Preview
IN THE STATE COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
ANTHONY M. COX, CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.:
Plaintiff,
¥.
YALI B. MARTELL CALDERON,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMES NOW ANTHONY MICHAEL COX, Plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel and
files this Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial in the above-styled action against
Defendant, YALI B. MARTELL CALDERON, and shows the Court as follows:
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1
Plaintiff ANTHONY MICHAEL COX (hereinafter, “Plaintiff’), is currently a resident of the
State of Georgia, residing in Gwinnett County. By bringing this action, Plaintiff subjects himself to
the jurisdiction and venue of this Court.
2.
Defendant YALI B. MARTELL CALDERON (hereinafter, “Defendant”) is a resident of
Gwinnett County, Georgia, and last known to reside at 1738 Chase Common Ct, Norcross, Georgia
30071. Defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court and may be served with copies of the
Summons, Complaint and initial discovery at that address,
3
Plaintiff shows that venue in the above-styled civil action is proper in this County and Court
because Defendant resides in Gwinnett County.
FACTS
4
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in all preceding paragraphs, as if
repeated verbatim herein.
5
On November 30, 2022, at approximately 12:37 p.m., Plaintiff was a restrained driver of a
2014 Nissan Maxima S/SV, traveling northbound on Georgia State Route 124 at its intersection
with Mount Zion Church Road, in Snellville, Gwinnett County, Georgia.
6.
On the same date and time, Defendant was driving a 2019 GMC Acadia, traveling
southbound on Georgia State Route 124 at its intersection with Mount Zion Church Road,
Gwinnett County, Georgia.
7.
Defendant, attempting to make a lefi-hand turn onto Mount Zion Church Road, failed to
yield and struck Plaintiff's vehicle, causing damage to both vehicles.
g
Plaintiff immediately felt pain in the left side of his neck, shoulder, and flank, and
experienced shock and fright as a result of the collision.
9.
As a result of the subject collision, which was the proximate result of the negligence of
Defendant, Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, significant physical, mental, and emotional
Anthony M. Cox v. Yali B. Martell Calderon
State Court of Gwinnett County
Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
Page 2 of 6
injuries, all of which he is entitled to recover under the law.
10.
Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for these injurics.
COUNT 1 — NEGLIGENCE
11.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in all preceding paragraphs,
if repeated verbatim herein.
12.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s carelessness and recklessness, the vehicle
Defendant was driving struck the vehicle Plaintiff was driving, causing serious injuries to all.
13.
Plaintiff suffered significant physical, mental, and emotional pain as a result of the collision.
14,
Plaintiff was injured in this collision as a direct and proximate result of the respective
negligent actions and omissions of Defendant.
15.
At all relevant times, Defendant owed certain civil duties to Plaintiff. Notwithstanding those
duties, Defendant did violate them in the following respective particulars:
(a) In failing to make reasonable and proper observations while operating an automobile; or,
if reasonable and proper observations were made, failing to act thereon;
(b) In driving and operating a vehicle in reckless disregard for the safety of persons and/or
property in violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-390;
(c) In failing to yield while turning lefi, in violation of 0.C.G.A. § 40-6-71;
Anthony M. Cox y. Yali B. Martell Calderon
State Court of Gwinnett County
Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
Page 3 of 6
(d) In committing other negligent and reckless acts and omissions as may be shown by the
evidence and proven at trial.
16,
Defendant's respective violations of the aforementioned duties of care constitute negligence
per se.
17.
Defendant failed to exercise ordinary diligence and was therefore negligent when he failed to
exercise the degree of care which is exercised by ordinarily prudent persons under the same or similar
circumstances, which is a violation of O.C.G.A. § 51-1-2.
18.
Plaintiff was not contributorily negligent in causing this Motor Vehicle Collision on
November 30, 2022.
19.
As a direct and sole proximate result of the breaches of duty and negligence by the
Defendant, Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages, including reasonable medical and other
necessary expenses, mental and physical pain and suffering, lost wages and earnings, and personal
inconvenience. In the future, Plaintiff will suffer medical and other necessary expenses, mental
and physical pain and suffering, and personal inconvenience.
COUNT Il - DAMAGES
20.
Plaintiffs re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in all preceding paragraphs, as
if repeated verbatim herein.
Anthony M. Cox v. Yali B. Martell Calderon
State Court of Gwinnett County
Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
Page 4 of 6
21.
Plaintiff avers that as a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts of negligence
on the part of the Defendant, through their agents, servants, or employees, the Plaintiff, was caused
to suffer and incur the following injuries and damages:
(a) Pain, mental anguish, and suffering, both past and future;
(b) Loss of quality of life, both past and future;
(c) Medical expenses, as well as past and future expenses, in amounts to be proven at trial: .5
(d) Lost wages; and
(e) Loss of enjoyment of life
22.
To date, Plaintiff has incurred reasonable and necessary medical expenses of $9,623.95
due to injuries suffered in this motor vehicle collision, itemized as follows:
Revive Medical Center $2,677.95
Gwinnett Emergency Specialists, PC $653.00
Elite Radiology of Georgia $3,900.00
Notthside Hospital Gwinnett $2,393.00
Total Special Damages Incurred to Date $9,623,95.
23.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff incurred lost wages
in the amount of no less than $3,918.75.
24.
Plaintiffs expenses continue to accruc in an exact amount to be proven at trial.
25.
Plaintiff is entitled to recover all compensatory, general, and special damages from
Anthony M. Cox v. Yali B. Martell Calderon
State Court of Gwinnett County
Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
Page 5 of 6
Defendant, in an amount to be proven at trial
26.
By reason of the foregoing, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for the injuries and damages
suffered by Plaintiff as a result of the Defendant’s negligence, which damages will be determined
by the enlightened conscience of an impartial jury based upon the evidence at trial
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays
(a) that process issue and that the Defendant be served with process as provided by
law:
() that Plaintiff has a TRIAL BY JURY on all matters pleaded herein.
(c) that Plaintiff recovers against the Defendant compensatory damages in an amount to
be proven at trial
(d) that Plaintiff recovers against the Defendant punitive damages in an amount to be
proven at trial
©) that Plaintiff recovers against the Defendant reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of
litigation and any statutory penalties allowed by law; and
that Plaintiff have any other further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted this the 11"" day of June, 2024
ry" LAW, LLC
——,;,
3575 Koger Boulevard, Suite 125 JOSEPH A) ADRILICH
Duluth, Georgia 30096 State Bar ay eorgia No.: 569248
Phone: (404) 888-1111 Attorney for Plaintiff
Fax: (770) 931-9610
joe@zinjurylaw.com
AnthonyM. Coxv. Yali B. Martell Calderon
State Court of Gwinnett County
Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial
Page 6 of 6
Related Content
in Gwinnett County
Case
GLUTH VS RIVERA
Jul 19, 2024 |
Dove, Erica K. |
Tort - Auto Tort* |
Tort - Auto Tort* |
24-C-06663-S5
Case
RIVAS VS DIAZ, JR
Jul 15, 2024 |
Dove, Erica K. |
Tort - Auto Tort* |
Tort - Auto Tort* |
24-C-06454-S5
Case
BUSH VS PINON et al
Jul 19, 2024 |
Smith, Jaletta L. |
Tort - Auto Tort* |
Tort - Auto Tort* |
24-C-06639-S7
Ruling
FARRARA, ET AL VS. AIRBNB, INC.
Jul 15, 2024 |
CVCV21-0198447
FARRARA, ET AL VS. AIRBNB, INC.
Case Number: CVCV21-0198447
Tentative Ruling on Petition to Approve Minor Compromise: Brianna Farrara seeks an order
approving the compromise of a claim on behalf of her minor son, Alexander Farrara. California
Rules of Court, Rule 7.950 states that a petition for court approval of a minor’s compromise must
contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the
compromise. The Petition provides the required information. Considering the nature of the
minor’s injuries and level of recovery and the uncertainty of liability, the Court is prepared to find
that the settlement is in the best interest of the minor if the voir dire process is completed to the
Court’s satisfaction.
The Court notes this is not an expedited petition brought on Judicial Council Form MC-350EX.
See CRC Rule 7.950.5. Hearing is thus needed on the Petition before it can be approved. The
person seeking approval of the settlement on behalf of the minor and the minor are required to
appear at the hearing, unless good cause is presented for their non-appearance. CRC Rule 7.952.
The Petitioner and minor are required to appear. Counsel will voir dire the Petitioner about the
terms of the settlement, any other potential sources to increase the settlement amount, whether the
minor has fully recovered and whether the Petitioner understands that once approved, the
settlement is final and binding on the minor. Once satisfied, the Court intends to grant the Petition
and set this matter for review for confirmation of deposit of the funds into a court blocked account.
An appearance by the Petitioner and minor is necessary on today’s calendar.
Ruling
VALDEZ RODRIGUEZ vs CONNER
Jul 15, 2024 |
CVRI2304860
VALDEZ RODRIGUEZ vs Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for
CVRI2304860
CONNER TRAVIS ARMAND CONNER
Tentative Ruling:
Grant motion to be relieved.
Ruling
MARTIN vs MARTIN
Jul 16, 2024 |
CVPS2401925
Demurrer on Complaint for Business
CVPS2401925 MARTIN vs MARTIN Tort/Unfair Business Practice (Over
$35,000) of WALTER MARTIN
Tentative Ruling: Hearing vacated. 1 Amended Complaint filed on June 20, 2024 making instant
st
motion moot.
Ruling
CURTIS POLLARD VS BARLOW RESPIRATORY HOSPITAL, A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION
Jul 18, 2024 |
22SMCV01360
Case Number:
22SMCV01360
Hearing Date:
July 18, 2024
Dept:
M
CASE NAME:
Pollard v. Barlow Respiratory Hospital
CASE NO.:
22SMCV01360
MOTION:
Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
HEARING DATE:
07/18/2024
Legal Standard
A party may move for summary judgment in any action or proceeding if it is contended the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding. (CCP, § 437c(a).) The purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties' pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute. (
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co
.
(2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)
A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there is no affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in¿Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs.¿(CCP,¿§ 437c(f)(1).)¿If a party seeks summary adjudication as an alternative to a request for summary judgment, the request must be clearly made in the notice of the motion. (
Gonzales v. Superior Court
¿(1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1542, 1544.)¿ [A] party may move for summary adjudication of a legal issue or a claim for damages other than punitive damages that
does not completely dispose
of a cause of action, affirmative defense, or issue of duty pursuant to subdivision (t). (CCP,¿§ 437c(t).)¿
To prevail, the evidence submitted must show there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.¿(CCP, §¿437c(c).)¿The motion cannot succeed unless the evidence leaves no room for conflicting inferences as to material facts; the court has no power to weigh one inference against another or against other evidence. (
Murillo v. Rite Stuff Food Inc
.
(1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 833, 841.) In determining whether the facts give rise to a triable issue of material fact, [a]ll doubts as to whether any material, triable, issues of fact exist are to be resolved in favor of the party opposing summary judgment& (
Gold v. Weissman
(2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1195, 1198-99.) In other words, the facts alleged in the evidence of the party opposing summary judgment and the reasonable inferences there from must be accepted as true. (
Jackson v. County of Los Angeles
(1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171, 179.) However, if adjudication is otherwise proper the motion may not be denied on grounds of credibility, except when¿a material fact is the witnesss¿state of mind and that fact is sought to be established solely by the [witnesss] affirmation thereof. (CCP, § 437c(e).)¿
Once the moving party has met their burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. (CCP § 437c(p)(1).)
[T]here¿is no obligation on the opposing party... to establish anything by affidavit unless and until the moving party has by affidavit stated facts establishing every element... necessary to sustain a judgment in his favor.¿(
Consumer Cause, Inc. v.¿SmileCare
¿(2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 454, 468.)¿
¿
The pleadings play a key role in a summary judgment motion. The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues and to¿frame¿the outer measure of materiality in a summary judgment proceeding. (
Hutton v. Fidelity National Title Co.
¿
(2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 486, 493, quotations and citations omitted.) Accordingly, the burden of a defendant moving for summary judgment only requires that he or she negate plaintiff's theories of liability¿
as alleged in the complaint
; that is, a moving party need not refute liability on some theoretical possibility not included in the pleadings. (
Ibid
.)¿
Analysis
Defendant Barlow Respiratory Hospital moves for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication of each cause of action. Defendant fails to meet its burden of production on any noticed issue.
As an initial matter, Defendant failed to file the principal evidence in the motion: the Medical Records (Exhibits A, B and C). The Medical Records were instead lodged with Department M via a flash-drive. The records on file, however, omit the Medical Records entirely. Defendant cannot meet their burden without presenting these exhibits
filed
with the Court and not simply lodged. Defendant contends that these records demonstrate that no abuse/neglect occurred, no breach of the standard of care occurred, and that no act or omission caused any injury to Plaintiff. Critically, Defendant proffers the declaration of expert nurse Lisa Gildred, BSN, RN-BC, CWCA, in support of such conclusions. (Exhibit D.) Gildred extensively (and almost exclusively) relies on the Medical Records to come to her conclusions on neglect, the standard of care and causation. Without the Medical Records being properly filed, the Court cannot consider the material evidence, and cannot conclude that Defendant has
submitted evidence showing that there is no triable issue of fact as to the noticed issues.
Second, Defendants memorandum and separate statement make impermissibly vague citations to the
entirety
of Plaintiffs medical records from a given facility, without directing the Court to the relevant pages of the exhibits. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(d)(3) requires that Citation to the evidence in support of each material fact must include reference to the exhibit, title, page, and line numbers. The instant separate statement violates this rule with every citation to Exhibits A-C. For example, in support of UMF 1, Defendant cites the entirety of Exhibit A Medical records from Barlow Respiratory Hospital and Exhibit B Medical records from Providence St. Joseph Medical Center without even noting a page number. The same can be said of every other citation to Exhibits A-C. Exhibit A is a collection of over 27,000 pages. Exhibits B and C are likewise thousands of pages. Defendant cannot reasonably expect the Court or Plaintiff to sort through the voluminous exhibits to
guess
which documents support the motion.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
Ruling
Voges vs. Houser
Jul 17, 2024 |
22CV-0200010
VOGES VS. HOUSER
Case Number: 22CV-0200010
This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of judgment/dismissal. At the last hearing on June 10,
2024, the Court was informed that Plaintiff was waiting on the final Medi-Cal lien. No status report has been
filed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
Ruling
Martinez vs. PG&E Corporation, et al.
Jul 17, 2024 |
22CV-0200316
MARTINEZ VS. PG&E CORPORATION, ET AL.
Case Number: 22CV-0200316
This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of coordinated proceeding. This matter is
currently coordinated as JCCP No. 5165 in the San Francisco County Superior Court. The Court
has received status statements from Plaintiff and Defendants, which indicate the dismissal with
prejudice of Plaintiff’s action (following summary judgment) is currently under appeal. The parties
request continuance pending appeal. Today’s hearing is continued to Monday, January 13, 2025,
at 9:00 a.m. in Department 64. The parties are ordered to file a status report at least five court
days prior to the continued hearing date. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
MASON VS. CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS LLC, ET
Ruling
HAWK MCFADZEN, VS CITY OF LONG BEACH, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.
Jul 16, 2024 |
22STCV29729
Case Number:
22STCV29729
Hearing Date:
July 16, 2024
Dept:
27
Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27
¿
¿¿
MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
Hearing Date: 7/16/2024 at 1:30 p.m.
¿¿
CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV29729
HAWK MCFADZEN vs. CITY OF LONG BEACH et al.
Moving Party: Defendant City of Long Beach
Responding Party: Unopposed
¿¿
Notice: Sufficient
¿¿
¿¿
Ruling: MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL IS GRANTED
On September 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present case. On May 21, 2024, Defendant City of Long Beach filed a motion for summary judgment. The current trial date is September 6, 2024. The motion for summary judgment is scheduled to be heard on March 19, 2025. Defendant requests a trial continuance to sometime in June so its MSJ can be heard.
Numerous courts of appeal have held that a trial court cannot refuse to consider a motion for summary judgment that is timely filed. "A trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment filed within the time limits of [Code of Civil Procedure] section 437c. [Citation.] Local rules and practices may not be applied so as to prevent the filing and hearing of such a motion." (
Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529
);
accord
First State Inc. Co. v. Superior Court
(2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 324, 330 [invalidating case management order to the extent it precluded filing motions pursuant to section 437c ];
Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior
Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918, 923 [local court rule that "require a party filing a complex summary judgment motion to file the motion six months before the date set for trial is void and unenforceable because it is inconsistent with section 437c"].) As the
Sentry
court explained: "We are sympathetic to the problems the trial courts experience in calendaring and hearing the many motions for summary judgment. However, the solution to these problems cannot rest in a refusal to hear timely motions." (
Sentry
, supra, at p. 530.)
Defendant filed and served its motion for summary judgment on May 21, 2024, with the trial date set for September 6, 2024. The motion was served more than 105 days prior to trial; therefore, it was timely filed, and the Court cannot refuse to hear a timely filed motion for summary judgment.
The new Trial Date is set for
June 2,
2025
, at 8:30 a.m. The Final Status Conference is continued to
May 19, 2025
, at 10:00 a.m. The only basis to continue the trial date is so the motion for summary judgment can be heard. Defendant has not shown good cause to have the fact discovery cut-off follow the new trial date. Should the parties wish to reopen fact discovery, they can do so either through stipulation or motion.
All other case-related deadlines, including expert discovery, will follow the new trial date.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:
If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,
¿
the party must send an email to the court at
¿
sscdept27@lacourt.org
¿
with the Subject line SUBMIT followed by the case number.
¿
The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsels contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.
Unless
¿
all
¿
parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.
¿
You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.
If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.
Ruling
JOHN E. WAI VS. FATHI SAID ET AL
Jul 18, 2024 |
CGC23606031
Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 18, 2024 line 7. PLAINTIFF FELIX WAI , AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT FOR JOHN E. WAI, AN INDIVIDUAL Motion To Compel Disco And For Monetary Sanctions is DENIED, moot. =(501/CFH) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified, and the opposing party does not appear.
Document
ORTIZ VS NGUYEN
Jun 10, 2024 |
Smith, Jaletta L. |
Tort - Auto Tort* |
Tort - Auto Tort* |
24-C-05219-S7
Document
JONES VS SULLIVAN
May 15, 2024 |
Dove, Erica K. |
Tort - Auto Tort* |
Tort - Auto Tort* |
24-C-04488-S5
Document
PONCE VS ZUNIGA PEREZ
Jul 12, 2024 |
Smith, Jaletta L. |
Tort - Auto Tort* |
Tort - Auto Tort* |
24-C-06312-S7
Document
ORTIZ VS NGUYEN
Jun 10, 2024 |
Smith, Jaletta L. |
Tort - Auto Tort* |
Tort - Auto Tort* |
24-C-05219-S7
Preview
IN THE STATE COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA ANTHONY M. COX, CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.: Plaintiff, ¥. YALI B. MARTELL CALDERON, Defendant. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL COMES NOW ANTHONY MICHAEL COX, Plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel and files this Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial in the above-styled action against Defendant, YALI B. MARTELL CALDERON, and shows the Court as follows: PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1 Plaintiff ANTHONY MICHAEL COX (hereinafter, “Plaintiff’), is currently a resident of the State of Georgia, residing in Gwinnett County. By bringing this action, Plaintiff subjects himself to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court. 2. Defendant YALI B. MARTELL CALDERON (hereinafter, “Defendant”) is a resident of Gwinnett County, Georgia, and last known to reside at 1738 Chase Common Ct, Norcross, Georgia 30071. Defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court and may be served with copies of the Summons, Complaint and initial discovery at that address, 3 Plaintiff shows that venue in the above-styled civil action is proper in this County and Court because Defendant resides in Gwinnett County. FACTS 4 Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in all preceding paragraphs, as if repeated verbatim herein. 5 On November 30, 2022, at approximately 12:37 p.m., Plaintiff was a restrained driver of a 2014 Nissan Maxima S/SV, traveling northbound on Georgia State Route 124 at its intersection with Mount Zion Church Road, in Snellville, Gwinnett County, Georgia. 6. On the same date and time, Defendant was driving a 2019 GMC Acadia, traveling southbound on Georgia State Route 124 at its intersection with Mount Zion Church Road, Gwinnett County, Georgia. 7. Defendant, attempting to make a lefi-hand turn onto Mount Zion Church Road, failed to yield and struck Plaintiff's vehicle, causing damage to both vehicles. g Plaintiff immediately felt pain in the left side of his neck, shoulder, and flank, and experienced shock and fright as a result of the collision. 9. As a result of the subject collision, which was the proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, significant physical, mental, and emotional Anthony M. Cox v. Yali B. Martell Calderon State Court of Gwinnett County Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Page 2 of 6 injuries, all of which he is entitled to recover under the law. 10. Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for these injurics. COUNT 1 — NEGLIGENCE 11. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in all preceding paragraphs, if repeated verbatim herein. 12. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s carelessness and recklessness, the vehicle Defendant was driving struck the vehicle Plaintiff was driving, causing serious injuries to all. 13. Plaintiff suffered significant physical, mental, and emotional pain as a result of the collision. 14, Plaintiff was injured in this collision as a direct and proximate result of the respective negligent actions and omissions of Defendant. 15. At all relevant times, Defendant owed certain civil duties to Plaintiff. Notwithstanding those duties, Defendant did violate them in the following respective particulars: (a) In failing to make reasonable and proper observations while operating an automobile; or, if reasonable and proper observations were made, failing to act thereon; (b) In driving and operating a vehicle in reckless disregard for the safety of persons and/or property in violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-390; (c) In failing to yield while turning lefi, in violation of 0.C.G.A. § 40-6-71; Anthony M. Cox y. Yali B. Martell Calderon State Court of Gwinnett County Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Page 3 of 6 (d) In committing other negligent and reckless acts and omissions as may be shown by the evidence and proven at trial. 16, Defendant's respective violations of the aforementioned duties of care constitute negligence per se. 17. Defendant failed to exercise ordinary diligence and was therefore negligent when he failed to exercise the degree of care which is exercised by ordinarily prudent persons under the same or similar circumstances, which is a violation of O.C.G.A. § 51-1-2. 18. Plaintiff was not contributorily negligent in causing this Motor Vehicle Collision on November 30, 2022. 19. As a direct and sole proximate result of the breaches of duty and negligence by the Defendant, Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages, including reasonable medical and other necessary expenses, mental and physical pain and suffering, lost wages and earnings, and personal inconvenience. In the future, Plaintiff will suffer medical and other necessary expenses, mental and physical pain and suffering, and personal inconvenience. COUNT Il - DAMAGES 20. Plaintiffs re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in all preceding paragraphs, as if repeated verbatim herein. Anthony M. Cox v. Yali B. Martell Calderon State Court of Gwinnett County Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Page 4 of 6 21. Plaintiff avers that as a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts of negligence on the part of the Defendant, through their agents, servants, or employees, the Plaintiff, was caused to suffer and incur the following injuries and damages: (a) Pain, mental anguish, and suffering, both past and future; (b) Loss of quality of life, both past and future; (c) Medical expenses, as well as past and future expenses, in amounts to be proven at trial: .5 (d) Lost wages; and (e) Loss of enjoyment of life 22. To date, Plaintiff has incurred reasonable and necessary medical expenses of $9,623.95 due to injuries suffered in this motor vehicle collision, itemized as follows: Revive Medical Center $2,677.95 Gwinnett Emergency Specialists, PC $653.00 Elite Radiology of Georgia $3,900.00 Notthside Hospital Gwinnett $2,393.00 Total Special Damages Incurred to Date $9,623,95. 23. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff incurred lost wages in the amount of no less than $3,918.75. 24. Plaintiffs expenses continue to accruc in an exact amount to be proven at trial. 25. Plaintiff is entitled to recover all compensatory, general, and special damages from Anthony M. Cox v. Yali B. Martell Calderon State Court of Gwinnett County Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Page 5 of 6 Defendant, in an amount to be proven at trial 26. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for the injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff as a result of the Defendant’s negligence, which damages will be determined by the enlightened conscience of an impartial jury based upon the evidence at trial WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays (a) that process issue and that the Defendant be served with process as provided by law: () that Plaintiff has a TRIAL BY JURY on all matters pleaded herein. (c) that Plaintiff recovers against the Defendant compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial (d) that Plaintiff recovers against the Defendant punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial ©) that Plaintiff recovers against the Defendant reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of litigation and any statutory penalties allowed by law; and that Plaintiff have any other further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted this the 11"" day of June, 2024 ry" LAW, LLC ——,;, 3575 Koger Boulevard, Suite 125 JOSEPH A) ADRILICH Duluth, Georgia 30096 State Bar ay eorgia No.: 569248 Phone: (404) 888-1111 Attorney for Plaintiff Fax: (770) 931-9610 joe@zinjurylaw.com AnthonyM. Coxv. Yali B. Martell Calderon State Court of Gwinnett County Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial Page 6 of 6