Preview
a
ARA JABAGCHOURIAN (SBN 205777)
ara@arajlaw.com
LAW OFFICE OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN FELEGODU
1650 S. Amphlett Blvd., Suite 216
San Mateo, CA 94402 SAN MATEO
Telephone: (650) 437-6840
Facsimile: (650) 403-0909
way 0 9 2016
Attorneys for Plaintiff Marvin Baten
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
oly
10
MARVIN BATEN, individually, CASE NO. CIV530274
11
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF ARA
12 JABAGCHOURIAN IN SUPPORT OF
Vv MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
13 COMPLAINT
WOODSIDE HOTELS AND RESORTS
14 GROUP SERVICES CORPORATION Date: June 6, 2016
dba STANFORD PARK HOTEL, a Time 9:00 am
15 California Corporation, and DOES 1 Dept LM
through 10, inclusive,
16
Defendants.
17
AND RELATED CROSS ACTION
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINT
DECLARATION OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN
I, Ara Jabagchourian, declare and affirm as follows:
1 Iam the attorney for the plaintiff on the above captioned matter and am owner of
the Law Office of Ara Jabagchourian. I make this declaration of my own personal
knowledge, and if called upon, I would competently testify accurately thereto.
Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the proposed First
Amended Complaint Plaintiff seeks to have filed.
Attached hereto as Exhibit B is true and correct excerpts of the deposition of John
Donley, Plaintiff's premise liability expert taken on March 16, 2016. Also attached
10
is a true and correct copy of Exhibit 4 of his deposition.
ll
Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs verified
12
response to Special Interrogatory, Set Two. Specifically, Response to Special
13 Interrogatory No. 37, requesting whether Plaintiff alleges any building code
14 violations.
15 Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct email from myself to Defendant’s
16 counsel, Lauren Koblitz, requesting a stipulation for leave to amend the complaint,
17 with the proposed complaint attached, dated May 5, 2016.
18
I state the foregoing under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and
19
(p/
20 attest that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed on May 9, 2016 in San Mateo,
21 California.
22
ARA JBAGCHOURIAN
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINT
~
PROOF OF SERVICE
1am employed in the County of San Mateo; I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to
the within cause. My business address is the Law Office of Ara Jabagchourian, 1650 S. Amphlett
Boulevard, Suite 216, San Mateo, California 94402. On this day, I served the following
document(s) in the manner described below:
DECLARATION OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
X_ VIA MAIL: J am readily familiar with this firm’s practice for causing documents to be
served by mail. Following that practice, I caused document described above to be
delivered by mail‘by dropping in the mail box to the addressee(s) specified below.
Christopher J. Nevis COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
10 Lauren J. Koblitz WOODSIDE HOTELS AND RESORTS
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP GROUP SERVICES CORPORATION
11 333 Bush Street, Suite 1100 dba STANFORD PARK HOTEL
San Francisco, CA 94104
12 Tele: (415) 362.2580
Fax : (415) 434.0882
13
Christopher.Nevis@lewisbrisbois.com
14 Lauren.Koblitz@lewisbrisbois.com
15 Mark A. Bates COUNSEL FOR CROSS-DEFENDANT
BATES WINTER & MISTRETTA LLP VALLEYCREST LANDSCAPE
16 925 Highland Pointe Drive, Suite 380 MAINTENANCE
Roseville, CA 95678
17
916-789-7080
18 916-789-7090 (fax)
19
I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the
20 foregoing is true and correct. Executed at San Mateo, “Ui, on May 9, 2016.
21
22
JABAGCHOURIAN
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
EXHIBIT A
ARA JABAGCHOURIAN (SBN 205777)
ara@arajlaw.com
LAW OFFICE OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN
1650 S. Amphlett Blvd., Suite 216
San Mateo, CA 94402
Tel: (650) 437-6840
Fax: (650) 403-0909
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10 MARVIN BATEN, individually, CASE NO.: CIV 530274
11
Plaintiff, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
122 DAMAGES
Vv.
13 (1) PREMISES LIABILITY
WOODSIDE HOTELS AND RESORTS (NEGLIGENCE)
14 GROUP SERVICES CORPORATION
dba STANFORD PARK HOTEL, a (2) NEGLGIENCE PER SE —
15
California Corporation, and DOES 1 VIOLATION OF STATUTES
16 through 10, inclusive, AND REGULATIONS
17 Defendants.
18
19
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LAW OFFICE, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
OF ARA
JABAGCHOURIAN
,
1 I INTRODUCTION
1 This is a case of disregard for safety of Plaintiff MARVIN BATEN (“hereinafter
“BATEN” or “Plaintiff’), who was allowed to walk through an unmarked emergency exit to the
back courtyard at WOODSIDE HOTELS AND RESORTS GROUP SERVICES
CORPORATION dba STANFORD PARK HOTEL located in Menlo Park because there were
no clear indicators on how BATEN and other patrons could get to the back courtyard and pool
area. Located immediately outside the emergency exit door, there was a significantly uneven
stone path leading to the back courtyard and pool area. The stone path posed a dangerous
condition for pedestrians due to its uneven surface. BATEN walked through the unmarked
10 emergency exit when he tripped on the uneven stone path found between the hotel door and the
ll concrete courtyard. As a result, BATEN suffered severe injuries. This injury was caused by
12 Defendant WOODSIDE HOTELS AND RESORTS GROUP SERVICES CORPORATION dba
13 STANFORD PARK HOTEL’s failure to properly inspect and maintain the subject stone path,
14 and Defendant STANFORD PARK HOTEL’s failure to properly indicate that the pathway was
15 for emergency purposes only.
16 i. PARTIES
17 A Plaintiff
18 2. Plaintiff, Marvin Baten (“BATEN” or “Plaintiff’) is a natural person who is and
19 at all times mentioned in this complaint was a resident of White Plains, New York.
20 B. Defendants
21 3 Plaintiff are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendant
22 WOODSIDE HOTELS AND RESORTS GROUP SERVICES CORPORATION dba
23 STANFORD PARK HOTEL (hereinafter “STANFORD PARK”) was, at all relevant times
24 mentioned herein, a business engaged in the business of providing hotel services, and at the time
25 of the accident was located at 100 El Camino Real in the City of Menlo Park, California.
26 Cc Other Defendants
27 4 The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or
28 otherwise of the Defendants DOE 1 through DOE 10, inclusive are unknown to Plaintiff who
LAW OFFICE
OF ARA.
JABAGCHOURIAN
COMPLAINT
X
therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §
474; Plaintiff further alleges that each of said fictitious Defendants is in some manner
responsible for the acts and occurrences hereinafter set forth. Plaintiff will amend this
Complaint to show their true names and capacities when the same are ascertained, as well as the
manner in which each fictitious Defendant is responsible.
5 Plaintiff is informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times herein
mentioned, each of the Defendants was an agent, servant, employee, officer, director, managing
agent and/or joint venture of each of the remaining Defendants, and in doing the things
hereinafter alleged, was at all times acting within the course and scope of this agency service,
10 employment, management and/or joint venture; and each Defendant has ratified and approved
1 the acts of each of the remaining Defendants.
12 il. STATEMENT OF FACTS
13 6. On July 30, 2014, Plaintiff BATEN, a patron at STANFORD PARK in Menlo
14 Park, had planned to meet his grandson for lunch. In the courtyard area of STANFORD PARK,
15 BATEN began to walk from inside the hotel, through an unmarked emergency exit, to reach the
16 back courtyard and pool area. As BATEN was walking, he tripped on a stone that was lifted,
17 elevated, or significantly uneven found between the hotel door and the concrete back courtyard.
18 This caused him to fall and suffer severe injuries. There were no clear signs to either BATEN or
19 the other patrons of the hotel that it was an emergency exit and to take another route to the back
20 courtyard and pool area.
21 7 Photos of the scene of the incident reveal the uneven stone path found between
22 the hotel door and the concrete back courtyard. (Attached hereto as Exhibit A)
23 8 Moreover, photos of the new sign installed after the incident, warning patrons of
24 the emergency exit, affirm Defendant’s failure to properly inspect and maintain the subject stone
25 path at the time of the incident. (Attached hereto as Exhibit B).
26 9. As a result of the incident, Plaintiff BATEN suffered several fractures of his hip
27 and femur, causing him to be taken by emergency personnel to nearby Stanford Hospital.
28 ///
LAW OFFICE:
OF ARA
JABAGCHOURIAN
COMPLAINT
Iv. CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Premises Liability - Negligence)
"(Against all Defendants)
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS:
10. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporate by reference each and every allegation
contained in Paragraph 1 through 9, inclusive, as if full set forth in detail herein.
11. Plaintiff, at all times herein mentioned, was authorized to be on the premises of
STANFORD PARK. In addition, there were no markers or signs indicating that BATEN should
10 use an alternative route to get to the back courtyard and pool area.
11 12. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon allege, that at all times prior to and
12 on the date of this incident, the condition on the stone path was dangerous and/or defective to the
13 guests of STANFORD PARK.
14 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon such basis allege that Defendants, and
15 each of them, did not exercise the responsibilities attendant to the ownership, development,
16 operation, use, construction, inspection, management, repair and/or maintenance of premises
17 located at 100 El Camino Real, in the City of Menlo Park.
18 14, In connection with its ownership, development, operation, use, maintenance,
19 repair, design, construction, management, and/or control of 100 El Camino Real, in the City of
20 Menlo Park, Defendants owed a duty of ordinary care to avoid exposing patrons of 100 El
21 Camino Real, in the City of Menlo Park, their guests or invitees, including Plaintiff, to an
22 unreasonable risk of harm, created by natural and/or artificial conditions existing and/or created
23 on the premises.
24 15. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon such basis allege, that Defendants
25 negligently and/or carelessly designed, planned, repaired, constructed, supervised, cared for,
26 controlled, inspected, and/or maintained 100 El Camino Real, in the City of Menlo Park, where
27 this incident occurred. The above-described condition represented a dangerous and/or defective
28
LAW OFFICE
OF ARA
JABAGCHOURIAN
COMPLAINT
Ne
condition, which created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of harm, injury and damage
incurred by Plaintiff.
16. Prior to the incident herein above described, Defendants and each of them, had
actual and/or constructive notice of dangerous and/or defective conditions therein and failed to
warn patrons, their guests, invitees and/or other persons within the area of such danger, or to
undertake appropriate measures to implement a maintenance or inspection program or have clear
signs redirecting patrons to another route which would and could have eliminated the danger and
make the premises safe. Moreover, Defendants were on notice of the defective condition and
failed to act.
10 17. As a legal result of the aforementioned acts of Defendants, Plaintiff was caused to
11 suffer serious personal injury.
12 18. As a legal result of the aforementioned acts of Defendants, and each of them,
13 Plaintiff sustained injuries to his body and person, all of which have caused and continue to
14 cause, Plaintiff great mental, physical and suffering, all to his general damage in an amount to be
15 shown according to proof at the time of trial.
16 19. As a further legal result of the aforementioned acts of Defendants, and each of
17 them, Plaintiff received medical treatment and/or attention, was required to incur, and did incur
18 medical expenses, and was prevented from attending his normal daily activities and/or
19 employment. Plaintiff, has thereby incurred losses for medical care and/or suffered a loss of
20 earnings, in amounts to be shown according to proof at the time of trial.
21 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as
22 hereinafter set forth below.
23 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
24 (Negligence Per Se — Violation of Statutes and Regulations)
25 (Against all Defendants)
26 AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS:
27 20. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporate by reference each and every allegation
28 contained in Paragraph 1 through 19, inclusive, as if full set forth in detail herein.
LAWOFLICE
Ol ARA
IABAGCI JOURIAN
COMPLAINT
21. Defendant STANFORD PARK was at all times herein mentioned, under a statutory
duty to comply with numerous building codes and regulations, including 1982 California
Building Codes 310.3, 1007.1, Chapter 11B-303.2, 11B-303.3, 1028.2, 3301, 3304(h), 3307;
2013 California Building Code section 116, 1003, 1003.5, 1007, 1008.1.5, 1010, 1012, 11B
Sections 302.1, 302.3, 303 405.2; and Uniform Building Code 1982, section 203, 1213
22. On July 30, 2014, STANFORD PARK violated the above mentioned regulations
and codes by failing to:
a. Allow a walkway at which is an exit discharge and is designated an emergency
exit to be unsafe by failing to maintain or construct in a matter that us an adequate means of
10 egress;
ll b. make accessible a building containing more than 20 rooms shall be accessible to
12 the physically handicapped;
13 C. Provide egress where more than one means of egress is required, each accessible
14 space shall be serviced by an accessible means of egress;
IS d Provide an exit in a continuous and unobstructed manner;
16 €. Provide a slope surface where elevation change an exit is less than 12 inches;
7 f. Provide a landing of proper length;
18 g. Provide a level landing outside the exit door;
19 h Provide handrails due to the slope of the exit discharge;
20 1 Provide a ramp with a slope no greater than one units of vertical for 12 units of
21 horizontal (8% slope);
22 J Provide floor surfaces that are stable, firm and slip resistant;
23 k Provide a decline slope that is beveled of a 1:2 ratio;
24 23. Plaintiff BATEN, as a guest of STANFORD PARK was of the class of persons
25 intended to be protected under the codes and regulations set forth above.
26 24. As a direct and legal result of said violations and of the aforementioned acts of
27 Defendant STANFORD PARK, Plaintiff was injured.
28
LAW OFFICE
OF ARA
JABAGCHOURIAN
COMPLAINT
1 5 As a direct and legal result of the aforementioned acts of Defendants, Plaintiff suffered
the damages hereinabove set forth.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
Vv. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1 General and Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined according to
proof of trial;
2. Medical Specials;
3 Other economic losses including, but not limited to, hotel bills, rehabilitation,
home modifications, in amount to be determined according to proof at trial;
10 4 Costs of suit herein incurred;
ll 5 Pre and post judgment interest; and
12 6 For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
13
Dated: May 9, 2016 LAW OFFICE OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN
{
14
15
16 By
ARA JABAGCHOURIAN
V7 Attorneys for Plaintiff
18
Vv. JURY DEMAND
19
Plaintiff BATEN demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.
20
221 Dated: May 9, 2016 LAW OFFICE OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN
22
23
By:
24 JABAGCHOURIAN
‘Attorneys for Plaintiff
25
26
27
28
LAW OFFICE
OF ARA
JABAGCIIOURIAN
COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT B
we
JOHN DONLEY - 03/16/2016 Page 4
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
--000--
MARVIN BATEN, individually,
Plaintiff,
vs. No. CIV 530274
WOODSIDE HOTELS AND RESORTS GROUP
SERVICES CORPORATION dba STANFORD
PARK HOTEL, a California
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10,
10 inclusive,
11 Defendants.
12
13
14 BE IT REMEMBERED that, pursuant to Notice, and
15 on Wednesday, March 16, 2016, commencing at 2:30 p.m.
16 thereof, at 333 Bush Street, Suite 1100, San Francisco,
17 California 94104, before me, KAREN A. FRIEDMAN, a
18 Certified Shorthand Reporter, personally appeared
19 JOHN DONLEY
20
21 called as a witness by the Defendants, who, having been
22 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
23 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEAGHER:
24 Q Would you state your full name, please
25 A John M. Donley, D-o-n-l-e-y.
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - New York
1-800-325-3376 www.deposition.com
>
JOHN DONLEY - 03/16/2016 Page 1.
nesses
S, that's current.
8 it current?
em 4 is, "All correspondence and other
cume: received by the deponent from any source
ee ebsear ae wee
dever concerning this case."
Let-me break that down into some subcategories.
the extent that you have received any correspondence
other written communications from Mr. Jabagchourian
relating to this case, would they be in the blue folder?
A They would be, yes.
13 Q Have you received any correspondence or written
14 communications from anybody else concerning this case?
15 A No.
16 Q Item 5 is, "Each and every written report and
17 analysis prepared by the deponent pertaining to any
18 issue in this case, and each document pertaining
19 thereto."
20 You gave me, at the beginning of the
21 deposition, a copy of this three-page memo to file dated
22 3/14/16. Would this be your report on this case?
23 A It's a memo to file. I don't have a report
24 that -- there's a number of additional fru fru that I
25 add to the beginning of a meaty document, like the one
DTI Court Re porting Solutions - New york
25-3376 www.depo. Om,
~. ~
\ \
JOHN DONLEY - 03/16/2016” Pa
to make it into a report.
er conditions and stuff like -- in fact, I
weather conditions are listed in there.
‘break this down. It begins, "Each and
+
feport." Are you saying you did not do a
WI: e
per se?
ane
nothing other than what's in your hand.
ou regard this as your summary of your
he. case?
a good description, yes, sir.
here anything else that you have created
alify as either a written report or an
is case?
me grab the back page of this bundle I just
That would be Exhibit 7?
Yes. The back page is a chart of slopes, that
y I think came from a roofing company. It's just
t has a variety of different slopes, and it's easy
20) And I marked on it with red pencil. So this is
f the analysis o c the case
Okay
Important.
24 All right. So that's the last page of Exhibit
25% ‘Is there anything else that you would regard as a
DTI Court Reporting Solutions - New York
25-3376 www.deposition.com
t c3/ Lé {204
JOEN DONL: Fags a
Pa D
cape
cz REPORTER
l
N A =PT ‘DMA. Ce d Short ad
a hareby certit the1é witn ss
SDOrt
re, gO.
re position was by me y swe co tell ths
whole truth
Th and not mi but the
the Truc 2 ain xz.
aoe oe
vi n eae led cause;
That said deposition was taken down n
shorthand by me, a di s terested person, at the and
10 place re sta te and that € testimony of = saia
witness was he ee reduced =O pewriting, by
te =
12 com; te 1 under my d rection and supe> sio.
I fur ce rt at Tam not of nsel
cou: nse or
acto ey fox or any o parties to he said
15
15 deposition, anv way nteres in the
uhe event of
S cause, ana at am not x lated to any of the
17 par ies th
12
3S
aD
=D LLL / 2016
20
21 fj
22 os
LORT
AML MDs
ROR And WN
23
bl nA ZOr
ne St a ew York
25
Cour: epor
2Do Sol 7 York
80 -325-3376 ww aspos ion com
mate
\ - 3/14/16
Memo to File
March 14, 2016
Subject: California Building Code Citations
14-102 Baten v. Woodside Hotels
Properties Discussed,
Stanford Park Hotel, Palo Alto CA
Purpose of Assignment
Gu?
List precise CBC sections that apply to the stepping-stones in the exit discharge, the
subject building element in the Baten matter.
Documents Reviewed
California Building Code, 2013.
Uniform Building Code 1982
City of Menlo Park website.
Travel Weekly website
Misc Notes:
The Stanford Park Hotel was built in 1984
Most recent renovation was 2007.
Assessors Parcel Number: 071440110
Address: 100 El Camino Real, Menlo Park % 3 [b- 22!
x
as
Applicable Sections of Current Codes
Previously reported:
1 Group R-1 Occupancy: Hotel, restaurant etc. CBC 310.3
2 Means of Egress shall be accessible. CBC 1007.1
3 No openings in accessible floor surfaces to allow passage of a % inch sphere.
CBC 11B-303.2
4 No changes in elevation in floor surface in accessible route greater than 4 inch.
CBC 11B-303,3
5 Required Exits shall be maintained free of impediments. CBC 1028.2
Additional Applicable Sections, including 1982 codes.
1 Unsafe Structures and Equipment CBC 2013 Section 116. “Structures.... that
are or hereafter become unsafe, insanitary or deficient because of inadequate
means of egress... or are otherwise dangerous to... public welfare or that
involve... inadequate maintenance, shall be deemed an unsafe condition. Unsafe
oo bau, if ra
BONLEY CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS
r sy
)
XR a 3/14/16
structures shall be taken down and removed or made safe as the building official
deems necessary and as provided in this section.”
Unsafe Buildings or Structures UBC 1982, Section 203. All buildings...
‘egulated by this code which are structurally in safe or not provided with adequate
egress, or which constitute a fire hazard, or are otherwise dangerous to human life
are for purposes of this section, unsafe. Any use of buildings or structures
constituting a hazard to safety, health or public welfare by reason of inadequate
maintenance, dilapidation obsolescence, fire hazard, disaster, damage or
abandonment is, for purpose of this section and unsafe use. All such unsafe
buildings structures or appendages are hereby declared to be public nuisances and
shall be abated by repair, rehabilitation, demolition or removal... As an
alternative, the building official... may institute any other appropriate action to
prevent, restrain, correct or abate the violation.
Access to Buildings UBC 1982 Section 1213. Buildings containing more than
20 guest rooms shall be accessible to the physically handicapped...
Accessible Means of Egress, CBC 2013 Section 1007. Where more than one
means of egress are required... from any accessible space, each accessible portion
of the space shall be serviced by antl accessible means of egress.
Exit Definition UBC 1982, Section 3301. An exit is a continuous and
unobstructed means of egress to a public way.
General Means of Egress CBC 2013 Section 1003. The general requirements
specified in Sections 1003 through 1013 shall apply to all three elements of the
means of egress system, in addition to those specific requirements for the exit
access, the exit and the exit discharge...
Elevation Change CBC 2013 Section 1003.5. Where changes in elevation of less
than 12 inches exist in a means of egress, sloped surfaces shall be used.
Floor Level at Doors UBC 1982 Section 3304 (h). Regardless of the occupant
load, there shall be a... landing on each side of a door. The... landing shall be not
more than % inch lower than the threshold of the doorway. When doors open
over landings, the landing shall have a length of not less than 5 feet.
Floor elevation CBC 2013 Section 1008.1.5. There shall be a... landing on each
side of a door. Such landing shall be at the same elevation f each side of the door.
Landings shall be level, except for exterior landings, which are permitted to have
a slope not to exceed 0.25 unit vertical in 12 units horizontal. (2-percent slope)
10 Ramps UBC 1982 Section 3307 (c) Slope. The slope of ramps... shall not be
steeper than 1 vertical to 12 horizontal. (d) Landings. Ramps having slopes
steeper than | vertical to 15 horizontal shall have landings at the top and bottom.
(c) Handrails. Ramps having slopes steeper than 1 vertical to 15 horizontal shall
have handrails as requires for stairways... one handrail required under 3308 (j)
il Ramps CBC 2013 Section 1010 Ramp Slope 1010.3. Ramps used as a means of
egress shall have a running slope not steeper than one unit vertical in 12 units
horizontal (8 percent slope.) 1010.7 Landings. Ramps shall have landings at the
bottom and top of each ramp. 1010.7.1 Slope. Landings shall have a slope not
steeper than one unit vertical in 48 units horizontal. (2-percent slope.) 1010.73
Length. The landing length shall be 60 inches minimum.
DONLEY
ati
CONSTRUCTION
Se
CONSULTANTS
S416
12. Handrails CBC 2013Section 1012. 1Required under Se ion 1009. 15 Strays
(and ramps under’Section 1012) shall have handrails on each side.
13. Accessibility Standards for Public Accommodations Chapter 11B Section
11B-302,1: General. Floor. surfaces shall be stable, firm and slip resistant.
“Openings Section 11B-302.3. Openings in floor shall not allow passage of a
sphere more than ¥ inch diameter.
14.Changes ini Level CBC 2013 Section 11B-303. Vertical changes in level of 4
- inch shall be permitted to be vertical and without edge treatment. 11B-303.3
Beveled. Changes in level between 4 inch high minimum and ¥ inch high
maximum shall be beveled with a slope not steeper than 1:2
15. Ramps CBC 2013 Section 11B-405.2. Slope. Ramps runs shall have a running
slope not steeper than 1:12. Floor surface, Handrails, Landings and Slope of
landings are all repeated
Non Compliant Aspects of Subject Walkway
The subject area of stepping stones and soils (with baby tears in the soil) and including
the landing at the top near the building is non-compliant with 7 sections of the 1982
Uniform Building Code in force when the building was built. The same subject area is
non-compliant with 19 sections of the California Building Code today
The significance of the non-compliance with the current building code arises from the
application of CBC 2013 Section 116, Unsafe Structures. Other than the obvious tripping
hazards in a fire exit, the landing is not level, and the entire subject area should be built to
the standards of a ramp due to its slope. The finding of an unsafe condition under Section
116 is supported by the remaining 18 non-compliant conditions.
The significance of the application of the 1982 Uniform Building Code is that the subject
area was a required fire exit at the time it was built and it should never have been
accepted at the time the building was constructed due to the 7 non-compliant conditions
listed above.
This subject section of a required exit was unsafe when it was built and it is unsafe now
It should be abated immediately.
wtf
WTPETONam 4 era a
DONLEY CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS
EXHIBIT C
ma
\
OS
ARA JABAGCHOURIAN (SBN 205777)
yjlaw.com
LAW OFFICE OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN
650 S. Amphlett Blvd., Suite 216
San Mateo, CA 94402
relephone: (650) 437-6840
Facsimile: (650) 403-0909
Httorneys for Plaintiff Marvin Baten
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10 MARVIN BATEN, individually, CASE NO. CIV530274
11 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO
12 ve
13 WOODSIDE HOTELS AND RESORTS
GROUP SERVICES CORPORATION
14 dba STANFORD PARK HOTEL, a
California Corporation, and DOES 1
15 through 10, inclusive,
16 Defendants.
17
18
19
PROPOUNDING PARTY: DEFENDANT STANFORD PARK HOTEL
RESPONDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF MARVIN BATEN
21
SET NUMBER: TWO
22
23
24
26
27
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.210 ef seq., Plaintiff Marvin Baten hereby
responds to Defendant Stanford Park Hotels Special Interrogatory, Set Two, as follows:
1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Propounding party should be aware that this responding party has not fully completed
investigation of the facts relating to this case, has not fully completed discovery in this action and
has not completed preparation for trial.
All of the responses contained herein are based only upon such information and documents,
which are presently available and specifically known to this responding party who discloses only
those contentions and documents, which presently occurred to such responding party. It is
10 anticipated that further discovery, independent investigation, legal research and analysis may
1 supply additional facts, add meaning to the new facts, as well as establish new factual conclusions,
12 legal conclusions and legal contentions, all of which may lead to substantial additions to, changes
13 in, and variations rom the contentions and disclosures set forth herein. The following responses
14 are given without prejudice to the responding party’s right to produce evidence of any
15 subsequently discovered facts or documents, which this responding party may later discover or
16 recall. The responding party accordingly reserves the right to change any and all responses herein
17 as additional facts or documents are ascertained and/or recalled and analyses thereof are made.
18 The responses contained herein are made in a good faith effort to supply as much factual
19 information as is presently known, but should in no way be to the prejudice of this party in relation
20 to further discovery, research, investig
Preview
a ARA JABAGCHOURIAN (SBN 205777) ara@arajlaw.com LAW OFFICE OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN FELEGODU 1650 S. Amphlett Blvd., Suite 216 San Mateo, CA 94402 SAN MATEO Telephone: (650) 437-6840 Facsimile: (650) 403-0909 way 0 9 2016 Attorneys for Plaintiff Marvin Baten SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO oly 10 MARVIN BATEN, individually, CASE NO. CIV530274 11 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF ARA 12 JABAGCHOURIAN IN SUPPORT OF Vv MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED 13 COMPLAINT WOODSIDE HOTELS AND RESORTS 14 GROUP SERVICES CORPORATION Date: June 6, 2016 dba STANFORD PARK HOTEL, a Time 9:00 am 15 California Corporation, and DOES 1 Dept LM through 10, inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 AND RELATED CROSS ACTION 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT DECLARATION OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN I, Ara Jabagchourian, declare and affirm as follows: 1 Iam the attorney for the plaintiff on the above captioned matter and am owner of the Law Office of Ara Jabagchourian. I make this declaration of my own personal knowledge, and if called upon, I would competently testify accurately thereto. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the proposed First Amended Complaint Plaintiff seeks to have filed. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is true and correct excerpts of the deposition of John Donley, Plaintiff's premise liability expert taken on March 16, 2016. Also attached 10 is a true and correct copy of Exhibit 4 of his deposition. ll Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs verified 12 response to Special Interrogatory, Set Two. Specifically, Response to Special 13 Interrogatory No. 37, requesting whether Plaintiff alleges any building code 14 violations. 15 Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct email from myself to Defendant’s 16 counsel, Lauren Koblitz, requesting a stipulation for leave to amend the complaint, 17 with the proposed complaint attached, dated May 5, 2016. 18 I state the foregoing under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and 19 (p/ 20 attest that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed on May 9, 2016 in San Mateo, 21 California. 22 ARA JBAGCHOURIAN 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT ~ PROOF OF SERVICE 1am employed in the County of San Mateo; I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within cause. My business address is the Law Office of Ara Jabagchourian, 1650 S. Amphlett Boulevard, Suite 216, San Mateo, California 94402. On this day, I served the following document(s) in the manner described below: DECLARATION OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT X_ VIA MAIL: J am readily familiar with this firm’s practice for causing documents to be served by mail. Following that practice, I caused document described above to be delivered by mail‘by dropping in the mail box to the addressee(s) specified below. Christopher J. Nevis COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 10 Lauren J. Koblitz WOODSIDE HOTELS AND RESORTS LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP GROUP SERVICES CORPORATION 11 333 Bush Street, Suite 1100 dba STANFORD PARK HOTEL San Francisco, CA 94104 12 Tele: (415) 362.2580 Fax : (415) 434.0882 13 Christopher.Nevis@lewisbrisbois.com 14 Lauren.Koblitz@lewisbrisbois.com 15 Mark A. Bates COUNSEL FOR CROSS-DEFENDANT BATES WINTER & MISTRETTA LLP VALLEYCREST LANDSCAPE 16 925 Highland Pointe Drive, Suite 380 MAINTENANCE Roseville, CA 95678 17 916-789-7080 18 916-789-7090 (fax) 19 I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the 20 foregoing is true and correct. Executed at San Mateo, “Ui, on May 9, 2016. 21 22 JABAGCHOURIAN 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE EXHIBIT A ARA JABAGCHOURIAN (SBN 205777) ara@arajlaw.com LAW OFFICE OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN 1650 S. Amphlett Blvd., Suite 216 San Mateo, CA 94402 Tel: (650) 437-6840 Fax: (650) 403-0909 Attorneys for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 MARVIN BATEN, individually, CASE NO.: CIV 530274 11 Plaintiff, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 122 DAMAGES Vv. 13 (1) PREMISES LIABILITY WOODSIDE HOTELS AND RESORTS (NEGLIGENCE) 14 GROUP SERVICES CORPORATION dba STANFORD PARK HOTEL, a (2) NEGLGIENCE PER SE — 15 California Corporation, and DOES 1 VIOLATION OF STATUTES 16 through 10, inclusive, AND REGULATIONS 17 Defendants. 18 19 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LAW OFFICE, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN , 1 I INTRODUCTION 1 This is a case of disregard for safety of Plaintiff MARVIN BATEN (“hereinafter “BATEN” or “Plaintiff’), who was allowed to walk through an unmarked emergency exit to the back courtyard at WOODSIDE HOTELS AND RESORTS GROUP SERVICES CORPORATION dba STANFORD PARK HOTEL located in Menlo Park because there were no clear indicators on how BATEN and other patrons could get to the back courtyard and pool area. Located immediately outside the emergency exit door, there was a significantly uneven stone path leading to the back courtyard and pool area. The stone path posed a dangerous condition for pedestrians due to its uneven surface. BATEN walked through the unmarked 10 emergency exit when he tripped on the uneven stone path found between the hotel door and the ll concrete courtyard. As a result, BATEN suffered severe injuries. This injury was caused by 12 Defendant WOODSIDE HOTELS AND RESORTS GROUP SERVICES CORPORATION dba 13 STANFORD PARK HOTEL’s failure to properly inspect and maintain the subject stone path, 14 and Defendant STANFORD PARK HOTEL’s failure to properly indicate that the pathway was 15 for emergency purposes only. 16 i. PARTIES 17 A Plaintiff 18 2. Plaintiff, Marvin Baten (“BATEN” or “Plaintiff’) is a natural person who is and 19 at all times mentioned in this complaint was a resident of White Plains, New York. 20 B. Defendants 21 3 Plaintiff are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendant 22 WOODSIDE HOTELS AND RESORTS GROUP SERVICES CORPORATION dba 23 STANFORD PARK HOTEL (hereinafter “STANFORD PARK”) was, at all relevant times 24 mentioned herein, a business engaged in the business of providing hotel services, and at the time 25 of the accident was located at 100 El Camino Real in the City of Menlo Park, California. 26 Cc Other Defendants 27 4 The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or 28 otherwise of the Defendants DOE 1 through DOE 10, inclusive are unknown to Plaintiff who LAW OFFICE OF ARA. JABAGCHOURIAN COMPLAINT X therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 474; Plaintiff further alleges that each of said fictitious Defendants is in some manner responsible for the acts and occurrences hereinafter set forth. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities when the same are ascertained, as well as the manner in which each fictitious Defendant is responsible. 5 Plaintiff is informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was an agent, servant, employee, officer, director, managing agent and/or joint venture of each of the remaining Defendants, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, was at all times acting within the course and scope of this agency service, 10 employment, management and/or joint venture; and each Defendant has ratified and approved 1 the acts of each of the remaining Defendants. 12 il. STATEMENT OF FACTS 13 6. On July 30, 2014, Plaintiff BATEN, a patron at STANFORD PARK in Menlo 14 Park, had planned to meet his grandson for lunch. In the courtyard area of STANFORD PARK, 15 BATEN began to walk from inside the hotel, through an unmarked emergency exit, to reach the 16 back courtyard and pool area. As BATEN was walking, he tripped on a stone that was lifted, 17 elevated, or significantly uneven found between the hotel door and the concrete back courtyard. 18 This caused him to fall and suffer severe injuries. There were no clear signs to either BATEN or 19 the other patrons of the hotel that it was an emergency exit and to take another route to the back 20 courtyard and pool area. 21 7 Photos of the scene of the incident reveal the uneven stone path found between 22 the hotel door and the concrete back courtyard. (Attached hereto as Exhibit A) 23 8 Moreover, photos of the new sign installed after the incident, warning patrons of 24 the emergency exit, affirm Defendant’s failure to properly inspect and maintain the subject stone 25 path at the time of the incident. (Attached hereto as Exhibit B). 26 9. As a result of the incident, Plaintiff BATEN suffered several fractures of his hip 27 and femur, causing him to be taken by emergency personnel to nearby Stanford Hospital. 28 /// LAW OFFICE: OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN COMPLAINT Iv. CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Premises Liability - Negligence) "(Against all Defendants) AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS: 10. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 1 through 9, inclusive, as if full set forth in detail herein. 11. Plaintiff, at all times herein mentioned, was authorized to be on the premises of STANFORD PARK. In addition, there were no markers or signs indicating that BATEN should 10 use an alternative route to get to the back courtyard and pool area. 11 12. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon allege, that at all times prior to and 12 on the date of this incident, the condition on the stone path was dangerous and/or defective to the 13 guests of STANFORD PARK. 14 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon such basis allege that Defendants, and 15 each of them, did not exercise the responsibilities attendant to the ownership, development, 16 operation, use, construction, inspection, management, repair and/or maintenance of premises 17 located at 100 El Camino Real, in the City of Menlo Park. 18 14, In connection with its ownership, development, operation, use, maintenance, 19 repair, design, construction, management, and/or control of 100 El Camino Real, in the City of 20 Menlo Park, Defendants owed a duty of ordinary care to avoid exposing patrons of 100 El 21 Camino Real, in the City of Menlo Park, their guests or invitees, including Plaintiff, to an 22 unreasonable risk of harm, created by natural and/or artificial conditions existing and/or created 23 on the premises. 24 15. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon such basis allege, that Defendants 25 negligently and/or carelessly designed, planned, repaired, constructed, supervised, cared for, 26 controlled, inspected, and/or maintained 100 El Camino Real, in the City of Menlo Park, where 27 this incident occurred. The above-described condition represented a dangerous and/or defective 28 LAW OFFICE OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN COMPLAINT Ne condition, which created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of harm, injury and damage incurred by Plaintiff. 16. Prior to the incident herein above described, Defendants and each of them, had actual and/or constructive notice of dangerous and/or defective conditions therein and failed to warn patrons, their guests, invitees and/or other persons within the area of such danger, or to undertake appropriate measures to implement a maintenance or inspection program or have clear signs redirecting patrons to another route which would and could have eliminated the danger and make the premises safe. Moreover, Defendants were on notice of the defective condition and failed to act. 10 17. As a legal result of the aforementioned acts of Defendants, Plaintiff was caused to 11 suffer serious personal injury. 12 18. As a legal result of the aforementioned acts of Defendants, and each of them, 13 Plaintiff sustained injuries to his body and person, all of which have caused and continue to 14 cause, Plaintiff great mental, physical and suffering, all to his general damage in an amount to be 15 shown according to proof at the time of trial. 16 19. As a further legal result of the aforementioned acts of Defendants, and each of 17 them, Plaintiff received medical treatment and/or attention, was required to incur, and did incur 18 medical expenses, and was prevented from attending his normal daily activities and/or 19 employment. Plaintiff, has thereby incurred losses for medical care and/or suffered a loss of 20 earnings, in amounts to be shown according to proof at the time of trial. 21 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as 22 hereinafter set forth below. 23 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 24 (Negligence Per Se — Violation of Statutes and Regulations) 25 (Against all Defendants) 26 AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS: 27 20. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporate by reference each and every allegation 28 contained in Paragraph 1 through 19, inclusive, as if full set forth in detail herein. LAWOFLICE Ol ARA IABAGCI JOURIAN COMPLAINT 21. Defendant STANFORD PARK was at all times herein mentioned, under a statutory duty to comply with numerous building codes and regulations, including 1982 California Building Codes 310.3, 1007.1, Chapter 11B-303.2, 11B-303.3, 1028.2, 3301, 3304(h), 3307; 2013 California Building Code section 116, 1003, 1003.5, 1007, 1008.1.5, 1010, 1012, 11B Sections 302.1, 302.3, 303 405.2; and Uniform Building Code 1982, section 203, 1213 22. On July 30, 2014, STANFORD PARK violated the above mentioned regulations and codes by failing to: a. Allow a walkway at which is an exit discharge and is designated an emergency exit to be unsafe by failing to maintain or construct in a matter that us an adequate means of 10 egress; ll b. make accessible a building containing more than 20 rooms shall be accessible to 12 the physically handicapped; 13 C. Provide egress where more than one means of egress is required, each accessible 14 space shall be serviced by an accessible means of egress; IS d Provide an exit in a continuous and unobstructed manner; 16 €. Provide a slope surface where elevation change an exit is less than 12 inches; 7 f. Provide a landing of proper length; 18 g. Provide a level landing outside the exit door; 19 h Provide handrails due to the slope of the exit discharge; 20 1 Provide a ramp with a slope no greater than one units of vertical for 12 units of 21 horizontal (8% slope); 22 J Provide floor surfaces that are stable, firm and slip resistant; 23 k Provide a decline slope that is beveled of a 1:2 ratio; 24 23. Plaintiff BATEN, as a guest of STANFORD PARK was of the class of persons 25 intended to be protected under the codes and regulations set forth above. 26 24. As a direct and legal result of said violations and of the aforementioned acts of 27 Defendant STANFORD PARK, Plaintiff was injured. 28 LAW OFFICE OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN COMPLAINT 1 5 As a direct and legal result of the aforementioned acts of Defendants, Plaintiff suffered the damages hereinabove set forth. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below. Vv. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 1 General and Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined according to proof of trial; 2. Medical Specials; 3 Other economic losses including, but not limited to, hotel bills, rehabilitation, home modifications, in amount to be determined according to proof at trial; 10 4 Costs of suit herein incurred; ll 5 Pre and post judgment interest; and 12 6 For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 13 Dated: May 9, 2016 LAW OFFICE OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN { 14 15 16 By ARA JABAGCHOURIAN V7 Attorneys for Plaintiff 18 Vv. JURY DEMAND 19 Plaintiff BATEN demands trial by jury on all issues so triable. 20 221 Dated: May 9, 2016 LAW OFFICE OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN 22 23 By: 24 JABAGCHOURIAN ‘Attorneys for Plaintiff 25 26 27 28 LAW OFFICE OF ARA JABAGCIIOURIAN COMPLAINT EXHIBIT B we JOHN DONLEY - 03/16/2016 Page 4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO --000-- MARVIN BATEN, individually, Plaintiff, vs. No. CIV 530274 WOODSIDE HOTELS AND RESORTS GROUP SERVICES CORPORATION dba STANFORD PARK HOTEL, a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, 10 inclusive, 11 Defendants. 12 13 14 BE IT REMEMBERED that, pursuant to Notice, and 15 on Wednesday, March 16, 2016, commencing at 2:30 p.m. 16 thereof, at 333 Bush Street, Suite 1100, San Francisco, 17 California 94104, before me, KAREN A. FRIEDMAN, a 18 Certified Shorthand Reporter, personally appeared 19 JOHN DONLEY 20 21 called as a witness by the Defendants, who, having been 22 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 23 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEAGHER: 24 Q Would you state your full name, please 25 A John M. Donley, D-o-n-l-e-y. DTI Court Reporting Solutions - New York 1-800-325-3376 www.deposition.com > JOHN DONLEY - 03/16/2016 Page 1. nesses S, that's current. 8 it current? em 4 is, "All correspondence and other cume: received by the deponent from any source ee ebsear ae wee dever concerning this case." Let-me break that down into some subcategories. the extent that you have received any correspondence other written communications from Mr. Jabagchourian relating to this case, would they be in the blue folder? A They would be, yes. 13 Q Have you received any correspondence or written 14 communications from anybody else concerning this case? 15 A No. 16 Q Item 5 is, "Each and every written report and 17 analysis prepared by the deponent pertaining to any 18 issue in this case, and each document pertaining 19 thereto." 20 You gave me, at the beginning of the 21 deposition, a copy of this three-page memo to file dated 22 3/14/16. Would this be your report on this case? 23 A It's a memo to file. I don't have a report 24 that -- there's a number of additional fru fru that I 25 add to the beginning of a meaty document, like the one DTI Court Re porting Solutions - New york 25-3376 www.depo. Om, ~. ~ \ \ JOHN DONLEY - 03/16/2016” Pa to make it into a report. er conditions and stuff like -- in fact, I weather conditions are listed in there. ‘break this down. It begins, "Each and + feport." Are you saying you did not do a WI: e per se? ane nothing other than what's in your hand. ou regard this as your summary of your he. case? a good description, yes, sir. here anything else that you have created alify as either a written report or an is case? me grab the back page of this bundle I just That would be Exhibit 7? Yes. The back page is a chart of slopes, that y I think came from a roofing company. It's just t has a variety of different slopes, and it's easy 20) And I marked on it with red pencil. So this is f the analysis o c the case Okay Important. 24 All right. So that's the last page of Exhibit 25% ‘Is there anything else that you would regard as a DTI Court Reporting Solutions - New York 25-3376 www.deposition.com t c3/ Lé {204 JOEN DONL: Fags a Pa D cape cz REPORTER l N A =PT ‘DMA. Ce d Short ad a hareby certit the1é witn ss SDOrt re, gO. re position was by me y swe co tell ths whole truth Th and not mi but the the Truc 2 ain xz. aoe oe vi n eae led cause; That said deposition was taken down n shorthand by me, a di s terested person, at the and 10 place re sta te and that € testimony of = saia witness was he ee reduced =O pewriting, by te = 12 com; te 1 under my d rection and supe> sio. I fur ce rt at Tam not of nsel cou: nse or acto ey fox or any o parties to he said 15 15 deposition, anv way nteres in the uhe event of S cause, ana at am not x lated to any of the 17 par ies th 12 3S aD =D LLL / 2016 20 21 fj 22 os LORT AML MDs ROR And WN 23 bl nA ZOr ne St a ew York 25 Cour: epor 2Do Sol 7 York 80 -325-3376 ww aspos ion com mate \ - 3/14/16 Memo to File March 14, 2016 Subject: California Building Code Citations 14-102 Baten v. Woodside Hotels Properties Discussed, Stanford Park Hotel, Palo Alto CA Purpose of Assignment Gu? List precise CBC sections that apply to the stepping-stones in the exit discharge, the subject building element in the Baten matter. Documents Reviewed California Building Code, 2013. Uniform Building Code 1982 City of Menlo Park website. Travel Weekly website Misc Notes: The Stanford Park Hotel was built in 1984 Most recent renovation was 2007. Assessors Parcel Number: 071440110 Address: 100 El Camino Real, Menlo Park % 3 [b- 22! x as Applicable Sections of Current Codes Previously reported: 1 Group R-1 Occupancy: Hotel, restaurant etc. CBC 310.3 2 Means of Egress shall be accessible. CBC 1007.1 3 No openings in accessible floor surfaces to allow passage of a % inch sphere. CBC 11B-303.2 4 No changes in elevation in floor surface in accessible route greater than 4 inch. CBC 11B-303,3 5 Required Exits shall be maintained free of impediments. CBC 1028.2 Additional Applicable Sections, including 1982 codes. 1 Unsafe Structures and Equipment CBC 2013 Section 116. “Structures.... that are or hereafter become unsafe, insanitary or deficient because of inadequate means of egress... or are otherwise dangerous to... public welfare or that involve... inadequate maintenance, shall be deemed an unsafe condition. Unsafe oo bau, if ra BONLEY CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS r sy ) XR a 3/14/16 structures shall be taken down and removed or made safe as the building official deems necessary and as provided in this section.” Unsafe Buildings or Structures UBC 1982, Section 203. All buildings... ‘egulated by this code which are structurally in safe or not provided with adequate egress, or which constitute a fire hazard, or are otherwise dangerous to human life are for purposes of this section, unsafe. Any use of buildings or structures constituting a hazard to safety, health or public welfare by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation obsolescence, fire hazard, disaster, damage or abandonment is, for purpose of this section and unsafe use. All such unsafe buildings structures or appendages are hereby declared to be public nuisances and shall be abated by repair, rehabilitation, demolition or removal... As an alternative, the building official... may institute any other appropriate action to prevent, restrain, correct or abate the violation. Access to Buildings UBC 1982 Section 1213. Buildings containing more than 20 guest rooms shall be accessible to the physically handicapped... Accessible Means of Egress, CBC 2013 Section 1007. Where more than one means of egress are required... from any accessible space, each accessible portion of the space shall be serviced by antl accessible means of egress. Exit Definition UBC 1982, Section 3301. An exit is a continuous and unobstructed means of egress to a public way. General Means of Egress CBC 2013 Section 1003. The general requirements specified in Sections 1003 through 1013 shall apply to all three elements of the means of egress system, in addition to those specific requirements for the exit access, the exit and the exit discharge... Elevation Change CBC 2013 Section 1003.5. Where changes in elevation of less than 12 inches exist in a means of egress, sloped surfaces shall be used. Floor Level at Doors UBC 1982 Section 3304 (h). Regardless of the occupant load, there shall be a... landing on each side of a door. The... landing shall be not more than % inch lower than the threshold of the doorway. When doors open over landings, the landing shall have a length of not less than 5 feet. Floor elevation CBC 2013 Section 1008.1.5. There shall be a... landing on each side of a door. Such landing shall be at the same elevation f each side of the door. Landings shall be level, except for exterior landings, which are permitted to have a slope not to exceed 0.25 unit vertical in 12 units horizontal. (2-percent slope) 10 Ramps UBC 1982 Section 3307 (c) Slope. The slope of ramps... shall not be steeper than 1 vertical to 12 horizontal. (d) Landings. Ramps having slopes steeper than | vertical to 15 horizontal shall have landings at the top and bottom. (c) Handrails. Ramps having slopes steeper than 1 vertical to 15 horizontal shall have handrails as requires for stairways... one handrail required under 3308 (j) il Ramps CBC 2013 Section 1010 Ramp Slope 1010.3. Ramps used as a means of egress shall have a running slope not steeper than one unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (8 percent slope.) 1010.7 Landings. Ramps shall have landings at the bottom and top of each ramp. 1010.7.1 Slope. Landings shall have a slope not steeper than one unit vertical in 48 units horizontal. (2-percent slope.) 1010.73 Length. The landing length shall be 60 inches minimum. DONLEY ati CONSTRUCTION Se CONSULTANTS S416 12. Handrails CBC 2013Section 1012. 1Required under Se ion 1009. 15 Strays (and ramps under’Section 1012) shall have handrails on each side. 13. Accessibility Standards for Public Accommodations Chapter 11B Section 11B-302,1: General. Floor. surfaces shall be stable, firm and slip resistant. “Openings Section 11B-302.3. Openings in floor shall not allow passage of a sphere more than ¥ inch diameter. 14.Changes ini Level CBC 2013 Section 11B-303. Vertical changes in level of 4 - inch shall be permitted to be vertical and without edge treatment. 11B-303.3 Beveled. Changes in level between 4 inch high minimum and ¥ inch high maximum shall be beveled with a slope not steeper than 1:2 15. Ramps CBC 2013 Section 11B-405.2. Slope. Ramps runs shall have a running slope not steeper than 1:12. Floor surface, Handrails, Landings and Slope of landings are all repeated Non Compliant Aspects of Subject Walkway The subject area of stepping stones and soils (with baby tears in the soil) and including the landing at the top near the building is non-compliant with 7 sections of the 1982 Uniform Building Code in force when the building was built. The same subject area is non-compliant with 19 sections of the California Building Code today The significance of the non-compliance with the current building code arises from the application of CBC 2013 Section 116, Unsafe Structures. Other than the obvious tripping hazards in a fire exit, the landing is not level, and the entire subject area should be built to the standards of a ramp due to its slope. The finding of an unsafe condition under Section 116 is supported by the remaining 18 non-compliant conditions. The significance of the application of the 1982 Uniform Building Code is that the subject area was a required fire exit at the time it was built and it should never have been accepted at the time the building was constructed due to the 7 non-compliant conditions listed above. This subject section of a required exit was unsafe when it was built and it is unsafe now It should be abated immediately. wtf WTPETONam 4 era a DONLEY CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS EXHIBIT C ma \ OS ARA JABAGCHOURIAN (SBN 205777) yjlaw.com LAW OFFICE OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN 650 S. Amphlett Blvd., Suite 216 San Mateo, CA 94402 relephone: (650) 437-6840 Facsimile: (650) 403-0909 Httorneys for Plaintiff Marvin Baten SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 MARVIN BATEN, individually, CASE NO. CIV530274 11 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO 12 ve 13 WOODSIDE HOTELS AND RESORTS GROUP SERVICES CORPORATION 14 dba STANFORD PARK HOTEL, a California Corporation, and DOES 1 15 through 10, inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 PROPOUNDING PARTY: DEFENDANT STANFORD PARK HOTEL RESPONDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF MARVIN BATEN 21 SET NUMBER: TWO 22 23 24 26 27 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.210 ef seq., Plaintiff Marvin Baten hereby responds to Defendant Stanford Park Hotels Special Interrogatory, Set Two, as follows: 1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Propounding party should be aware that this responding party has not fully completed investigation of the facts relating to this case, has not fully completed discovery in this action and has not completed preparation for trial. All of the responses contained herein are based only upon such information and documents, which are presently available and specifically known to this responding party who discloses only those contentions and documents, which presently occurred to such responding party. It is 10 anticipated that further discovery, independent investigation, legal research and analysis may 1 supply additional facts, add meaning to the new facts, as well as establish new factual conclusions, 12 legal conclusions and legal contentions, all of which may lead to substantial additions to, changes 13 in, and variations rom the contentions and disclosures set forth herein. The following responses 14 are given without prejudice to the responding party’s right to produce evidence of any 15 subsequently discovered facts or documents, which this responding party may later discover or 16 recall. The responding party accordingly reserves the right to change any and all responses herein 17 as additional facts or documents are ascertained and/or recalled and analyses thereof are made. 18 The responses contained herein are made in a good faith effort to supply as much factual 19 information as is presently known, but should in no way be to the prejudice of this party in relation 20 to further discovery, research, investig