Preview
1 Garo Mardirossian, Esq., #101812
garo@garolaw.com
2 Lawrence D. Marks, Esq., #153460
Lawrence@garolaw.com
3
MARDIROSSIAN AKARAGIAN, LLP
4 6311 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90048-5001
5
Telephone (323) 653-6311
6 Facsimile (323) 651-5511
7
Bradford D. Brown, Esq. #165913
8 THE LAW OFFICES OF BRADFORD D. BROWN, APC
735 State Street, Suite 418
9 Santa Barbara, CA 93101-5552
10 Telephone (805) 963-5607
Facsimile (805) 962-8256
11 E-MAIL: info@bradfordbrownlaw.com
12
Attorneys for Plaintiff Ronald Wilmot
13
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
15
16
RONALD WILMOT and SANDY WILMOT, ) Case No.: 22CV00456
17 )
Plaintiffs, ) [Assigned for all purposes to the Hon. Donna
18 )
vs. ) D. Geck, Department 4, Historic Anacapa
19 ) Street Courthouse]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT OF )
20 TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS), ) PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, SUSAN ) AND MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT
21 GAIN MCCURNIN, and DOES 1 TO 20, )
Inclusive, ) INTEREST AS AGAINST DEFENDANT
22 ) McCURNIN; MEMORANDUM OF
Defendants. ) POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;
23 )
) DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D.
24 ) MARKS
)
25 )
) DATE: July 19, 2024
26 ) TIME: 10:00 a.m.
) DEPT: “SB4”
27 )
)
28
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST AS AGAINST DEFENDANT
McCURNIN; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MARKS
1 NOTICE OF MOTION
2 TO THE COURT, THE PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 19, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 4 of the
4 Santa Barbara Superior Court, Historic Anacapa Street Courthouse, located at 1100 Anacapa
5 Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101, Plaintiff Ronald Wilmot will move for an Order confirming
6 that Judgment entered in this action shall also include $47,725.00 in prejudgment interest as
7 against defendant McCumin. This amount is included in Plaintiffs Memorandum of Costs
8 previously filed with this Court.
9 The Motion is made pursuant Civil Code Section 3291 and Code of Civil Procedure
10 Section 998 on the grounds that Plaintiff made an offer pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
11 Section 998, which defendant McCumin did not accept, and then Plaintiff obtained a more
12 favorable Judgment.
13 The Motion is based on this Notice and attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities,
14 the Declaration of Lawrence D. Marks, the record in this action, and any further evidence or
15 arguments presented at the hearing on the matter.
16
17 Dated: May 3, 2024 MARDIROSSIAN AKARAGIAN, LLP
B~~
18
19
Lawrence D. Marks, Esq.
20
21 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MARKS
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
3
Plaintiff Ronald Wilmot seeks an Order confirming that the Judgment entered in this
4
action shall also include $47,725.00 in prejudgment interest. As shown herein, Defendant Susan
5
McCurnin failed to accept a reasonable Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 Offer to
6
Compromise in the amount of $400,000.00 served on February 6, 2024. The Judgment entered
7
in Plaintiff’s favor far exceeds this amount, entitling Mr. Wilmot to a mandatory award of
8
prejudgment interest under Civil Code Section 3291 and the authorities discussed herein.
9
10 II. PERTINENT FACTS
11 This action was filed on February 3, 2022. [Declaration of Lawrence D. Marks (“Marks
12 Decl.”), at ¶ 3.] Prior to the service of the Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 Offer to
13 Compromise, the parties engaged in substantial discovery. Among other things, Mr. Wilmot
14 answered approximately 500 discovery questions and requests (including form interrogatories,
15 special interrogatories, and inspection demands) on October 19, 2022, January 16, 2024,
16 November 2, 2022, April 11, 2023, May 30, 2023, and December 5, 2023. [Marks Decl., at ¶ 4.]
17 Mr. Wilmot was deposed on November 29, 2023, and thereafter appeared for 2 defense medical
18 examinations, which took place on May 1, 2023 and September 11, 2023. [Marks Decl., at ¶¶ 5-
19 7.]
20 On February 6, 2024, Mr. Wilmot served defendant McCurnin with a Code of Civil
21 Procedure Section 998 Offer to Compromise in the amount of $400,000.00. [Marks Decl., at ¶ 8;
22 Exh. 1, Offer.] Defendant Susan McCurnin did not accept the offer. [Id.]
23 Trial commenced on March 4, 2024. On March 20, 2024, the jury returned a verdict of
24 $3,830,123.00 in Mr. Wilmot’s favor. The Court entered Judgment in the amount of
25 $2,100,000.00 against Defendant Susan McCurnin on April 29, 2024. [Marks Decl., at ¶ 9; Exh.
26 2, Judgment.]
27 On May 3, 2024, Mr. Wilmot timely filed and served a Memorandum of Costs, including
28 therein, in the “Other” category, a request for prejudgment interest in the amount of $47,725.00.
-1-
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MARKS
1 [Marks Decl., at ¶ 10; Exh. 3, Memorandum of Costs, at p. 12]. While entering the prejudgment
2 interest amount in the Memorandum of Costs is sufficient, Mr. Wilmot also files this Motion in
3 an abundance of caution.
4
III. LEGAL ANALYSIS
5
A. An Award of Prejudgment Interest Is Mandatory.
6
The Court here must add prejudgment interest to the judgment because Defendant Susan
7
McCurnin did not accept Mr. Wilmot’s offer made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section
8
998 and then failed to obtain a more favorable judgment.
9
10 Civil Code §3291 provides:
11 In any action brought to recover damages for personal injury
sustained by any person resulting from or occasioned by the tort of
12 any other … corporation, …. whether by negligence or by willful
13 intent of the other … corporation, … and whether the injury was
fatal or otherwise, it is lawful for the plaintiff in the complaint to
14 claim interest on the damages alleged as provided in this section.
15
If the plaintiff makes an offer pursuant to Section 998 of the Code of
16 Civil Procedure which the defendant does not accept prior to trial or
within 30 days, whichever occurs first, and the plaintiff obtains a
17
more favorable judgment, the judgment shall bear interest at the
18 legal rate of 10 percent per annum calculated from the date of the
plaintiff’s first offer pursuant to Section 998 of the Code of Civil
19
Procedure which is exceeded by the judgment, and interest shall
20 accrue until the satisfaction of judgment.
21 Where the statutory conditions of Civil Code Section 3291 are met, an award of
22 prejudgment interest is mandatory. Morin v. ABA Recovery Serv., Inc., 195 Cal. App. 3d 200,
23 207 (1987).
24 On February 27, 2020, Plaintiff served a statutory offer to compromise in compliance
25 with Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 in the amount of $400,000.00. [Marks Decl., at ¶ 8;
26 Exh. 1.] At the time of the offer, defendant McCurnin had more than enough information to
27 consider Mr. Wilmot’s offer, including his written discovery responses, his deposition, his
28 medical examinations, and defendant’s deposition testimony. [Marks Decl., at ¶¶ 4-7.] Rather
-2-
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MARKS
1 than accept the offer, defendant Susan McCurnin did not respond, which resulted in a rejection
2 of the offer by operation of law.
3 Therefore, because Mr. Wilmot made an offer pursuant to Section 998 of the Code of
4 Civil Procedure which defendant McCurnin did not accept within 30 days and Mr. Wilmot
5 obtained a more favorable judgment, Mr. Wilmot’s judgment against defendant McCurnin shall
6 bear interest at the legal rate of 10 percent per annum calculated from February 6, 2024, until the
7 satisfaction of judgment.
8
B. The Amount of Prejudgment Interest Is $47,725.00.
9
The amount of the prejudgment interest is $47,725.00. This amount is claimed in Mr.
10
Wilmot’s Memorandum of Costs. [Marks Decl., at ¶ 10; Exh. 3.]
11
Here, the daily interest amount on the damages portion of the judgment, at ten percent per
12
annum, is $575.00 per day. There are 83 days from the date of the offer, to the entry of
13
judgment. The product of 83 and $575.00 is the $47,725.00.
14
15
Judgment entered on 04/29/24 against McCurnin $ 2,100,000.00
16
Daily interest (10% per annum) $ 575.00
17
Days from 998 offer (2/6/24) to Judgment (4/29/24) 83
18
Prejudgment interest (2/6/24 to 4/29/24) $ 47,725.00
19
20 Accordingly, the Court should find that the amount of prejudgment is $47,725.00, which
21 is also consistent with the amount claimed in Mr. Wilmot’s Memorandum of Costs. [Marks
22 Decl., ¶ 10; Exh. 3.
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MARKS
1 IV. CONCLUSION
2 Based on the above, the Court should add prejudgment interest in the amount of
3 $47,725.00 to the Judgment as against defendant McCurnin.
4
5 Dated: May 3, 2024 MARDIROSSIAN AKARAGIAN, LLP
6
7 By:~~
~ M a r k s , Esq.
8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; MEMORANDUM OF POINT
AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LA WREN CE D. MARKS
1 DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MARKS
I, Lawrence D. Marks, declare:
2
1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice before all the courts of the State of
3
California and am with the firm of Mardirossian Akaragian LLP, attorneys of record in this
4
action for Plaintiff. The facts set forth herein are personally known to me, and if called upon to
5
testify, I could and would competently testify thereto.
6
2. This Declaration is submitted in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Prejudgment
7
Interest.
8
3. This action was filed on February 3, 2022.
9
4. Among other things, Mr. Wilmot answered approximately 500 discovery
10
questions/requests (i.e., form interrogatories, special interrogatories, inspection demands) on
11
October 19, 2022, January 16, 2024, November 2, 2022, April 11, 2023, May 30, 2023, and
12
December 5, 2023. Defendant deposed Plaintiff on March 26, 2019.
13
5. A defense medical examination was conducted by Daniel K. Davis, M.D., on May
14
1, 2023. A defense medical examination was conducted by Rocco Richard Calderone, M.D., on
15
September 11, 2023.
16
6. Defendant deposed Mr. Wilmot on November 29, 2023.
17
7. Plaintiff deposed Defendant McCurnin on June 1, 2023.
18
8. On February 6, 2024, Mr. Wilmot served a Code of Civil Procedure Section 998
19
Offer to Compromise in the amount of $400,000.00. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and
20
correct copy of Plaintiff Ronald Wilmot’s Statutory Offer to Compromise served on defendant
21
McCurnin on February 27, 2020. Defendant Susan McCurnin did not accept the offer.
22
9. Trial commenced on March 4, 2024. On March 20, 2024, the jury returned a
23
verdict of $3,830,123.00 in Mr. Wilmot’s favor. The Court entered Judgment in the amount of
24
$2,100,000 against defendant Susan McCurnin on April 29, 2024. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2
25
is a true and correct copy of the Judgment on Special Verdict dated April 29, 2024.
26
10. On May 3, 2024, Mr. Wilmot timely filed and served a Memorandum of Costs,
27
including therein, in the “Other” category, a request for prejudgment interest in the amount of
28
-5-
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MARKS
1 $47,725.00. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Memorandum
2 of Costs filed and served on May 3, 2024.
3 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
4 foregoing is true and correct.
5 Executed on May 3, 2024, in Los Angeles, California.
6
7
Lawrence D. Marks, Esq.
8 Declarant
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; MEMORANDUM OF POINT
AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MARKS
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 2
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Barbara
1 Garo Mardirossian, Esq., #101812 Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
garo@garolaw.com 4/29/2024 3:47 PM
2 Lawrence D. Marks, Esq., #153460 By: Terri Chavez , Deputy
Lawrence@garolaw.com
3 MARDIROSSIAN AKARAGIAN, LLP
6311 Wilshire Boulevard
4 Los Angeles, CA 90048-5001
Telephone (323) 653-6311
5 Facsimile (323) 651-5511
6 Bradford D. Brown, Esq. #165913
THE LAW OFFICES OF BRADFORD D. BROWN, APC
7 735 State Street, Suite 418
Santa Barbara, CA 93101-5552
8 Telephone (805) 963-5607
Facsimile (805) 962-8256
9 E-MAIL: info@bradfordbrownlaw.com
10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ronald Wilmot and Sandy Wilmot
11
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
MARDIROSSIAN AKARAGIAN, LLP
6311 Wilshire Boulevard, 3rd Floor
14
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Santa Monica, CA 90405
15 RONALD WILMOT and SANDY WILMOT, ) Case No.: 22CV00456
)
16 Plaintiffs, ) [Assigned for all purposes to the Hon. Donna
) D. Geck, Department 4, Historic Anacapa
17 vs. ) Street Courthouse]
)
18 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT OF ) NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS), ) ON JURY VERDICT
19 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, SUSAN )
GAIN MCCURNIN, and DOES 1 TO 20, )
20 Inclusive, )
) Complaint Filed: February 3, 2022
21 Defendants. ) Trial: February 26, 2024
)
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT
1 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT judgment was entered in this action on April
3
24, 2024.
4
Attached hereto as Exhibit "1" is a true and correct copy of the signed Judgment on
5
Jury Verdict.
6
7
8 Dated: April 29, 2024 MARDIROSSIAN AKARAGIAN, LLP
9
10
Bd/~
Lawrence D. Marks, Esq.
11
Attorneys for Plaintiff, RONALD WILMOT
12
Q,.
....I ...
13
...J. 8
~ ii: 00 14
~i~
<
-u i;
15
g ch
zca~
< !! ~
16
~~~
°'0 :=~ "' 17
-
0
..J
~~ 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT
EXHIBIT 1
TC
Pursuan to CRC 2.259 this document has been electronically filed by the
Superio ourt of California, County of Santa Barbara, on 4/18/2024
l Garo Mardirossian, Esq., #I 01812
FILED
SUPERIOR COURT of CALIFORNIA
garo@garolaw.com COUNTYofSANTABARBARA
2 Lawrence D. Marks, Esq., #153460 04/24/2024
Lawrence(@garolaw.com
Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
3 MARDJRl)'sSIAN AKARAGIAN, LLP
BY Baksh, Narzralli
6311 Wilshire Boulevard Deputy Clerk
4 Los Angeles, CA 90048-5001
Telephone (323) 653-6311
5 Facsimile (323) 651-5511
6 Bradford D. Brown, Esq~ #165913
THE LAW OFFICES OF BRADFORD D. BROWN, APC
7 73 5 State Street, Suite 418
Santa Barbara, CA 93101-5552
8 Telephone (805) 963-5607
, Facsimile (805} 962-8256
9 E-MAIL: info@bradfordbrownlaw.com
10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ronald Wilmot and Sandy Wilmot
11
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
14
15 RONALD WILMOT, Case No.: 22CV00456
16 Plaintiff, rAssi~ed for all purposes to the Hon. Donna
D. Geck, Department 4, Historic Anacapa
17 vs. Street Courthouse]
18 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT OF TPit8P8fJliiU) JUDGMENT ON JURY
TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS), SUSAN VERDICT
19 GAIN MCCURNIN,
20 Defendants.
21
22
23 This action came on regularly for Trial on March 4, 2024, before the Honorable Donna
24 D. Geck, Judge presiding.
25 Plaintiff RONALD WILMOT was represented by attorneys Lawrence D. Marks of
26 Mardirossian Akaragian, LLP, and Bradford D. Brown of The Law Offices of Bradford D.
27 Brown, APC.
28
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT
1 Defendant STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
2 (CALTRANS) was represented by attorneys R. Jeremie Ginelli and Sandeep Singh, Deputy
3 Attorneys for the State of California Department of Transportation.
4 Defendant SUSAN GAIL MCCURNIN was represented by attorney Marc Steven
5 Shapiro of Hanger, Steinberg, Shapiro & Ash.
6 A jury of twelve people was impaneled and sworn. Witnesses were sworn and testified.
7 After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the jury was duly instructed by the court
8 and the cause was submitted to the jury with directions to return a verdict on special issues. The
9 jury deliberated and thereafter returned into court with its verdict as follows:
10 We answer the questions submitted to us as follows:
11
1. Was the approach to the Arroyo Quemada Bridge and/or the Arroyo
12
Quemada Bridge in a dangerous condition at the time of the incident?
13
14
Yes X No - - -
15
16 If your answer to question 1 is yes, then answer question 2. If your answer to question I
17 is no, then put a zero next to Caltrans in question 11, and answer question 8.
18
2. Did the dangerous condition create a reasonably foreseeable risk that this
19
kind of injury would occur?
20
21
Yes X No
22 ---
23 If your answer to question 2 is yes, then answer question 3. If your answer to question 2
24 is no, then put a zero next to Caltrans in question 11, and answer question 8.
25
26
27
28
2
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT
1 3. Did Caltrans have notice of the dangerous condition for a long enough time to
2 have protected against it?
3
4 Yes X No - - -
5 If your answer to question 3 is yes, then answer question 4. If your answer to question 3
6 is no, then put a zero next to Caltrans in question 11, and answer question 8.
7
4. Was the dangerous condition reasonably apparent to and reasonably
8
anticipated by a motorist exercising due care?
9
10 Yes - - - No X
11
If your answer to question 4 is no, then answer question 5. If your answer to question 4
12
is yes, skip question 5 and answer question 6.
13
14 5. Was the absence of a warning a substantial factor in causing harm to Ronald
15 Wilmot?
16
Yes - - - No X
17
18 Answer the next question.
19
6. Was the dangerous condition a substantial factor in causing harm to Ronald
20
Wilmot?
21
22 Yes X No
- --
23
24 If your answer to question 5 and/or question 6 is yes, then answer question 7. If your
25 answer to both questions 5 and 6 is no, then put a zero next to Caltrans in question 11, and
26 answer question 8. If you did not answer question 5 and your answer to question 6 is no, then
27 put a zero next to Caltrans in question 11, and answer question 8.
28
3
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT
I 7. When you consider the likelihood and seriousness of potential injury,
2 compared with (a) how much time and opportunity Caltrans had to take action, and (b)
3 the practicality and cost of protecting against the risk of injury, was Caltrans' failure to
4 take sufficient steps to protect against the risk of injury created by the dangerous
5 condition reasonable under the circumstances?
6 Yes - - - No X
7
8 Answer the next question. However, if your answer to question 7 is yes, then put a zero
9 next to Caltrans in question I I and answer question 8.
10
8. Was Susan McCurnin negligent?
II
12 Yes X No - - -
13
14 If your answer to question 8 is yes, then answer question 9. If your answer to question 8
15 is no, go to question 11, put a zero next to Susan McCumin and answer question 10 ifthere is
16 also not a zero next to Caltrans in question 11. If there is a zero next to Susan McCumin and
17 Caltrans in question 1I, then stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juro
18 sign and date this form.
19
9. Was Susan McCurnin's negligence a substantial factor in causing harm to
20
Ronald Wilmot?
21
22 Yes X No - - -
23
24 If your answer to question 9 is yes, then answer question 10. If your answer to question 9
25 is no, go to question 11, put a zero next to Susan McCumin and answer question 10 if there is
26 also not a zero next to Caltrans in question 11. If there is a zero next to Susan McCumin and
27 Caltrans in question 11,then stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presidingjuro
28 sign and date this form.
4
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT
1 10. What are Ronald Wilmot's damages?
2
a. Past Economic Loss:
3
Medical Expenses $ 750,123.00
4
5
b. Future Economic Loss:
6
Medical Expenses $ --==-
80:::.i,o.:. .o: :. .o.: :.:.oc.
. .: : o. : :. _ __
7
8
c. Past noneconomic loss, including physical pain, mental suffering, loss o
9
enjoyment of life, disfigurement, physical impairment, inconvenience, anxiety
10
humiliation and emotional distress:
11
$ 2,000,000.00
12
13
d. Future noneconomic loss, including physical pain, mental suffering, loss o
14
enjoyment of life, disfigurement, physical impairment, inconvenience, anxiety
15
humiliation and emotional distress:
16
$ 1,000,000.00
17
18
TOTAL: $ 3.830. 123.00
19
20
If Ronald Wilmot has proved any damages, then answer question 11. If Ronald Wilmot
21
has not proved any damages, then stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding
22
juror sign and date this form.
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT
1 11. What percentage of responsibility for Ronald Wilmot's harm do you assign to
2 the following? Determine a percentage only for those who do not already have a zero next
3 to the name.
4
5 Cal trans: 30 %
6 Susan McCumin: 70 %
7 TOTAL 100%
8
9 Signed: _ _ An
_ th_o;_n..._y.. ;H
;;.;.a.. rr
;;.;.;i.;..
s _ _ _ __ _
10 Presiding Juror
11
Dated: 03/20/2024
-------'~~=-=::....:._ _ _ _ _ _ __
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
[PROPOSED) JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT
I NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that
2 Plaintiff RONALD WILMOT shall have judgment as follows:
3 Against Defendant, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF
4 TRANSPORTATION (CAL TRANS) in the sum of $1,730,123 with interest thereon at the rate
5 of seven percent (7%) per annum from the date of the entry of this Judgment until paid in full,
6 together with costs and disbursements in the amount of$_ _ _ __ __ _
7 Against Defendant SUSAN GAIL McCURNIN, in the sum of $2, 100,000 with interest
8 thereon at the rate often percent (10%) per annum from the date of the entry of this judgment
9 until paid in full, together with costs and disbursements in the amount of$_ _ _ _ _ __
10
11
12 Dated: , 2024
Honorable Donna D. Geck
13 04/24/2024 Judge of the Superior Court
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
CCP §§ 1011, 1013, 1013a
2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3
I, the undersigned, am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, am over the age
4 of 18 years and not a party to this lawsuit. My business address is 6311 Wilshire Boulevard, 3rd
Floor, Los Angeles, California 90048. On April 29, 2024, I served or caused to be served the
5 foregoing document described as: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT,
on all interested parties in this action as follows:
6
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
7
8 ( ) BY MAIL:
I deposited such document in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, in the mail at Los
9 Angeles, California.
( ) BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY:
10 I caused such document to be delivered overnight from Los Angeles, California, to the
business address maintained by the above person(s) as last indicated by that person on a
11 document that he or she has filed in the above-entitled cause and served on this party.
( ) BY FACSIMILE:
12 I transmitted such document by facsimile from Los Angeles, California, to the facsimile
machine maintained by the above person(s) at (XXX) XXX-XXXX as last indicated by that
Q.
..J ...
13 person on a document that he or she has filed in the above-entitled cause and served on this
-: 8 party.
z-
<\.I. 00 14
- l!
t;)<"I8 ( ) BY PERSONAL SERVICE:
~]°' I caused such document to be delivered by messenger from Los Angeles, California, to the
><( 15 business address maintained by the above person(s) as last indicated by that person on a
:><:~u
< :I •
document that he or she has filed in the above-entitled cause and served on this party.
z~] 16
< t! ~ (X) BY EMAIL:
~~~
o;::,,, I caused such documents to be delivered by email to the person(s) indicated on the attached
c:<:~ 0
17
- ..J Service List.
~~ 18
~ \()
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
19 true and correct.
20 Executed on April 29, 2024, at Los Angeles, California.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT
SERVICE LIST
1 RONALD WILMOT, et al. v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
(CALTRANS), et al. - Santa Barbara Case No. 22CV00456
2
Bradford D. Brown, Esq. #165913 Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
3 THE LAW OFFICES OF BRADFORD D. BROWN, APC RONALD WILMOT and
735 State Street, Suite 418 SANDY WILMOT
4 Santa Barbara, CA 93101-5552
T: (805) 963-5607
5
F: (805) 962-8256
6 E-Mail: brad@bradfordbrownlaw.com
R. Jeremie Ginelli, Esq., Deputy Attorney Attorneys for Defendant,
7 Sandeep Singh, Esq., Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF
(CALTRANS) TRANSPORTATION
9 Bay Area Legal Division (CALTRANS)
111 Grand Avenue, Suite 11-100
10 Oakland, CA 94612-3717
11 Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 24325
12 Oakland, CA 94623-1325
T: (510) 433-9100
13
MARDIROSSIAN AKARAGIAN, LLP
T: (415) 722-3325 direct Cramer
6311 Wilshire Boulevard, 3rd Floor
14 F: (510) 433-9167
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Santa Monica, CA 90405
E-Mail: jeremie.ginelli@dot.ca.gov
15 E-Mail: sandeep.singh@dot.ca.gov
Marc Steven Shapiro, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant,
16
Emma Fowler, Esq. SUSAN GAIN McCURNIN
17 HANGER, STEINBERG, SHAPIRO, & ASH
21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 800
18 Woodland Hills, CA 91364-6512
T: (818) 226-1222
19
T: (818) 206-0217 direct Shapiro
20 F: (818) 226-1215
E-Mail: mss@hssalaw.com
21 E-Mail: ef@hssalaw.com
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT
EXHIBIT 3
MC-010
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY STATE BAR NUMBER: 153460
Lawrence D. Marks, Esq.
FOR COURT USE ONLY
FIRM NAME: MARDIROSSIAN AKARAGIAN, LLP
NAME:
STREET ADDRESS: 6311 Wilshire Boulevard
CITY: Los Angeles CA ZIP CODE: 90048
TELEPHONE NO.: (323) 653-6311 (323) 651-5511
STATE:
E-MAIL ADDRESS: lawrence@garolaw.com
FAX NO.
ATTORNEY FOR (name): Plaintiff RONALD WILMOT
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
STREET ADDRESS: 1100 Anacapa Street
MAILING ADDRESS: 1100 Anacapa Street
CITY AND ZIP CODE: Santa Barbara 93101
BRANCH NAME: HISTORIC ANACAPA COURTHOUSE
PLAINTIFF: RONALD WILMOT, et al.
DEFENDANT: STATE OF CALIFORNIA, etc., et al.
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY) 22CV00456
CASE NUMBER:
The following costs are requested: TOTALS
1. Filing and motion fees $ 645.00
2. Jury fees $ 747.76
3. Jury food and lodging $
4. Deposition costs $ 23073.54
5. Service of process $ 1516.55
6. Attachment expenses $
7. Surety bond premiums $
8. Witness fees $ 55026.61
9. Court-ordered transcripts $
10. Attorney fees (enter here if contractual or statutory fees are fixed without necessity of a court $
detennination; otherwise a noticed motion is required)
11. Court reporter fees as established by statute $ 1602.00
12. Models, enlargements, and photocopies of exhibits $ 3171.46
13. Interpreter fees $
14. Fees for electronic filing or service $ 2484.70
15. Fees for hosting electronic documents $
16. Other $ 414477.40
foTALCOSTS $ 50,745.021
I am the attorney, agent, or party who claims these costs. To the best of my knowledge and belief this memorandum of costs is correct
and these costs were necessarily incurred in this case.
Date: May 3, 2024
Lawrence D. Marks, Esq.
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)
Form Approved for Optional Use
Judicial Council of Calffomia MC--010
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY) Code of Civil Procedure,
§§ 1032, 1033.5
[Rev. September 1, 2017]
MC-011
SHORT TITLE CASE NUMBER:
WILMOT, et al. v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al. 22CV00456
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (WORKSHEET)
1. Filing and motion fees
Paper filed Filing fee
a. Complaint $ 435.00
b. Motion for Preferential Trial $ 60.00
c. Ex Parte Motion to Shorten Time $ 60.00
d. Motion for Attorney Fees $ 90.00
e. $
f. $
g. Information about additional filing and motion fees is contained in Attachment 1g.
TOTAL 1. $ 645.00
2. Jury fees
Date Fee & mileage
a. Mar 5, 2024 $ 145.19
b. Mar 6, 2024 $ 145.19
c. Mar 11, 2024 $ 108.45
d. Mar 12, 2024 $ 108.45
e. Information about additional jury fees is contained in Attachment 2e.
TOTAL 2. $ 747.76
3. Juror food: $ and lodging: $ TOTAL 3. $
4. Deposition costs
Name of deponent Taking Transcribing Travel Videotaping Subtotals
a. Calderone, Rocco $ $ 818.80 $ $ 620 $ 1438.80
b. Curatalo, Charles $ $ 538.15 $ $ $ 538.15
c. Gayner, Christophe $ $ 580.00 $ $ $ 580.00
d. Gill, Jolene $ $ 468.55 $ $ $ 468.55
e. Information about additional deposition costs is contained in Attachment 4e.
TOTAL 4. $ 23073.54
(Continued on reverse) Page 1 of 3
Form Approved for Optional Use Code of Civil Procedure,
Judicial Council of California MC-011 MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (WORKSHEET) §§ 1032, 1033.5
[Rev. September 1, 2017]
MC-011
SHORT TITLE CASE NUMBER:
WILMOT, et al. v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al. 22CV00456
5. Service of process
Registered
Name of person served Public officer process Publication Other (specify)
a. State of Cal. Dept. of Trans. $ $ 217.00 $ $
b. County of Santa Barbara $ $ 255.00 $ $
c. Susan Gain McCurnin $ $ 255.00 $ $
d. Information about additional costs for service of process is contained in Attachment 5d.
TOTAL 5. $ 1516.55
6. Attachment expenses (specify): 6. $
7. Surety bond premiums (itemize bonds and amounts): 7. $
8. a. Ordinary witness fees
Name of witness Daily fee Mileage Total
(1) days at $/day miles at ¢/mile: $
(2) days at $/day miles at ¢/mile: $
(3) days at $/day miles at ¢/mile: $
(4) days at $/day miles at ¢/mile: $
(5)
Preview
1 Garo Mardirossian, Esq., #101812 garo@garolaw.com 2 Lawrence D. Marks, Esq., #153460 Lawrence@garolaw.com 3 MARDIROSSIAN AKARAGIAN, LLP 4 6311 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90048-5001 5 Telephone (323) 653-6311 6 Facsimile (323) 651-5511 7 Bradford D. Brown, Esq. #165913 8 THE LAW OFFICES OF BRADFORD D. BROWN, APC 735 State Street, Suite 418 9 Santa Barbara, CA 93101-5552 10 Telephone (805) 963-5607 Facsimile (805) 962-8256 11 E-MAIL: info@bradfordbrownlaw.com 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff Ronald Wilmot 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 15 16 RONALD WILMOT and SANDY WILMOT, ) Case No.: 22CV00456 17 ) Plaintiffs, ) [Assigned for all purposes to the Hon. Donna 18 ) vs. ) D. Geck, Department 4, Historic Anacapa 19 ) Street Courthouse] STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT OF ) 20 TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS), ) PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, SUSAN ) AND MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT 21 GAIN MCCURNIN, and DOES 1 TO 20, ) Inclusive, ) INTEREST AS AGAINST DEFENDANT 22 ) McCURNIN; MEMORANDUM OF Defendants. ) POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; 23 ) ) DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. 24 ) MARKS ) 25 ) ) DATE: July 19, 2024 26 ) TIME: 10:00 a.m. ) DEPT: “SB4” 27 ) ) 28 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST AS AGAINST DEFENDANT McCURNIN; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MARKS 1 NOTICE OF MOTION 2 TO THE COURT, THE PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 19, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 4 of the 4 Santa Barbara Superior Court, Historic Anacapa Street Courthouse, located at 1100 Anacapa 5 Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101, Plaintiff Ronald Wilmot will move for an Order confirming 6 that Judgment entered in this action shall also include $47,725.00 in prejudgment interest as 7 against defendant McCumin. This amount is included in Plaintiffs Memorandum of Costs 8 previously filed with this Court. 9 The Motion is made pursuant Civil Code Section 3291 and Code of Civil Procedure 10 Section 998 on the grounds that Plaintiff made an offer pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 11 Section 998, which defendant McCumin did not accept, and then Plaintiff obtained a more 12 favorable Judgment. 13 The Motion is based on this Notice and attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 14 the Declaration of Lawrence D. Marks, the record in this action, and any further evidence or 15 arguments presented at the hearing on the matter. 16 17 Dated: May 3, 2024 MARDIROSSIAN AKARAGIAN, LLP B~~ 18 19 Lawrence D. Marks, Esq. 20 21 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MARKS 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 3 Plaintiff Ronald Wilmot seeks an Order confirming that the Judgment entered in this 4 action shall also include $47,725.00 in prejudgment interest. As shown herein, Defendant Susan 5 McCurnin failed to accept a reasonable Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 Offer to 6 Compromise in the amount of $400,000.00 served on February 6, 2024. The Judgment entered 7 in Plaintiff’s favor far exceeds this amount, entitling Mr. Wilmot to a mandatory award of 8 prejudgment interest under Civil Code Section 3291 and the authorities discussed herein. 9 10 II. PERTINENT FACTS 11 This action was filed on February 3, 2022. [Declaration of Lawrence D. Marks (“Marks 12 Decl.”), at ¶ 3.] Prior to the service of the Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 Offer to 13 Compromise, the parties engaged in substantial discovery. Among other things, Mr. Wilmot 14 answered approximately 500 discovery questions and requests (including form interrogatories, 15 special interrogatories, and inspection demands) on October 19, 2022, January 16, 2024, 16 November 2, 2022, April 11, 2023, May 30, 2023, and December 5, 2023. [Marks Decl., at ¶ 4.] 17 Mr. Wilmot was deposed on November 29, 2023, and thereafter appeared for 2 defense medical 18 examinations, which took place on May 1, 2023 and September 11, 2023. [Marks Decl., at ¶¶ 5- 19 7.] 20 On February 6, 2024, Mr. Wilmot served defendant McCurnin with a Code of Civil 21 Procedure Section 998 Offer to Compromise in the amount of $400,000.00. [Marks Decl., at ¶ 8; 22 Exh. 1, Offer.] Defendant Susan McCurnin did not accept the offer. [Id.] 23 Trial commenced on March 4, 2024. On March 20, 2024, the jury returned a verdict of 24 $3,830,123.00 in Mr. Wilmot’s favor. The Court entered Judgment in the amount of 25 $2,100,000.00 against Defendant Susan McCurnin on April 29, 2024. [Marks Decl., at ¶ 9; Exh. 26 2, Judgment.] 27 On May 3, 2024, Mr. Wilmot timely filed and served a Memorandum of Costs, including 28 therein, in the “Other” category, a request for prejudgment interest in the amount of $47,725.00. -1- PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MARKS 1 [Marks Decl., at ¶ 10; Exh. 3, Memorandum of Costs, at p. 12]. While entering the prejudgment 2 interest amount in the Memorandum of Costs is sufficient, Mr. Wilmot also files this Motion in 3 an abundance of caution. 4 III. LEGAL ANALYSIS 5 A. An Award of Prejudgment Interest Is Mandatory. 6 The Court here must add prejudgment interest to the judgment because Defendant Susan 7 McCurnin did not accept Mr. Wilmot’s offer made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 8 998 and then failed to obtain a more favorable judgment. 9 10 Civil Code §3291 provides: 11 In any action brought to recover damages for personal injury sustained by any person resulting from or occasioned by the tort of 12 any other … corporation, …. whether by negligence or by willful 13 intent of the other … corporation, … and whether the injury was fatal or otherwise, it is lawful for the plaintiff in the complaint to 14 claim interest on the damages alleged as provided in this section. 15 If the plaintiff makes an offer pursuant to Section 998 of the Code of 16 Civil Procedure which the defendant does not accept prior to trial or within 30 days, whichever occurs first, and the plaintiff obtains a 17 more favorable judgment, the judgment shall bear interest at the 18 legal rate of 10 percent per annum calculated from the date of the plaintiff’s first offer pursuant to Section 998 of the Code of Civil 19 Procedure which is exceeded by the judgment, and interest shall 20 accrue until the satisfaction of judgment. 21 Where the statutory conditions of Civil Code Section 3291 are met, an award of 22 prejudgment interest is mandatory. Morin v. ABA Recovery Serv., Inc., 195 Cal. App. 3d 200, 23 207 (1987). 24 On February 27, 2020, Plaintiff served a statutory offer to compromise in compliance 25 with Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 in the amount of $400,000.00. [Marks Decl., at ¶ 8; 26 Exh. 1.] At the time of the offer, defendant McCurnin had more than enough information to 27 consider Mr. Wilmot’s offer, including his written discovery responses, his deposition, his 28 medical examinations, and defendant’s deposition testimony. [Marks Decl., at ¶¶ 4-7.] Rather -2- PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MARKS 1 than accept the offer, defendant Susan McCurnin did not respond, which resulted in a rejection 2 of the offer by operation of law. 3 Therefore, because Mr. Wilmot made an offer pursuant to Section 998 of the Code of 4 Civil Procedure which defendant McCurnin did not accept within 30 days and Mr. Wilmot 5 obtained a more favorable judgment, Mr. Wilmot’s judgment against defendant McCurnin shall 6 bear interest at the legal rate of 10 percent per annum calculated from February 6, 2024, until the 7 satisfaction of judgment. 8 B. The Amount of Prejudgment Interest Is $47,725.00. 9 The amount of the prejudgment interest is $47,725.00. This amount is claimed in Mr. 10 Wilmot’s Memorandum of Costs. [Marks Decl., at ¶ 10; Exh. 3.] 11 Here, the daily interest amount on the damages portion of the judgment, at ten percent per 12 annum, is $575.00 per day. There are 83 days from the date of the offer, to the entry of 13 judgment. The product of 83 and $575.00 is the $47,725.00. 14 15 Judgment entered on 04/29/24 against McCurnin $ 2,100,000.00 16 Daily interest (10% per annum) $ 575.00 17 Days from 998 offer (2/6/24) to Judgment (4/29/24) 83 18 Prejudgment interest (2/6/24 to 4/29/24) $ 47,725.00 19 20 Accordingly, the Court should find that the amount of prejudgment is $47,725.00, which 21 is also consistent with the amount claimed in Mr. Wilmot’s Memorandum of Costs. [Marks 22 Decl., ¶ 10; Exh. 3. 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MARKS 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 Based on the above, the Court should add prejudgment interest in the amount of 3 $47,725.00 to the Judgment as against defendant McCurnin. 4 5 Dated: May 3, 2024 MARDIROSSIAN AKARAGIAN, LLP 6 7 By:~~ ~ M a r k s , Esq. 8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; MEMORANDUM OF POINT AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LA WREN CE D. MARKS 1 DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MARKS I, Lawrence D. Marks, declare: 2 1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice before all the courts of the State of 3 California and am with the firm of Mardirossian Akaragian LLP, attorneys of record in this 4 action for Plaintiff. The facts set forth herein are personally known to me, and if called upon to 5 testify, I could and would competently testify thereto. 6 2. This Declaration is submitted in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Prejudgment 7 Interest. 8 3. This action was filed on February 3, 2022. 9 4. Among other things, Mr. Wilmot answered approximately 500 discovery 10 questions/requests (i.e., form interrogatories, special interrogatories, inspection demands) on 11 October 19, 2022, January 16, 2024, November 2, 2022, April 11, 2023, May 30, 2023, and 12 December 5, 2023. Defendant deposed Plaintiff on March 26, 2019. 13 5. A defense medical examination was conducted by Daniel K. Davis, M.D., on May 14 1, 2023. A defense medical examination was conducted by Rocco Richard Calderone, M.D., on 15 September 11, 2023. 16 6. Defendant deposed Mr. Wilmot on November 29, 2023. 17 7. Plaintiff deposed Defendant McCurnin on June 1, 2023. 18 8. On February 6, 2024, Mr. Wilmot served a Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 19 Offer to Compromise in the amount of $400,000.00. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and 20 correct copy of Plaintiff Ronald Wilmot’s Statutory Offer to Compromise served on defendant 21 McCurnin on February 27, 2020. Defendant Susan McCurnin did not accept the offer. 22 9. Trial commenced on March 4, 2024. On March 20, 2024, the jury returned a 23 verdict of $3,830,123.00 in Mr. Wilmot’s favor. The Court entered Judgment in the amount of 24 $2,100,000 against defendant Susan McCurnin on April 29, 2024. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 25 is a true and correct copy of the Judgment on Special Verdict dated April 29, 2024. 26 10. On May 3, 2024, Mr. Wilmot timely filed and served a Memorandum of Costs, 27 including therein, in the “Other” category, a request for prejudgment interest in the amount of 28 -5- PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MARKS 1 $47,725.00. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Memorandum 2 of Costs filed and served on May 3, 2024. 3 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 4 foregoing is true and correct. 5 Executed on May 3, 2024, in Los Angeles, California. 6 7 Lawrence D. Marks, Esq. 8 Declarant 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6- PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; MEMORANDUM OF POINT AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE D. MARKS EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBIT 2 ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California County of Santa Barbara 1 Garo Mardirossian, Esq., #101812 Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer garo@garolaw.com 4/29/2024 3:47 PM 2 Lawrence D. Marks, Esq., #153460 By: Terri Chavez , Deputy Lawrence@garolaw.com 3 MARDIROSSIAN AKARAGIAN, LLP 6311 Wilshire Boulevard 4 Los Angeles, CA 90048-5001 Telephone (323) 653-6311 5 Facsimile (323) 651-5511 6 Bradford D. Brown, Esq. #165913 THE LAW OFFICES OF BRADFORD D. BROWN, APC 7 735 State Street, Suite 418 Santa Barbara, CA 93101-5552 8 Telephone (805) 963-5607 Facsimile (805) 962-8256 9 E-MAIL: info@bradfordbrownlaw.com 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ronald Wilmot and Sandy Wilmot 11 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA MARDIROSSIAN AKARAGIAN, LLP 6311 Wilshire Boulevard, 3rd Floor 14 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Santa Monica, CA 90405 15 RONALD WILMOT and SANDY WILMOT, ) Case No.: 22CV00456 ) 16 Plaintiffs, ) [Assigned for all purposes to the Hon. Donna ) D. Geck, Department 4, Historic Anacapa 17 vs. ) Street Courthouse] ) 18 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT OF ) NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS), ) ON JURY VERDICT 19 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, SUSAN ) GAIN MCCURNIN, and DOES 1 TO 20, ) 20 Inclusive, ) ) Complaint Filed: February 3, 2022 21 Defendants. ) Trial: February 26, 2024 ) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT 1 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: 2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT judgment was entered in this action on April 3 24, 2024. 4 Attached hereto as Exhibit "1" is a true and correct copy of the signed Judgment on 5 Jury Verdict. 6 7 8 Dated: April 29, 2024 MARDIROSSIAN AKARAGIAN, LLP 9 10 Bd/~ Lawrence D. Marks, Esq. 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff, RONALD WILMOT 12 Q,. ....I ... 13 ...J. 8 ~ ii: 00 14 ~i~ < -u i; 15 g ch zca~ < !! ~ 16 ~~~ °'0 :=~ "' 17 - 0 ..J ~~ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT EXHIBIT 1 TC Pursuan to CRC 2.259 this document has been electronically filed by the Superio ourt of California, County of Santa Barbara, on 4/18/2024 l Garo Mardirossian, Esq., #I 01812 FILED SUPERIOR COURT of CALIFORNIA garo@garolaw.com COUNTYofSANTABARBARA 2 Lawrence D. Marks, Esq., #153460 04/24/2024 Lawrence(@garolaw.com Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer 3 MARDJRl)'sSIAN AKARAGIAN, LLP BY Baksh, Narzralli 6311 Wilshire Boulevard Deputy Clerk 4 Los Angeles, CA 90048-5001 Telephone (323) 653-6311 5 Facsimile (323) 651-5511 6 Bradford D. Brown, Esq~ #165913 THE LAW OFFICES OF BRADFORD D. BROWN, APC 7 73 5 State Street, Suite 418 Santa Barbara, CA 93101-5552 8 Telephone (805) 963-5607 , Facsimile (805} 962-8256 9 E-MAIL: info@bradfordbrownlaw.com 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ronald Wilmot and Sandy Wilmot 11 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 14 15 RONALD WILMOT, Case No.: 22CV00456 16 Plaintiff, rAssi~ed for all purposes to the Hon. Donna D. Geck, Department 4, Historic Anacapa 17 vs. Street Courthouse] 18 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT OF TPit8P8fJliiU) JUDGMENT ON JURY TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS), SUSAN VERDICT 19 GAIN MCCURNIN, 20 Defendants. 21 22 23 This action came on regularly for Trial on March 4, 2024, before the Honorable Donna 24 D. Geck, Judge presiding. 25 Plaintiff RONALD WILMOT was represented by attorneys Lawrence D. Marks of 26 Mardirossian Akaragian, LLP, and Bradford D. Brown of The Law Offices of Bradford D. 27 Brown, APC. 28 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT 1 Defendant STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2 (CALTRANS) was represented by attorneys R. Jeremie Ginelli and Sandeep Singh, Deputy 3 Attorneys for the State of California Department of Transportation. 4 Defendant SUSAN GAIL MCCURNIN was represented by attorney Marc Steven 5 Shapiro of Hanger, Steinberg, Shapiro & Ash. 6 A jury of twelve people was impaneled and sworn. Witnesses were sworn and testified. 7 After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the jury was duly instructed by the court 8 and the cause was submitted to the jury with directions to return a verdict on special issues. The 9 jury deliberated and thereafter returned into court with its verdict as follows: 10 We answer the questions submitted to us as follows: 11 1. Was the approach to the Arroyo Quemada Bridge and/or the Arroyo 12 Quemada Bridge in a dangerous condition at the time of the incident? 13 14 Yes X No - - - 15 16 If your answer to question 1 is yes, then answer question 2. If your answer to question I 17 is no, then put a zero next to Caltrans in question 11, and answer question 8. 18 2. Did the dangerous condition create a reasonably foreseeable risk that this 19 kind of injury would occur? 20 21 Yes X No 22 --- 23 If your answer to question 2 is yes, then answer question 3. If your answer to question 2 24 is no, then put a zero next to Caltrans in question 11, and answer question 8. 25 26 27 28 2 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT 1 3. Did Caltrans have notice of the dangerous condition for a long enough time to 2 have protected against it? 3 4 Yes X No - - - 5 If your answer to question 3 is yes, then answer question 4. If your answer to question 3 6 is no, then put a zero next to Caltrans in question 11, and answer question 8. 7 4. Was the dangerous condition reasonably apparent to and reasonably 8 anticipated by a motorist exercising due care? 9 10 Yes - - - No X 11 If your answer to question 4 is no, then answer question 5. If your answer to question 4 12 is yes, skip question 5 and answer question 6. 13 14 5. Was the absence of a warning a substantial factor in causing harm to Ronald 15 Wilmot? 16 Yes - - - No X 17 18 Answer the next question. 19 6. Was the dangerous condition a substantial factor in causing harm to Ronald 20 Wilmot? 21 22 Yes X No - -- 23 24 If your answer to question 5 and/or question 6 is yes, then answer question 7. If your 25 answer to both questions 5 and 6 is no, then put a zero next to Caltrans in question 11, and 26 answer question 8. If you did not answer question 5 and your answer to question 6 is no, then 27 put a zero next to Caltrans in question 11, and answer question 8. 28 3 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT I 7. When you consider the likelihood and seriousness of potential injury, 2 compared with (a) how much time and opportunity Caltrans had to take action, and (b) 3 the practicality and cost of protecting against the risk of injury, was Caltrans' failure to 4 take sufficient steps to protect against the risk of injury created by the dangerous 5 condition reasonable under the circumstances? 6 Yes - - - No X 7 8 Answer the next question. However, if your answer to question 7 is yes, then put a zero 9 next to Caltrans in question I I and answer question 8. 10 8. Was Susan McCurnin negligent? II 12 Yes X No - - - 13 14 If your answer to question 8 is yes, then answer question 9. If your answer to question 8 15 is no, go to question 11, put a zero next to Susan McCumin and answer question 10 ifthere is 16 also not a zero next to Caltrans in question 11. If there is a zero next to Susan McCumin and 17 Caltrans in question 1I, then stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juro 18 sign and date this form. 19 9. Was Susan McCurnin's negligence a substantial factor in causing harm to 20 Ronald Wilmot? 21 22 Yes X No - - - 23 24 If your answer to question 9 is yes, then answer question 10. If your answer to question 9 25 is no, go to question 11, put a zero next to Susan McCumin and answer question 10 if there is 26 also not a zero next to Caltrans in question 11. If there is a zero next to Susan McCumin and 27 Caltrans in question 11,then stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presidingjuro 28 sign and date this form. 4 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT 1 10. What are Ronald Wilmot's damages? 2 a. Past Economic Loss: 3 Medical Expenses $ 750,123.00 4 5 b. Future Economic Loss: 6 Medical Expenses $ --==- 80:::.i,o.:. .o: :. .o.: :.:.oc. . .: : o. : :. _ __ 7 8 c. Past noneconomic loss, including physical pain, mental suffering, loss o 9 enjoyment of life, disfigurement, physical impairment, inconvenience, anxiety 10 humiliation and emotional distress: 11 $ 2,000,000.00 12 13 d. Future noneconomic loss, including physical pain, mental suffering, loss o 14 enjoyment of life, disfigurement, physical impairment, inconvenience, anxiety 15 humiliation and emotional distress: 16 $ 1,000,000.00 17 18 TOTAL: $ 3.830. 123.00 19 20 If Ronald Wilmot has proved any damages, then answer question 11. If Ronald Wilmot 21 has not proved any damages, then stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding 22 juror sign and date this form. 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT 1 11. What percentage of responsibility for Ronald Wilmot's harm do you assign to 2 the following? Determine a percentage only for those who do not already have a zero next 3 to the name. 4 5 Cal trans: 30 % 6 Susan McCumin: 70 % 7 TOTAL 100% 8 9 Signed: _ _ An _ th_o;_n..._y.. ;H ;;.;.a.. rr ;;.;.;i.;.. s _ _ _ __ _ 10 Presiding Juror 11 Dated: 03/20/2024 -------'~~=-=::....:._ _ _ _ _ _ __ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 [PROPOSED) JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT I NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that 2 Plaintiff RONALD WILMOT shall have judgment as follows: 3 Against Defendant, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF 4 TRANSPORTATION (CAL TRANS) in the sum of $1,730,123 with interest thereon at the rate 5 of seven percent (7%) per annum from the date of the entry of this Judgment until paid in full, 6 together with costs and disbursements in the amount of$_ _ _ __ __ _ 7 Against Defendant SUSAN GAIL McCURNIN, in the sum of $2, 100,000 with interest 8 thereon at the rate often percent (10%) per annum from the date of the entry of this judgment 9 until paid in full, together with costs and disbursements in the amount of$_ _ _ _ _ __ 10 11 12 Dated: , 2024 Honorable Donna D. Geck 13 04/24/2024 Judge of the Superior Court 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT PROOF OF SERVICE 1 CCP §§ 1011, 1013, 1013a 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 I, the undersigned, am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, am over the age 4 of 18 years and not a party to this lawsuit. My business address is 6311 Wilshire Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90048. On April 29, 2024, I served or caused to be served the 5 foregoing document described as: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT, on all interested parties in this action as follows: 6 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 7 8 ( ) BY MAIL: I deposited such document in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, in the mail at Los 9 Angeles, California. ( ) BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: 10 I caused such document to be delivered overnight from Los Angeles, California, to the business address maintained by the above person(s) as last indicated by that person on a 11 document that he or she has filed in the above-entitled cause and served on this party. ( ) BY FACSIMILE: 12 I transmitted such document by facsimile from Los Angeles, California, to the facsimile machine maintained by the above person(s) at (XXX) XXX-XXXX as last indicated by that Q. ..J ... 13 person on a document that he or she has filed in the above-entitled cause and served on this -: 8 party. z- <\.I. 00 14 - l! t;)<"I8 ( ) BY PERSONAL SERVICE: ~]°' I caused such document to be delivered by messenger from Los Angeles, California, to the ><( 15 business address maintained by the above person(s) as last indicated by that person on a :><:~u < :I • document that he or she has filed in the above-entitled cause and served on this party. z~] 16 < t! ~ (X) BY EMAIL: ~~~ o;::,,, I caused such documents to be delivered by email to the person(s) indicated on the attached c:<:~ 0 17 - ..J Service List. ~~ 18 ~ \() I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is 19 true and correct. 20 Executed on April 29, 2024, at Los Angeles, California. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT SERVICE LIST 1 RONALD WILMOT, et al. v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS), et al. - Santa Barbara Case No. 22CV00456 2 Bradford D. Brown, Esq. #165913 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, 3 THE LAW OFFICES OF BRADFORD D. BROWN, APC RONALD WILMOT and 735 State Street, Suite 418 SANDY WILMOT 4 Santa Barbara, CA 93101-5552 T: (805) 963-5607 5 F: (805) 962-8256 6 E-Mail: brad@bradfordbrownlaw.com R. Jeremie Ginelli, Esq., Deputy Attorney Attorneys for Defendant, 7 Sandeep Singh, Esq., Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF (CALTRANS) TRANSPORTATION 9 Bay Area Legal Division (CALTRANS) 111 Grand Avenue, Suite 11-100 10 Oakland, CA 94612-3717 11 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 24325 12 Oakland, CA 94623-1325 T: (510) 433-9100 13 MARDIROSSIAN AKARAGIAN, LLP T: (415) 722-3325 direct Cramer 6311 Wilshire Boulevard, 3rd Floor 14 F: (510) 433-9167 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Santa Monica, CA 90405 E-Mail: jeremie.ginelli@dot.ca.gov 15 E-Mail: sandeep.singh@dot.ca.gov Marc Steven Shapiro, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant, 16 Emma Fowler, Esq. SUSAN GAIN McCURNIN 17 HANGER, STEINBERG, SHAPIRO, & ASH 21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 800 18 Woodland Hills, CA 91364-6512 T: (818) 226-1222 19 T: (818) 206-0217 direct Shapiro 20 F: (818) 226-1215 E-Mail: mss@hssalaw.com 21 E-Mail: ef@hssalaw.com 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT EXHIBIT 3 MC-010 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY STATE BAR NUMBER: 153460 Lawrence D. Marks, Esq. FOR COURT USE ONLY FIRM NAME: MARDIROSSIAN AKARAGIAN, LLP NAME: STREET ADDRESS: 6311 Wilshire Boulevard CITY: Los Angeles CA ZIP CODE: 90048 TELEPHONE NO.: (323) 653-6311 (323) 651-5511 STATE: E-MAIL ADDRESS: lawrence@garolaw.com FAX NO. ATTORNEY FOR (name): Plaintiff RONALD WILMOT SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA STREET ADDRESS: 1100 Anacapa Street MAILING ADDRESS: 1100 Anacapa Street CITY AND ZIP CODE: Santa Barbara 93101 BRANCH NAME: HISTORIC ANACAPA COURTHOUSE PLAINTIFF: RONALD WILMOT, et al. DEFENDANT: STATE OF CALIFORNIA, etc., et al. MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY) 22CV00456 CASE NUMBER: The following costs are requested: TOTALS 1. Filing and motion fees $ 645.00 2. Jury fees $ 747.76 3. Jury food and lodging $ 4. Deposition costs $ 23073.54 5. Service of process $ 1516.55 6. Attachment expenses $ 7. Surety bond premiums $ 8. Witness fees $ 55026.61 9. Court-ordered transcripts $ 10. Attorney fees (enter here if contractual or statutory fees are fixed without necessity of a court $ detennination; otherwise a noticed motion is required) 11. Court reporter fees as established by statute $ 1602.00 12. Models, enlargements, and photocopies of exhibits $ 3171.46 13. Interpreter fees $ 14. Fees for electronic filing or service $ 2484.70 15. Fees for hosting electronic documents $ 16. Other $ 414477.40 foTALCOSTS $ 50,745.021 I am the attorney, agent, or party who claims these costs. To the best of my knowledge and belief this memorandum of costs is correct and these costs were necessarily incurred in this case. Date: May 3, 2024 Lawrence D. Marks, Esq. (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) Form Approved for Optional Use Judicial Council of Calffomia MC--010 MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY) Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 1032, 1033.5 [Rev. September 1, 2017] MC-011 SHORT TITLE CASE NUMBER: WILMOT, et al. v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al. 22CV00456 MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (WORKSHEET) 1. Filing and motion fees Paper filed Filing fee a. Complaint $ 435.00 b. Motion for Preferential Trial $ 60.00 c. Ex Parte Motion to Shorten Time $ 60.00 d. Motion for Attorney Fees $ 90.00 e. $ f. $ g. Information about additional filing and motion fees is contained in Attachment 1g. TOTAL 1. $ 645.00 2. Jury fees Date Fee & mileage a. Mar 5, 2024 $ 145.19 b. Mar 6, 2024 $ 145.19 c. Mar 11, 2024 $ 108.45 d. Mar 12, 2024 $ 108.45 e. Information about additional jury fees is contained in Attachment 2e. TOTAL 2. $ 747.76 3. Juror food: $ and lodging: $ TOTAL 3. $ 4. Deposition costs Name of deponent Taking Transcribing Travel Videotaping Subtotals a. Calderone, Rocco $ $ 818.80 $ $ 620 $ 1438.80 b. Curatalo, Charles $ $ 538.15 $ $ $ 538.15 c. Gayner, Christophe $ $ 580.00 $ $ $ 580.00 d. Gill, Jolene $ $ 468.55 $ $ $ 468.55 e. Information about additional deposition costs is contained in Attachment 4e. TOTAL 4. $ 23073.54 (Continued on reverse) Page 1 of 3 Form Approved for Optional Use Code of Civil Procedure, Judicial Council of California MC-011 MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (WORKSHEET) §§ 1032, 1033.5 [Rev. September 1, 2017] MC-011 SHORT TITLE CASE NUMBER: WILMOT, et al. v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al. 22CV00456 5. Service of process Registered Name of person served Public officer process Publication Other (specify) a. State of Cal. Dept. of Trans. $ $ 217.00 $ $ b. County of Santa Barbara $ $ 255.00 $ $ c. Susan Gain McCurnin $ $ 255.00 $ $ d. Information about additional costs for service of process is contained in Attachment 5d. TOTAL 5. $ 1516.55 6. Attachment expenses (specify): 6. $ 7. Surety bond premiums (itemize bonds and amounts): 7. $ 8. a. Ordinary witness fees Name of witness Daily fee Mileage Total (1) days at $/day miles at ¢/mile: $ (2) days at $/day miles at ¢/mile: $ (3) days at $/day miles at ¢/mile: $ (4) days at $/day miles at ¢/mile: $ (5)