This case was last updated from Fresno County Superior Courts on 03/07/2018 at 04:28:19 (UTC).

XXXXX

Case Summary

On 01/14/2014 XXXXX was filed as a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit. This case was filed in Fresno County Superior Courts, Bf Sisk Courthouse located in Fresno, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Simpson, Alan, Smith, Bruce, Hamilton, Jeffrey Y, Black, Donald, Snauffer, Mark and Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0134

  • Filing Date:

    01/14/2014

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Fresno County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Bf Sisk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Fresno, California

Judge Details

Judges

Simpson, Alan

Smith, Bruce

Hamilton, Jeffrey Y

Black, Donald

Snauffer, Mark

Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Cross Defendants, Cross Plaintiffs and Consolidated 3Rd Party Defendants

Gonzalez, Sandra

Vemma Nutrition Company

Velasquez, Carlos

Defendant and Consolidated Plaintiff

Fernandez, Raymond

Defendants, Cross Defendants, Cross Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs and Consolidated 3Rd Party Defendants

Vemma Nutrition Company

Union Pacific Railroad

County of Fresno

Zim Industries, Inc.

Estate of Michaela Smith

Anello, Gregory

Green, R.B.

Kamine, Yosh

Kamine, Jacob

Fernandez, Raymond

Smith, Debra

Public Utilities Commission

sued herein as Roe 1

Sued as Roe 1

Orange Avenue Disposal Company, Inc.

Union Pacific Railroad Company, an Delaware corporation

California Public Utilities Commission

Cross Plaintiff, Defendant and Consolidated 3Rd Party Plaintiff

Smith, Debra

Guardian Ad Litem

Alonz, Teresa

22 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Plaintiff and Consolidated 3Rd Party Defendant Attorneys

Paboojian, Warren R.

Baradat & Paboojian 720 West Alluvial Avenue

Fresno, CA 93711

Morovati, Christina Y

Pape, Kara

Coleman, Mark W.

Overstreet, David M., IV

Horn, Charles H.

Clifford, Daniel T.

Emerson, James D.

Donahue, James R

Vogt, Mark A

Lewis, Oliver R.

Gillettte, Keith R.

Efstratis, H Paul

Defendant and Consolidated Plaintiff Attorney

Vogt, Mark A

Consolidated 3Rd Party Plaintiff Attorney

Cornwell, Stephen R.

Other Attorneys

Barsotti, Todd B.

Betts, James B.

Libke, Ryan D.

Kirrane, Michele

Flesher, Jacob D.

 

Court Documents

Judgment

Stipulated Judgment Entered; Judicial Officer: Black, Donald; Judgment Type: Stipulated Judgment Entered; Judgment - Monetary Award; Awarded To:; Gonzalez, Sandra; Vega, Sarah; No Judgment Awarded; Awarded Against:; Public Utilities Commission; Status: Granted; Status Date: 07/10/2015; Status Comment: Partial Judgment

Declaration Filed

Declaration; Comment: Declaration of Jacob D. Flesher In Support of Union Pacific Raildroad Company's Opposition to Plaintiff Sandra Gonzalez's Motion for New Trial

Exhibit List Filed

Notice; Comment: Proposed Exhibit List

Declaration Filed

Declaration; Comment: Declaration in support of UP Motion in Limine 4

Opposition filed

Opposition; Comment: Opposition to Vemma Nutrition Company's Motion to Supplement Expert Witness List

Opposition filed

Opposition filed; Comment: to Defendant, Zim Industries, Inc.'s, Motion for Summary Judgement or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication

Opposition filed

Opposition; Comment: Plaintiffs, Sandra Gonzalez and Sarah Vega's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant, Vemma Nutrition Company's Motion to Bifurcate

Notice Filed

Notice Filed; Comment: Index of Evidence in Opposition to Defendant Vemma Nutrition Companys Motion for Summary Judgment

Notice Filed

Notice Filed; Comment: Separately Bound Index of Evidentiary Echibits Volume VI Exhibits 41 through 45

Judgment

Dismissal - Other filed; Judgment Type: Dismissal - Other filed; Party Names: Orange Avenue Disposal Company, Inc.; Union Pacific Railroad Company, an Delaware corporation; Comment: With Prejudice.; Comment: (As to 4th Cross-Complaint filed by Union Pacific Railroad Company ONLY. Entire action cannot be dismissed w/out attorney's consent signature from other active complaints.)

List filed

Notice; Comment: Proposed Witness List

Minute Order Attachment (Tentative Rulings Only)

Civil Document

Letter Received

Letter Received; Comment: re: pretrial discovery request

Notice Filed

Notice Filed; Comment: of intent to introduce videotaped deposition of Nicholas Luevano at trial

Declaration Filed

Declaration Filed; Comment: of Jeremy J. Schroeder in support of Reply to Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant, Union Pacific Railroad Company, as to the Second Amended Complaint of Sandra Gonzalez, Sarah Vega, Carlos Velasquez and Raymond Fernandez

Notice Filed

Notice Filed; Comment: of Errata to defendant Orange Avenue Disposal Co., Inc's answer to plaintiff Sandra Gonzalez and Sarah Vega's Doe Amendment to their second amended complaint

Declaration Filed

Declaration Filed

Summons issued and filed

Civil Document; Comment: Cross-Complaint

659 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/17/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Judgment on Jury Verdict; Judicial Officer: Black, Donald; Judgment Type: Judgment on Jury Verdict; Party Names: Gonzalez, Sandra; Vemma Nutrition Company; Union Pacific Railroad Company; County of Fresno; Zim Industries, Inc.; Estate of Michaela Smith; Anello, Gregory; Green, R.B.; Kamine, Yosh; Kamine, Jacob; Fernandez, Raymond; Velasquez, Carlos; Vemma Nutrition Company; Estate of Michaela Smith; Alonzo, Teresa; Alonzo, David, SR; Alonzo, Rosalina; Verdugo, Victoria; Alonz, Teresa; Alonzo, Joseph; Vemma Nutrition Company; County of Fresno; Zim Industries, Inc.; Estate of Michael Smith, Deceased; Anello, Gregory; Kamine, Yosh; Kamine, Jacob; Green, R.D.; Martinez, Alexandra Sanchez; Vemma Nutrittion Company; Union Pacific Railroad Company; County of Fresno; California Public Commission; Estate of Michaela Smith, Deceased; Anello, Gregory; Green, R. D.; Kamine, Yosh; Kamine, Jacob; Zim Industries Inc; Vega, Sarah; Public Utilities Commission; Smith, Debra; Union Pacific Railroad Company; County of Fresno, California; California Public Utilities Commission; Zim Industries, Inc.; Vemma Nutrition Company; Vemma Nutrition Company; Estate of Michaela Smith; Vemma Nutrition Company; Estate of Michaela Smith; Black, Donald; Culver Kapetan, Kristi; Snauffer, Mark W; Orange Avenue Disposal Company, Inc.; Orange Avenue Disposal Company, Inc.; Smith, Stephen; Orange Avenue Disposal Company, Inc.; Union Pacific Railroad Company, an Delaware corporation; Vemma Nutrition Company; Estate of Michaela Smith; Roes 1-50; Orange Avenue Disposal Company, Inc. as Doe 52; Orange Avenue Disposal Company, Inc; Orange Avenue Disposal Company, Inc; Smith, Debra; Smith, Debra; Smith, Debra; Michaela Smith Deceased, By and through Estate of Michaela Smith; Zim Industries, Inc.; Union Pacific Railroad Company; Vemma Nutrition Company; Fernandez, Raymond; Judgment - Monetary Award; Awarded To:; Union Pacific Railroad Company; Zim Industries, Inc.; Judgment Amount: $107,490.90; Awarded Against:; Gonzalez, Sandra; Vega, Sarah; Smith, Debra; Smith, Stephen

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Dismissal of Party; Judgment Type: Dismissal of Party; Party Name: Martinez, Alexandra Sanchez; Comment: With prejudice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Judgment on Jury Verdict; Judicial Officer: Black, Donald; Judgment Type: Judgment on Jury Verdict; Party Names: Gonzalez, Sandra; Vemma Nutrition Company; Union Pacific Railroad Company; County of Fresno; Zim Industries, Inc.; Estate of Michaela Smith; Anello, Gregory; Green, R.B.; Kamine, Yosh; Kamine, Jacob; Fernandez, Raymond; Velasquez, Carlos; Vemma Nutrition Company; Estate of Michaela Smith; Alonzo, Teresa; Alonzo, David, SR; Alonzo, Rosalina; Verdugo, Victoria; Alonz, Teresa; Alonzo, Joseph; Vemma Nutrition Company; County of Fresno; Zim Industries, Inc.; Estate of Michael Smith, Deceased; Anello, Gregory; Kamine, Yosh; Kamine, Jacob; Green, R.D.; Martinez, Alexandra Sanchez; Vemma Nutrittion Company; Union Pacific Railroad Company; County of Fresno; California Public Commission; Estate of Michaela Smith, Deceased; Anello, Gregory; Green, R. D.; Kamine, Yosh; Kamine, Jacob; Zim Industries Inc; Vega, Sarah; Public Utilities Commission; Smith, Debra; Union Pacific Railroad Company; County of Fresno, California; California Public Utilities Commission; Zim Industries, Inc.; Vemma Nutrition Company; Vemma Nutrition Company; Estate of Michaela Smith; Vemma Nutrition Company; Estate of Michaela Smith; Black, Donald; Culver Kapetan, Kristi; Snauffer, Mark W; Orange Avenue Disposal Company, Inc.; Orange Avenue Disposal Company, Inc.; Smith, Stephen; Orange Avenue Disposal Company, Inc.; Union Pacific Railroad Company, an Delaware corporation; Vemma Nutrition Company; Estate of Michaela Smith; Roes 1-50; Orange Avenue Disposal Company, Inc. as Doe 52; Orange Avenue Disposal Company, Inc; Orange Avenue Disposal Company, Inc; Smith, Debra; Smith, Debra; Smith, Debra; Michaela Smith Deceased, By and through Estate of Michaela Smith; Zim Industries, Inc.; Union Pacific Railroad Company; Vemma Nutrition Company; Fernandez, Raymond; Judgment - Non-Monetary Award; Awarded To:; Union Pacific Railroad Company; Zim Industries, Inc.; Awarded Against:; Gonzalez, Sandra; Vega, Sarah; Smith, Debra; Smith, Stephen

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Dismissal - Other filed; Judgment Type: Dismissal - Other filed; Party Names: Michaela Smith Deceased, By and through Estate of Michaela Smith; Zim Industries, Inc.; Union Pacific Railroad Company; Vemma Nutrition Company; Fernandez, Raymond; Comment: with prejudice.; Comment: (As to 4th Consolidated Case ONLY.)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Dismissal of Party; Judgment Type: Dismissal of Party; Party Name: Vemma Nutrition Company; Comment: with prejudice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Dismissal of Party; Judgment Type: Dismissal of Party; Party Name: Zim Industries, Inc.; Comment: with prejudice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2015
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Dismissal of Party; Judgment Type: Dismissal of Party; Party Name: Kamine, Yosh; Comment: With prejudice. (As to Yosh Kamine Only in Plaintiff Carlos Velasquez's Complaint (14CECG00134). Each party to bear their own costs and attorney's fees)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Dismissal of Party; Judgment Type: Dismissal of Party; Party Name: Kamine, Jacob; Comment: With Prejudice. (Plaintiff, Alexandra Sanchez Martinez, as to Defendant, Jacob Kamine only. Each party to bear their own costs and fees.)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Dismissal of Party; Judgment Type: Dismissal of Party; Party Name: Union Pacific Railroad Company; Comment: as to Defendant Union Pacific Railroad ONLY*

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Dismissal of Party; Judgment Type: Dismissal of Party; Party Name: Estate of Michaela Smith; Comment: Without Prejudice

    Read MoreRead Less
1,183 More Docket Entries
  • 05/21/2014
  • Financial info for Gonzalez, Sandra: Transaction Assessment $1000.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2014
  • Financial info for Gonzalez, Sandra: Counter Payment Receipt # 190277 Gonzalez, Sandra $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2014
  • Financial info for Gonzalez, Sandra: Transaction Assessment $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2014
  • Financial info for Gonzalez, Sandra: Counter Payment Receipt # 190172 Gonzalez, Sandra $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2014
  • Financial info for Gonzalez, Sandra: Transaction Assessment $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2014
  • Financial info for Gonzalez, Sandra: Counter Payment Receipt # 188672 Gonzalez, Sandra $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2014
  • Financial info for Gonzalez, Sandra: Transaction Assessment $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2014
  • Financial info for Gonzalez, Sandra: Counter Payment Receipt # 186067 Gonzalez, Sandra $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2014
  • Financial info for Gonzalez, Sandra: Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2014
  • Financial: Gonzalez, Sandra; Total Financial Assessment $3,392.02; Total Payments and Credits $3,392.02

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

OR"3INAL

JACOB D. FLESHER, ESQ. — SBN 210565 ;i,

JEREMY J. SCHROEDER,; ESQ. — SBN 223118 - =

FLESHER SCHAFF & SCHROEDER, INC. | o

2202 Plaza Drive -

Rocklin, CA 95765 | ~

Tel: (916) 672-6558 o T

Fax: (916) 672-6602 AaECanntas 2T Answer Filed

NN EACRCRATLROAD conay | DI

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY “mm

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF FRESNO

* %k ok

SANDRA GONZALEZ, an individual; and, CASE NO. 14CECG00134

COMPLAINT OF RAYMOND FERNANDEZ

Defendants.

AND CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS

COMES NOW defendant, UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, and in answer to the Complaint on file herein and to each cause of action therein stated, admits, denies and alleges as follows: o

| - GENERAL DENIAL

Answering each and every allegation contained in plaintiff’s Complaint, this answering defendant denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the allegations therein contained and further deny fhat plaintiff was damaged in the sums therein alleged or in any sum whatsoever or at ell. |

FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE to each and every alleged cause of 'actien, this answering defendant alleges plaintiff's Complaint, and each alleged cause of action therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant. so as to bar recovery herein.

IL. |

FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE to each and every alleged cause of action, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff’s decedent was careless, reckless and negligent in and about the metters and things alleged in the Complaint which caused or contributed to pleintiff’ S damages, if any,reduce recovery herein.

FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE to each and every alleged cause of action, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff’ decedent, with full knowledge of the matters and things alleged in the Complaint, and the risk incident thereto, did nevertheless knowingly and willingly. expose himself to said risks, and thereby assumed the risk thereofreduce recovery herein.

FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE to each and every alleged | cause of action, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff failed to mitigate damages, if any,reduce recovery herein.

/1 A I

/1 A I FOR A FURTHER,‘ SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE to each and every alleged cause of action, this answering defendant alleges that the Court may be called upon to apportion liability, if any, for the subject accident/incident on a comparative fault basis and this defendant may seek contribution and/or indemnity from such other personé as may have been contributive to the matters herein.

FOR A FURTHER,‘ SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE to each and every alleged cause of action, this answering defendant alleges that the Court may be called upon to apportion liability, if any, for the subject accident/incident on a comparative fault basis and this defendant may seek contribution and/or indemnity from such other personé as may have been contributive to the matters herein.

| | VI |

| FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE to each and every alleged cause of action, this answering defendant alleges that the claims assertéd herein are subject to off-set and or set-off, and the daméges, if any, clairhed by plaintiff should be barred or reduced accordingly.

| | VIL |

FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE to each and every alleged cause i of action, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff’s .Complaint, and each alleged cause of action therein, is _barred or reduced by the provisions of Civil Code §§ 1431 and 1431.2, and éach of them.

VIIIL. |

FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE to each and ever\y.allege'd cause of action, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff’s Complaint, and each alleged cause of action therein, is barred by the statute of limitations applicable to i)laintiffs.

FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE to each and evety alleged cause of | action, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff’s claims are barred or reduced by the provisions of Civil Code §§ 3333.3 and 3333.4, also known as Proposition 213.

FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE to each and every alléged cause of action, this answering defendant alleges that the events, injuries, losses, and damages complained of in the Complaint, if any, were the result of an unavoidable accident insofar as this answering defendant is concerned, and occurred without any negligence, want of éare, default or other breach of duty on the part of this answering defendant.

FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE to each and every alléged cause of action, this answering defendant alleges that the events, injuries, losses, and damages complained of in the Complaint, if any, were the result of an unavoidable accident insofar as this answering defendant is concerned, and occurred without any negligence, want of éare, default or other breach of duty on the part of this answering defendant. | XI.

| XI.

FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFE_NSE to each and every alleged cause of action, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff settled any and all potential claims afieh1g from the subject transaction and therefore plamtlfi’ s claim is barred and reduced by the doctrine of accord and satlsfactmn.

X111

FOR A FURTHER, SPEARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE, to each and every alleged cause of action, this answering defendant alleges that defendant’s conduct was not a substantial factor in bringing about plaintiff’s alleged injuries/harm and damages and, therefore, was not a contributing cause thereof, but was superseded by the. conduct or negligence of others whose conduct and negligence was/were a/an independent, intervening, superseding sole and legal cause of the Injury an,d‘

‘damages alleged by plaintiff and, therefore, plaintiff is barred from any recovery from this answering defendant. | XIV.

FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE to each and every alleged |

cause of action, this answering defendant alleges contends that plaintifPs claims are preempted by | other and/or superseding federal and state law. XV,

FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE, to each and every alleged cause of action, this answering defendant alleges that i)laintifi‘ waived the things alleged in the Complaint, and that recovery is therefore barred by the doctrine of waiver.

XVIL

| FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTIN CT DEFENSE to each and every alleged cause of éction; this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff’'s decedent’s employef(s) provided plaintiffs with workers’ éompensation benefits as a result of plaintiff’s decedent’s passing. In the event defendant is held liable to said plaintiffs, the amount of any such liabflity should be offset by the amount of any and all workers’ compensation benefits paid to plaintiffs by plaintiff’s decedent’s ernplqyer(s) or frofn any other source. Plaintif®s decedent’s employer(s) was/were itselfthemselves careless, reckless and negligent in and about the matters and things alleged in the Complaint. Pursuant to Wit v. Jdckson and Associated Construction and Engineering Co. v. Worker's Compensation Board, defendant alleges that the apportionment of damages for negligence and other acfs or omissions of plaintiff’s decedent’s employér(s) exceed(s) the amounts paid to plaintiff as workers’ compensation benefits and that therefore defendant is entitled to a credit for such iaa)nnents, and that plaintiff is barred from recovery against defendant on any purported lien or for any other amount. In the alternative, the amount of any purported | lien should be offset and apportioned by the applicable percentage due to plaintiff's employer’s negligence, and other acts or omissions, and that defendant’s liability, if any, for such should be reduced accordingly. |

XVIL

F OR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE to each and every alleged cause' of action, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff lacks standing to bring this Complaint, and each of its causes of action, so as to bar recovery. |

- XVIIL

FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE to each and every‘alleged cause of action, this answering defendant alleges plaintiff failed to join indispensable parties to this action, which failure could subject this answering defendant to multiple and inconsistent obligations. /i ‘ I I I

FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE to each and every‘alleged cause of action, this answering defendant alleges plaintiff failed to join indispensable parties to this action, which failure could subject this answering defendant to multiple and inconsistent obligations. /i ‘ I I I FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE to each and every alleged causé of action, this answering defendant alleges fhat if, and to the .ei(tent that it may be, this answering defendant reserves the right to amend this Answer to plead such additional and further defenses which may be deemed appropriate as investigation and discovery oceur.

FOR A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFENSE to each and every alleged causé of action, this answering defendant alleges fhat if, and to the .ei(tent that it may be, this answering defendant reserves the right to amend this Answer to plead such additional and further defenses which may be deemed appropriate as investigation and discovery oceur.

WHEREF ORE, defendant prays judgment that plaintiffs take nothing by reason of the Complainf on file herein, for costs of suit and for such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. |

DATED: June 20. 2016 FLESHER SCHAFF & 'SCHROEDER.‘ INC.-