Preview
PLD-PI-001
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Nema, State Bar numder, and addreae) FOR COURT USE ONLY
MICHAEL R. DUFOUR [SBN 290981]
MCDonald Worley, P.C.
827 Moraga Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90049
TELEPHQNE No:(424) 293-2272 FAX No (Optronai) ELECTRONICALLY
michael@mcdonaldworley.corn
E-MAILADDRESS (Opfional)
Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR (Name):
F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
sTREET ADDREss 400 MCCallister Street 08/03/2020
MAILING ADDRESS Clerk of the Court
BY: BOWMAN LIU
DITYANDzlpcoDE San Francisco, California 94102 Deputy Clerk
BRANcH NAME Civic Center Courthous
PLAINTIFF: DIONNE SAMUEL
oEFENoANT: CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,SWISSPORT USA IN
ooEs I To 30 INCLUSIVE
COMPLAINT — Personal Injury, Property Damage, Wrongful Death
AMENDED (Number)r FIRST
~~
Type (check a/I that apply):
MOTOR VEIIICLE ~r
~OTNER (speciry): PremiSeS Liability
~ Property Damage
Personal Injury ~r
Wrongful Death
Other Damages (specify)( Negligence
~Jurisdiction (check all that apply):
~
ACTION IS A LIMITED CIVIL CASE
CASE NUMBER:
Amount demanded
~ does not exceed $ 10,000
exceeds $ 10,000, but does not exceed $ 25,000
CGC-20-584972
~~ ACTION IS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE (exceeds $ 25,000)
ACTION IS RECLASSIFIED by this amended complaint
1.
~ from limited to unlimited
from unlimited to limited
Plaintiff (name or names)( DIONNE SAMUEL
alleges causes of action against defendant (name or names):
CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, SWISSPORT USA INC
2. This pleading, including attachments and exhibits, consists of the following number of pages:
3.
a. ~
Each plaintiff named above is a competent adult
~
except plaintiff (name))
(1)
(2) ~
~
a corporation qualified to do business in California
an unincorporated entity (describe))
(3)
(4) ~ ~
a minor ~
a public entity (describe):
an adult
~
(a)
(b) ~ for whom B guardian or conservator of the estate or a guardian Bd litem has been appointed
other (specify))
other (specify):
b. ~ (5)
~
except plaintiff (name))
(1)
(2) ~
~
a corporation quahfied to do business in Cahfomia
an unincorporated entity (describe))
(3)
(4) ~ ~
a minor ~
a pubhc entity (describe))
an adult
(5) ~
(a)
(b) ~ for whom a guardian or conservator of the estate or a guardian ad litem has been appointed
other (specify):
other (speofy):
~ Information about additional plaintiffs who are not competent adults is shown in Attachment 3.
Form Approved for Optional Uee COMPLAINT — Personal Injury, Property
Page1of3
Code of Civil Procedure, 0 420.12
Judiaal Counal of California www courtrnfo ca gov
PLD PIJ)01 [Rev January I, 2007] Damage, Wrongful Death
PLD-PI-001
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
DIONNE SAMUEL VS. CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL. CGC-20-584972
4 ~ Plaintiff (name):
is doing business under the fictitious name (specify):
and has complied with the fictitious business name laws.
5. Each defendant named above is a natural person
~J'xcept defendant (name):
a.
(1) ~
~
CITY OF SAN FRAN
a business organization, form unknown
c.
(1) ~
except defendant (name): SWISSPORT USA INC
a business organization, form unknown
(2)
(3) ~ a corporation
an unincorporated entity (describe):
(2)
(3) ~
~/ a corporation
an unincorporated entity (describe):
(4) ~K a public entity (describe): (4) ~ a public entity (describe):
(5) ~ CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO
other (specify): (5) ~ other (specify):
b.
~
~J'xceptdefendant(name): SAN FRANCISCO IN d. ~ ~
except defendant (name):
(1)
(2)
(3)
~
~
a business organization, form unknown
a corporation
an unincorporated entity (describe):
(1)
(2)
(3)
~
~
a business organization, form unknown
a corporation
an unincorporated entity (describe):
(4) ~v' public entity (describe): (4) ~ a public entity (describe):
(5) ~ INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
other (specify): (5) ~ other (specify):
~ Information about additional defendants who are not natural persons is contained in Attachment 5
The true names of defendants sued as Does are unknown to plaintiff.
a. ~a'oe defendants (specify Doe numbers): I-)5 were the agents or employees of other
named defendants and acted within the scope of that agency or employment.
b. ~w Doe defendants (speciiy Doe numbers): )6-30 are persons whose capacities are unknown to
~ plaintiff.
Defendants who are joined under Code of Civil Procedure section 382 are (names):
8.
a.
b.
~
This court is the proper court because
~ at least one defendant now resides in its junsdictional area.
the pnncipal place of business of a defendant corporation or unincorporated association is in its junsdictional area.
c.
d. ~~w injury to person or damage to personal property occurred in its jurisdictional area.
other (spemfy):
9 ~v'laintiff is required to comply with a claims statute, and
a.
b. ~
~/ has complied with applicable claims statutes, or
is excused from complying because (spemfy):
Jaoaary1, 20071
PLD Pl 001 [Ref COMPLAINT— Personal Injury, Property Page 2 of 3
Damage, Wrongful Death
PLD-PI-001
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
DIONNE SAMUEL VS. CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL. CGC-20-5 84972
10 The following causes of action are attached and the statements above apply to each (each complaint must have one or more
a. ~
causes of action attached):
Motor Vehicle
b.
c.
d.
~
~Y
~
General Negligence
Intentional Tort
Products Liability
e. ~Y'remises Liability
f. ~Y'ther (specify):
Premises Liability cause of action is hereby filed only against Defendants, San Francisco
International Airport and the City of San Francisco. General Negligence cause of action is hereby
filed only against Swissport USA, Inc
Plaintiff has suffered
a.
b.
c.
~
~Z
~Y
wage loss
loss of use of property
hospital and medical expenses
d.
e.
f.
~
~K
~/
general damage
property damage
loss of earning capacity
g. ~/ other damage (specify)(
PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ACCORDING TO PROOF
12 ~~ The damages claimed for wrongful death and the relationships of plaintiff to the deceased are
a.
b. ~ listed in Attachment 12.
as follows:
13. The relief soughtinthis complaint is within the jurisdiction of this court.
Plaintiff prays for judgment for costs of suit; for such relief as is fair, just, and equitable; and for
a. (1)
(2) ~
~v'ompensatory damages
punitive damages
The amount of damages is (in cases for personal injury or wrongful death, you must check (1)):
15.
(1)
(2) ~
~/ according to proof
in the amount of: $
The paragraphs of this complaint alleged on information and belief are as follows (speci)'y paragraph numbers):
Prem L-l, Prem L-4, GN-l.
Date: August 3, 2020
MICHAEL R. DUFOUR
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF OR ATTORNEY)
PLO-Pl-001
[RAYJanuary \, 2007] COMPLAINT— Personal Injury, Property Paga 3 uf 3
Damage, Wrongful Death
PLD-PI-001(4)
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
DIONNE SAMUEL VS. CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL. CGC-20-584972
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION — Premises Liability Page 4
(number)
ATTACHMENT TO ~Y Complaint ~ Cross - Complaint
(Use a separate cause of action form for each cause of action.)
Prem.L-1. Plaintiff (name): DIONNE SAMUEL
alleges the acts of defendants were the legal (proximate) cause of damages to plaintiff.
On (dare): OR ABOUT 02/19/2019 plaintiff was injured on the following premises in the following
fashion (description of premises and circumstances of injury):
SAN FRANSCISO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94128
(See Attachment One)
Prem.L-2. ~ Count One — Negligence The defendants who neghgently owned, maintained, managed and
operated the described premises were (names):
K Does I to 30
Prem.L-3. ~ Count Two —Willful Failure to Warn [Civil Code section 846] The defendant owners who willfully
or maliciously failed to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity were
(names):
Does to
Plaintiff, a recreational user, wasH an invited guest M a paying guest.
Prem. L-4. Count Three — Dangerous Condition of Public Property The defendants who owned public property
on which a dangerous condition existed were (names):
SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, SWISSPORT USA, INC.
Does I to 30
a H Thedefendantpublicentityhad C] actual H constructive notice oftheexistenceofthe
Prem.L-5. a. ~ b. ~ dangerous condition in sufficient time prior to the injury to have corrected it.
The condition was created by employees of the defendant public entity.
Allegations about Other Defendants The defendants who were the agents and employees of the
other defendants and acted within the scope of the agency were (names):
H Does to
b. ~ The defendants who are liable to plaintiffs for other reasons and the reasons for their liabihty are
LJ descnbed in attachment Prem.L-5.b LJ as follows (names):
Pa e1off
Form Approved for Opeonal Uae
Judioal Counol of California CAUSE OF ACTION — Premises Liability Code of Civil Procedure, S 425 12
eire.coudiiifo ca gov
PED-Pf-Ddf (4) [Rev January 1, 20Dyl
PLD-PI-001(2)
CASE NUMBER
SHORT TITLE:
DIONNE SAMUEL VS. CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL. CGC-20-5 84972
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION — General Negligence Page 5
(number)
ATTACHMENT TO H Complaint H Cross - Complaint
(Use a separate cause of action form for each cause of action.)
GN-1. Plaintiff (name): DIONNE SAMUEL
alleges that defendant (name): SWISSPORT USA, INC.
~ Does I to 30
was the legal (proximate) cause of damages to plaintiff. By the following acts or omissions to act, defendant
negligently caused the damage to plaintiff
on (date): OR ABOUT 02/19/2019
at (piece):
(description of reasons for liability):
30
Page 1 of 1
Code of Civil Procedure 425 12
Form Approved for Opuonal Uae
Judioal Counol of California CAUSE OF ACTION — General Negligence www courtrnfo ce gov
PEO-Pl-001i2) [Rev January 1, 2007]
MC-025
CASE NUMBER:
SHORT TITLE:
Samuel v. City of San Francisco CGC-20-584972
ATTACHMENT (Numtger): Otic
(This Attachment may he used with any Judiraal Council form.)
ATTACHMENT Prem. L-I
This cause of action is based on Gov. Code sec. 835. and 835.2. Defendants, City of San Francisco and San
Francisco International Airport (hereinafter, collectively, "The City), and DOES 1-30, and each of them,
negligently owned, designed, constructed, maintained, managed or controlled the property located at the San
Francisco International Airport in San Francisco, CA 94128, in San Mateo County. The City and DOES 1-30
treated the property as if it were its property, and had the power to prevent, fix, and/or guard against the
dangerous condition.
At the time of the accident, The City's property, located at the foregoing location where the accident occurred,
was in a dangerous condition and created a substantial risk to Plaintiff and members of the general public when
used with reasonable care and in a reasonably foreseeable manner. The dangerous condition created a
reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury that occurred to Plaintiff. A dangerous condition was created
by a negligent or wrongful act of Defendants, and/or their employees acting within the scope of their
employment.
Further, Defendants had notice of the dangerous condition for a long enough time to have protected against it.
Defendants knew of the condition and knew or should have known that it was dangerous, through its
employees, agents and servants. Further, employees, agents and servants of Defendants knew of the condition
and reasonably should have informed Defendants about said condition, and/or did inform Defendants of the
dangerous condition. The condition had existed for enough time before the incident and was so obvious that
Defendants reasonably should have discovered the condition and known it was dangerous. Among other
things, Defendants should have discovered the dangerous condition, by having a reasonable inspection
program, which would have revealed the dangerous condition. The cost of an inspection program, balanced
against the likelihood and seriousness of the potential danger if no such system existed, weighs in favor of
having an inspection program.
Defendants had practical options that should have been implemented when weighing the cost of protecting the
public against the risk of injury. The conduct of Defendants was unreasonable, in that they had the time and
opportunity to take action, particularly in regard to the likelihood and the seriousness of the potential injury. It
would have been practical for Defendants to fix the dangerous condition prior to the accident.
The condition of Defendants property where the accident occurred had become dangerous because of a change
in physical conditions. Defendants had both actual and constructive notice of the dangerous condition created
because they created the dangerous physical conditions including, but not limited to, the public area where
Defendants negligently laid wires and cables on the ground knowing injuries could occur as a result thereof.
Defendants had reasonable time to obtain the funds and carry out the necessary corrective work to conform the
property to a reasonable safe condition. In the alternative, Defendants did not reasonably attempt to provide
adequate warning of the dangerous condition if Defendants were unable to correct the condition due to the
practical impossibility of such repairs or lack of funds.
Plaintiff used the property with reasonable care and in a reasonably foreseeable manner. Plaintiff was harmed
and the dangerous condition was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's harm.
(lf the item that this Attachment concerns is made under penalty of perjury, all statementsin this page I of I
Altachment are made under penalty of pejrury.)
(Add pages as required)
Penn Approved for Opeonal Uee reran. ccunrnco ca go v
Judrual Counol of Calrfomra ATTACHMENT
MC-025 [Rev. July 1, 2009] to Judicial Council Form
PROOF OF SERVICE
~3013A 3 C.C.P.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteei
years and not a party to the within entitled action. My business address is 827 Moraga Drive, Lo
4
Angeles, California, 90049.
5
On August 3, 2020, I served the forgoing document described as Amended Summons, Firs
Amemled Complaint, Amemled Negligence Cause of Action, Amended Premises Cause of Action
Attachment to Amentled Premises Cause of Action aml Amended Civil Case Cover Sheet on th
interested parties in this action by placing the original true copies thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope
addressed as follows:
8
Garth W. Aubert, Esq. Attorney for Defendant(s):
9 Stephanie B. Gonzalez, Esq. SWISSPORT USA, INC.
FITZPATRICK & HUNT, PAGANO, AUBERT, LLP
633 West Fifth Strcct, 60th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tclz (213) 873-2100
12 Fax: (213) 873-2125
13 I am "readily familiar" with this firm's practice of collecting and processing correspondence fo
mailing. I know that the correspondence isdeposited with thc U.S. Postal Service on the same day thi
14 declaration was executed in the ordinary course of business. I know that the envelope was sealed and wit
postage thereon fully prepaid, placed for collection and mailing on this date, following ordinary busines
practices at Los Angeles, California.
16
X By Electronic Service. stephanie.gonzalez@fitzhunt.corn
17
By Overnight Delivery, I am "readily familiar*'ith the firm's practice of collection and
18 processing correspondence for overnight delivery. Under that practice, it is delivered to
an authorized courier by the express service to receive documents, in an envelope or
19 package designated by the express service carrier with delivery fees paid.
By Personal Service, I delivered such envelope(s) by hand to the office(s) of the
addressee(s).
X (State) I dcclarc under penalty of perjury, under thc laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct.
23
Exccutcd on August 3, 2020, at Los Angeles, California.
24
25
26 Susan Wright
27
PROOF OF SERVICE
-I
Preview
PLD-PI-001 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Nema, State Bar numder, and addreae) FOR COURT USE ONLY MICHAEL R. DUFOUR [SBN 290981] MCDonald Worley, P.C. 827 Moraga Drive Los Angeles, CA 90049 TELEPHQNE No:(424) 293-2272 FAX No (Optronai) ELECTRONICALLY michael@mcdonaldworley.corn E-MAILADDRESS (Opfional) Plaintiff ATTORNEY FOR (Name): F I L E D Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO sTREET ADDREss 400 MCCallister Street 08/03/2020 MAILING ADDRESS Clerk of the Court BY: BOWMAN LIU DITYANDzlpcoDE San Francisco, California 94102 Deputy Clerk BRANcH NAME Civic Center Courthous PLAINTIFF: DIONNE SAMUEL oEFENoANT: CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,SWISSPORT USA IN ooEs I To 30 INCLUSIVE COMPLAINT — Personal Injury, Property Damage, Wrongful Death AMENDED (Number)r FIRST ~~ Type (check a/I that apply): MOTOR VEIIICLE ~r ~OTNER (speciry): PremiSeS Liability ~ Property Damage Personal Injury ~r Wrongful Death Other Damages (specify)( Negligence ~Jurisdiction (check all that apply): ~ ACTION IS A LIMITED CIVIL CASE CASE NUMBER: Amount demanded ~ does not exceed $ 10,000 exceeds $ 10,000, but does not exceed $ 25,000 CGC-20-584972 ~~ ACTION IS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE (exceeds $ 25,000) ACTION IS RECLASSIFIED by this amended complaint 1. ~ from limited to unlimited from unlimited to limited Plaintiff (name or names)( DIONNE SAMUEL alleges causes of action against defendant (name or names): CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, SWISSPORT USA INC 2. This pleading, including attachments and exhibits, consists of the following number of pages: 3. a. ~ Each plaintiff named above is a competent adult ~ except plaintiff (name)) (1) (2) ~ ~ a corporation qualified to do business in California an unincorporated entity (describe)) (3) (4) ~ ~ a minor ~ a public entity (describe): an adult ~ (a) (b) ~ for whom B guardian or conservator of the estate or a guardian Bd litem has been appointed other (specify)) other (specify): b. ~ (5) ~ except plaintiff (name)) (1) (2) ~ ~ a corporation quahfied to do business in Cahfomia an unincorporated entity (describe)) (3) (4) ~ ~ a minor ~ a pubhc entity (describe)) an adult (5) ~ (a) (b) ~ for whom a guardian or conservator of the estate or a guardian ad litem has been appointed other (specify): other (speofy): ~ Information about additional plaintiffs who are not competent adults is shown in Attachment 3. Form Approved for Optional Uee COMPLAINT — Personal Injury, Property Page1of3 Code of Civil Procedure, 0 420.12 Judiaal Counal of California www courtrnfo ca gov PLD PIJ)01 [Rev January I, 2007] Damage, Wrongful Death PLD-PI-001 SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER: DIONNE SAMUEL VS. CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL. CGC-20-584972 4 ~ Plaintiff (name): is doing business under the fictitious name (specify): and has complied with the fictitious business name laws. 5. Each defendant named above is a natural person ~J'xcept defendant (name): a. (1) ~ ~ CITY OF SAN FRAN a business organization, form unknown c. (1) ~ except defendant (name): SWISSPORT USA INC a business organization, form unknown (2) (3) ~ a corporation an unincorporated entity (describe): (2) (3) ~ ~/ a corporation an unincorporated entity (describe): (4) ~K a public entity (describe): (4) ~ a public entity (describe): (5) ~ CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO other (specify): (5) ~ other (specify): b. ~ ~J'xceptdefendant(name): SAN FRANCISCO IN d. ~ ~ except defendant (name): (1) (2) (3) ~ ~ a business organization, form unknown a corporation an unincorporated entity (describe): (1) (2) (3) ~ ~ a business organization, form unknown a corporation an unincorporated entity (describe): (4) ~v' public entity (describe): (4) ~ a public entity (describe): (5) ~ INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT other (specify): (5) ~ other (specify): ~ Information about additional defendants who are not natural persons is contained in Attachment 5 The true names of defendants sued as Does are unknown to plaintiff. a. ~a'oe defendants (specify Doe numbers): I-)5 were the agents or employees of other named defendants and acted within the scope of that agency or employment. b. ~w Doe defendants (speciiy Doe numbers): )6-30 are persons whose capacities are unknown to ~ plaintiff. Defendants who are joined under Code of Civil Procedure section 382 are (names): 8. a. b. ~ This court is the proper court because ~ at least one defendant now resides in its junsdictional area. the pnncipal place of business of a defendant corporation or unincorporated association is in its junsdictional area. c. d. ~~w injury to person or damage to personal property occurred in its jurisdictional area. other (spemfy): 9 ~v'laintiff is required to comply with a claims statute, and a. b. ~ ~/ has complied with applicable claims statutes, or is excused from complying because (spemfy): Jaoaary1, 20071 PLD Pl 001 [Ref COMPLAINT— Personal Injury, Property Page 2 of 3 Damage, Wrongful Death PLD-PI-001 SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER: DIONNE SAMUEL VS. CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL. CGC-20-5 84972 10 The following causes of action are attached and the statements above apply to each (each complaint must have one or more a. ~ causes of action attached): Motor Vehicle b. c. d. ~ ~Y ~ General Negligence Intentional Tort Products Liability e. ~Y'remises Liability f. ~Y'ther (specify): Premises Liability cause of action is hereby filed only against Defendants, San Francisco International Airport and the City of San Francisco. General Negligence cause of action is hereby filed only against Swissport USA, Inc Plaintiff has suffered a. b. c. ~ ~Z ~Y wage loss loss of use of property hospital and medical expenses d. e. f. ~ ~K ~/ general damage property damage loss of earning capacity g. ~/ other damage (specify)( PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ACCORDING TO PROOF 12 ~~ The damages claimed for wrongful death and the relationships of plaintiff to the deceased are a. b. ~ listed in Attachment 12. as follows: 13. The relief soughtinthis complaint is within the jurisdiction of this court. Plaintiff prays for judgment for costs of suit; for such relief as is fair, just, and equitable; and for a. (1) (2) ~ ~v'ompensatory damages punitive damages The amount of damages is (in cases for personal injury or wrongful death, you must check (1)): 15. (1) (2) ~ ~/ according to proof in the amount of: $ The paragraphs of this complaint alleged on information and belief are as follows (speci)'y paragraph numbers): Prem L-l, Prem L-4, GN-l. Date: August 3, 2020 MICHAEL R. DUFOUR (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF OR ATTORNEY) PLO-Pl-001 [RAYJanuary \, 2007] COMPLAINT— Personal Injury, Property Paga 3 uf 3 Damage, Wrongful Death PLD-PI-001(4) SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER: DIONNE SAMUEL VS. CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL. CGC-20-584972 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION — Premises Liability Page 4 (number) ATTACHMENT TO ~Y Complaint ~ Cross - Complaint (Use a separate cause of action form for each cause of action.) Prem.L-1. Plaintiff (name): DIONNE SAMUEL alleges the acts of defendants were the legal (proximate) cause of damages to plaintiff. On (dare): OR ABOUT 02/19/2019 plaintiff was injured on the following premises in the following fashion (description of premises and circumstances of injury): SAN FRANSCISO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94128 (See Attachment One) Prem.L-2. ~ Count One — Negligence The defendants who neghgently owned, maintained, managed and operated the described premises were (names): K Does I to 30 Prem.L-3. ~ Count Two —Willful Failure to Warn [Civil Code section 846] The defendant owners who willfully or maliciously failed to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity were (names): Does to Plaintiff, a recreational user, wasH an invited guest M a paying guest. Prem. L-4. Count Three — Dangerous Condition of Public Property The defendants who owned public property on which a dangerous condition existed were (names): SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, SWISSPORT USA, INC. Does I to 30 a H Thedefendantpublicentityhad C] actual H constructive notice oftheexistenceofthe Prem.L-5. a. ~ b. ~ dangerous condition in sufficient time prior to the injury to have corrected it. The condition was created by employees of the defendant public entity. Allegations about Other Defendants The defendants who were the agents and employees of the other defendants and acted within the scope of the agency were (names): H Does to b. ~ The defendants who are liable to plaintiffs for other reasons and the reasons for their liabihty are LJ descnbed in attachment Prem.L-5.b LJ as follows (names): Pa e1off Form Approved for Opeonal Uae Judioal Counol of California CAUSE OF ACTION — Premises Liability Code of Civil Procedure, S 425 12 eire.coudiiifo ca gov PED-Pf-Ddf (4) [Rev January 1, 20Dyl PLD-PI-001(2) CASE NUMBER SHORT TITLE: DIONNE SAMUEL VS. CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL. CGC-20-5 84972 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION — General Negligence Page 5 (number) ATTACHMENT TO H Complaint H Cross - Complaint (Use a separate cause of action form for each cause of action.) GN-1. Plaintiff (name): DIONNE SAMUEL alleges that defendant (name): SWISSPORT USA, INC. ~ Does I to 30 was the legal (proximate) cause of damages to plaintiff. By the following acts or omissions to act, defendant negligently caused the damage to plaintiff on (date): OR ABOUT 02/19/2019 at (piece): (description of reasons for liability): 30 Page 1 of 1 Code of Civil Procedure 425 12 Form Approved for Opuonal Uae Judioal Counol of California CAUSE OF ACTION — General Negligence www courtrnfo ce gov PEO-Pl-001i2) [Rev January 1, 2007] MC-025 CASE NUMBER: SHORT TITLE: Samuel v. City of San Francisco CGC-20-584972 ATTACHMENT (Numtger): Otic (This Attachment may he used with any Judiraal Council form.) ATTACHMENT Prem. L-I This cause of action is based on Gov. Code sec. 835. and 835.2. Defendants, City of San Francisco and San Francisco International Airport (hereinafter, collectively, "The City), and DOES 1-30, and each of them, negligently owned, designed, constructed, maintained, managed or controlled the property located at the San Francisco International Airport in San Francisco, CA 94128, in San Mateo County. The City and DOES 1-30 treated the property as if it were its property, and had the power to prevent, fix, and/or guard against the dangerous condition. At the time of the accident, The City's property, located at the foregoing location where the accident occurred, was in a dangerous condition and created a substantial risk to Plaintiff and members of the general public when used with reasonable care and in a reasonably foreseeable manner. The dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury that occurred to Plaintiff. A dangerous condition was created by a negligent or wrongful act of Defendants, and/or their employees acting within the scope of their employment. Further, Defendants had notice of the dangerous condition for a long enough time to have protected against it. Defendants knew of the condition and knew or should have known that it was dangerous, through its employees, agents and servants. Further, employees, agents and servants of Defendants knew of the condition and reasonably should have informed Defendants about said condition, and/or did inform Defendants of the dangerous condition. The condition had existed for enough time before the incident and was so obvious that Defendants reasonably should have discovered the condition and known it was dangerous. Among other things, Defendants should have discovered the dangerous condition, by having a reasonable inspection program, which would have revealed the dangerous condition. The cost of an inspection program, balanced against the likelihood and seriousness of the potential danger if no such system existed, weighs in favor of having an inspection program. Defendants had practical options that should have been implemented when weighing the cost of protecting the public against the risk of injury. The conduct of Defendants was unreasonable, in that they had the time and opportunity to take action, particularly in regard to the likelihood and the seriousness of the potential injury. It would have been practical for Defendants to fix the dangerous condition prior to the accident. The condition of Defendants property where the accident occurred had become dangerous because of a change in physical conditions. Defendants had both actual and constructive notice of the dangerous condition created because they created the dangerous physical conditions including, but not limited to, the public area where Defendants negligently laid wires and cables on the ground knowing injuries could occur as a result thereof. Defendants had reasonable time to obtain the funds and carry out the necessary corrective work to conform the property to a reasonable safe condition. In the alternative, Defendants did not reasonably attempt to provide adequate warning of the dangerous condition if Defendants were unable to correct the condition due to the practical impossibility of such repairs or lack of funds. Plaintiff used the property with reasonable care and in a reasonably foreseeable manner. Plaintiff was harmed and the dangerous condition was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's harm. (lf the item that this Attachment concerns is made under penalty of perjury, all statementsin this page I of I Altachment are made under penalty of pejrury.) (Add pages as required) Penn Approved for Opeonal Uee reran. ccunrnco ca go v Judrual Counol of Calrfomra ATTACHMENT MC-025 [Rev. July 1, 2009] to Judicial Council Form PROOF OF SERVICE ~3013A 3 C.C.P. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteei years and not a party to the within entitled action. My business address is 827 Moraga Drive, Lo 4 Angeles, California, 90049. 5 On August 3, 2020, I served the forgoing document described as Amended Summons, Firs Amemled Complaint, Amemled Negligence Cause of Action, Amended Premises Cause of Action Attachment to Amentled Premises Cause of Action aml Amended Civil Case Cover Sheet on th interested parties in this action by placing the original true copies thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: 8 Garth W. Aubert, Esq. Attorney for Defendant(s): 9 Stephanie B. Gonzalez, Esq. SWISSPORT USA, INC. FITZPATRICK & HUNT, PAGANO, AUBERT, LLP 633 West Fifth Strcct, 60th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tclz (213) 873-2100 12 Fax: (213) 873-2125 13 I am "readily familiar" with this firm's practice of collecting and processing correspondence fo mailing. I know that the correspondence isdeposited with thc U.S. Postal Service on the same day thi 14 declaration was executed in the ordinary course of business. I know that the envelope was sealed and wit postage thereon fully prepaid, placed for collection and mailing on this date, following ordinary busines practices at Los Angeles, California. 16 X By Electronic Service. stephanie.gonzalez@fitzhunt.corn 17 By Overnight Delivery, I am "readily familiar*'ith the firm's practice of collection and 18 processing correspondence for overnight delivery. Under that practice, it is delivered to an authorized courier by the express service to receive documents, in an envelope or 19 package designated by the express service carrier with delivery fees paid. By Personal Service, I delivered such envelope(s) by hand to the office(s) of the addressee(s). X (State) I dcclarc under penalty of perjury, under thc laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 23 Exccutcd on August 3, 2020, at Los Angeles, California. 24 25 26 Susan Wright 27 PROOF OF SERVICE -I