Preview
1 Alex Sarajian, Esq. [SBN 229436]
Kenneth E. Wright, Esq. [SBN 137502]
2 Eduardo A. Brito, Esq. [SBN 157933]
3 L.A. INJURY ATTORNEYS
1611 N. San Fernando Boulevard
4 Burbank, California 91504
Telephone: (818) 243-4529
5 Facsimile: (818) 243-4311
E-mail: legal@lainjuryattorneys.com
6
7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, MARIBEL LIZETH GARCIA
and ALEX VEGA ZEPEDA-GARCIA, a minor, by and through his
8 Guardian ad Litem, MARIBEL LIZETH GARCIA
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
FOR COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT
11
MARIBEL LIZETH GARCIA and ALEX VEGA ) CASE NO.:
12 ZEPEDA-GARCIA, a minor, by and through his )
)
Guardian ad Litem, MARIBEL LIZETH ) COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
13
GARCIA, ) AND DAMAGES
14 )
Plaintiffs, ) 1) PREMISES LIABILITY
15 ) 2) NEGLIGENCE
v. )
) 3) BREACH OF THE IMPLIED
16 ) WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY
CCV PARTNERSHIP II, A CALIFORNIA )
17 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a California limited )
partnership d/b/a CANYON COUNTRY )
18 ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
VILLAS; GHP MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, a California corporation; and )
19 )
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, )
20 )
Defendants. )
21 )
)
22
23 COME NOW plaintiffs MARIBEL LIZETH GARCIA and ALEX VEGA ZEPEDA-GARCIA,
24 a minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, MARIBEL LIZETH GARCIA (hereinafter,
25 collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”), and hereby set forth the following allegations and facts in
26 support of this Complaint, and also demand a speedy jury trial on all causes of action stated herein
27 against the named defendants, CCV PARTNERSHIP II, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
28 a California limited partnership, d/b/a CANYON COUNTRY VILLAS; GHP MANAGEMENT
1
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
1 CORPORATION, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive (hereinafter collectively
2 referred to as “Defendants”) as follows:
3 PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
4 1. Plaintiff MARIBEL LIZETH GARCIA (“GARCIA” or “Plaintiff”) is and was at all
5 times relevant to this action a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
6 2. Plaintiff ALEX VEGA ZEPEDA-GARCIA, a minor, by and through his Guardian ad
7 Litem, MARIBEL LIZETH GARCIA (“ZEPEDA” or “Plaintiff”) is and was at all times relevant to this
8 action a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
9 3. Plaintiffs allege that defendant CCV PARTNERSHIP II, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED
10 PARTNERSHIP(hereinafter “CCV PARTNERSHIP II” or “Defendant”), is and was at all times
11 relevant to this action a California limited partnership qualified to and doing business in the County of
12 Los Angeles, State of California as the owner of a multi-family multi-building apartment complex
13 known as Canyon Country Villas located at 26471 Isabella Parkway, Santa Clarita, 91351. Its principal
14 place of business is 270 N. Canon Dr., Penthouse, Beverly Hills, California 90210.
15 4. Plaintiffs allege that defendant GHP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (hereinafter
16 “GHP” or “Defendant”) is and was at all times relevant to this action a California corporation qualified
17 to and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California as a property management
18 company for Canyon Country Villas. Its principal place of business is 270 N. Canon Dr., Penthouse,
19 Beverly Hills, California 90210.
20 5. The incident that gives rise to this lawsuit occurred on or about March 16, 2022, at
21 27623 Isabella Parkway, Santa Clarita, California 91351, one of the buildings that forms part of
22 Canyon Country Villas (hereinafter, “SUBJECT PROPERTY”).
23 6. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of
24 the Defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are presently unknown to Plaintiffs
25 who sue these Defendants by such fictitious names. When Plaintiffs ascertain the true names and
26 capacities of DOES 1 through 50, Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege their true names.
27 7. Plaintiffs allege that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some
28 manner for the events and happenings referred to in this Complaint, and negligently or intentionally
2
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
1 caused injury and damages proximately thereby to Plaintiffs as hereinafter alleged; and are thereby
2 liable to Plaintiffs.
3 8. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, employees, co-
4 adventurers, servants, partners, principals, masters, employers, and associates of the remaining
5 Defendants, and each or all of them; and at all times relevant were acting within the purpose and scope
6 of such agency, service, employment, partnership and association.
7 9. Defendants and each of them owned; operated or caused to be operated; controlled or
8 caused to be controlled; managed or caused to be managed; maintained or caused to be maintained;
9 renovated or caused to be renovated; changed or caused to be changed; modified or caused to be
10 modified; constructed or caused to be constructed; cleaned or caused to be cleaned; repaired or caused
11 to be repaired; inspected or caused to be inspected; supplied or caused to be supplied; installed or
12 caused to be installed; and supervised or caused to be supervised the apartment complex, buildings, and
13 real property (including the component parts, structural portions and common areas of the apartment
14 complex, buildings, and real property situated thereon) of the SUBJECT PROPERTY.
15 10. Defendants and each of them, owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs and other persons
16 residing, visiting, or walking at the SUBJECT PROPERTY to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in
17 the management, maintenance, and supervision of the SUBJECT PROPERTY so as to prevent harm to,
18 and not endanger, Plaintiffs and other persons.
19 11. Jurisdiction is proper in the Superior Court of the State of California pursuant to
20 California Code of Civil Procedure (“C.C.P.”) § 410.10.
21 12. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to C.C.P. § 395(a).
22 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
23 PREMISES LIABILITY
24 (By Plaintiffs against all Defendants)
25 13. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as
26 though fully set forth herein.
27
28
3
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
1 14. On or about March 16, 2022, Plaintiffs were residents of the SUBJECT PROPERTY; a
2 property owned, maintained, controlled, managed, supervised, and operated, in whole or in part, by
3 Defendants and each of them.
4 15. On the aforementioned date and place, Plaintiffs attempted to enter their apartment
5 through the garage. As Plaintiffs walked under the garage door, the door slammed shut striking both
6 Plaintiffs.
7 16. At the time of the incident, Plaintiffs were using the garage door in a reasonably
8 foreseeable manner. There were no warnings regarding the dangerous condition of the garage door
9 knowing that the tenants use their garage daily.
10 17. On the date and place aforesaid, Defendants owed a duty of reasonable prudence to
11 its tenants and members of the public to operate, maintain, supervise, control, and manage the SUBJECT
12 PROPERTY with due care so as to avoid placing Plaintiffs and other residents and guests in danger.
13 18. At the time of the incident, the garage door was maintained, owned and/or controlled
14 by Defendants and they, either jointly or severally, had the power to prevent, remedy, or guard against
15 dangerous conditions on and near the accident site at the SUBJECT PROPERTY.
16 19. Plaintiffs allege that the garage door at the SUBJECT PROPERTY did not conform to
17 safety standards outlined in the California Health and Safety Codes and Building Codes.
18 20. At the time of the incident, the Defendants knew or should have known that the garage
19 door was in a dangerous condition. As landlords, Defendants had a duty to conduct reasonable periodic
20 inspections of the SUBJECT PROPERTY to determine unsafe conditions and take reasonable
21 precautions to prevent injury due to the conditions that were or reasonably should have been discovered
22 in the process. The inspection should include common areas under the Defendants’ control. Defendants
23 had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the substantial dangerous condition and the subject
24 deficiencies in a sufficient amount of time prior to March 16, 2022, to have taken measures to protect
25 Plaintiffs against the substantial dangerous condition.
26 21. Defendants are responsible, either jointly or severally, for the management, control,
27 design, approval, inspection, maintenance and/or construction of the garage door, and they managed,
28 controlled, approved, inspected, designed and/or constructed and/or maintained it negligently and/or
4
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
1 failed to ensure it was safely managed, approved, designed, inspected, maintained or constructed and/or
2 failed to correct the faulty management, approval, design, maintenance and/or construction or give
3 adequate warnings of the dangers or failed in performing a mandatory duty to assure safe usage. The
4 garage door contained no proper warnings regarding the condition of the garage door at the SUBJECT
5 PROPERTY.
6 22. Defendants, and each of them, so negligently and carelessly owned; operated or caused
7 to be operated; controlled or caused to be controlled; managed or caused to be managed; maintained or
8 caused to be maintained; cleaned or caused to be cleaned; inspected or caused to be inspected; and
9 supervised or caused to be supervised the SUBJECT PROPERTY, so as to cause the same to be unfit,
10 unsafe, and dangerous for the Plaintiffs and other individuals visiting or walking at the SUBJECT
11 PROPERTY.
12 23. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants and each of them created and knew, and in the exercise
13 of ordinary and reasonable care should have known, within an adequate time, of the dangerous
14 conditions and propensities of the SUBJECT PROPERTY, so as to either warn about, make safe, and
15 correct the dangerous conditions, and thereby eradicate the dangerous condition for the Plaintiffs and
16 other individuals visiting or walking at the SUBJECT PROPERTY.
17 24. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and conduct of Defendants and each
18 of them, Plaintiffs were hurt as alleged above, sustaining bodily injuries as hereinafter alleged.
19 25. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of
20 them, Plaintiffs were hurt and injured in their health, strength and activity, sustaining injuries to various
21 parts of their body, all of which injuries have caused and will continue to cause Plaintiffs great mental
22 and physical pain and suffering, all to their damage in an amount unknown to Plaintiffs at this time.
23 Plaintiffs will seek leave of Court to amend this pleading to set forth the exact amount of such general
24 damages when the same has been fully ascertained or upon proof at the time of trial.
25 26. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of
26 them, Plaintiffs were compelled to and did seek medical care and treatment. Plaintiffs have incurred
27 liability for medical care, treatment and expenses for medication, physicians, surgeons, hospitals,
28 therapy, and incidentals rendered to him. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that by
5
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
1 reason of said injuries, they will require further medical care and therapy, and will incur further liability
2 for such care and related expenses. The full extent of all such expenses incurred, and to be incurred, is
3 presently not known to Plaintiffs, who will seek leave of Court to amend the pleadings when the same
4 has been fully ascertained or upon proof at the time of trial.
5 27. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligence and the acts and omissions of
6 Defendants, Plaintiff MARIBEL LIZETH GARCIA sustained bodily injury which prevented her from
7 doing her usual and ordinary occupation and/or job, thereby causing her to incur loss of wages and/or
8 loss of future earning capacity, entitling her to recover special damages for said loss in amounts not
9 now precisely known. Plaintiff's special damages attributable to lost wages and/or loss of future earning
10 capacity will be proven at or before the time of trial.
11 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
12 NEGLIGENCE
13 (By Plaintiffs against all Defendants)
14 28. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as
15 though fully set forth herein.
16 29. On or about March 16, 2022, Defendants owed a duty of reasonable prudence to any
17 persons visiting or living at the SUBJECT PROPERTY to operate, maintain, supervise, control, and
18 manage the SUBJECT PROPERTY with due care to avoid placing others in danger.
19 30. Plaintiffs allege that the garage door at the SUBJECT PROPERTY did not conform to
20 safety standards outlined in the California Health and Safety Codes and Building Codes.
21 31. On the date and at the place aforesaid, Defendants negligently, carelessly, and
22 unlawfully operated or caused to be operated; controlled or caused to be controlled; managed or caused
23 to be managed; maintained or caused to be maintained; renovated or caused to be renovated; changed
24 or caused to be changed; modified or caused to be modified; constructed or caused to be constructed;
25 cleaned or caused to be cleaned; repaired or caused to be repaired; inspected or caused to be inspected;
26 supplied or caused to be supplied; installed or caused to be installed; and supervised or caused to be
27 supervised, the SUBJECT PROPERTY by failing to ensure that the garage door at the SUBJECT
28 PROPERTY was in a safe condition and failing to guard or warn Plaintiffs against the dangerous
6
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
1 condition of the garage door at the SUBJECT PROPERTY, and in failing to do so, breached the
2 aforesaid duties, proximately causing Plaintiffs to suffer injuries.
3 32. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants and each of them created and knew, or in the exercise
4 of ordinary and reasonable care should have known, in adequate time, of the dangerous conditions and
5 propensities of the SUBJECT PROPERTY, so as to either warn about, make safe, correct, modify,
6 change, or renovate the dangerous conditions and propensities then existing, and therefore not endanger
7 individuals residing at the SUBJECT PROPERTY.
8 33. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and conduct of Defendants and each
9 of them, Plaintiffs were hurt as alleged above, sustaining bodily injuries as hereinafter alleged.
10 34. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of
11 them, Plaintiffs were hurt and injured in their health, strength and activity, sustaining injuries to various
12 parts of their body, all of which injuries have caused and will continue to cause Plaintiffs great mental
13 and physical pain and suffering, all to their damage in an amount unknown to Plaintiffs at this time.
14 Plaintiffs will seek leave of Court to amend this pleading to set forth the exact amount of such general
15 damages when the same has been fully ascertained or upon proof at the time of trial.
16 35. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of
17 them, Plaintiffs were compelled to and did seek medical care and treatment. Plaintiffs have incurred
18 liability for medical care, treatment and expenses for medication, physicians, surgeons, hospitals,
19 therapy, and incidentals rendered to him. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that by
20 reason of said injuries, they will require further medical care and therapy, and will incur further liability
21 for such care and related expenses. The full extent of all such expenses incurred, and to be incurred, is
22 presently not known to Plaintiffs, who will seek leave of Court to amend the pleadings when the same
23 has been fully ascertained or upon proof at the time of trial.
24 36. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligence and the acts and omissions of
25 Defendants, Plaintiff MARIBEL LIZETH GARCIA sustained bodily injury which prevented her from
26 doing her usual and ordinary occupation and/or job, thereby causing her to incur loss of wages and/or
27 loss of future earning capacity, entitling her to recover special damages for said loss in amounts not
28
7
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
1 now precisely known. Plaintiff's special damages attributable to lost wages and/or loss of future earning
2 capacity will be proven at or before the time of trial.
3 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
4 BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY
5 (By Plaintiffs against all Defendants)
6 37. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as
7 though fully set forth herein.
8 38. Plaintiffs allege that at all times mentioned herein, the SUBJECT PROPERTY was
9 under the control and management of Defendants.
10 39. Defendants and each of them owed a duty to Plaintiffs and other tenants to maintain the
11 SUBJECT PROPERTY in a habitable state for the duration of the residential lease. Defendants had the
12 duty to comply with building and housing code standards to protect the health and safety of the tenants
13 at the SUBJECT PROPERTY.
14 40. Plaintiffs allege that the garage door at the SUBJECT PROPERTY did not conform to
15 safety standards outlined in the California Health and Safety Codes and Building Codes.
16 41. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants and each of them breached their duty by failing to
17 repair, replace, or modify the garage door at the SUBJECT PROPERTY. The condition of the property
18 materially affected the Plaintiffs’ safety and constituted a breach of the warranty of habitability.
19 42. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants knew of the dangerous condition on the SUBJECT
20 PROPERTY and failed to take the necessary and immediate steps to protect Plaintiffs from the
21 dangerous condition.
22 43. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants failed to comply with the applicable building
23 and housing codes that materially affected Plaintiffs’ safety.
24 44. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and conduct of Defendants and each
25 of them, Plaintiffs were hurt as alleged above, sustaining bodily injuries as hereinafter alleged.
26 45. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of
27 them, Plaintiffs were hurt and injured in their health, strength and activity, sustaining injuries to various
28 parts of their body, all of which injuries have caused and will continue to cause Plaintiffs great mental
8
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
1 and physical pain and suffering, all to their damage in an amount unknown to Plaintiffs at this time.
2 Plaintiffs will seek leave of Court to amend this pleading to set forth the exact amount of such general
3 damages when the same has been fully ascertained or upon proof at the time of trial.
4 46. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of
5 them, Plaintiffs were compelled to and did seek medical care and treatment. Plaintiffs have incurred
6 liability for medical care, treatment and expenses for medication, physicians, surgeons, hospitals,
7 therapy, and incidentals rendered to him. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon alleges that by
8 reason of said injuries, they will require further medical care and therapy, and will incur further liability
9 for such care and related expenses. The full extent of all such expenses incurred, and to be incurred, is
10 presently not known to Plaintiffs, who will seek leave of Court to amend the pleadings when the same
11 has been fully ascertained or upon proof at the time of trial.
12 47. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligence and the acts and omissions of
13 Defendants, Plaintiff MARIBEL LIZETH GARCIA sustained bodily injury which prevented her from
14 doing her usual and ordinary occupation and/or job, thereby causing her to incur loss of wages and/or
15 loss of future earning capacity, entitling her to recover special damages for said loss in amounts not
16 now precisely known. Plaintiff's special damages attributable to lost wages and/or loss of future earning
17 capacity will be proven at or before the time of trial.
18 48. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligence and the acts and omissions of
19 Defendant, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover statutory and reasonable attorney's fees and costs in
20 amounts not now precisely known.
21 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
22 Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues triable by jury.
23 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
24 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants and each of them as follows:
25 a. For general damages, according to proof as to the first two causes of action;
26 b. For special damages, according to proof;
27 c. For loss of earnings, according to proof;
28 d. For loss of earning capacity, according to proof;
9
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
1 e. For costs of suit and attorneys fee herein incurred, as allowed by law under the third cause
2 of action;
3 f. For special damages in an amount equal to rental payments due and paid during Plaintiffs’
4 leasehold, or in an amount to be determined at trial;
5 g. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
6 Date: March 11, 2024 L.A. INJURY ATTORNEYS
7
8 Kenneth E. Wright, Esq.
9 Attorney for Plaintiffs,
MARIBEL LIZETH GARCIA and
10 ALEX VEGA ZEPEDA-GARCIA, a minor, by and
through his Guardian ad Litem,
11 MARIBEL LIZETH GARCIA
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
Preview
1 Alex Sarajian, Esq. [SBN 229436] Kenneth E. Wright, Esq. [SBN 137502] 2 Eduardo A. Brito, Esq. [SBN 157933] 3 L.A. INJURY ATTORNEYS 1611 N. San Fernando Boulevard 4 Burbank, California 91504 Telephone: (818) 243-4529 5 Facsimile: (818) 243-4311 E-mail: legal@lainjuryattorneys.com 6 7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, MARIBEL LIZETH GARCIA and ALEX VEGA ZEPEDA-GARCIA, a minor, by and through his 8 Guardian ad Litem, MARIBEL LIZETH GARCIA 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT 11 MARIBEL LIZETH GARCIA and ALEX VEGA ) CASE NO.: 12 ZEPEDA-GARCIA, a minor, by and through his ) ) Guardian ad Litem, MARIBEL LIZETH ) COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY 13 GARCIA, ) AND DAMAGES 14 ) Plaintiffs, ) 1) PREMISES LIABILITY 15 ) 2) NEGLIGENCE v. ) ) 3) BREACH OF THE IMPLIED 16 ) WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY CCV PARTNERSHIP II, A CALIFORNIA ) 17 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a California limited ) partnership d/b/a CANYON COUNTRY ) 18 ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL VILLAS; GHP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a California corporation; and ) 19 ) DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, ) 20 ) Defendants. ) 21 ) ) 22 23 COME NOW plaintiffs MARIBEL LIZETH GARCIA and ALEX VEGA ZEPEDA-GARCIA, 24 a minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, MARIBEL LIZETH GARCIA (hereinafter, 25 collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”), and hereby set forth the following allegations and facts in 26 support of this Complaint, and also demand a speedy jury trial on all causes of action stated herein 27 against the named defendants, CCV PARTNERSHIP II, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 28 a California limited partnership, d/b/a CANYON COUNTRY VILLAS; GHP MANAGEMENT 1 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 1 CORPORATION, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive (hereinafter collectively 2 referred to as “Defendants”) as follows: 3 PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 4 1. Plaintiff MARIBEL LIZETH GARCIA (“GARCIA” or “Plaintiff”) is and was at all 5 times relevant to this action a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 6 2. Plaintiff ALEX VEGA ZEPEDA-GARCIA, a minor, by and through his Guardian ad 7 Litem, MARIBEL LIZETH GARCIA (“ZEPEDA” or “Plaintiff”) is and was at all times relevant to this 8 action a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 9 3. Plaintiffs allege that defendant CCV PARTNERSHIP II, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED 10 PARTNERSHIP(hereinafter “CCV PARTNERSHIP II” or “Defendant”), is and was at all times 11 relevant to this action a California limited partnership qualified to and doing business in the County of 12 Los Angeles, State of California as the owner of a multi-family multi-building apartment complex 13 known as Canyon Country Villas located at 26471 Isabella Parkway, Santa Clarita, 91351. Its principal 14 place of business is 270 N. Canon Dr., Penthouse, Beverly Hills, California 90210. 15 4. Plaintiffs allege that defendant GHP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (hereinafter 16 “GHP” or “Defendant”) is and was at all times relevant to this action a California corporation qualified 17 to and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California as a property management 18 company for Canyon Country Villas. Its principal place of business is 270 N. Canon Dr., Penthouse, 19 Beverly Hills, California 90210. 20 5. The incident that gives rise to this lawsuit occurred on or about March 16, 2022, at 21 27623 Isabella Parkway, Santa Clarita, California 91351, one of the buildings that forms part of 22 Canyon Country Villas (hereinafter, “SUBJECT PROPERTY”). 23 6. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of 24 the Defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are presently unknown to Plaintiffs 25 who sue these Defendants by such fictitious names. When Plaintiffs ascertain the true names and 26 capacities of DOES 1 through 50, Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege their true names. 27 7. Plaintiffs allege that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some 28 manner for the events and happenings referred to in this Complaint, and negligently or intentionally 2 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 1 caused injury and damages proximately thereby to Plaintiffs as hereinafter alleged; and are thereby 2 liable to Plaintiffs. 3 8. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, employees, co- 4 adventurers, servants, partners, principals, masters, employers, and associates of the remaining 5 Defendants, and each or all of them; and at all times relevant were acting within the purpose and scope 6 of such agency, service, employment, partnership and association. 7 9. Defendants and each of them owned; operated or caused to be operated; controlled or 8 caused to be controlled; managed or caused to be managed; maintained or caused to be maintained; 9 renovated or caused to be renovated; changed or caused to be changed; modified or caused to be 10 modified; constructed or caused to be constructed; cleaned or caused to be cleaned; repaired or caused 11 to be repaired; inspected or caused to be inspected; supplied or caused to be supplied; installed or 12 caused to be installed; and supervised or caused to be supervised the apartment complex, buildings, and 13 real property (including the component parts, structural portions and common areas of the apartment 14 complex, buildings, and real property situated thereon) of the SUBJECT PROPERTY. 15 10. Defendants and each of them, owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs and other persons 16 residing, visiting, or walking at the SUBJECT PROPERTY to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in 17 the management, maintenance, and supervision of the SUBJECT PROPERTY so as to prevent harm to, 18 and not endanger, Plaintiffs and other persons. 19 11. Jurisdiction is proper in the Superior Court of the State of California pursuant to 20 California Code of Civil Procedure (“C.C.P.”) § 410.10. 21 12. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to C.C.P. § 395(a). 22 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 23 PREMISES LIABILITY 24 (By Plaintiffs against all Defendants) 25 13. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as 26 though fully set forth herein. 27 28 3 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 1 14. On or about March 16, 2022, Plaintiffs were residents of the SUBJECT PROPERTY; a 2 property owned, maintained, controlled, managed, supervised, and operated, in whole or in part, by 3 Defendants and each of them. 4 15. On the aforementioned date and place, Plaintiffs attempted to enter their apartment 5 through the garage. As Plaintiffs walked under the garage door, the door slammed shut striking both 6 Plaintiffs. 7 16. At the time of the incident, Plaintiffs were using the garage door in a reasonably 8 foreseeable manner. There were no warnings regarding the dangerous condition of the garage door 9 knowing that the tenants use their garage daily. 10 17. On the date and place aforesaid, Defendants owed a duty of reasonable prudence to 11 its tenants and members of the public to operate, maintain, supervise, control, and manage the SUBJECT 12 PROPERTY with due care so as to avoid placing Plaintiffs and other residents and guests in danger. 13 18. At the time of the incident, the garage door was maintained, owned and/or controlled 14 by Defendants and they, either jointly or severally, had the power to prevent, remedy, or guard against 15 dangerous conditions on and near the accident site at the SUBJECT PROPERTY. 16 19. Plaintiffs allege that the garage door at the SUBJECT PROPERTY did not conform to 17 safety standards outlined in the California Health and Safety Codes and Building Codes. 18 20. At the time of the incident, the Defendants knew or should have known that the garage 19 door was in a dangerous condition. As landlords, Defendants had a duty to conduct reasonable periodic 20 inspections of the SUBJECT PROPERTY to determine unsafe conditions and take reasonable 21 precautions to prevent injury due to the conditions that were or reasonably should have been discovered 22 in the process. The inspection should include common areas under the Defendants’ control. Defendants 23 had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the substantial dangerous condition and the subject 24 deficiencies in a sufficient amount of time prior to March 16, 2022, to have taken measures to protect 25 Plaintiffs against the substantial dangerous condition. 26 21. Defendants are responsible, either jointly or severally, for the management, control, 27 design, approval, inspection, maintenance and/or construction of the garage door, and they managed, 28 controlled, approved, inspected, designed and/or constructed and/or maintained it negligently and/or 4 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 1 failed to ensure it was safely managed, approved, designed, inspected, maintained or constructed and/or 2 failed to correct the faulty management, approval, design, maintenance and/or construction or give 3 adequate warnings of the dangers or failed in performing a mandatory duty to assure safe usage. The 4 garage door contained no proper warnings regarding the condition of the garage door at the SUBJECT 5 PROPERTY. 6 22. Defendants, and each of them, so negligently and carelessly owned; operated or caused 7 to be operated; controlled or caused to be controlled; managed or caused to be managed; maintained or 8 caused to be maintained; cleaned or caused to be cleaned; inspected or caused to be inspected; and 9 supervised or caused to be supervised the SUBJECT PROPERTY, so as to cause the same to be unfit, 10 unsafe, and dangerous for the Plaintiffs and other individuals visiting or walking at the SUBJECT 11 PROPERTY. 12 23. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants and each of them created and knew, and in the exercise 13 of ordinary and reasonable care should have known, within an adequate time, of the dangerous 14 conditions and propensities of the SUBJECT PROPERTY, so as to either warn about, make safe, and 15 correct the dangerous conditions, and thereby eradicate the dangerous condition for the Plaintiffs and 16 other individuals visiting or walking at the SUBJECT PROPERTY. 17 24. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and conduct of Defendants and each 18 of them, Plaintiffs were hurt as alleged above, sustaining bodily injuries as hereinafter alleged. 19 25. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of 20 them, Plaintiffs were hurt and injured in their health, strength and activity, sustaining injuries to various 21 parts of their body, all of which injuries have caused and will continue to cause Plaintiffs great mental 22 and physical pain and suffering, all to their damage in an amount unknown to Plaintiffs at this time. 23 Plaintiffs will seek leave of Court to amend this pleading to set forth the exact amount of such general 24 damages when the same has been fully ascertained or upon proof at the time of trial. 25 26. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of 26 them, Plaintiffs were compelled to and did seek medical care and treatment. Plaintiffs have incurred 27 liability for medical care, treatment and expenses for medication, physicians, surgeons, hospitals, 28 therapy, and incidentals rendered to him. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that by 5 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 1 reason of said injuries, they will require further medical care and therapy, and will incur further liability 2 for such care and related expenses. The full extent of all such expenses incurred, and to be incurred, is 3 presently not known to Plaintiffs, who will seek leave of Court to amend the pleadings when the same 4 has been fully ascertained or upon proof at the time of trial. 5 27. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligence and the acts and omissions of 6 Defendants, Plaintiff MARIBEL LIZETH GARCIA sustained bodily injury which prevented her from 7 doing her usual and ordinary occupation and/or job, thereby causing her to incur loss of wages and/or 8 loss of future earning capacity, entitling her to recover special damages for said loss in amounts not 9 now precisely known. Plaintiff's special damages attributable to lost wages and/or loss of future earning 10 capacity will be proven at or before the time of trial. 11 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 12 NEGLIGENCE 13 (By Plaintiffs against all Defendants) 14 28. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as 15 though fully set forth herein. 16 29. On or about March 16, 2022, Defendants owed a duty of reasonable prudence to any 17 persons visiting or living at the SUBJECT PROPERTY to operate, maintain, supervise, control, and 18 manage the SUBJECT PROPERTY with due care to avoid placing others in danger. 19 30. Plaintiffs allege that the garage door at the SUBJECT PROPERTY did not conform to 20 safety standards outlined in the California Health and Safety Codes and Building Codes. 21 31. On the date and at the place aforesaid, Defendants negligently, carelessly, and 22 unlawfully operated or caused to be operated; controlled or caused to be controlled; managed or caused 23 to be managed; maintained or caused to be maintained; renovated or caused to be renovated; changed 24 or caused to be changed; modified or caused to be modified; constructed or caused to be constructed; 25 cleaned or caused to be cleaned; repaired or caused to be repaired; inspected or caused to be inspected; 26 supplied or caused to be supplied; installed or caused to be installed; and supervised or caused to be 27 supervised, the SUBJECT PROPERTY by failing to ensure that the garage door at the SUBJECT 28 PROPERTY was in a safe condition and failing to guard or warn Plaintiffs against the dangerous 6 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 1 condition of the garage door at the SUBJECT PROPERTY, and in failing to do so, breached the 2 aforesaid duties, proximately causing Plaintiffs to suffer injuries. 3 32. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants and each of them created and knew, or in the exercise 4 of ordinary and reasonable care should have known, in adequate time, of the dangerous conditions and 5 propensities of the SUBJECT PROPERTY, so as to either warn about, make safe, correct, modify, 6 change, or renovate the dangerous conditions and propensities then existing, and therefore not endanger 7 individuals residing at the SUBJECT PROPERTY. 8 33. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and conduct of Defendants and each 9 of them, Plaintiffs were hurt as alleged above, sustaining bodily injuries as hereinafter alleged. 10 34. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of 11 them, Plaintiffs were hurt and injured in their health, strength and activity, sustaining injuries to various 12 parts of their body, all of which injuries have caused and will continue to cause Plaintiffs great mental 13 and physical pain and suffering, all to their damage in an amount unknown to Plaintiffs at this time. 14 Plaintiffs will seek leave of Court to amend this pleading to set forth the exact amount of such general 15 damages when the same has been fully ascertained or upon proof at the time of trial. 16 35. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of 17 them, Plaintiffs were compelled to and did seek medical care and treatment. Plaintiffs have incurred 18 liability for medical care, treatment and expenses for medication, physicians, surgeons, hospitals, 19 therapy, and incidentals rendered to him. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that by 20 reason of said injuries, they will require further medical care and therapy, and will incur further liability 21 for such care and related expenses. The full extent of all such expenses incurred, and to be incurred, is 22 presently not known to Plaintiffs, who will seek leave of Court to amend the pleadings when the same 23 has been fully ascertained or upon proof at the time of trial. 24 36. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligence and the acts and omissions of 25 Defendants, Plaintiff MARIBEL LIZETH GARCIA sustained bodily injury which prevented her from 26 doing her usual and ordinary occupation and/or job, thereby causing her to incur loss of wages and/or 27 loss of future earning capacity, entitling her to recover special damages for said loss in amounts not 28 7 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 1 now precisely known. Plaintiff's special damages attributable to lost wages and/or loss of future earning 2 capacity will be proven at or before the time of trial. 3 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 4 BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY 5 (By Plaintiffs against all Defendants) 6 37. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as 7 though fully set forth herein. 8 38. Plaintiffs allege that at all times mentioned herein, the SUBJECT PROPERTY was 9 under the control and management of Defendants. 10 39. Defendants and each of them owed a duty to Plaintiffs and other tenants to maintain the 11 SUBJECT PROPERTY in a habitable state for the duration of the residential lease. Defendants had the 12 duty to comply with building and housing code standards to protect the health and safety of the tenants 13 at the SUBJECT PROPERTY. 14 40. Plaintiffs allege that the garage door at the SUBJECT PROPERTY did not conform to 15 safety standards outlined in the California Health and Safety Codes and Building Codes. 16 41. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants and each of them breached their duty by failing to 17 repair, replace, or modify the garage door at the SUBJECT PROPERTY. The condition of the property 18 materially affected the Plaintiffs’ safety and constituted a breach of the warranty of habitability. 19 42. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants knew of the dangerous condition on the SUBJECT 20 PROPERTY and failed to take the necessary and immediate steps to protect Plaintiffs from the 21 dangerous condition. 22 43. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants failed to comply with the applicable building 23 and housing codes that materially affected Plaintiffs’ safety. 24 44. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and conduct of Defendants and each 25 of them, Plaintiffs were hurt as alleged above, sustaining bodily injuries as hereinafter alleged. 26 45. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of 27 them, Plaintiffs were hurt and injured in their health, strength and activity, sustaining injuries to various 28 parts of their body, all of which injuries have caused and will continue to cause Plaintiffs great mental 8 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 1 and physical pain and suffering, all to their damage in an amount unknown to Plaintiffs at this time. 2 Plaintiffs will seek leave of Court to amend this pleading to set forth the exact amount of such general 3 damages when the same has been fully ascertained or upon proof at the time of trial. 4 46. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of 5 them, Plaintiffs were compelled to and did seek medical care and treatment. Plaintiffs have incurred 6 liability for medical care, treatment and expenses for medication, physicians, surgeons, hospitals, 7 therapy, and incidentals rendered to him. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon alleges that by 8 reason of said injuries, they will require further medical care and therapy, and will incur further liability 9 for such care and related expenses. The full extent of all such expenses incurred, and to be incurred, is 10 presently not known to Plaintiffs, who will seek leave of Court to amend the pleadings when the same 11 has been fully ascertained or upon proof at the time of trial. 12 47. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligence and the acts and omissions of 13 Defendants, Plaintiff MARIBEL LIZETH GARCIA sustained bodily injury which prevented her from 14 doing her usual and ordinary occupation and/or job, thereby causing her to incur loss of wages and/or 15 loss of future earning capacity, entitling her to recover special damages for said loss in amounts not 16 now precisely known. Plaintiff's special damages attributable to lost wages and/or loss of future earning 17 capacity will be proven at or before the time of trial. 18 48. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligence and the acts and omissions of 19 Defendant, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover statutory and reasonable attorney's fees and costs in 20 amounts not now precisely known. 21 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 22 Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues triable by jury. 23 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 24 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants and each of them as follows: 25 a. For general damages, according to proof as to the first two causes of action; 26 b. For special damages, according to proof; 27 c. For loss of earnings, according to proof; 28 d. For loss of earning capacity, according to proof; 9 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 1 e. For costs of suit and attorneys fee herein incurred, as allowed by law under the third cause 2 of action; 3 f. For special damages in an amount equal to rental payments due and paid during Plaintiffs’ 4 leasehold, or in an amount to be determined at trial; 5 g. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 6 Date: March 11, 2024 L.A. INJURY ATTORNEYS 7 8 Kenneth E. Wright, Esq. 9 Attorney for Plaintiffs, MARIBEL LIZETH GARCIA and 10 ALEX VEGA ZEPEDA-GARCIA, a minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, 11 MARIBEL LIZETH GARCIA 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES