This case was last updated from Fresno County Superior Courts on 07/13/2022 at 00:03:46 (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, Fresno County BF Sisk Courthouse located in Fresno, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Black, Donald, Smith, Bruce, Snauffer, Mark, Cullers, Mark, Simpson, Alan, Hamilton, Jeffrey Y 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

  • County, State:

    Fresno, California

Judge Details

Judges

Black, Donald

Smith, Bruce

Snauffer, Mark

Cullers, Mark

Simpson, Alan

Hamilton, Jeffrey Y

Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.

 

Party Details

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

Gonzalez, Sandra

Vemma Nutrition Company

Velasquez, Carlos

Consolidated Plaintiff and Defendant

Fernandez, Raymond

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

Vemma Nutrition Company

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

Consolidated 3Rd Party Plaintiff, Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

Smith, Debra

54 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

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

Paboojian, Warren R.

Baradat & Paboojian 720 West Alluvial Avenue

Fresno, CA 93711

Morovati, Christina Y

Pape, Kara

Coleman, Mark W.

Gillettte, Keith R.

Efstratis, H Paul

Defendant and Consolidated Plaintiff Attorney

Vogt, Mark A

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

Pape, Kara

Overstreet, David M., IV

Kirrane, Michele

Kirrane, Michele C

Clifford, Daniel T.

Libke, Ryan D.

Vogt, Mark A

Lewis, Oliver R.

Gillettte, Keith R.

Consolidated 3Rd Party Plaintiff Attorney

Cornwell, Stephen R.

Other Attorneys

Barsotti, Todd B.

Emerson, James D.

Betts, James B.

Horn, Charles H.

Donahue, James R

Flesher, Jacob D.

 

Court Documents

List filed

Notice; Comment: Defendant Zim Industries, Inc. 's Witness List

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.)

Notice Filed

Notice Filed; Comment: Separately Bound Index of Evidentiary Echibits Volume IV Exhibits 29 through 35.

Judgment

Dismissal of Party; Judgment Type: Dismissal of Party; Party Name: Green, R.D.; Comment: With Prejudice.; Comment: (As to defendant from Original Complaint)

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.)

Opposition filed

Opposition; Comment: Plaintiff Debra Smith's Opposition to Request for Pretrial Discovery Conference

Response filed

Response filed; Comment: of Plaintiff Carlos Velasquez to Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts

Motion filed

Motion (No Fee); Comment: Plaintiffs Debra Smith and Stephen Smith's Motion to View Railroad Crossing Pursuant to CCP Section 651(a)

Request for Pre-Trial Discovery filed

Request for Pre-Trial Discovery filed

Order Signed and Filed

08/04/2021: Order Signed and Filed

Notice to Dispose Exhibits Received

07/29/2021: Notice to Dispose Exhibits Received

Notice to Dispose Exhibits Sent

07/14/2021: Notice to Dispose Exhibits Sent

Clerk's Certificate of Mailing

09/20/2017: Clerk's Certificate of Mailing

Notice of Association of Counsel

07/31/2017: Notice of Association of Counsel

Respondent's Notice Designating on Appeal

07/07/2017: Respondent's Notice Designating on Appeal

Judgment

06/27/2017: Judgment

Civil Document

06/22/2017: Civil Document

Appellant's Notice Designating on Appeal

05/30/2017: Appellant's Notice Designating on Appeal

1,303 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/04/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketOrder Signed and Filed; Judicial Officer: Cullers, Mark; Comment: Order: Order to Destroy Exhibits

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice to Dispose Exhibits Received; Comment: Party: Plaintff Counsel

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice to Dispose Exhibits Sent; Comment: Recipient: Warren Paboojian Baradat & Paboojian, Inc. 720 West Alluvial Ave Fresno, CA 93711 Vemma Nutrition Company C/O Lewis Brisbols Bisgard & Smith LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90071

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2019
  • DocketRemittitur from the 5th DCA Filed - Civil; Comment: 5th DCA# F075701

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2019
  • DocketOpinion from the 5th DCA Filed; Comment: 5TH DCA, Case Number: F075701

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • FinancialFinancial info for Vemma Nutrition Company: Counter Payment Receipt # CIVIL-2018-00001820 Law Office of Nicco Capozzi $302.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • FinancialFinancial info for Vemma Nutrition Company: Transaction Assessment $302.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2017
  • DocketAppeals Receipt Filed; Comment: From Jacob D. Flesher

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2017
  • DocketNotice of Completion of Transcript on Appeal - Civil; Comment: with Clerk's Certificate of Mailing

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2017
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketClerk's Certificate of Mailing; Comment: I certify that I am not a party to this cause and a true copy of the ( Register of Actions ) was placed in a sealed envelope and placed for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown below following our ordinary business practice. I am readily familiar with this court's practice for collection and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid. Place of Mailing: Fresno, California on ( ) . Parties served: ( )

    Read MoreRead Less
1,180 More Docket Entries
  • 02/04/2014
  • DocketAmended document filed; Comment: First amended complaint filed. dhouston

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2014
  • DocketPOS of summons & comp personal; Comment: Proof of service of summons and complaint filed showing personal service on Jan Lapinid, National Registered Agents, Inc. on 1-28-14. gar

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

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

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2014
  • DocketNotice of Case Mgnt Conf; Comment: Docket entry for the letter produced from CDAEVNT on 15-JAN-2014 by SAMGARCIA.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2014
  • DocketPayment; Comment: A Payment of -$435.00 was made on receipt CVCE186067.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2014
  • DocketZ_Conversion; Comment: sg Event: Civil complaint filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2014
  • DocketCivil case cover sheet; Comment: Civil Case Cover Sheet sg

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2014
  • DocketZ_Conversion; Comment: Event: New Civil Case Filed

    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.-

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Zim Industries, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where Orange Avenue Disposal Company, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where California Public Utilities Commission is a litigant

Latest cases where Vemma Nutrition Company is a litigant