA
11
12
MARINA MIRANDA, ISABELLA Case No. SCV-270065
13 MIRANDA BY GAL - DAVID MIRANDA,
WYATT MIRANDA BY GAL - RUDY Assigned for All Purposes to:
14 MIRANDA,, Hon. Oscar A. Pardo, Dept. 19
15 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS MAURICIO G. CEJA
MADRIGAL, CARRERA GARCIA
16 v. TRANSPORT, LLC, AND WADE
TRANSPORTATION COMPANY’S
17 MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC, FOR AN ORDER OF BIFURCATION,
18 WADE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, ORDERING A PRIOR SEPARATE TRIAL
INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive,, ON LIABILITY ISSUES BEFORE TRIAL
19 ON DAMAGES; MEMORANDUM OF
Defendants. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;
20 DECLARATION DANIEL J. SULLIVAN
21 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS Filed concurrently with [Proposed] Order
22 Judge: Hon. Oscar A. Pardo
Date:
23 Time:
Dept.: 19
24
Action Filed: 01/25/2022
25 Trial Date: 10/13/2023
26
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
27
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on _______________, at _________, or as soon
28
1
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF BIFURCATION, ORDERING A PRIOR
SEPARATE TRIAL ON LIABILITY ISSUES BEFORE TRIAL ON DAMAGES
1 thereafter as counsel may be heard, in Department 19 of the above-captioned Court, located at 3055
2 Cleveland Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403, Defendants MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL,
3 CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC and WADE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC.
4 (collectively “Defendants”) will and hereby does move the Court for an order to bifurcate the issues
5 of liability and damages, and that a prior separate trial on liability issues be held before trial on
6 damages.
7 This motion is based on Code of Civil Procedure Sections 598 and 1048, subdivision (b) on
8 the grounds that a prior separate trial on liability issues will promote the ends of justice, promote
9 judicial economy and convenience of witnesses and will avoid undue prejudice to Defendants.
10 This motion is further based on this notice, on the accompanying memorandum of points
11 and authorities, the declaration of Daniel J. Sullivan, the pleadings and records on file herein and
12 upon such further documents, evidence and argument as may be before the Court at the time of the
13 hearing on this motion.
14
15 DATED: February 27, 2024 MANNING & KASS
ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
16
17
18 By: /s/ Daniel J. Sullivan
Daniel J. Sullivan
19 Attorneys for Defendants, MAURICIO G. CEJA
MADRIGAL, CARRERA GARCIA
20 TRANSPORT, LLC and WADE
21 TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF BIFURCATION, ORDERING A PRIOR
SEPARATE TRIAL ON LIABILITY ISSUES BEFORE TRIAL ON DAMAGES
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 Defendants MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL (“Madrigal”), CARRERA GARCIA
4 TRANSPORT, LLC (“CGT”) and WADE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. (“Wade”)
5 (collectively, “Defendants”) seek an order granting a separate trial on liability issues prior to trial
6 on damages issues to avoid undue prejudice and to promote the ends of justice, judicial economy
7 and convenience of witnesses.
8 This case arises from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on February 4, 2020, involving
9 Madrigal and Stephanie Miranda (“Decedent”), who was driving under influence of alcohol, that
10 resulted in Decedent’s death. (Sullivan Decl. ¶2, Ex. A-B.) Following the accident, Plaintiffs
11 MARINA MIRANDA, ISABELLA MIRANDA, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, David
12 Miranda, and WYATT MIRANDA, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Rudy Miranda
13 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this lawsuit alleging Negligence – Motor Vehicle and General
14 Negligence.
15 The Court should bifurcate the issues of liability and damages and order a prior trial on
16 liability issues for several reasons. First, Decedent is survived by her children, who, Defendant
17 anticipates, will testify before the jury regarding the loss of support and companionship of their
18 mother. Such evidence will undoubtedly impact the jury’s liability assessment. Second, bifurcation
19 will not add materially to the time needed to try the case, as there is little or no overlap in the liability
20 versus damages evidence and testimonies. Third, by bifurcating, the Court will avoid wasting time,
21 money, and resources caused by the unnecessary trial of damage questions if, in the first trial phase,
22 the liability issues are resolved against the plaintiffs. Finally, by separating the liability evidence
23 from the damages evidence, bifurcation would permit a more logical presentation of evidence, which
24 will reduce the possibility of juror confusion.
25 For these reasons, the Court should bifurcate the trials on liability and damages and order
26 that the liability issues be tried before any damages issues.
27
28
3
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF BIFURCATION, ORDERING A PRIOR
SEPARATE TRIAL ON LIABILITY ISSUES BEFORE TRIAL ON DAMAGES
1 II. THE COURT SHOULD ORDER A PRIOR SEPARATE TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF
2 LIABILITY
3 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (b),
4 “The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or
when separate trials would be conducive to expedition and economy,
5 may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of
action asserted in a cross-complaint or of any separate issue or of any
6 number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by
jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the
7 United States.”
8 In addition, Code of Civil Procedure section 598 provides as follows:
9 “The court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of
justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would
10 be promoted thereby, on motion of a party, after notice and hearing,
make an order, no later than the close of pretrial conference in cases
11 in which such pretrial conference is to be held, or, in other cases, no
later than 30 days before the trial date, that the trial of any issue or
12 any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part
thereof in the case, except for special defenses which may be tried
13 first pursuant to Sections 597 and 597.5.”
14 California case law also dictates that bifurcation is appropriate in this case just as the liability
15 and damages portions of the trial were bifurcated in the following cases: In Martinides v. Mayer,
16 (1989) 208 Cal. App. 3d 1185, where the plaintiff was injured in a car accident the liability and
17 damages portions of the trial were bifurcated. In Geffen v. County of L.A., (1987) 197 Cal. App. 3d
18 188, where the plaintiff was injured when she drove into the ocean the liability and damages portions
19 of the trial were bifurcated. In White v. Moreno Valley Unified Sch. Dist., (1986) 181 Cal. App. 3d
20 1024, where plaintiff was seriously injured in a car accident the liability and damages portions of
21 the trial were bifurcated. In Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 953, where the
22 plaintiff died as a result of asbestos exposure, the liability and damages portions of the trial were
23 bifurcated and in fact were heard by two different juries. In Mendoza v. Club Car, (2000) 81 Cal.
24 App. 4th 287, where the plaintiff was injured when a parking brake on golf cart released the liability
25 and damages portions of the trial were bifurcated. In Du Jardin v. City of Oxnard, (1995) 38 Cal.
26 App. 4th 174, where the plaintiff was injured when he fell in a defective rental dumpster, the liability
27 and damages portions of the trial were bifurcated.
28 Ultimately, an action may be severed, in the discretion of the court, whenever it can be done
4
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF BIFURCATION, ORDERING A PRIOR
SEPARATE TRIAL ON LIABILITY ISSUES BEFORE TRIAL ON DAMAGES
1 without prejudice to a substantial right. (Jud Whitehead Heater Co. v. Obler (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d
2 861, 867.)
3 Here, litigating both liability and damages at the same time will be inefficient, and
4 prejudicial to Defendants. If liability and damages are tried together, the jury will be exposed to
5 evidence and testimony about Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages, such as loss of companionship and
6 support of their mother, which will prejudice the jury against Defendants when determining liability.
7 Therefore, the Court should order a prior separate trial on liability issues.
8 III. DEFENDANTS WILL BE SEVERELY PREJUDICED IF A PRIOR TRIAL ON
9 LIABILITY IS NOT ORDERED WHEREAS PLAINTIFFS WILL SUFFER NO
10 PREJUDICE AT ALL FOR A PRIOR TRIAL ON LIABILITY ISSUES
11 Code of Civil Procedure sections 598 and 1048 favor bifurcation where it will promote “the
12 ends of justice” (Code Civ. Proc., § 598), and will “avoid prejudice” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048).
13 First and most importantly, if the issues of liability and damages are tried simultaneously, the jurors
14 will be bombarded with unquestionably emotional evidence of Decedent’s devastating accident and
15 ultimate death. Such emotionally-charged evidence will very likely cloud and improperly influence
16 the jury’s determination of liability based on sympathy and not the facts, especially since Decedent
17 was under influence of alcohol at the time of the Incident.
18 Further, due to the nature of this case involving the death of a loved one, it is certain the
19 testimony of Plaintiffs will be heartbreaking and emotional. Plaintiffs will testify about the impact
20 of the losing their mother on their life. Testimony related to these beneficiaries’ loss will be
21 emotional and will inevitably rouse sympathy for the family, which would make it more difficult
22 for the jury to fairly focus on the threshold issue of liability. Such sympathy is a real prejudice to
23 Defendants’ potential to succeed on the issue of liability once the jury hears testimony relating to
24 Plaintiffs suffering and the manner in which their lives have been allegedly altered as a result of the
25 loss of Decedent.
26 Defendants understand the jury will be instructed not to let sympathy influence their
27 decision. However in a wrongful death case such as this with substantial emotional testimony
28 included it is sure to influence the jury. As such, bifurcation is the only mechanism to assure
5
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF BIFURCATION, ORDERING A PRIOR
SEPARATE TRIAL ON LIABILITY ISSUES BEFORE TRIAL ON DAMAGES
1 Defendants will not be prejudiced.
2 IV. THERE IS NO OVERLAP IN THE LIABILITY AND DAMAGES EVIDENCE
3 Second, there is no overlap between the liability and damages evidence, so bifurcation will
4 not result in any repetition. The majority of the witnesses in this case will testify either on the
5 liability portion or the damages portion of the case.
6 The liability phase of trial will not include any evidence of the horrific aftermath of the car
7 crash photos as it will be irrelevant to issue of liability. In the liability phase of trial, Defendants
8 and Plaintiffs are likely to present experts who will reconstruct the scene of the accident and testify
9 about Decedent’s toxicological report and effects of driving under influence of alcohol.
10 On the other hand, Plaintiffs’ damages presentation will rely upon almost entirely distinct
11 testimony from the liability question, including testimony from family members about their
12 relationships and dependence upon Decedent, and each of the parties will present additional expert
13 testimony concerning the Decedent’s income, life expectancy, and the present value of his future
14 earnings. None of that evidence will assist the trier of fact in determining whether Decedent’s high
15 alcohol level or Madrigal parking his truck on the side of the road played any role in this crash.
16 As such, there will no overlap between the liability and damages phases of the trial. This
17 non-overlap favors bifurcation of the trial.
18 V. BIFURCATING THE ISSUES AND TRYING LIABILITY FIRST WILL PROMOTE
19 THE CONVENIENCE OF WITNESSES, EFFICIENCY AND JUDICIAL
20 ECONOMY
21 Third, the Court should bifurcate this case because it may prevent the unnecessary
22 expenditure of resources and time if this case is decided at the liability phase, especially since
23 Decedent was intoxicated at the time of the Incident. Code of Civil Procedure sections 598 and
24 1048 also favor bifurcation and a prior trial on liability issues when “the convenience of witnesses”
25 or “the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation.
26 Here, Decedent was under influence of alcohol at the time of the Incident, as such, if the jury
27 finds that Defendants were not at fault for the Incident, then the Court can save significant resources
28 and time from the damage phase of this trial.
6
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF BIFURCATION, ORDERING A PRIOR
SEPARATE TRIAL ON LIABILITY ISSUES BEFORE TRIAL ON DAMAGES
1 As such, the bifurcation of liability and damages issues and a prior trial on liability issues
2 will further the convenience of witnesses, be more efficient in resolving this matter, and also further
3 judicial economy. If this matter is resolved during the Liability phase, judicial economy will be
4 furthered. Therefore, a prior trial on liability issues will further the convenience of witnesses, trial
5 efficiency and judicial economy.
6 VI. BIFURCATING THE ISSUES WILL REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF JUROR
7 CONFUSION
8 Finally, by separating the liability evidence from the damages evidence, bifurcation would
9 permit a more logical presentation of evidence, which will reduce the possibility of juror confusion.
10 In the liability phase of the trial, Defendant and Plaintiff are likely to present experts who
11 will reconstruct the scene of the accident and testify about Decedent’s toxicological report. Because
12 of these liability issues, the jury should be permitted to focus on those issues before being confused
13 by numerous emotional testimonies related to damages. This approach will minimize the possibility
14 of confusion and allow for a more logical presentation of the evidence. As such, trial should be
15 bifurcated into two phases.
16 VII. CONCLUSION
17 For these reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant their motion and order
18 the bifurcation of liability and damages issues and a separate trial on liability issues prior to trial on
19 damages issues.
20
21 DATED: February 27, 2024 MANNING & KASS
ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
22
23
24 By: /s/ Daniel J. Sullivan
Daniel J. Sullivan
25 Attorneys for Defendants, MAURICIO G. CEJA
MADRIGAL, CARRERA GARCIA
26 TRANSPORT, LLC and WADE
27 TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC.
28
7
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF BIFURCATION, ORDERING A PRIOR
SEPARATE TRIAL ON LIABILITY ISSUES BEFORE TRIAL ON DAMAGES
1 DECLARATION OF DANIEL J. SULLIVAN
2 I, Daniel J. Sullivan, declare as follows:
3 1. I am an attorney duly admitted to practice before this Court. I am an attorney at
4 Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, attorneys of record for Defendants, MAURICIO
5 G. CEJA MADRIGAL, CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC and WADE
6 TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. (“Defendants”). I have personal knowledge of the facts
7 set forth herein, and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. I make
8 this declaration in support of Defendants Mauricio G. Ceja Madrigal, Carrera Garcia Transport, Llc,
9 and Wade Transportation Company’s Notice of Motion and Motion for an Order of Bifurcation,
10 Ordering a Prior Separate Trial on Liability Issues Before Trial on Damages; Memorandum of
11 Points and Authorities.
12 2. This case arises from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on February 4, 2020,
13 involving Madrigal and Stephanie Miranda (“Decedent”), who was driving under influence of
14 alcohol, that resulted in Decedent’s death. A true and correct copy of the Complaint is attached
15 hereto as Exhibit A. A true and correct copy of the Death Investigation Report is attached hereto
16 as Exhibit B.
17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
18 is true and correct.
19 Executed on this 23rd day of February, 2024, at Costa Mesa, California.
20
21 /s/ Daniel J. Sullivan
Daniel J. Sullivan
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF BIFURCATION, ORDERING A PRIOR
SEPARATE TRIAL ON LIABILITY ISSUES BEFORE TRIAL ON DAMAGES
EXHIBIT A
PLD-PI-001
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
— Anna Dubrovsky, Esq. SBN: 197116
ANNA DUBROVSKY LAW GROUP, INC.
750 Battery Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94111 ELECTRONICALLY FILED
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court
Superior Court of
of California
California
TeLerHoNeNo: (415) 746-1477 FAXNo.(optionai: (415) 746-1478
County of
County of Sonoma
Sonoma
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): anna@dubrovskylawyers.com
1/25/2022 11:38
1/25/2022 11:38 AM
AM
ATTORNEY FOR(Name) Plaintiffs, Miranda, et al.
Arlene D.
Arlene D. Junior,
Junior, Clerk
Clerk of
of the
the Court
Court
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Sonoma
By: Melisa
By: Melisa Kennedy,
Kennedy, Deputy
Deputy Clerk
Clerk
streeTappress: 600 Administration Drive
MAILING ADDRESS:
crvanpzipcoe: Santa Rosa CA 95403
srancHnave: Civil Unlimited
PLAINTIFF: Marina Miranda, Isabella Miranda by GAL - David Miranda,
Wyatt Miranda by GAL - Rudy Miranda
DEFENDANT: Mauricio G. Ceja Madrigal,
Carrera Garcia Transport, LLC, Wade Transportation Company, Inc. and
(X) poes170 50, Inclusive
COMPLAINT-Personal Injury, Property Damage, Wrongful Death
(L) AMENDED (Number):
Type (check all that apply):
X1 MOTOR VEHICLE (1) OTHER (specify):
(X] Property Damage [X] Wrongful Death
(J Personal Injury (C1) Other Damages (specify):
Jurisdiction (check all that apply): CASE NUMBER:
(CZ) ACTION IS A LIMITED CIVIL CASE
Amount demanded [_] does not exceed $10,000 SCV-270065
SCV-270065
[) exceeds $10,000, but does not exceed $25,000
[X] ACTION IS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE (exceeds $25,000)
(C2) ACTION IS RECLASSIFIED by this amended complaint
(]) from limited to unlimited
(1 from unlimited to limited
1. Plaintiff
(name or names): Marina Miranda, Isabella Miranda by GAL - David Miranda,
Wyatt Miranda by GAL - Rudy Miranda
alleges causes of action againstdefendant (name or names): Mauricio G. Ceja Madrigal,
Carrera Garcia Transport, LLC, Wade Transportation Company, Inc. and DOES 1 to 50, Inclusive
This pleading, including attachments and exhibits, consists of the following number of pages: 6
nN
3. Each plaintiff named above is a competent adult
a. [X] except plaintiff (name): Isabella Miranda
(1) 2] a corporation qualified to do business in California
(2) C3] an unincorporated entity (describe):
(3) J a public entity (describe):
4) X] aminor [J an adult
(a) [J for whom a guardian or conservator of the estate or a guardian ad litem has been appointed
(b) XJ other (specify): GAL Application is being filed concurrently
(5) 2 other (specify):
b. XA except plaintiff (name): Wyatt Miranda
(1) 20 a corporation qualified to do business in California
(2) 2 an unincorporated entity (describe):
(3) J a public entity (describe):
4) XQ aminor [J an adult
(a) [L] for whom a guardian or conservator of the estate or a guardian ad litem has been appointed
(b) X} other (specify): GAL Application is being filed concurrently
(5) 2 other (specify):
(3 Information about additional plaintiffs who are not competent adults is shown in Attachment 3.
Page 1 of 3
Form Approved for Optional Use . COMPLAINT-Personal Injury, Property Code of Civil www.courtinfo.ca.gov
Procedure, § 425.12
Judicial Council of California CB ial
PLD-P1-001 [Rev. January 1, 2007]
ceb.com Eiforme Damage, Wrongful Death Miranda
PLD-PI-001
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
SCV-270065
Miranda, et al. vs. Ceja Madrigal, et al. SCV-270065
4. [2] Plaintiff (name):
is doing business under the fictitious name (specify):
and has complied with the fictitious business name laws.
5. Each defendant named above is a natural person
a. ([X] except defendant (name): c. [J exceptdefendant (name):
Carrera Garcia Transport, LLC
(1) [X] a business organization, form unknown ) a a business organization, form unknown
2 [2 a corporation (2) [2] a corporation
(3) (3 an unincorporated entity (describe): (3) [LQ an unincorporated entity (describe):
(4) [} a public entity (describe): (4) [J a public entity (describe):
(6) [2 other (specify): (5) [ other (specify):
b. [XJ except defendant (name): d. [CZ] except defendant (name):
Wade Transportation Company, Inc.
(1) XJ a business organization, form unknown (1) [J a business organization, form unknown
(2) [J a corporation (2) 3) a corporation
(3) (30 an unincorporated entity (describe): (3) [J an unincorporated entity (describe):
(4) [2] a public entity (describe): (4) [2 a public entity (describe):
(6) [2] other (specify): (5) [2] other (specify):
[1] Information about additional defendants who are not natural persons is contained in Attachment 5.
6. The true names of defendants sued as Does are unknown to plaintiff.
a. [XJ Doe defendants (specify Doe numbers): 1=50 were the agents or employees of other
named defendants and acted within the scope of that agency or employment.
b. [XJ Doe defendants (specify Doe numbers): 1=50 are persons whose capacities are unknown to
plaintiff.
7. [2 Defendants who are joined under Code of Civil Procedure section 382 are (names):
8. This court is the proper court because
a. [] atleast one defendant now resides in its jurisdictional area.
. [J the principal place of business of a defendant corporation or unincorporated association is in its jurisdictional area.
ooo
X] injury to person or damage to personal property occurred in its jurisdictional area.
. 3) other (specify):
9. [J Plaintiff is required to comply with a claims statute, and
a. [2] has complied with applicable claims statutes, or
b. [] is excused from complying because (specify):
COMPLAINT-Personal Injury, Property Page 2 of 3
PLD-PI-001 [Rev. January 1, 2007)
CB El emma, Damage, Wrongful Death Miranda
PLD-PI-001
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
Miranda, et al. vs. Ceja Madrigal, et al. SCV-270065
SCV-270065
10. The following causes of action are attached and the statements above apply to each (each complaint must have one or more
causes of action attached):
XX] Motor Vehicle
X1 General Negligence
~®a0oTp
] Intentional Tort
(1 Products Liability
[) Premises Liability
1] Other (specify) :
11. Plaintiff has suffered
(1 wage loss
@~poo0oTp
[1] loss of use of property
[1] hospital and medical expenses
(1) general damage
XA property damage
(] loss of earning capacity
(1) other damage (specify) :
12. [XQ The damages claimed for wrongful death and the relationships of plaintiff to the deceased are
a. [1] listed in Attachment 12.
b. [XJ as follows:
Plaintiffs (children) have been deprived of Stephanie Miranda's
finanical assistance and support, love, companionship, comfort,
care, assistance, protection, affection, society and moral
support. Plaintiffs have lost the financial contributions by
their mother, Stephanie Miranda. Plaintiffs have also incurred
expenses and liabilities for funeral expenses and burial.
13. The relief sought in this complaint is within the jurisdiction of this court.
14. Plaintiff prays for judgment for costs of suit; for such relief as is fair, just, and equitable; and for
a. (1) XA compensatory damages
(2) A punitive damages
The amount of damages is (in cases for personal injury or wrongful death, you must check (1)):
(1) XA according to proof
2) [0 in the amount of: $
15. [] The paragraphs of this complaint alleged on information and belief are as follows (specify paragraph numbers):
Date: January LY, 2022 2
Anna Dubrovsky, Fsqg 2
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF OR ATTORNEY)
a a ia COMPLAINT-Personal Injury, Property Page 3 of 3
IR’ | Essential Damage, Wrongful Death .
(zlForms- $ 9 Miranda
GB
PLD-PI-001(1)
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
Miranda, et al. vs. Ceja Madrigal, et al. SCV-270065
SCV-270065
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION- Motor Vehicle
ATTACHMENT TO [X] Complaint [] Cross-Complaint
(Use a separate cause of action form for each cause of action.)
Plaintiff (name): Marina Miranda, Isabella Miranda by GAL - David Miranda,
Wyatt Miranda by GAL - Rudy Miranda
MV-1. Plaintiff alleges the acts of defendants were negligent; the acts were the legal (proximate) cause of injuries
and damages to plaintiff; the acts occurred
on (date): February 4, 2020
at (place) Bicentennial Off-Ramp from US-101, N/B, Santa Rosa,
County of Sonoma, State of California
MV-2. DEFENDANTS
a. (X] The defendants who operated a motor vehicle are (names):
Mauricio G. Ceja Madrigal and
X) Does 1 to 50
b. (X] The defendants who employed the persons who operated a motor vehicle in the course of their employment
are (names):Mauricio G. Ceja Madrigal, Carrera Garcia
Transport, LLC, Wade Transportation Company,
Inc. and
XJ Does 1 to 50
c. [X] The defendants who owned the motor vehicle which was operated with their permission are (names):
Mauricio G. Ceja Madrigal, Carrera Garcia Transport, LLC,
Wade Transportation Company, Inc. and
X] Does 1 to 50
d. [(X] The defendants who entrusted the motor vehicle are (names):
Mauricio G. Ceja Madrigal, Carrera Garcia Transport, LLC,
Wade Transportation Company, Inc. and
X] Does 1 to 50
e. (X] The defendants who were the agents and employees of the other defendants and acted within the scope
of the agency were (names):
Mauricio G. Ceja Madrigal, Carrera Garcia Transport, LLC,
Wade Transportation Company, Inc. and
X] Does 1 to 50
f. [X] The defendants who are liable to plaintiffs for other reasons and the reasons for the liability are
X] listed in Attachment MV-2f [] as follows:
X]) Does 1 to 50
Page 4____
Pago 1 of 1
Sa Comal of California
Fi
PLD-PI-001(1)
ed for Optional
(Rev. January 1, 2007]
U
CAUSE OF ACTION - Motor Vehicle .
0 0 Of CH vw coun
Code of Civil
ca gos
P dul 425.12
CER | Essential Miranda
ceb.com [zlForms-
MC-025
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
— Miranda, et al. vs. Ceja Madrigal, et al. SCV-270065
SCV-270065
ATTACHMENT (Number): Mu=2f
(This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.)
Miranda, et al. vs. Ceja Madrigal, et al.
Sonoma County Superior Court
Complaint - Personal Injury
Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants
sued herein as DOES 1 - 50, inclusive, and therefore sue these
defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this
complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the
fictitiously named defendants are responsible in some manner for the
occurrences herein alleged and that plaintiffs’ injuries and damages as
herein alleged were proximately caused by the conduct of these
defendants.
Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that
each of the defendants were the agent, partner, principal, employee,
employer, joint venture, co-conspirator, and/or acted in concert with
each of the other defendants in doing the things alleged herein, and/or
ratified or approved each of the acts, conduct and omissions of the
other defendants, so that those acts, conduct or omissions became their
own, and in doing the acts herein alleged, were acting within the scope
of their actual or apparent authority, or their status as described
above.
(If the item that this Attachment concems is made under penalty of perjury, all statements in this Page5 of 6
Attachment are made under penalty of perjury.) (Add pages as required)
Form Approved for Optional Use ATTACHMENT wwiv.courtinfo.ca.gov
Judicial Council of California . . .
MC-025 [Rev. July 1, 2009) to Judicial Council Form
CFR’ | Essential Miranda
ceb.com z)]Forms®
[z]Forms
PLD-PI-001(2)
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
Miranda, et al. vs. Ceja Madrigal, et al. SCV-270065
SCV-270065
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION- General Negligence Page 6
(number)
ATTACHMENT TO [XJ Complaint [] Cross-Complaint
(Use a separate cause of action form for each cause of action.)
GN-1. Plaintiff (name): Marina Miranda, Isabella Miranda by GAL - David Miranda,
Wyatt Miranda by GAL - Rudy Miranda
alleges
that defendant (name): Mauricio G. Ceja Madrigal,
Carrera Garcia Transport, LLC, Wade Transportation Company, Inc.
and
X1 Does 1 to 50
was the legal (proximate) cause of damages to plaintiff. By the following acts or omissions to act, defendant
negligently caused the damage to plaintiff
on (date). Februar
Preview
1 Jeffrey M. Lenkov (State Bar No. 156478) jeffrey.lenkov@manningkass.com 2 Daniel J. Sullivan (State Bar No. 251455) daniel.sullivan@manningkass.com 3 MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 4 801 S. Figueroa St, 15th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3012 5 Telephone: (213) 624-6900 Facsimile: (213) 624-6999 6 Attorneys for Defendants, MAURICIO G. CEJA 7 MADRIGAL, CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC and WADE 8 TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SONOMA 11 12 MARINA MIRANDA, ISABELLA Case No. SCV-270065 13 MIRANDA BY GAL - DAVID MIRANDA, WYATT MIRANDA BY GAL - RUDY Assigned for All Purposes to: 14 MIRANDA,, Hon. Oscar A. Pardo, Dept. 19 15 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL, CARRERA GARCIA 16 v. TRANSPORT, LLC, AND WADE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY’S 17 MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC, FOR AN ORDER OF BIFURCATION, 18 WADE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, ORDERING A PRIOR SEPARATE TRIAL INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive,, ON LIABILITY ISSUES BEFORE TRIAL 19 ON DAMAGES; MEMORANDUM OF Defendants. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; 20 DECLARATION DANIEL J. SULLIVAN 21 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS Filed concurrently with [Proposed] Order 22 Judge: Hon. Oscar A. Pardo Date: 23 Time: Dept.: 19 24 Action Filed: 01/25/2022 25 Trial Date: 10/13/2023 26 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 27 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on _______________, at _________, or as soon 28 1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF BIFURCATION, ORDERING A PRIOR SEPARATE TRIAL ON LIABILITY ISSUES BEFORE TRIAL ON DAMAGES 1 thereafter as counsel may be heard, in Department 19 of the above-captioned Court, located at 3055 2 Cleveland Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403, Defendants MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL, 3 CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC and WADE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. 4 (collectively “Defendants”) will and hereby does move the Court for an order to bifurcate the issues 5 of liability and damages, and that a prior separate trial on liability issues be held before trial on 6 damages. 7 This motion is based on Code of Civil Procedure Sections 598 and 1048, subdivision (b) on 8 the grounds that a prior separate trial on liability issues will promote the ends of justice, promote 9 judicial economy and convenience of witnesses and will avoid undue prejudice to Defendants. 10 This motion is further based on this notice, on the accompanying memorandum of points 11 and authorities, the declaration of Daniel J. Sullivan, the pleadings and records on file herein and 12 upon such further documents, evidence and argument as may be before the Court at the time of the 13 hearing on this motion. 14 15 DATED: February 27, 2024 MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 16 17 18 By: /s/ Daniel J. Sullivan Daniel J. Sullivan 19 Attorneys for Defendants, MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL, CARRERA GARCIA 20 TRANSPORT, LLC and WADE 21 TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF BIFURCATION, ORDERING A PRIOR SEPARATE TRIAL ON LIABILITY ISSUES BEFORE TRIAL ON DAMAGES 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 Defendants MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL (“Madrigal”), CARRERA GARCIA 4 TRANSPORT, LLC (“CGT”) and WADE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. (“Wade”) 5 (collectively, “Defendants”) seek an order granting a separate trial on liability issues prior to trial 6 on damages issues to avoid undue prejudice and to promote the ends of justice, judicial economy 7 and convenience of witnesses. 8 This case arises from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on February 4, 2020, involving 9 Madrigal and Stephanie Miranda (“Decedent”), who was driving under influence of alcohol, that 10 resulted in Decedent’s death. (Sullivan Decl. ¶2, Ex. A-B.) Following the accident, Plaintiffs 11 MARINA MIRANDA, ISABELLA MIRANDA, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, David 12 Miranda, and WYATT MIRANDA, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Rudy Miranda 13 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this lawsuit alleging Negligence – Motor Vehicle and General 14 Negligence. 15 The Court should bifurcate the issues of liability and damages and order a prior trial on 16 liability issues for several reasons. First, Decedent is survived by her children, who, Defendant 17 anticipates, will testify before the jury regarding the loss of support and companionship of their 18 mother. Such evidence will undoubtedly impact the jury’s liability assessment. Second, bifurcation 19 will not add materially to the time needed to try the case, as there is little or no overlap in the liability 20 versus damages evidence and testimonies. Third, by bifurcating, the Court will avoid wasting time, 21 money, and resources caused by the unnecessary trial of damage questions if, in the first trial phase, 22 the liability issues are resolved against the plaintiffs. Finally, by separating the liability evidence 23 from the damages evidence, bifurcation would permit a more logical presentation of evidence, which 24 will reduce the possibility of juror confusion. 25 For these reasons, the Court should bifurcate the trials on liability and damages and order 26 that the liability issues be tried before any damages issues. 27 28 3 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF BIFURCATION, ORDERING A PRIOR SEPARATE TRIAL ON LIABILITY ISSUES BEFORE TRIAL ON DAMAGES 1 II. THE COURT SHOULD ORDER A PRIOR SEPARATE TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF 2 LIABILITY 3 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (b), 4 “The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials would be conducive to expedition and economy, 5 may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint or of any separate issue or of any 6 number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the 7 United States.” 8 In addition, Code of Civil Procedure section 598 provides as follows: 9 “The court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would 10 be promoted thereby, on motion of a party, after notice and hearing, make an order, no later than the close of pretrial conference in cases 11 in which such pretrial conference is to be held, or, in other cases, no later than 30 days before the trial date, that the trial of any issue or 12 any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part thereof in the case, except for special defenses which may be tried 13 first pursuant to Sections 597 and 597.5.” 14 California case law also dictates that bifurcation is appropriate in this case just as the liability 15 and damages portions of the trial were bifurcated in the following cases: In Martinides v. Mayer, 16 (1989) 208 Cal. App. 3d 1185, where the plaintiff was injured in a car accident the liability and 17 damages portions of the trial were bifurcated. In Geffen v. County of L.A., (1987) 197 Cal. App. 3d 18 188, where the plaintiff was injured when she drove into the ocean the liability and damages portions 19 of the trial were bifurcated. In White v. Moreno Valley Unified Sch. Dist., (1986) 181 Cal. App. 3d 20 1024, where plaintiff was seriously injured in a car accident the liability and damages portions of 21 the trial were bifurcated. In Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 953, where the 22 plaintiff died as a result of asbestos exposure, the liability and damages portions of the trial were 23 bifurcated and in fact were heard by two different juries. In Mendoza v. Club Car, (2000) 81 Cal. 24 App. 4th 287, where the plaintiff was injured when a parking brake on golf cart released the liability 25 and damages portions of the trial were bifurcated. In Du Jardin v. City of Oxnard, (1995) 38 Cal. 26 App. 4th 174, where the plaintiff was injured when he fell in a defective rental dumpster, the liability 27 and damages portions of the trial were bifurcated. 28 Ultimately, an action may be severed, in the discretion of the court, whenever it can be done 4 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF BIFURCATION, ORDERING A PRIOR SEPARATE TRIAL ON LIABILITY ISSUES BEFORE TRIAL ON DAMAGES 1 without prejudice to a substantial right. (Jud Whitehead Heater Co. v. Obler (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 2 861, 867.) 3 Here, litigating both liability and damages at the same time will be inefficient, and 4 prejudicial to Defendants. If liability and damages are tried together, the jury will be exposed to 5 evidence and testimony about Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages, such as loss of companionship and 6 support of their mother, which will prejudice the jury against Defendants when determining liability. 7 Therefore, the Court should order a prior separate trial on liability issues. 8 III. DEFENDANTS WILL BE SEVERELY PREJUDICED IF A PRIOR TRIAL ON 9 LIABILITY IS NOT ORDERED WHEREAS PLAINTIFFS WILL SUFFER NO 10 PREJUDICE AT ALL FOR A PRIOR TRIAL ON LIABILITY ISSUES 11 Code of Civil Procedure sections 598 and 1048 favor bifurcation where it will promote “the 12 ends of justice” (Code Civ. Proc., § 598), and will “avoid prejudice” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048). 13 First and most importantly, if the issues of liability and damages are tried simultaneously, the jurors 14 will be bombarded with unquestionably emotional evidence of Decedent’s devastating accident and 15 ultimate death. Such emotionally-charged evidence will very likely cloud and improperly influence 16 the jury’s determination of liability based on sympathy and not the facts, especially since Decedent 17 was under influence of alcohol at the time of the Incident. 18 Further, due to the nature of this case involving the death of a loved one, it is certain the 19 testimony of Plaintiffs will be heartbreaking and emotional. Plaintiffs will testify about the impact 20 of the losing their mother on their life. Testimony related to these beneficiaries’ loss will be 21 emotional and will inevitably rouse sympathy for the family, which would make it more difficult 22 for the jury to fairly focus on the threshold issue of liability. Such sympathy is a real prejudice to 23 Defendants’ potential to succeed on the issue of liability once the jury hears testimony relating to 24 Plaintiffs suffering and the manner in which their lives have been allegedly altered as a result of the 25 loss of Decedent. 26 Defendants understand the jury will be instructed not to let sympathy influence their 27 decision. However in a wrongful death case such as this with substantial emotional testimony 28 included it is sure to influence the jury. As such, bifurcation is the only mechanism to assure 5 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF BIFURCATION, ORDERING A PRIOR SEPARATE TRIAL ON LIABILITY ISSUES BEFORE TRIAL ON DAMAGES 1 Defendants will not be prejudiced. 2 IV. THERE IS NO OVERLAP IN THE LIABILITY AND DAMAGES EVIDENCE 3 Second, there is no overlap between the liability and damages evidence, so bifurcation will 4 not result in any repetition. The majority of the witnesses in this case will testify either on the 5 liability portion or the damages portion of the case. 6 The liability phase of trial will not include any evidence of the horrific aftermath of the car 7 crash photos as it will be irrelevant to issue of liability. In the liability phase of trial, Defendants 8 and Plaintiffs are likely to present experts who will reconstruct the scene of the accident and testify 9 about Decedent’s toxicological report and effects of driving under influence of alcohol. 10 On the other hand, Plaintiffs’ damages presentation will rely upon almost entirely distinct 11 testimony from the liability question, including testimony from family members about their 12 relationships and dependence upon Decedent, and each of the parties will present additional expert 13 testimony concerning the Decedent’s income, life expectancy, and the present value of his future 14 earnings. None of that evidence will assist the trier of fact in determining whether Decedent’s high 15 alcohol level or Madrigal parking his truck on the side of the road played any role in this crash. 16 As such, there will no overlap between the liability and damages phases of the trial. This 17 non-overlap favors bifurcation of the trial. 18 V. BIFURCATING THE ISSUES AND TRYING LIABILITY FIRST WILL PROMOTE 19 THE CONVENIENCE OF WITNESSES, EFFICIENCY AND JUDICIAL 20 ECONOMY 21 Third, the Court should bifurcate this case because it may prevent the unnecessary 22 expenditure of resources and time if this case is decided at the liability phase, especially since 23 Decedent was intoxicated at the time of the Incident. Code of Civil Procedure sections 598 and 24 1048 also favor bifurcation and a prior trial on liability issues when “the convenience of witnesses” 25 or “the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation. 26 Here, Decedent was under influence of alcohol at the time of the Incident, as such, if the jury 27 finds that Defendants were not at fault for the Incident, then the Court can save significant resources 28 and time from the damage phase of this trial. 6 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF BIFURCATION, ORDERING A PRIOR SEPARATE TRIAL ON LIABILITY ISSUES BEFORE TRIAL ON DAMAGES 1 As such, the bifurcation of liability and damages issues and a prior trial on liability issues 2 will further the convenience of witnesses, be more efficient in resolving this matter, and also further 3 judicial economy. If this matter is resolved during the Liability phase, judicial economy will be 4 furthered. Therefore, a prior trial on liability issues will further the convenience of witnesses, trial 5 efficiency and judicial economy. 6 VI. BIFURCATING THE ISSUES WILL REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF JUROR 7 CONFUSION 8 Finally, by separating the liability evidence from the damages evidence, bifurcation would 9 permit a more logical presentation of evidence, which will reduce the possibility of juror confusion. 10 In the liability phase of the trial, Defendant and Plaintiff are likely to present experts who 11 will reconstruct the scene of the accident and testify about Decedent’s toxicological report. Because 12 of these liability issues, the jury should be permitted to focus on those issues before being confused 13 by numerous emotional testimonies related to damages. This approach will minimize the possibility 14 of confusion and allow for a more logical presentation of the evidence. As such, trial should be 15 bifurcated into two phases. 16 VII. CONCLUSION 17 For these reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant their motion and order 18 the bifurcation of liability and damages issues and a separate trial on liability issues prior to trial on 19 damages issues. 20 21 DATED: February 27, 2024 MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 22 23 24 By: /s/ Daniel J. Sullivan Daniel J. Sullivan 25 Attorneys for Defendants, MAURICIO G. CEJA MADRIGAL, CARRERA GARCIA 26 TRANSPORT, LLC and WADE 27 TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. 28 7 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF BIFURCATION, ORDERING A PRIOR SEPARATE TRIAL ON LIABILITY ISSUES BEFORE TRIAL ON DAMAGES 1 DECLARATION OF DANIEL J. SULLIVAN 2 I, Daniel J. Sullivan, declare as follows: 3 1. I am an attorney duly admitted to practice before this Court. I am an attorney at 4 Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, attorneys of record for Defendants, MAURICIO 5 G. CEJA MADRIGAL, CARRERA GARCIA TRANSPORT, LLC and WADE 6 TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. (“Defendants”). I have personal knowledge of the facts 7 set forth herein, and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. I make 8 this declaration in support of Defendants Mauricio G. Ceja Madrigal, Carrera Garcia Transport, Llc, 9 and Wade Transportation Company’s Notice of Motion and Motion for an Order of Bifurcation, 10 Ordering a Prior Separate Trial on Liability Issues Before Trial on Damages; Memorandum of 11 Points and Authorities. 12 2. This case arises from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on February 4, 2020, 13 involving Madrigal and Stephanie Miranda (“Decedent”), who was driving under influence of 14 alcohol, that resulted in Decedent’s death. A true and correct copy of the Complaint is attached 15 hereto as Exhibit A. A true and correct copy of the Death Investigation Report is attached hereto 16 as Exhibit B. 17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing 18 is true and correct. 19 Executed on this 23rd day of February, 2024, at Costa Mesa, California. 20 21 /s/ Daniel J. Sullivan Daniel J. Sullivan 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF BIFURCATION, ORDERING A PRIOR SEPARATE TRIAL ON LIABILITY ISSUES BEFORE TRIAL ON DAMAGES EXHIBIT A PLD-PI-001 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY — Anna Dubrovsky, Esq. SBN: 197116 ANNA DUBROVSKY LAW GROUP, INC. 750 Battery Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94111 ELECTRONICALLY FILED ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court Superior Court of of California California TeLerHoNeNo: (415) 746-1477 FAXNo.(optionai: (415) 746-1478 County of County of Sonoma Sonoma E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): anna@dubrovskylawyers.com 1/25/2022 11:38 1/25/2022 11:38 AM AM ATTORNEY FOR(Name) Plaintiffs, Miranda, et al. Arlene D. Arlene D. Junior, Junior, Clerk Clerk of of the the Court Court SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Sonoma By: Melisa By: Melisa Kennedy, Kennedy, Deputy Deputy Clerk Clerk streeTappress: 600 Administration Drive MAILING ADDRESS: crvanpzipcoe: Santa Rosa CA 95403 srancHnave: Civil Unlimited PLAINTIFF: Marina Miranda, Isabella Miranda by GAL - David Miranda, Wyatt Miranda by GAL - Rudy Miranda DEFENDANT: Mauricio G. Ceja Madrigal, Carrera Garcia Transport, LLC, Wade Transportation Company, Inc. and (X) poes170 50, Inclusive COMPLAINT-Personal Injury, Property Damage, Wrongful Death (L) AMENDED (Number): Type (check all that apply): X1 MOTOR VEHICLE (1) OTHER (specify): (X] Property Damage [X] Wrongful Death (J Personal Injury (C1) Other Damages (specify): Jurisdiction (check all that apply): CASE NUMBER: (CZ) ACTION IS A LIMITED CIVIL CASE Amount demanded [_] does not exceed $10,000 SCV-270065 SCV-270065 [) exceeds $10,000, but does not exceed $25,000 [X] ACTION IS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE (exceeds $25,000) (C2) ACTION IS RECLASSIFIED by this amended complaint (]) from limited to unlimited (1 from unlimited to limited 1. Plaintiff (name or names): Marina Miranda, Isabella Miranda by GAL - David Miranda, Wyatt Miranda by GAL - Rudy Miranda alleges causes of action againstdefendant (name or names): Mauricio G. Ceja Madrigal, Carrera Garcia Transport, LLC, Wade Transportation Company, Inc. and DOES 1 to 50, Inclusive This pleading, including attachments and exhibits, consists of the following number of pages: 6 nN 3. Each plaintiff named above is a competent adult a. [X] except plaintiff (name): Isabella Miranda (1) 2] a corporation qualified to do business in California (2) C3] an unincorporated entity (describe): (3) J a public entity (describe): 4) X] aminor [J an adult (a) [J for whom a guardian or conservator of the estate or a guardian ad litem has been appointed (b) XJ other (specify): GAL Application is being filed concurrently (5) 2 other (specify): b. XA except plaintiff (name): Wyatt Miranda (1) 20 a corporation qualified to do business in California (2) 2 an unincorporated entity (describe): (3) J a public entity (describe): 4) XQ aminor [J an adult (a) [L] for whom a guardian or conservator of the estate or a guardian ad litem has been appointed (b) X} other (specify): GAL Application is being filed concurrently (5) 2 other (specify): (3 Information about additional plaintiffs who are not competent adults is shown in Attachment 3. Page 1 of 3 Form Approved for Optional Use . COMPLAINT-Personal Injury, Property Code of Civil www.courtinfo.ca.gov Procedure, § 425.12 Judicial Council of California CB ial PLD-P1-001 [Rev. January 1, 2007] ceb.com Eiforme Damage, Wrongful Death Miranda PLD-PI-001 SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER: SCV-270065 Miranda, et al. vs. Ceja Madrigal, et al. SCV-270065 4. [2] Plaintiff (name): is doing business under the fictitious name (specify): and has complied with the fictitious business name laws. 5. Each defendant named above is a natural person a. ([X] except defendant (name): c. [J exceptdefendant (name): Carrera Garcia Transport, LLC (1) [X] a business organization, form unknown ) a a business organization, form unknown 2 [2 a corporation (2) [2] a corporation (3) (3 an unincorporated entity (describe): (3) [LQ an unincorporated entity (describe): (4) [} a public entity (describe): (4) [J a public entity (describe): (6) [2 other (specify): (5) [ other (specify): b. [XJ except defendant (name): d. [CZ] except defendant (name): Wade Transportation Company, Inc. (1) XJ a business organization, form unknown (1) [J a business organization, form unknown (2) [J a corporation (2) 3) a corporation (3) (30 an unincorporated entity (describe): (3) [J an unincorporated entity (describe): (4) [2] a public entity (describe): (4) [2 a public entity (describe): (6) [2] other (specify): (5) [2] other (specify): [1] Information about additional defendants who are not natural persons is contained in Attachment 5. 6. The true names of defendants sued as Does are unknown to plaintiff. a. [XJ Doe defendants (specify Doe numbers): 1=50 were the agents or employees of other named defendants and acted within the scope of that agency or employment. b. [XJ Doe defendants (specify Doe numbers): 1=50 are persons whose capacities are unknown to plaintiff. 7. [2 Defendants who are joined under Code of Civil Procedure section 382 are (names): 8. This court is the proper court because a. [] atleast one defendant now resides in its jurisdictional area. . [J the principal place of business of a defendant corporation or unincorporated association is in its jurisdictional area. ooo X] injury to person or damage to personal property occurred in its jurisdictional area. . 3) other (specify): 9. [J Plaintiff is required to comply with a claims statute, and a. [2] has complied with applicable claims statutes, or b. [] is excused from complying because (specify): COMPLAINT-Personal Injury, Property Page 2 of 3 PLD-PI-001 [Rev. January 1, 2007) CB El emma, Damage, Wrongful Death Miranda PLD-PI-001 SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER: Miranda, et al. vs. Ceja Madrigal, et al. SCV-270065 SCV-270065 10. The following causes of action are attached and the statements above apply to each (each complaint must have one or more causes of action attached): XX] Motor Vehicle X1 General Negligence ~®a0oTp ] Intentional Tort (1 Products Liability [) Premises Liability 1] Other (specify) : 11. Plaintiff has suffered (1 wage loss @~poo0oTp [1] loss of use of property [1] hospital and medical expenses (1) general damage XA property damage (] loss of earning capacity (1) other damage (specify) : 12. [XQ The damages claimed for wrongful death and the relationships of plaintiff to the deceased are a. [1] listed in Attachment 12. b. [XJ as follows: Plaintiffs (children) have been deprived of Stephanie Miranda's finanical assistance and support, love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society and moral support. Plaintiffs have lost the financial contributions by their mother, Stephanie Miranda. Plaintiffs have also incurred expenses and liabilities for funeral expenses and burial. 13. The relief sought in this complaint is within the jurisdiction of this court. 14. Plaintiff prays for judgment for costs of suit; for such relief as is fair, just, and equitable; and for a. (1) XA compensatory damages (2) A punitive damages The amount of damages is (in cases for personal injury or wrongful death, you must check (1)): (1) XA according to proof 2) [0 in the amount of: $ 15. [] The paragraphs of this complaint alleged on information and belief are as follows (specify paragraph numbers): Date: January LY, 2022 2 Anna Dubrovsky, Fsqg 2 (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF OR ATTORNEY) a a ia COMPLAINT-Personal Injury, Property Page 3 of 3 IR’ | Essential Damage, Wrongful Death . (zlForms- $ 9 Miranda GB PLD-PI-001(1) SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER: Miranda, et al. vs. Ceja Madrigal, et al. SCV-270065 SCV-270065 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION- Motor Vehicle ATTACHMENT TO [X] Complaint [] Cross-Complaint (Use a separate cause of action form for each cause of action.) Plaintiff (name): Marina Miranda, Isabella Miranda by GAL - David Miranda, Wyatt Miranda by GAL - Rudy Miranda MV-1. Plaintiff alleges the acts of defendants were negligent; the acts were the legal (proximate) cause of injuries and damages to plaintiff; the acts occurred on (date): February 4, 2020 at (place) Bicentennial Off-Ramp from US-101, N/B, Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma, State of California MV-2. DEFENDANTS a. (X] The defendants who operated a motor vehicle are (names): Mauricio G. Ceja Madrigal and X) Does 1 to 50 b. (X] The defendants who employed the persons who operated a motor vehicle in the course of their employment are (names):Mauricio G. Ceja Madrigal, Carrera Garcia Transport, LLC, Wade Transportation Company, Inc. and XJ Does 1 to 50 c. [X] The defendants who owned the motor vehicle which was operated with their permission are (names): Mauricio G. Ceja Madrigal, Carrera Garcia Transport, LLC, Wade Transportation Company, Inc. and X] Does 1 to 50 d. [(X] The defendants who entrusted the motor vehicle are (names): Mauricio G. Ceja Madrigal, Carrera Garcia Transport, LLC, Wade Transportation Company, Inc. and X] Does 1 to 50 e. (X] The defendants who were the agents and employees of the other defendants and acted within the scope of the agency were (names): Mauricio G. Ceja Madrigal, Carrera Garcia Transport, LLC, Wade Transportation Company, Inc. and X] Does 1 to 50 f. [X] The defendants who are liable to plaintiffs for other reasons and the reasons for the liability are X] listed in Attachment MV-2f [] as follows: X]) Does 1 to 50 Page 4____ Pago 1 of 1 Sa Comal of California Fi PLD-PI-001(1) ed for Optional (Rev. January 1, 2007] U CAUSE OF ACTION - Motor Vehicle . 0 0 Of CH vw coun Code of Civil ca gos P dul 425.12 CER | Essential Miranda ceb.com [zlForms- MC-025 SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER: — Miranda, et al. vs. Ceja Madrigal, et al. SCV-270065 SCV-270065 ATTACHMENT (Number): Mu=2f (This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.) Miranda, et al. vs. Ceja Madrigal, et al. Sonoma County Superior Court Complaint - Personal Injury Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 - 50, inclusive, and therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the fictitiously named defendants are responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged and that plaintiffs’ injuries and damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by the conduct of these defendants. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the defendants were the agent, partner, principal, employee, employer, joint venture, co-conspirator, and/or acted in concert with each of the other defendants in doing the things alleged herein, and/or ratified or approved each of the acts, conduct and omissions of the other defendants, so that those acts, conduct or omissions became their own, and in doing the acts herein alleged, were acting within the scope of their actual or apparent authority, or their status as described above. (If the item that this Attachment concems is made under penalty of perjury, all statements in this Page5 of 6 Attachment are made under penalty of perjury.) (Add pages as required) Form Approved for Optional Use ATTACHMENT wwiv.courtinfo.ca.gov Judicial Council of California . . . MC-025 [Rev. July 1, 2009) to Judicial Council Form CFR’ | Essential Miranda ceb.com z)]Forms® [z]Forms PLD-PI-001(2) SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER: Miranda, et al. vs. Ceja Madrigal, et al. SCV-270065 SCV-270065 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION- General Negligence Page 6 (number) ATTACHMENT TO [XJ Complaint [] Cross-Complaint (Use a separate cause of action form for each cause of action.) GN-1. Plaintiff (name): Marina Miranda, Isabella Miranda by GAL - David Miranda, Wyatt Miranda by GAL - Rudy Miranda alleges that defendant (name): Mauricio G. Ceja Madrigal, Carrera Garcia Transport, LLC, Wade Transportation Company, Inc. and X1 Does 1 to 50 was the legal (proximate) cause of damages to plaintiff. By the following acts or omissions to act, defendant negligently caused the damage to plaintiff on (date). Februar