arrow left
arrow right
  • Song Kim vs. Nicole De Sousa23 Unlimited - Other PI/PD/WD document preview
  • Song Kim vs. Nicole De Sousa23 Unlimited - Other PI/PD/WD document preview
  • Song Kim vs. Nicole De Sousa23 Unlimited - Other PI/PD/WD document preview
  • Song Kim vs. Nicole De Sousa23 Unlimited - Other PI/PD/WD document preview
  • Song Kim vs. Nicole De Sousa23 Unlimited - Other PI/PD/WD document preview
  • Song Kim vs. Nicole De Sousa23 Unlimited - Other PI/PD/WD document preview
  • Song Kim vs. Nicole De Sousa23 Unlimited - Other PI/PD/WD document preview
  • Song Kim vs. Nicole De Sousa23 Unlimited - Other PI/PD/WD document preview
						
                                

Preview

Joseph S. Farzam, SBN 210817 E-FILED James R. Doddy, SBN 233611 7/6/2020 12:51 PM Stephan Chichportich, SBN 320050 Superior Court of California JOSEPH FARZAM LAW FIRM County of Fresno A Professional Law Corporation By: A. Rodriguez, Deputy 4 11766 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 280 Los Angeles, California 90025 Tel: (310) 226-6890 4 Fax: (310) 226-6891 Attorneys for Plainttff, SONG LEE KIM s SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF FRESNO 13 SONG LEE KIM, an individual; ) CASE NUMBER: 20CECG01910 14 ) Plaintiff, ) 15 COMPLAINT FOR: ) vs. ) ) 1. NEGLIGENCE; NICOLE DE SOUSA, an individual; DEIDRE ) 2. STRICT LIABILITY; THAYER, an individual; GSF PROPERTIES, ) INC.; SIERRA RIDGE, an unknown business ) s entity; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive ) ) 20 Defendants. ) ) 21 ) 22 /// /// /// /// /// /// I COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (I) NEGLIGENCE; (2) STRICT LIABILITY 1 COMES NOW Plaintiff, SONG LEE KIM (hereinafier referred to as "PLAINTIFF"), and alleges as follows: 4 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 5 FOR NEGLIGENCE (Aaainst All Defendants, and DOES I throuah 50. inclusive) 1. The full extent of the facts linking the fictitiously designated defendants to the causes of action alleged herein is unknown to PLAINTIFF, or the true names and capacities whether individual, plural, corporate, partnership, associate, or otherwise of defendants DOES 1 through 25, inclusive are unknown to the PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the defendants designated herein as a Doe is negligently, carelessly, tortuously, and unlawfully responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein after referred to and negligently, carelessly, tortuously, and unlawfully proximately caused the injuries and damages thereby to PLAINTIFF and herein after alleged. PLAINTIFF will hereinafter seek leave of court to amend this complaint to show said defendants true names and/or capacities after the same have been ascertained. 18 At times 2. all herein mentioned, the Defendant, NICOLE DE SOUSA, was 8 resident of the County of Fresno. 20 3. At all times herein mentioned, the Defendant, DEIDRE THAYER, was a resident of the County of Fresno. 22 times herein 4. At all mentioned, the Defendant, GSF PROPERTIES, INC., was 8 California Corporation and managed the property located at 100 Fowler Ave., Clovis, California 24 where the incident occurred. 25 At all times herein mentioned, the Defendant, SIERRA RIDGE, was 5. an unknown business entity and was identified as the owner of the property located at 100 Fowler Ave.. Clovis, California in the lease agreement between Plaintiff and SIERRA RIDGE. 28 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (I) NEGLIGENCE; (2) STRICT LIABILITY 6. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that at all times herein mentioned, the defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants, employees and joint venturers of each of the remaining defendants, and were, at all times herein mentioned, acting 4 within the scope, course and purpose of said agency, employment and joint venture, 7. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants, NICOLE DE SOUSA, DEIDRE THAYER, and DOES I through 25, inclusive and each of them, owned, managed, controlled. supervised and possessed a certain dog, "Moose", a malamute, hereinafter referred to as the s wd 8. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants, GSF PROPERTIES, INC., SIERRA RIDGE, and DOES 26 through 50, inclusive and each of them, owned, managed, controlled. supervised and possessed the property located at 100 Fowler Ave., Clovis, California and had policies and procedures in place regarding allowing animals onto the property, including requiring written agreement from these Defendants before allowing pets to come onto the 14 separate property and a pet agreement. At all times these Defendants had the authority and ability to remove the dog I'rom the property and did not, despite knowing of its dangerous propensities. 17 On or about the Defendants, NICOLE DE 9. July 8, 2018, SOUSA, DEIDRE THAYER, and DOES I through 25 and each of them, negligently, recklessly, tortuously, and unlawfully owned, controlled, managed, supervised and possessed said dog as to permit the dog to attack, molest, bite, maul, or otherwise injure PLAINTIFF. As a direct and proximate result oi the negligence of the defendants and each of them, as aforesaid, PLAINTIFF suffered personal injuries as a result of said attack by the dog. 23 On and prior to defendants, and each of them, 10. July 8, 2018, had both actual and constructive knowledge of the dangerous propensities and nature of the dog, and in spite of said notice, failed to warn PLAINTIFF of said dangerous propenshies of the dog, and failed to take the protective and mitigating measures which could have and should have been taken to protect PLAINTIFF and others from injury. 28 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (I) NEGLIGENCE; (2) STRICT LIABILITY 11. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of these defendants and each ol them, PLAINTIFF was injured in her health, strength and activity, sustaining injuries to her body, shock and injuries to her nervous system, all of which said injuries have caused and 4 continue PLAINTIFF mental, and nervous to cause great physical pain and suffering, PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that said injuries will result in permanent disability all to her general damage in an amount unknown to PLAINTIF at this time. and PLAINTIFF will ask leave of court to amend this complaint to set forth the exact amount thereof when the same shall have been ascertained or according to proof. 12. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligence of these defendants, and each of them, PLAINTIFF was compelled to and did employ the services of physicians. surgeons, and other medical personnel, and PLAINTIFF was compelled to and did incur other incidental expenses relative in care and treannent of said injuries. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that she will be compelled to seek further treatment in the future for the care of said injuries and will incur further reasonable bills for the same. PLAINTIFF will give proof of both past and future claimed expenses at the time of trial. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 17 FOR STRICT LIABILITY (Aaainst NICOLE DE SOUSA. DEIDRK THAYKR. and DOES I throuah 25. inclusive) 13. PLAINTIFF refers to paragraph I through 12 of the First Cause of Action, and repeats and realleges those paragraphs as if set forth in full at this point, verbatim. 21 14. The Defendants, NICOLE DE SOUSA, DEIDRE THREE, and DOES I through 25, and each of them, as aforesaid, did own, manage, control, supervise, and possess those certain dogs which attacked, bit and mauled PLAINTIFF on or about July 8, 2018, as 24 aforesaid. 25 15. Pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3342, the owner of any dogs is strictly liable for any damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dogs, regardless of the former viciousness of the dogs or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. Accordingly, the 28 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (I) NEGLIGENCE; (Z) STRICT LIABILITY defendants, and each of them, are strictly liable for the damages suffered by PLAINTIFF as alleged herein. 16. As a proximate result of being bitten by the dog, as aforesaid, PLAINTIFF was 4 injured in her health, strength and activity, sustaining injuries to her body, shock and injury tc her nervous system, all of which said injuries have caused and continue to cause PLAINTIFF great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering, all of her general damage to be shown according to proof. As aforesaid, PLAINTIFF did also suffer medical expenses, and other special damages, to be shown according to proof, as a proximate result of the attack by the dog. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays as follows: AS TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 1. For the principal amount of the value of PLAINTIFF's claim, subject to proof at nial; 2. For damages for lost income, according to proof; 3. For special damages, according to proof; 4. For general damages, according to proof; 5. For court costs according to proof; 6. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. 18 Dated: July6,2020 JOSEPH FARZAM LAW FIRM 20 21 By JOSEPH S. FARZAM 22 JAMES R. DODDY 23 STEPHAN J. CHICHPORTICH Attorneys for Plaintiff, SONG LEE KIM 24 25 26 27 28 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (I) NEGLIGENCE; (2) STRICT LIABILITY DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PLAINTIFF hereby demands a jury trial as to the entire action and all Claims for relief. 4 Dated: July 6, 2020 JOSEPH FARZAM LAW FIRM By JOSEPH S. FARZAM JAMES R. DODDY STEPHAN J. CHICHPORTICH Attorneys for Plaintiff, SONG LEE KIM 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (I) NEGLIGENCE; (2) STRICT LIABILITY