Preview
7 e ee
Brian K. Ross, Esq. FILED
SBN 163940 ALAMEDA‘A COUNTY
ZOD
Law Offices of Brian K. Ross
1124 East 14th Street, Suite B
San Leandro, California 94577 SEP 2 7 2010
Telephone: (510) 483-3900 CLERK OF THE Supe
Facsimile: (510) 483-3903 By y me SUPERIOR court
Attorney for Plaintiff, Deputy
HEIDI OATIS
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
10
UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
11
12
13
14 HEIDI OATIS, ACTION NO. HGo08425849
15
Plaintiff, HEIDI OATIS’ UPDATED SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
16
vs.
17
A PERFECT DAY SPA, ET AL. Conference Date: September 28, 2010
18 Conference Time: 1:30 p.m.
Defendants. Conference Dept: 303
19 / Trial Date: October 25, 2010
20
‘COMES NOW, plaintiff, HEIDI OATIS (hereinafter referred to as “OATIS”), and
21
submits the following Updated Settlement Conference Statement:
22
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
23
24 This matter comes before the court for a Settlement Conference after a continuance of
25 trial and the conclusion of further discovery. Since the last Settlement Conference, the
26
depositions of plaintiff, the person most knowledgeable from defendant A Perfect Day
27
Franchise, Inc. (JUN MA), and percipient witness, Janice Harris have been taken.
28
PLAINTIFF HEIDI OATIS’ UPDATED SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Furthermore, defendant A Perfect Day Franchise, Inc. has been established as a proper
defendant.
Il. STATEMENT OF FACTS
This matter arises out of the sexual battery of OATIS on or about November 17, 2007, by
an individual known to Oatis at the time only as “Hemant.” Defendant HEMANT GU
(hereinafter referred to as “GU”) was an employee and agent of defendant A PERFECT DAY
FRANCHISE, INC. at the time of the incident. The incident occurred at A Perfect Day Spa,
located at 39039 Paseo Padre Parkway, Fremont, CA.
10
On the date of the incident, OATIS had gone to the Fremont facility for a massage.
11
OATIS had received massages at the Fremont facility on several previous occasions without
12
incident. Prior to her massage, OATIS informed GU that she had recently suffered a knee
13
injury and that she had previously taken medication therefor that made her drowsy. GU
14
thereafter gave OATIS a massage. During OATIS’ massage she lapsed into a state of
15
unconsciousness due to the medication. However, OATIS woke as she was being sexually
16
assaulted by GU. Specifically, GU was in the process of removing his finger and/or other
17
foreign object or device from OATIS’ anus, resulting in sexually offensive contact with OATIS
18
to which she did not consent.
19
OATIS immediately complained to the management of A Perfect Day Spa and thereafter
20
to the Fremont Police Department. Allegedly, an investigation was conducted by management
21
of A Perfect Day Spa. Furthermore, the Fremont Police Department did conduct an
22
investigation. GU denied the sexual battery and no criminal action was filed against him.
23
24
A Perfect Day Spa, knew or should have known of the sexual proclivities of their
25
employee, as a similar incident had occurred approximately one month prior to this incident
26
and was reported to the manager, as indicated by percipient witness Harris, but failed to take
27 action to address such known proclivities. Despite this prior incident, A Perfect Day Spa
28 continued to allow GU to provide massage services, and indeed continued to permit him to
provide massage services despite OATIS’ complaints.
PLAINTIFF HEIDI OATIS? UPDATED SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
2
HI. SETTLEMENT POSITION
GU’s actions, and the negligent failures of A PERFECT DAY to act with proper care in
hiring and supervising GU, and in maintaining and supervising the premises located at 39039
Paseo Padre Parkway in Fremont, CA, have caused OATIS to suffer tremendous pain, suffering
and inconvenience, terrible emotional distress, medical expenses, loss of earnings, and loss of
future earning capacity, and indeed the actions of GU were so outrageous, malicious and
oppressive that she seeks punitive damages herein as against both GU and his employer, A
10
Perfect Day Spa as detailed below.
11
Medical Treatment: Plaintiff went to the Kaiser Permanente facility in Union City for
12
three (3) counseling sessions from November to December 2007; and also went to Bay Area
13
Women Against Rape (510.845.7273) for 2 counseling sessions on 11-19-2007 and 11-20-2007.
14
Employment Loss: OATIS has been a self-employed cosmetologist & prosthetics
15
designer since 1994. As a consequence of the sexual battery, from the date of the incident (11-
16
17-2007) until early December 2007 she was not able to work. Thereafter, OATIS reduced the
17
number of days she worked from 6 to 3 until March 2008 due to depression stemming from
18
19
the incident. Commencing March 2008 OATIS worked 5 days a week; she would be working 6
20
days a week still ifnot for the INCIDENT.
21
OATIS demands $50,000.00 to date, based on lost business during the period in which
22 she could not work, reduced ability to work through March 2008 as set forth above, and
23 continuing inability to work 6 days a week as before until April 2010. At present plaintiff
24 makes approximately $4,500.00 a month as opposed to the $3,500.00 per month prior to the
25 time of the INCIDENT, and is no longer suffering ongoing wage loss, but until recently this was
26 not the case.
27 OATIS was still unable to work six days a week as she did before the INCIDENT until
28 very recently; this caused her to suffer continuing wage loss during the period that she was
PLAINTIFF HEIDI OATIS’ UPDATED SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
3
a}
working five days a week, which she estimated to be approximately $900.00 per month, until
approximately three months ago (April 2010), at which time she returned to working six days a
week and her income rose to the level set forth above.
Other Losses: OATIS had a membership at APERFECT DAY which was of no
continuing value to her after the INCIDENT; it was a $1,500.00 membership with about
$700.00 worth of remaining time.
General Damages: Emotional distress; depression; fear and distrust of men;
paranoia/fear of an attack on OATIS’ person, home or family by GU.
TOTAL DEMAND: $550,700.00.
10
Dated: September 27, 2010 ee
11
12
13
BRIAN K. ROSS, ESQ.
14 LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN K. ROSS |
Attorney for Plaintiff, HEIDI OATIS
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF HEIDI OATIS’ UPDATED SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
4
PROOF OF SERVICE BY TELEFAX
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the aforesaid county; I am over the
age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is
1124 East 14th Street, Suite B, San Leandro, California 94577. On September 27, 2010, Isent
by telefax a true copy of the attached:
PLAINTIFF’S UPDATED SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
upon the following interested parties:
Lee E. Sheldon, Esq. .
10
LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD C.J. WAHNG
152 Anza Street, Suite 201
11 Fremont, California 94539
Facsimile No. 510.490.1102
12
13
The facsimile transmission originated from facsimile number 510.483.3903 and was
14 transmitted to each and every recipient facsimile number set forth above. Upon completion
15
| the facsimile was reported as complete and without error and a transmission report was
16
generated and printed indicating this.
17
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
18
19
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 27, “8 at San Lean California.
20
BRIAWK. ROSS, ESQ.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Proof ofService -1
Preview
7 e ee Brian K. Ross, Esq. FILED SBN 163940 ALAMEDA‘A COUNTY ZOD Law Offices of Brian K. Ross 1124 East 14th Street, Suite B San Leandro, California 94577 SEP 2 7 2010 Telephone: (510) 483-3900 CLERK OF THE Supe Facsimile: (510) 483-3903 By y me SUPERIOR court Attorney for Plaintiff, Deputy HEIDI OATIS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 10 UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION 11 12 13 14 HEIDI OATIS, ACTION NO. HGo08425849 15 Plaintiff, HEIDI OATIS’ UPDATED SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 16 vs. 17 A PERFECT DAY SPA, ET AL. Conference Date: September 28, 2010 18 Conference Time: 1:30 p.m. Defendants. Conference Dept: 303 19 / Trial Date: October 25, 2010 20 ‘COMES NOW, plaintiff, HEIDI OATIS (hereinafter referred to as “OATIS”), and 21 submits the following Updated Settlement Conference Statement: 22 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 23 24 This matter comes before the court for a Settlement Conference after a continuance of 25 trial and the conclusion of further discovery. Since the last Settlement Conference, the 26 depositions of plaintiff, the person most knowledgeable from defendant A Perfect Day 27 Franchise, Inc. (JUN MA), and percipient witness, Janice Harris have been taken. 28 PLAINTIFF HEIDI OATIS’ UPDATED SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT Furthermore, defendant A Perfect Day Franchise, Inc. has been established as a proper defendant. Il. STATEMENT OF FACTS This matter arises out of the sexual battery of OATIS on or about November 17, 2007, by an individual known to Oatis at the time only as “Hemant.” Defendant HEMANT GU (hereinafter referred to as “GU”) was an employee and agent of defendant A PERFECT DAY FRANCHISE, INC. at the time of the incident. The incident occurred at A Perfect Day Spa, located at 39039 Paseo Padre Parkway, Fremont, CA. 10 On the date of the incident, OATIS had gone to the Fremont facility for a massage. 11 OATIS had received massages at the Fremont facility on several previous occasions without 12 incident. Prior to her massage, OATIS informed GU that she had recently suffered a knee 13 injury and that she had previously taken medication therefor that made her drowsy. GU 14 thereafter gave OATIS a massage. During OATIS’ massage she lapsed into a state of 15 unconsciousness due to the medication. However, OATIS woke as she was being sexually 16 assaulted by GU. Specifically, GU was in the process of removing his finger and/or other 17 foreign object or device from OATIS’ anus, resulting in sexually offensive contact with OATIS 18 to which she did not consent. 19 OATIS immediately complained to the management of A Perfect Day Spa and thereafter 20 to the Fremont Police Department. Allegedly, an investigation was conducted by management 21 of A Perfect Day Spa. Furthermore, the Fremont Police Department did conduct an 22 investigation. GU denied the sexual battery and no criminal action was filed against him. 23 24 A Perfect Day Spa, knew or should have known of the sexual proclivities of their 25 employee, as a similar incident had occurred approximately one month prior to this incident 26 and was reported to the manager, as indicated by percipient witness Harris, but failed to take 27 action to address such known proclivities. Despite this prior incident, A Perfect Day Spa 28 continued to allow GU to provide massage services, and indeed continued to permit him to provide massage services despite OATIS’ complaints. PLAINTIFF HEIDI OATIS? UPDATED SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 2 HI. SETTLEMENT POSITION GU’s actions, and the negligent failures of A PERFECT DAY to act with proper care in hiring and supervising GU, and in maintaining and supervising the premises located at 39039 Paseo Padre Parkway in Fremont, CA, have caused OATIS to suffer tremendous pain, suffering and inconvenience, terrible emotional distress, medical expenses, loss of earnings, and loss of future earning capacity, and indeed the actions of GU were so outrageous, malicious and oppressive that she seeks punitive damages herein as against both GU and his employer, A 10 Perfect Day Spa as detailed below. 11 Medical Treatment: Plaintiff went to the Kaiser Permanente facility in Union City for 12 three (3) counseling sessions from November to December 2007; and also went to Bay Area 13 Women Against Rape (510.845.7273) for 2 counseling sessions on 11-19-2007 and 11-20-2007. 14 Employment Loss: OATIS has been a self-employed cosmetologist & prosthetics 15 designer since 1994. As a consequence of the sexual battery, from the date of the incident (11- 16 17-2007) until early December 2007 she was not able to work. Thereafter, OATIS reduced the 17 number of days she worked from 6 to 3 until March 2008 due to depression stemming from 18 19 the incident. Commencing March 2008 OATIS worked 5 days a week; she would be working 6 20 days a week still ifnot for the INCIDENT. 21 OATIS demands $50,000.00 to date, based on lost business during the period in which 22 she could not work, reduced ability to work through March 2008 as set forth above, and 23 continuing inability to work 6 days a week as before until April 2010. At present plaintiff 24 makes approximately $4,500.00 a month as opposed to the $3,500.00 per month prior to the 25 time of the INCIDENT, and is no longer suffering ongoing wage loss, but until recently this was 26 not the case. 27 OATIS was still unable to work six days a week as she did before the INCIDENT until 28 very recently; this caused her to suffer continuing wage loss during the period that she was PLAINTIFF HEIDI OATIS’ UPDATED SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 3 a} working five days a week, which she estimated to be approximately $900.00 per month, until approximately three months ago (April 2010), at which time she returned to working six days a week and her income rose to the level set forth above. Other Losses: OATIS had a membership at APERFECT DAY which was of no continuing value to her after the INCIDENT; it was a $1,500.00 membership with about $700.00 worth of remaining time. General Damages: Emotional distress; depression; fear and distrust of men; paranoia/fear of an attack on OATIS’ person, home or family by GU. TOTAL DEMAND: $550,700.00. 10 Dated: September 27, 2010 ee 11 12 13 BRIAN K. ROSS, ESQ. 14 LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN K. ROSS | Attorney for Plaintiff, HEIDI OATIS 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF HEIDI OATIS’ UPDATED SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 4 PROOF OF SERVICE BY TELEFAX STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the aforesaid county; I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 1124 East 14th Street, Suite B, San Leandro, California 94577. On September 27, 2010, Isent by telefax a true copy of the attached: PLAINTIFF’S UPDATED SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT upon the following interested parties: Lee E. Sheldon, Esq. . 10 LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD C.J. WAHNG 152 Anza Street, Suite 201 11 Fremont, California 94539 Facsimile No. 510.490.1102 12 13 The facsimile transmission originated from facsimile number 510.483.3903 and was 14 transmitted to each and every recipient facsimile number set forth above. Upon completion 15 | the facsimile was reported as complete and without error and a transmission report was 16 generated and printed indicating this. 17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 18 19 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 27, “8 at San Lean California. 20 BRIAWK. ROSS, ESQ. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Proof ofService -1