Preview
FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP Electronically Filed
PAUL A. BIGLEY / Bar No. 119462
KENNETH H. CORONEL / Bar No. 137225 10/8/2020 7:23 PM
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3580 Superior Court of California
San Francisco, California 94104-6702 County of Stanislaus
(415) 627-9000; FAX: (213) 615-7100 Clerk of the Court
By: Sonia Krohn, Deputy
Mailing Address:
550 South Hope Street, 22nd Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
Attomeys for Defendants $435 PAID
ATLAS VAN LINES, INC. and
SOTERO SALAZAR ROMAN
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
11
12
ROBERT GREGG, SUZANNE GREGG, and Case No. CV-19-005163
13 KEAGHAN PATRICK, (Consolidated with
Case No. CV-20-000811)
14 Plaintiffs,
Vv.
15 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
ATLAS VAN LINES, INC., SOTERO FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-
16 SALAZAR ROMAN, JAIME RAMIREZ- COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. CV-19-
TORRES, MARK WEBSTER PEREZ, and DOES 005163; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
17 1 through 50, inclusive, AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION
OF PAUL A. BIGLEY; AND
18 Defendants. [PROPOSED] ORDER
19
20 AND RELATED AND CONSOLIDATED Date: November 13, 2020
CROSS-ACTIONS. Time: 8:30 am.
21 Dept.: 24
22
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
23
Please take notice that on November 13, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as the
24
matter may be heard in Department 24 of the above entitled Court, located at 801 10" Street,
25
Modesto, CA 95354, Defendants Atlas Van Lines, Inc. and Sotero Salazar Roman (collectively
26
(“Defendants”) will and hereby do move this Court for an order granting Defendants leave to file a
27
Freeman Mathis Cross-Complaint for equitable indemnity in Case No. CV-19-005163, a copy of which is attached
Gary, LP
Atomeys at Law 28
1
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF PAUL A. BIGLEY
16907828.1 07104-8240
hereto as ExhibitA.
(This motion is filed with a companion motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint in the
consolidated action, Case No. CV-20-000811.)
This motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 426.50, 428.50 and 473
and California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110.
This motion is based on the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the
Declaration of Paul Bigley and proposed attached Cross-Complaint filed and served herewith, any
further papers and the oral argument offered in support of the motion, and the Court’s complete file
for this matter.
10
11 Dated: October 8, 2020 FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP
12
13 ay, Meet Pinal
14 KENNETH H. CORONEL
Attorneys for Defendants
15 ATLAS VAN LINES, INC. and
SOTERO SALAZAR ROMAN
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Freeman Mathis
Gary, LP
‘Atomeys at Law 28
2
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF PAUL A. BIGLEY
16907828.1 07104-8240
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
This case pertains to a motor vehicle accident which occurred about noon on June 27, 2019
on State Route 120 in San Joaquin County. The accident resulted in the tragic death of Mikayla
Ann Gregg, age 21.
It was clear and dry on the day of the accident. Keaghan Patrick was driving a red Hyundai
Accent eastbound on SR-120 in Manteca with Ms. Gregg as a passenger. Eastbound SR-120
consists of two lanes and a shoulder. He wanted to take the upcoming exit on the right to Modesto
10 but, there were trucks and traffic in lane No. 2 which were moving at 55 miles per hour and
11 blocking access to the lane. He merged into a small gap in between two large trucks. Mr. Patrick
12 told an investigating officer that he was going between 70 to 75 miles per hour when he squeezed
13 into the No. 2 lane.
14 Thus, as he was going about 10 to 15 miles per hour faster in the No. 1 lane than the No. 2
15 lane, he had to slow to enter the No. 2 lane. Making the situation more precarious, traffic in the No.
16 2 lane was braking hard when Mr. Patrick drove into it because it was stopping ahead.
17 When he merged into the No. 2 lane, Mr. Patrick slid behind a tractor-trailer driven by Mr.
18 Ramirez-Torres. Directly behind him was a box truck driven by Mr. Roman. As a result, when Mr.
19 Patrick entered the No. 2 lane he robbed Mr. Roman of valuable stopping distance which was
20 between him and the Torres truck in front of him. Mr. Roman, in the box truck behind Mr.
21 Patrick’s car, was not able to slow sufficiently before hitting the Patrick car, which was then
22 pushed forward, into and undemeath the tractor trailer ahead of Mr. Patrick.
23 Defense counsel now believes that Mr. Patrick’s conduct was a substantial, if not the sole,
24 cause of the accident. As set forth below and in the Bigley Declaration, the facts supporting a
25 cross-complaint against Mr. Patrick were very recently learned. It has also recently been learned
26 that Defendant Jaime Ramirez-Torres was a probable contributing cause of the accident, the details
27 of which are set forth in the supporting declaration, below.
Freeman Mathis
Gary, LP
Atomeys at Law 28 Il
3
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF PAUL A. BIGLEY
16907828.1 07104-8240
B. PROCEDURAL STATUS OF THE CASE
The decedent’s parents, Robert Gregg and Suzanne Gregg, filed a wrongful death action on
August 6, 2019 in the San Joaquin Superior Court. A separate action was filed in the Stanislaus
Superior Court by the occupants of a car caught up in the crash, Mark Perez for personal injuries
and his wife Natalie Perez for loss of consortium. The two cases have been consolidated into the
Stanislaus case and the San Joaquin action has been dismissed. Trial has not been set.
C. THE PROPOSED CROSS-COMPLAINT
The proposed Cross-Complaint, Ex. A hereto, is brought by Defendants Sotero Salazar
10 Roman (“Roman”) and Atlas Van Lines, Inc. (“Atlas”) against K eaghan Patrick and Jaimie
11 Ramirez-Torres, stating causes of action for Equitable Indemnity, Declaratory Relief, and
12 Contribution.
13
14 D. AUTHORITY FOR THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS-COMPLAINT
15 An order allowing leave to file a cross-complaint may be obtained under Code of Civil
16 Procedure section 426.50:
17
“A party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to the requirements of this article,
18
whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, may apply to the
19
court for leave to amend his pleading, or to file a cross-complaint, to assert such cause at
20
any time during the course of the action. The court, after notice to the adverse party, shall
21
22 grant, upon such terms as may be just to the parties, leave to amend the pleading, or to file
23 the cross-complaint, to assert such cause if the party who failed to plead the cause acted in
24 good faith. This subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of
25
action.”
26
Leave is also requested under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 which allows
27
Freeman Mathis
Gary, LP amendment “in the furtherance of justice.”
Atomeys at Law 28
4
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF PAUL A. BIGLEY
16907828.1 07104-8240
E. LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS-COMPLAINT SHOULD BE LIBERALLY
PERMITTED
California has long embraced the policy of allowing liberal amendment of pleadings based
4} on the strong public policy of disposing of cases on their merits, rather than on procedural grounds.
See, e.g., Weingarten v. Block (1980) 102 Cal.App. 3d 129; Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972)
6 Cal.3d 920; Permalab-Metalab Equip. Corp. v. Md. Cas. Co. (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 466;
Klopstock v. Superior Court (1941) 17 Cal.2d 13. Desny v. Wilder (1956) 46 Cal.2d 715, 751.
It is an abuse of discretion to deny a timely motion to amend when the refusal deprives a
10 party of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or defense, as long as granting the motion
11 will not prejudice the opposing party. Redevelopment Agency v. Herrold (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d
12 1024, 1031.
13
Code Civ. Proc. § 473(a) provides that the court, in its discretion and in furtherance of
1
justice, may allow any party to amend a pleading or proceeding for mistake or upon any terms “as
1
may be proper.” Similarly, Code Civil Procedure § 576 also permits a judge to allow the
1
amendment of any pleading in the “furtherance of justice.” California courts apply a liberal
17
standard in allowing such amendments to pleadings at any stage of the proceeding, even during
18
trial. See Cal. Casualty Gen. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal. App.3d 274, 278; Saari v.
1
Superior Court of Humboldt County (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 175); Legg v. Mutual Ben. Health &
2
Acci. Asso. (1958) 162 Cal.App.2d 409; Youngblood v. Los Angeles (1958) 160 Cal. App.2d 481;
2
Eng v. Brown (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 675, 706.
22
23
F. COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS HAS RECENTLY LEARNED FACTS
24
SUPPORTING AN EQUITABLE INDEMNITY CROSS-COMPLAINT AGAINST
25
PATRICK AND RAMIREZ-TORRES
26
Defendants’ counsel learned of the dangerous situation created by Mr. Patrick from the
2
Freeman Mathis deposition testimony of an eye witness involved in the crash.
Gary, LP
‘Atomeys at Law 28
5
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF PAUL A. BIGLEY
16907828.1 07104-8240
Jaime Ramirez-Torres, the man driving the tractor trailer in lane No. 2 ahead of Patrick, was
deposed on June 19, 2020. He testified:
e that he had traveled that route many times before and was familiar with it;
e that shortly before the accident he recalled seeing the cars ahead of him breaking;
e that his speed was about 55 miles per hour when he began to brake;
that he was moving about 25 miles per hour when the Patrick car hit the rear of his rig;
that the Patrick car was not fully in Lane No. 2 when it struck his truck;
that at the time he was checking his rear view mirrors on each side every two to three
seconds;
10 that at no time did he see Patrick’s car behind him;
11 that he checked his rear view mirror two or three seconds before being struck by the Patrick
12 car and he saw only Roman’s Atlas box truck. (See Bigley Decl.)
13 Mr. Ramirez-Torres’ testimony is consistent with the statements of an eye witness taken at
14 the scene by a CHP officer from a Mr. Whisenton. Mr. Whisenton said that he saw the Patrick car
15 waiting to merge into lane No. 2 which was traveling at 50-55 mph. He saw Patrick merge into the
16 No. 2 lane directly in front of the Atlas box truck and then he immediately observed brake lights
17 ahead of him and a big dust cloud. He also said that he did not believe that Patrick did not make it
18 all the way into lane No. 2 before being struck by the box truck.
19 Unfortunately, Mr. Whisenton has something of a checkered past and despite diligent
20 efforts counsel has been unable to serve him with a subpoena.
21 Nevertheless, we now have credible evidence of Patrick’s dangerous move. As such,
22 Defendants see no need to wait to request leave to amend until after Whisenton is found, served
23 and deposed.
24
25 G. DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL HAS ALSO RECENTLY LEARNED, FROM MR.
26 RAMIREZ-TORRES HIMSELF HOW HIS CONDUCT MAY HAVE
27 CONTRIBUTED TO THE ACCIDENT
Freeman Mathis
Gary, LP
Atomeys at Law 28 Mr. Ramirez-Torres aggravated the situation because he was careless and inattentive. He
6
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF PAUL A. BIGLEY
16907828.1 07104-8240
was on the phone at the time of the accident, not realizing that traffic ahead was coming to a stop,
his large truck blocking the view of traffic ahead. When Mr. Ramirez-Torres did not have enough
room to stop, he swerved his truck to the right, onto the shoulder, suddenly revealing stopped
traffic, robbing those behind him of stopping distance.
H. NEITHER MR. PATRICK NOR MR. RAMIREZ-TORRES WILL BE
PREJUDICED BY THE CROSS-COMPLAINT
The actions taken by Mr. Patrick and Mr. Ramirez-Torres will be examined by the parties
in detail and with great scrutiny. In discovery, the parties will study their conduct under a
microscope because they are entitled to a reduction in damages (assuming any are to be found
10 against Defendants) due to his comparative negligence. The conduct of Patrick and Ramirez-Torres
11 is therefore “front and center” in terms of discovery, regardless of whether or not there is a cross-
12 complaint against them. Furthermore, a trial date has not yet been set and the Cross-Defendants
13 will have ample time to respond to the Cross-Complaint and conduct discovery.
14
15 I. CONCLUSION
16 Motions for leave to amend or file pleadings in California are liberally granted. The public
17 interest in conducting fair, equitable, and just trials trumps formal pleading requirements. As such,
18 unless the opposing party is prejudiced by the filing of a cross-complaint, it is rare in California
19 that a motion to amend or to file a cross-complaint is not granted. As good cause exists, it is
20 respectfully requested that this motion be granted.
21
22 Respectfully submitted,
23 Dated: October 8, 2020 FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP
24
25 Ment fa
26
KENNETH H. CORONEL
27 Attorneys for Defendants
Freeman Mathis
Gary, LP
ATLAS VAN LINES, INC. and
‘Atomeys at Law 28 SOTERO SALAZAR ROMAN
7
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF PAUL A. BIGLEY
16907828.1 07104-8240
DECLARATION OF PAUL A. BIGLEY
I, PAULA. BIGLEY, declare as follows:
1 I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all of the courts in the State
of California. I am a member of the law firm Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP, counsel of record for
Defendants Atlas Van Lines., and Sotero Salazar Roman in this action (“Defendants”). Except for
those facts asserted on information and belief, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in
this Declaration and, if called as a witness, could and would testify competently to such facts under
oath. As to matters stated which are on information and belief, I believe them to be true.
2 This Declaration is submitted in support of Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File a
10 Cross-Complaint.
11 3 This consolidated case arises out of a traffic accident which occurred on June 27,
12 2019 in Manteca, San Joaquin, CA. The accident resulted in the tragic death of a young woman,
13 Mikayla Ann Gregg, age 21. At the time of the incident, she was a passenger in a car driven by her
14 boyfriend, Keaghan Patrick.
15 4 On or about July 27, 2020, the firm of Cholakian & Associates filed a Substitution
16 of Attorney, substituting this firm as counsel of record in the consolidated cases for Defendants
17 Atlas Van Lines, Inc. and Sotero Salazar Roman. In connection with the transition, we have
18 recently received and are currently in the course of reviewing the extensive case file. My review of
19 the file reveals some investigation and discovery have been conducted to date. However, the pace
20 of the case has undoubtedly been slowed by the pandemic.
21 5. Based on my review of the file materials and particularly the recent deposition of an
22 eye witness involved in the crash, I have reached the opinion that Mr. Patrick was driving
23 carelessly, if not recklessly. We have learned that Mr. Patrick made a dangerous lane change,
24 squeezing in between big rigs that were travelling much slower than he was.
25 6 This conclusion is premised on the deposition testimony of Jaime Ramirez-Torres.
26 The deposition was taken via Zoom on June 19, 2020. I attended the deposition. In summary, Mr.
27 Ramirez-Torres testified:
Freeman Mathis
Gary, LP
‘Atomeys at Law 28 e that he had traveled that route many times before and was familiar with it;
8
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF PAUL A. BIGLEY
16907828.1 07104-8240
that shortly before the accident he recalled seeing the cars ahead of him breaking;
that his speed was about 55 miles per hour when he began to brake;
that he was moving about 25 miles per hour when the Patrick car hit the rear of his rig;
that the Patrick car was not fully in lane No. 2 when it struck his truck;
that at the time he was checking his rear view mirrors on each side every two to three
seconds;
that at no time did he see Patrick’s car behind him;
that he checked his rear view mirror two or three seconds before being struck by the Patrick
car and he saw only Roman’s Atlas box truck.
10 Mr. Ramirez-Torres was believable. Further, his testimony was consistent with statements made by
11 an eye witness at the accident scene.
12 7 Mr. Ramirez-Torres’ testimony is supported by statement made by Harvey
13 Whisenton which was taken by a CHP officer. According to the CHP Incident Detail Report dated
14 May 7, 2020 which summarizes his statement, Mr. Whisenton said that he saw the Patrick car
15 merge into lane No. 2 directly in front of the A tlas truck, followed immediately by seeing brake
16 lights ahead of him and a big dust cloud. He did not believe that the Patrick car had merged all the
17 way into lane No. 2 before it was hit.
18 8 Tam informed and believe that Mr. Cholakian’s office has diligently tried to serve
19 Mr. Whisenton with a subpoena without success. In light of the fact that we now have credible
20 testimony, taken under oath from a credible witness, I see no need to wait to depose Mr. Whisenton
21 to file this motion.
22 9 If the defense is upheld, the effect will be to shield the Defendants from liability
23 which they are not responsible for due to the dangerous actions of Mr. Patrick and the chaos he
24 created on the roadway.
25 10. The facts giving rise to the defense were recently discovered by me.
26 11. I have also recently learned that one or more of the parties intends to bring Mr.
27 Ramirez-Torres back into the case as a party.
Freeman Mathis
Gary, LP
‘Atomeys at Law 28 12. Mr. Ramirez-Torres aggravated the situation because he was careless and
9
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF PAUL A. BIGLEY
16907828.1 07104-8240
inattentive. He was on the phone at the time of the accident, not realizing that traffic ahead was
coming to a stop, his large truck blocking the view of traffic ahead. When Mr. Ramirez-Torres did
not have enough room to stop, he swerved his truck to the right, onto the shoulder, suddenly
revealing stopped traffic, robbing those behind him of stopping distance.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed on this 7 day of October, 2020, at Los Angeles, Califomia.
ep
Npmee
PAUL A. BIGLEY
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Freeman Mathis
Gary, LP
Atomeys at Law 28
-10-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF PAUL A. BIGLEY
16907828.1 07104-8240
Exhibit “A”
FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP
PAUL A. BIGLEY / Bar No. 119462
KENNETH H. CORONEL / Bar No. 137225
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3580
San Francisco, California 94104-6702
(415) 627-9000; FAX: (213) 615-7100
Mailing Address:
550 South Hope Street, 22nd Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
Attomeys for Defendants and Cross-Complainants
ATLAS VAN LINES, INC. and SOTERO SALAZAR ROMAN
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
10 ROBERT GREGG, SUZANNE GREGG, and Case No. CV-19-005163
KEAGHAN PATRICK, (Consolidated with
11 Case No. CV-20-000811)
Plaintiffs,
12 Vv.
CROSS-COMPLAINT OF
13 ATLAS VAN LINES, INC., SOTERO DEFENDANTS ATLAS VAN LINES,
SALAZAR ROMAN, JAIME RAMIREZ- INC. AND SOTERO SALAZAR ROMAN
14 TORRES, MARK WEBSTER PEREZ, and DOES AGAINST KEAGHAN PATRICK AND
1 through 50, inclusive, JAIME RAMIREZ-TORRES IN CASE
15 NO. CV-19-005163 FOR EQUITABLE
Defendants. INDEMNITY, DECLARATORY RELIER
16 AND CONTRIBUTION
17
ATLAS VAN LINES, INC., SOTERO
18 SALAZAR ROMAN,
19 Cross-Complainants,
20 Vv.
21 KEAGHAN PATRICK, JAIME RAMIREZ
TORRES and ROES 1 through 20,
22
23 Cross-Defendants.
24 —a- a
AND RELATED AND CONSOLIDATED
25 CROSS-ACTIONS.
26
27
28
1
CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR EQUITABLE INDEMNITY, DECLATORY RELIEF AND CONTRIBUTION
16891488.1 7104-84240
Cross-Complainants ATLAS VAN LINES, INC. and SOTERO SALAZAR ROMAN
allege:
1 At all times mentioned herein, Cross-Complainant SOTERO SALAZAR ROMAN
(“ROMAN”) was an individual with his place of residence in the State of California.
2 At all times mentioned herein, Cross-Complainant ATLAS VAN LINES, INC.
(“ATLAS”) was a corporation licensed to and doing business in the State of California.
3 Atall times mentioned herein, Cross-Defendant KEAGHAN PATRICK
(“PATRICK”) was an individual with his place of residence in the State of Missouri.
4 At all times mentioned herein, Cross-Defendant JAIME RAMIREZ-TORRES
10 (“RAMIREZ-TORRES) was an individual with his place of residence in the State of Califomia.
11 5. Cross-Complainants are ignorant of the true names and capacities of cross-
12 defendants designated as ROES 1-20 and sue said cross-defendants by fictitious names. Cross-
13 Complainants contend that each ROE cross-defendant is liable, in some manner, for the events and
14 damages alleged by Cross-Complainants. Cross-Complainants will ask leave of Court, if
15 necessary, to insert the true names and capacities of the fictitiously named cross-defendants when
16 they have been learned.
17 6 Atall times herein mentioned, each Cross-Defendant was the agent, servant and
18 employee of the remaining Cross-Defendants and was acting within the course and scope of said
19 agency and employment.
20 7 On or about August 6, 2019, ROBERT GREGG, SUZANNE GREGG and
21 KEAGHAN PATRICK (“PATRICK”) filed an unverified Complaint in the San Joaquin Superior
22 Court, Case No. STK-CV-UAT-2019-10142. This lawsuit has been transferred to the Stanislaus
23 Superior Court and consolidated with Case No. CV-20-000811 and has been assigned Case No.
24 CV-19-005163 (“Complaint”). Cross-Complainants incorporate by reference herein the entire
25 content of Plaintiffs' unverified Complaint as though set forth in full without admitting the truth of
26 any of its allegations.
27 8 Cross-Complainants filed an Answer to the Complaint denying its allegations.
28
2
CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR EQUITABLE INDEMNITY, DECLATORY RELIEF AND CONTRIBUTION
16891488.1 7104-84240
9 These consolidated cases arise out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on
June 27, 2019 on State Route 120 in Manteca, San Joaquin County. PATRICK was the driver of a
2019 Hyundai Accent. As a result of the accident, PATRICK’S girlfriend, Mikayla Gregg, who
was in the passenger seat of the Hyundai, lost her life at age 21.
10. Cross-Complainants are informed and believe that just prior to the accident,
PATRICK was driving eastbound on SR-120 in the No. 1 lane between 70 to 75 miles per hour.
SR-120 in Manteca is two lanes in each direction. PATRICK wanted to take the upcoming off-
ramp to the right to go to Modesto. He merged into a gap between a tractor-trailer truck ahead of
him, driven by Cross-Defendant RA MIREZ-TORRES, and the A tlas box truck driven behind him,
10 driven by Cross-Complainant ROMAN. At the time, traffic in lane No. 2 was going 60 to 65 miles
11 per hour. Just after PATRICK squeezed into lane No. 2 immediately in front of ROMAN, traffic in
12 that lane was slowing as traffic ahead was stopping. As a result, Cross-Defendant PATRICK
13 braked aggressively at the very moment he commenced his lane change, denying Cross-
14 Complainant ROMAN reasonable stopping distance. Cross-Complainants are informed and believe
15 that RA MIREZ-TORRES aggravated the perilous situation because he was careless and inattentive,
16 being on the phone at the time of the accident, not appreciating the fact that traffic ahead of him
17 was coming to a stop, such that the large truck, with its wide and high profile blocked the view of
18 the traffic behind. When RAMIREZ-TORRES swerved his truck to the right onto the shoulder, he
19 suddenly revealed to those behind that traffic was stopping, robbing those behind him of valuable
20 stopping distance.
21 11. Plaintiffs ROBERT GREGG and SUZANNE GREGG are the parents of Mikayla
22 Gregg and they have brought this action for Wrongful Death and Negligence.
23 12. Cross-Complainants are informed and believe that the conduct of PATRICK and
24 RAMIREZ-TORRES was either a substantial contributing factor causing the accident and the
25 damages arising therefrom or the sole factor.
26 13. Cross-Complainants contend that those legally responsible for the Plaintiffs’
27 damages as asserted in the Complaint include the Cross-Defendants.
28
3
CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR EQUITABLE INDEMNITY, DECLATORY RELIEF AND CONTRIBUTION
16891488.1 7104-84240
14. If, upon trial of this matter, it is found that Cross-Complainants were negligent,
which negligence is not admitted, but is alleged only for the purpose of pleading this cause of
action, then Cross-Complainants will be exposed to liability and damages in excess of the liability
attributed to the negligence of the Cross-Defendants. As a direct and proximate result of the acts
and omissions of Cross-Defendants, Cross-Complainants will be damaged in an amount equal to
that portion of the total amount of the verdict which is attributable to the acts and omissions of
Cross-Defendants, in that Cross-Complainants would be liable for the total amount of such verdict.
15. Asa further proximate result of the acts and omissions of Cross-Defendants, Cross-
Complainants have been required and in the future will be required to incur costs, expenses and
10 attorneys’ fees in defending against Plaintiffs’ claims, in an amount now unknown, but which will
11 be proven at trial.
12 16. An actual controversy exists between Cross-Complainants and Cross-Defendants,
13 and each of them. Cross-Complainants allege:
14 (a) The damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as alleged in the unverified
15 Complaint, were proximately caused by the conduct and/or liability of Cross-Defendants,
16 and each of them; and
17 (b) In the event the trier of fact determines that Plaintiffs suffered damages as a
18 proximate result of any negligence of Cross-Defendants, then Cross-Complainants are
19 entitled to recover as indemnity, implied indemnity and/or comparative equitable indemnity
20 from Cross-Defendants that portion of the judgment in the underlying action that is
21 attributable to the percentage of comparative fault assessed or assessable against Cross-
22 Defendants.
23 17. A judicial declaration is necessary to resolve the dispute set forth herein as no other
24 || adequate remedy at law exists to provide a prompt, speedy and timely resolution of this dispute.
25
26 WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainants pray for a judicial declaration and a judgment against
27 Cross-Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
28
4
CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR EQUITABLE INDEMNITY, DECLATORY RELIEF AND CONTRIBUTION
16891488.1 7104-84240
1 For a declaration of rights, duties and percentages of liability as to all parties
to this action;
2 For indemnity from Cross-Defendants, and each of them in an amount which
reflects the percentage of fault attributable to the acts and omissions of the Cross-
Defendants;
3 For reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including expenses for preparation,
investigation and defending the above-entitled action, and in prosecuting this Cross-
Complaint;
4 For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
10
11
12 Dated: October 7, 2020 FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP
Rin Poa —
13
14
15 KENNETH H. CORONEL
Attorneys for Defendants and
16 Cross-Complainants
ATLAS VAN LINES, INC. and
17 SOTERO SALAZAR ROMAN
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR EQUITABLE INDEMNITY, DECLATORY RELIEF AND CONTRIBUTION
16891488.1 7104-84240
PROOF OF SERVICE
I declare that I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the
age of eighteen years at the time of service and not a p to the within cause. My business address
is 550 South Hope Street, 22nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071-2627.
On October 8, 2020, I served copies of the attached document(s) entitled:
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-
COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. CV-19-005163; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF PAUL A. BIGLEY; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
on the interested parties in this action addressed as follows:
Ryan L. Dostart, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs
DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD Robert Suzanne Gregg and Keaghan
CAMPORA, LLP Patrick
20 Bicentennial Circle
10 Sacramento, CA 95826
Tel: (916) 379-3500
11 Fax: (916) 379-3599
E-mail: rdostart@ dbbwc.com
12 jorona@ dbbwe.com
Michael Karns, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs
13 William Karns, Esq. Mark Perez and Natalie Perez
Timothy P. Mitchell, Esq.
14 KARNS & KARNS, LLP
800 West 6" Street, Suite 800
15 Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel: (310) 623-9032
16 Fax: (310) 623-9033
E-mail: Tim@kamsandkams.com
17 leah@ karsandkarns.com
18 *MAIL and E-MAIL
Thomas J. Murray, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants
19 aron R. Lines, Esq. Mark Perez and Natalie Perez
KERN SEGAL & MURRAY, LLC
20 15 Southgate Avenue, Suite 200
Daly City, CA 94015
21 Tel: (415) 474-1900
Fax: (415) 474-0302
22
23
mall Hines@ Kemlawcom
voong@ kernlaw.com
24
Jenn Crittondon, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant/C ross-
25 Shellie Weidemann, Esq. Complainant
TYSON & MENDES, LLP Jaime Ramirez Torres
26 523 Fourth Street, Suite 100
San Rafael, CA 94901
27 Tel: (628) 253-5070
Freeman Mathis Fax: (415) 785-3165
Gary, LP E-mail: jcittondon@ tysonmendes.com
Atomeys at Law 28
-l1-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF PAUL A. BIGLEY
16907828.1 07104-8240
Eric S. Wong, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants/Cross-D efendant
WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, Atlas Van Lines, Inc. and Sotero Roman
EDELMAN, & DICKER, LLP Salazar
525 Market Street, 17" Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: (415) 433-0990
Fax: (415) 434-1370
E-mail: eric.wong@ wilsonelser.com
Steven J. Joffe, Esq.
WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ,
EDELMAN, & DICKER, LLP
555 South Flower Street, Suite 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 443-5100
Fax: (213) 443-5101
E-mail: steven.joffe@ wilsonelser.com
10 Michael C. Kronlund, Esq. Attorneys for Cross-Defendant
Nancy D. Hart, Esq. Beverly Y vonne Parcaiso
11 QUINN & KRONLUND, LLP
509 West Weber Avenue, Suite 400
12 Stockton, CA 95203
Tel: (209) 943-3950
13 Fax: (209) 943-3505
E-mail: tami@ quinnlaw.net
14
Nicholas Burke, Esq. Attorneys for Cross-Defendants
15 Angela Allard, Esq. Keaghan Patrick and Hertz Vehicles, LLC
RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C.
16 1215 K Street, 17" Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
17 Tel: (714) 613-1860
Fax: (714) 613-1860
18 E-mail: nburke@ rlattorneys.com
aallard@ rlattomeys.com
19 Ibremmer@ rattorneys.com
20
in the manner set forth below:
2
BY U.S. MAIL. I placed such envelope, addressed as above by first-class mail,
22 postage prepaid, for collection and mailing at my business address following our
ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with our ordinary business course
23
of collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the U.S. Postal
24 Service. In the ordinary course of business on the same day that correspondence is
placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service for
25 delivery to the addressee.
26 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL. I transmitted such document(s) via electronic mail
to the electronic mail addresses of the addressee(s).
27
Freeman Mathis
Gary, LP
Atomeys at Law 28
-12-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF PAUL A. BIGLEY
16907828.1 07104-8240
Executed on October 8, 2020 at Los Angeles, Califomia.
Brigit Trujillo
Brigit Tryillo
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Freeman Mathis
Gary, LP
Atomeys at Law 28
-13-
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND