On November 20, 2018 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Adrian'S Inc,
Project Frog, Inc.,
Hernandez, Elizabeth,
Hernandez, Rodolfo,
Valdez, Lorenzo,
and
Adrian'S Inc,
American Building Innovation Lp,
Buri Buri Elementary School,
Does 1-100,
Hmc Architects,
Project Frog, Inc.,
South San Francisco Unified School District,
Tn Webbing Products Co.,
Valdez, Joaquin,
Vila Construction Company,
for (23) Unlimited Other PI/PD/WD
in the District Court of San Mateo County.
Preview
1 Richard Garcia (State Bar No. 198185)
rgg@manningllp.com
2 Mark Wilson (State Bar No. 293474)
mxw@manningllp.com
3 MANNING & KASS
ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
4 One California Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, California 94111 11/4/2020
5 Telephone: (415) 217-6990
Facsimile: (415) 217-6999
6
Attorneys for Defendants SOUTH SAN
7 FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
and BURI BURI ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
11
12 LORENZO VALDEZ, by and through his Lead Case No.: 18CIV06259
Guardian Ad Litem, ERNESTO LAMAS- [Consolidated w/ Case No.: 19CIV03211]
13 PADILLA and LILIANA PADILLA DE
VALDEZ, DEFENDANTS SOUTH SAN
14 FRANCISCO SCHOOL DISTRICT AND
Plaintiffs, BURI BURI ELEMENTARY SCHOOL’S
15 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
v. UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN
16 SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY
VILA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; JUDGMENT
17 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT; BURI BURI Hearing Date: January 25, 2021
18 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL; JOAQUIN Time: 1:30 p.m.
VALDEZ; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Dept: Law & Motion
19
Defendants. Action Filed: June 12, 2019
20 Trial Date: June 7, 2021
21 AND CONSOLIDATED CASE
Hernandez, et al. v. Project Frog, et al.
22
23 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION
24
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
DEFENDANTS SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SCHOOL DISTRICT AND BURI BURI ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
1 Defendants South San Francisco School District and Buri Buri Elementary School
2 (collectively, “Defendants”), solely for the purpose of their motion for summary judgment or
3 summary adjudication, hereby submit this separate statement of undisputed material facts under the
4 provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350.
5
6 # Moving Party’s Undisputed Material Opposing Party’s Response and
Facts and Supporting Evidence Supporting Evidence
7 1. Buri Buri Elementary School is part of the
South San Francisco Unified School District
8 (“SSFUSD”).
9
Declaration of William Savidge (“Savidge
10 Decl.”) ¶ 3.
11 2. On June 19, 2017, Plaintiffs Lorenzo Valdez
and Rodolfo Hernandez were both employees
12 of VCC, which Defendants hired to supervise
the construction of a prefabricated building at
13 Buri Buri.
14
Savidge Decl. ¶¶ 4-5; Index of Exhibits, Ex.
15 B (Plaintiff Valdez’s Response to Project
Frog’s Special Interrogatories), No. 1; Ex. C
16 (Plaintiff Hernandez’s Response to Project
Frog’s Special Interrogatories), No. 1.
17
3. That day, VCC’s superintendent assigned
18
apprentice carpenter and VCC employee
19 Hector Rangel to perform rigging work.
Rangel was supposed to use a sling, hooks,
20 and straps to rig a prefabricated panel for
lifting using a forklift rented by VCC.
21
Index of Exhibits, Ex. D (Cal OSHA
22 Narrative Summary) at p. 548.
23
4. After the panel was rigged for lifting, it was
24 supported from underneath by a second
forklift operated by carpenter and VCC
25 employee Defendant Joaquin Valdez
(“Joaquin”) until the panel could be moved
26 to its point of installation, where Plaintiffs
27 were standing.
28 Ex. D at p. 548.
2
DEFENDANTS SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SCHOOL DISTRICT AND BURI BURI ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
1 # Moving Party’s Undisputed Material Opposing Party’s Response and
Facts and Supporting Evidence Supporting Evidence
2 5. When Joaquin removed the forks from
underneath the panel, one of the straps failed.
3 The panel flipped over, striking a wood
platform where Plaintiffs were standing. That
4
portion of the platform broke away, and
5 Plaintiffs fell 11 feet. The panel landed on top
of Valdez and Hernandez.
6
Ex. D at p. 548.
7
6. The California Occupational Safety and
8 Health Administration (Cal OSHA)
9 investigated VCC and the panel’s
manufacturer, Defendant Project Frog, Inc.
10 (“PFI”). The Cal OSHA investigation
concluded that: (1) Rangel was not properly
11 trained to rig the panel to the forklift, and (2)
the platform Plaintiffs were standing on could
12 hold only 300 pounds—likely the combined
13 weight of both Plaintiffs.
14 Ex. D at p. 549; Index of Exhibits, Ex. E
(Deposition of Channing Sheets) at pp. 22:4-
15 23:17, 138:19-139:11.
16 7. Neither Plaintiff was wearing any sort of fall-
protection device.
17
18 Ex. E at p. 43:5-13.
19 8. The Cal OSHA report does not reference fault
on the part of Buri Buri or SSFUSD.
20
Ex. D at pp. 547-549.
21
9. SSFUSD had no personnel onsite at the time
22 of the accident.
23
Ex. E at p. 101:13-17.
24
10. SSFUSD was not directing VCC in how to
25 perform the rigging and lifting of the panel.
26 Ex. E at p. 101:18-21.
27
28
3
DEFENDANTS SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SCHOOL DISTRICT AND BURI BURI ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
1 # Moving Party’s Undisputed Material Opposing Party’s Response and
Facts and Supporting Evidence Supporting Evidence
2 11. As far as the Cal OSHA investigator could
tell, SSFUSD had nothing to do with this
3 accident, other than SSFUSD owned the
building where it occurred.
4
5 Ex. E at pp. 101:22-102:1.
6 12. The agreement between Defendants and VCC
provides that VCC “agrees to furnish all tools,
7 equipment, apparatus, facilities, labor and
material necessary to perform and complete in
8 a good and workmanlike manner” the
9 construction project at Buri Buri.
10 Savidge Decl. ¶ 6; Ex. A (SSFUSD Contract
with Villa) at p. 2, ¶ 1.
11
13. The agreement further provides that VCC
12 “shall assume all liabilities of every kind of
nature arising from the [project], either by
13
accident, negligence, theft, vandalism, or any
14 cause whatsoever; and shall hold [SSFUSD]
and its agents and authorized representatives
15 harmless from all liability of every kind and
nature arising from accident, negligence, or
16 any cause whatsoever.”
17 Savidge Decl. ¶ 7; Ex. A at p. 3, ¶ 7.
18
14. Neither Buri Buri nor SSFUSD retained any
19 right to control, and did not control, the means
and methods of the work of VCC or VCC’s
20 employees. Neither Buri Buri nor SSFUSD
supervised VCC’s work. Responsibility for
21 determining how the work would performed,
22 including what safety measures would be
used, was wholly within the discretion of
23 VCC and its employees.
24 Savidge Decl. ¶ 8.
25
26
27
28
4
DEFENDANTS SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SCHOOL DISTRICT AND BURI BURI ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
1 # Moving Party’s Undisputed Material Opposing Party’s Response and
Facts and Supporting Evidence Supporting Evidence
2 15. Neither Buri Buri nor SSFUSD was
responsible for ensuring the safety of VCC
3 employees, training VCC employees, or for
ensuring that VCC or PFI employees had the
4
skill and experience necessary to complete the
5 construction work safely.
6 Savidge Decl. ¶ 9.
7
8
9 DATED: November 3, 2020 MANNING & KASS
ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
10
11
12 By:
Richard Garcia
13 Mark Wilson
Attorneys for Defendants SOUTH SAN
14
FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
15 and BURI BURI ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
DEFENDANTS SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SCHOOL DISTRICT AND BURI BURI ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS