Complaint,Petition: T'JADE JACKSON VS. CITY AND C0UNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                MMI

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Oct-02-2012 8:32 am

Case Number: CGC-12-520772
Filing Date: Oct-01-2012 8:32
Filed by: VANESSA WU
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03786907
CROSS COMPLAINT

TJADE JACKSON VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al

001C03786907

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.oon O82 Oo FF WO NY =

my Re NH NY NY NY DY NY DH | |= @& 2 2 2 a2 2 es |
on fm a Fk WY DBD = OC 86 oO HD HA fF WwW NH @ GD

Robin Y. Trembath, Esq. (SBN 121118)

LAW OFFICES OF GILSLEIDER, TREMBATH & McMAHON
SALARIED EMPLOYEES OF PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

2300 Clayton Road, Suite 430 ~
Concord, CA 94520-2100
(925) 674-3784 Direct Line
(925) 798-5355 Fax

Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Defendant
and Cross-Complainant ROBERT RUBESHAW

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

T JADE JACKSON Case No.: CGC-12-520772
Plaintiff, CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR INDEMNITY
vs.
Complaint Filed: May 14, 2012
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, DAVID EBARLE, ROBERT
RUBESHAW and DOES 1-50,

Defendants.

ROBERT RUBESHAW,
Cross-Compiainant,
vs.
DAVID EBARLE, and ZOES 1 through 20,

)
)
)
)
}
}
)
)
}
)
)
}
)
)
)
}
)
)
)
}
)
Cross-Defendants. {
)

COMES NOW Cross-Complainant, ROBERT RUBESHAW, and cross-compliains of
Cross-Defendants, and each of them, and for a cause of action allege as follows:

ut 4.

CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR INDEMNITYoclUhmnmlUONmWUN OUlUMlLUCUMRARULUOULDNOU

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(IMPLIED INDEMNITY)

1. That the true names and/or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate
or otherwise, of Cross-Defendants, and each of them, ZOES 1 through 20, inclusive; are
unknown to Cross-Complainant who therefore sues those Cross-Defendants, and each of
them, by such fictitious names and asks leave to amend this Cross-Complaint to show their
true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained.

2. Cross-Complainant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that each of
the Cross-Defendants designated as a ZOE is negligently or otherwise legally responsible in
some manner for the events and happenings referred to herein, and negligently or otherwise
legally caused injuries and damages proximately thereby to the Cross-Complainant.

3. At all times material herein, Cross-Defendants, and each of them, were the
agents, servants and/or employees of the remaining Cross-Defendants, and each was acting
within the course and scope of said agency, service and employment.

4. On or about May 14, 2012, plaintiff T Jade Jackson filed a Complaint for
Damages for Personal Injury, action No. CGC-12-520772 in the above-entitled Court naming
Cross-Complainant herein as Defendant. Without admitting the truth of the allegations
contained in said Complaint, and for the purpose of reference only, said allegations are
incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full.

5. In the Complaint on file herein, hereinafter referred to and incorporated herein
by reference thereto, the Plaintiff has alleged certain liabilities on the part of the Cross-
Complainant. If it should be ascertained that Cross-Complainant was negligent or otherwise
liable in any manner, which it expressly denies, such negligence or misconduct would be

passive, secondary and indirect, and that the activities, acts of omissions or commissions on
-2-

CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR INDEMNITYoOo NN DD HO FF WO NH

RN NY NY NY NY NY DN DN = = @ 2 wo ow oa ow eo
aon fF Oo FF OW BH A OG & BN DMD HF & WwW DS @ CO

behalf of the Cross-Defendants, and each of them, are the active, primary and direct causes

of any injuries sustained by the Plaintiff herein, not by the virtue of any act or omission or
commission on the part of said Cross-Complainant.

6. In the event that Cross-Complainant is held liable, said negligence,
carelessness and other acts or omissions or commissions of Cross-Defendants, and each of
them, are of a higher degree than the Cross-Complainant and thus, the Cross-Complainant is
entitled to contribution in proportion to each Cross-Defendant's negligence, carelessness,
acts or omissions or commissions and if any judgment is rendered against Cross-
Complainant and Cross-Defendants, or any of them, said judgment ought to be reduced and

apportioned according to the proportionate fault of all of said parties as more specifically set

forth in American Motorcycle Association v. Superior Court, (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 578.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(DECLARATORY RELIEF)

7. Cross-Complainant incorporates, as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs
one through six of its First Cause of Action.

8. Cross-Complainant alleges that an actual controversy exists between Cross-
Complainant and Cross-Defendants, and each of them, under the circumstances above
alleged and Cross-Complainant contends that the ultimate responsibility and liability, if any, is
the responsibility of the Cross-Defendants, and each of them, above named.

WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainant prays for judgment against Cross-Defendants, and
each of them, as follows:

1. Fora declaration that Cross-Complainant is entitled to partial equitable indemnity

from Cross-Defendants, and each of them, and is entitled to be held harmless and
-3-

CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR INDEMNITY=

NN NM ON NH NY KH NY ND NH SF SF eB le lel lel
an fF TO kk OBO NM 2B Oo Oo ON DW A PF WOW NH BF FS 8G DN DW TO F&F YO ND

indemnified from any and all expenses, costs of suit, legal fees, damages, judgment, or other
claims or awards which may be claimed or obtained in the action maintained by Plaintiff
herein.

2. If any judgment is rendered against Cross-Complainant or if the Cross-Complainant
pays or becomes obligated to pay any amount in settlement, that the Cross-Complainant
have judgment on this Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants, and each of them, for
reimbursement for that part of said judgment or settlement which is consistent with said
Cross-Defendants' comparative percentage share of the combined negligence of said Cross-
Defendants and Cross-Complainant.

3. For the costs of suit, and other expenses and damages incurred in the defense of
the action maintained by Plaintiff against Cross-Complainant, and for the prosecution of this
Cross-Compiaint.

6. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

DATED: September (K , 2012 LAW OFFICES OF GILSLEIDER,
TREMBATH & McMAHON

Attorney¢ for Defendant/Cross-Defendant and

Atomeys TREMBATH
Cross-Complainant ROBERT RUBESHAW

CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR INDEMNITYPROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss:
COUNTY OF CONTRACOSTA )

| am employed in the County of Contra Costa, State of California. 1 am over the age of 18 and not a
party to the within action; my business address is: 2300 Clayton Road, Suite 430, Concord, CA
94520-2142.

| served the foregoing document described as CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR INDEMNITY
on the parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed
as follows:

Sanford M. Cipinko, Esq. @ = (415) 693-9905

Law Offices of Sanford M. Cipinko “= FAX(415) 693-9904

55 Francisco Street, Suite 403 ATTORNEY for Plaintiff T’ JADE JACKSON
San Francisco, CA 94133

Steven C. Toschi ® (510) 835-3400

Jesse D. Kershner == FAX(510) 835-7800

Toschi, Sidran, Collins & Doyle ATTORNEY for Defendant/Cross-

100 Webster Street, Suite 300 Complainant/Cross-Defendant

Oakland, CA 94607 DAVID EBARLE

David Ammons M@ = (415) 554-3954

Office of the City Attorney =m FAX(415) 3837

City and County of San Francisco ATTORNEY for CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
1390 Market Street, 6" Floor FRANCISCO

San Francisco, CA 94102-5408

M BY MAIL: | am “readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing
correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that
same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Concord, California, in the ordinary course of
business. | am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal
cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in
affidavit.

(1 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: | caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices of the
addressee

(+BY FACSIMILE: | caused such document to be faxed to the addressee.

M (State) | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct.

5.

CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR INDEMNITYo ON OO oO fF Ye YP =

=
o

( (Federal) | declare that | am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose
direction the service was made.

Executed on September. [O , 2012, at Concord, California.

[H

Barbara Rosenbluth

CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR INDEMNITY