This case was last updated from Fresno County Superior Courts on 03/06/2018 at 08:51:07 (UTC).

Yolanda Godinez vs. Darring R. Childers

Case Summary

On 10/24/2013 Yolanda Godinez filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against Darring R Childers. This case was filed in Fresno County Superior Courts, Bf Sisk Courthouse located in Fresno, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Ikeda, Dale, Snauffer, Mark, Smith, Bruce, Black, Donald and Culver Kapetan, Kristi. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3337

  • Filing Date:

    10/24/2013

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Fresno County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Bf Sisk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Fresno, California

Judge Details

Judges

Ikeda, Dale

Snauffer, Mark

Smith, Bruce

Black, Donald

Culver Kapetan, Kristi

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

Godinez, Yolanda

Reyna, Maria De Jesus

Defendants

Childers, Darring Richard

City of Fresno

Childers, Darrin Richard

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Cenci, Richard G.

5740 N. Palm Ave Ste 111

Fresno, CA 93704

Defendant Attorney

Snyder, Chad T

 

Court Documents

Notice Filed

Notice Filed; Comment: of change of attorney

Amended Document Filed

Civil Document; Comment: 1st amended complaint

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment; Comment: Motion - Compel/ Motion - Judgment on Plead

Declaration Filed

Declaration Filed

Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Comment: in support of Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition and Request for Monetary Sanctions

Notice of Motion

Notice of Motion; Comment: and Motion to: Compel Attendance at Deposition and Request for Monetary Sanctions

Notice of Hearing

Notice of Hearing; Comment: Trial Readiness changed from 2/12/16 to 2/5/16 due to Court Holiday

Designation of Attorney filed

Civil Document

Notice Filed

Notice Filed; Comment: of handling attorney

Request for Dismissal Received - Pending Review

Request for Dismissal; Comment: Request for Dismissal filed

Letter of Documents Returned Without Filing

Letter of Documents Returned Without Filing; Comment: Mandatory Settlement Conference Statement

Notice Filed

Notice Filed; Comment: of change of attorney

Amended Document Filed

Amended Complaint - Claim Amount Unchanged (No Fee); Comment: 2nd Amended complaint

Summons issued and filed

Civil Document; Comment: 1st amended summons and complaint

Response filed

Response filed; Comment: response to defendants motion for Judgemtn on the Pleadings and Exhibits

Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Comment: in suppiort of motion to compel plaintiff's discovery responses and request for sanctions.

Notice of Motion

Notice of Motion; Comment: and Motion to Compel

Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Memorandum of Points and Authorities

14 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/27/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Request for Dismissal filed; Judicial Officer: Black, Donald; Judgment Type: Request for Dismissal filed; Party Names: Godinez, Yolanda; Childers, Darrin Richard; City of Fresno; Black, Donald; Comment: With Prejudice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2016
  • Jury Trial- Judicial Officer: Snauffer, Mark; Hearing Time: 9:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Dismissed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2016
  • Trial Readiness- Judicial Officer: Snauffer, Mark; Hearing Time: 9:30 AM; Cancel Reason: Dismissed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2016
  • OSC - Fail to File ADR Report- Judicial Officer: Black, Donald; Hearing Time: 3:30 PM; Cancel Reason: Dismissed; Comment: Failure to fullfill ADR requirement and plaintiff's' failure to contact the ADR Dept. timely. jm/adr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • Request for Dismissal Received - Pending Review- Request for Dismissal; Comment: Request for Dismissal filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2016
  • Mandatory Settlement Conference- Hearing Time: 1:30 PM; Cancel Reason: Off Calendar

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • Letter of Documents Returned Without Filing- Letter of Documents Returned Without Filing; Comment: Mandatory Settlement Conference Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice Filed- Notice Filed; Comment: of change of attorney

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • Answer Filed- Civil Document; Comment: to Plaintiff Yolanda Godinez's Second Amended Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2016
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice Filed- Notice Filed; Comment: of change of attorney

    Read MoreRead Less
66 More Docket Entries
  • 10/24/2013
  • Summons filed- Comment: Summons on Complaint filed. gs

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2013
  • Civil case cover sheet- Comment: Civil Case Cover Sheet gs

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2013
  • Z_Conversion- Comment: gs Event: Civil complaint filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2013
  • Z_Conversion- Comment: Event: New Civil Case Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2015
  • Financial info for City of Fresno: Government Exemption Claimed $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2015
  • Financial info for City of Fresno: Transaction Assessment $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2015
  • Financial: City of Fresno; Total Financial Assessment $60.00; Total Payments and Credits $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2013
  • Financial info for Godinez, Yolanda: Counter Payment Receipt # 183335 Godinez, Yolanda $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2013
  • Financial info for Godinez, Yolanda: Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2013
  • Financial: Godinez, Yolanda; Total Financial Assessment $435.00; Total Payments and Credits $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(PlaintifPs Negligence or Fault)

6. As a separate and affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s Complaint and to

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Third-Party Acts or Omissions)

7. As a separate and affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s Complaint and to each

purported cause of action contained therein, CITY and CHILDERS alleges the matter

complained of in the Plaintiff's Complaint and the causes of action therein, were solely cause| by

the actions or omissions of Plaintiff and/or third party, or parties, other than these answering

Defendants.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Assumption of Risk) 8. As a separate and affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s Complaint and to each

purported cause of action contained therein, CITY and CHILDERS allege Plaintiff knowingly,

consciously and willingly assumed the risk and obvious danger, if any there was, of events' and

matters specifically alleged in the Complaint and any damage or injury sustained by Plaintiffiand

therein were a proximate result of the risks so assumed.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Comparative Fault - Cal. Civ. Code § 1431.2)

9. As a separate and affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s Complaint and to ;Tach purported cause of action contained therein, CITY and CHILDERS allege any non—econcgmic damages sustained by Plaintiff in this action were due to the fault of someone other Ilhan

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Cal. Gov. Code § 815.4) each

and CHILDERS are entitled to the defense of any applicable immunities. | | 19. As a separate and affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s Complaint and to !

purported cause of action contained therein, CITY and CHILDERS allege Plaintiff is b pursuant to Government Code section 815.4 because the CITY would not have been liable for

| injury, if any there was, had the act or omission been that of an employee of the CITY inste’ d of

| an independent contractor. I

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE l |

(Reasonable Diligence - Cal. Gov. Code § 815.6)

20. As a separate and affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s Complaint and to each

purported cause of action contained therein, CITY and CHILDERS allege they were undér no

mandatory duty imposed by an enactment designed to protect against the risk of the particular

kind of injury allegedly suffered by Plaintiff, and even if they had a duty, the Complaint is barred in that the CITY and CHILDERS exercised reasonable diligence to discharge that duty.

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Cal. Gov. Code § 818.8)

21. As a separate and affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s Complaint and toi each purported cause of action contained therein, CITY and CHILDERS allege at all times refe ted to

in her Complaint, the CITY and CHILDERS are not liable for an injury(ies) caused by

misrepresentation by an employee of the public entity, whether or not such misrepresentation be 1

negligent or intentional.

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Exercise of Discretionary Authority — Cal. Gov. Code §820.2) 22. As a separate and affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s Complaint and to each purported cause of action contained therein, CITY and CHILDERS allege any and all acts of CITY and CHILDERS and/or their employees, agents and employees, Which allegedly caii sed

the injury, were the result of the exercise of discretionary authority vested in them. Therefore,

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Cal. Gov. Code § 820.8)

23. As a separate and affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s Complaint and to gach purported cause of action contained therein, CITY and CHILDERS allege the Complaint is barred against CITY and CHILDERS pursuant to Government Code section 820.8 in that a public employee is not liable for an injury caused by the act or omission of another person.

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Cal. Gov. Code § 821.4)

24. As a separate and affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s Complaint and to each

Plaintiff for injury(ies) caused by their failure to make an inspection or by reason of making an

inadequate or negligent inspection pursuant to Government Code section 821.4.

TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Acts Reasonable - Cal. Gov. Code § 835.4)

25. As a separate and affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s Complaint and to each

purported cause of action contained therein, CITY and CHILDERS allege the acts of CITY

and/or CHILDERS (and/or CITY’s employees) were reasonable within the meaning of

| Government Code section 835.4 and CITY and CHILDERS are therefore immune from Iiability.