Crystal Dixon v. Pop Warner, et al

Transcription

fit*
1
Elaine T. Byszewski (#222304)
2
301 North Lake Avenue
3
Telephone: 213-330-7150
4
[email protected]
5
Robert B. Carey (Pro Hoc Vice pending)
Rachel E. Freeman (Pro Hac Vice pending)
ID
Si*4
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
nmM I6t3
JOHNa. w„,IWiv._iK
Pasadena, California 91101
Facsimile: 213-330-7152
BY L- JOHhlSON^DEPUTY
7
11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
8
Facsimile: 602-840-3012
9
[email protected]
6
1 of 15
Ace Attorney Service (213) 623-7527
11D5/2013
Telephone: 602-840-5900
0^| ifJ^ Ov/juto
[email protected]
10
[Additional counsel onsignature page]
11
AttorneysforPlaintiffs Crystal Dixon and Donnovan Hill
12
SUPEIrIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
13
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
14
15
CRYSTAL DLXON, as guardian ad litem for
DONNOVAN HILL, a minor, and CRYSTAL
Case No.
DLXON, individually,
COMPLAINT
16
Plaintiffs,
.17
3. Negligent Training, Supervision, and
vs.
Retention
18
19
20
POP WARNER LITTLE SCHOLARS, INC., a
4. Negligent Infliction of Emotional
non-profit corporation; ORANGE EMPIRE
Distress
CONFERENCE, INC., a non-profit corporation:
LAKEWOOD POP WARNER, a non-profit
corporation; SALVADOR P.and JANE DOE
21
1. Negligence
2. Respoodeat Superior
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
HERNANDEZ, husband and wife; MANUEL
and JANE DOE MARTINEZ, husband and
22
^23
;-24
wife; REGINALD C. and JANE, DOE
NETTLES, husband andwife; KEVIN and
.-s25
ROBERT T. and JANE DOE ESPDMOSA,
U126
BLACK CORPORATIONS 1 through 10.
^27
r~ o
m
-—I
JANE DOE GODDARD, husband and wife;
JEM and JANE DOE CUNNIGHAM, husband
and wife; ROBERTO CARLOS and JANE
DOE GONZALEZ, husband and wife;
P
r*
o
m
o
as
m
x>
to
o
husband and wife; DOES 1 through 20; and
Defendants.
G28
Vt «f <* 1>4
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
AceAttorney Service (213) 623-7527
11115/2013
I
2
Plaintiff Crystal Dixon, for herself and her minor son, PlaintiffDonnovan Hill, and through
undersigned counsel, respectfully submits the following Complaint for personal injuries.
I.
3
4
2 of 15
1.
INTRODUCTION
This case arises from thesevere and permanent injuries Plaintiff Donnovan Hill, a
5
thirteen year-old boy, suffered while playing in ayouth league football game sponsored and
6
supervised by Defendants Pop Warner Little Scholars, Inc., Orange Empire Conference, Inc., and
7
Lakewood Pop Warner. Donnovan was rendered aquadriplegic after attempting to tackle his
8
opponent using anegligent tackling technique he was taught and instructed to use by his coaches,
9
Defendants Hernandez, Martinez, Nettles, Goddard, Cunningham, and Does 1-20. His mother,
10
11
Crystal Dixon, was in the stands that day and witnessed her son's catastrophic injury.
2.
Even though Pop Warner rules and the football industry as a whole prohibit the
12
head-first tackling that injured Donnovan, his coaches taught him the technique, insisted he use it
13
despite his complaints, and refused to intervene and correct Donnovan when he repeatedly
14
employed the tackling technique in practices and games. Likewise, Pop Warner and its related
15
entities and agents, including Defendants Gonzalez and Espinosa, failed to properly supervise and
16
monitor the coaches to ensure theycomplied withand enforced the rules.
17
3.
Because of Defendants' negligent conduct, Donnovan was seriously and
18
permanently injured, and his mother and primary caregiver, Crystal Dixon, suffered serious
19
emotional distress.. Donnovan will require assistance for the remainder ofhis now-diminished life.
O.
20
21
22
.23
'24'
4.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action because it isa court of
general jurisdiction with the authority to hear and decide claims arising under California statutory
and common law. Cal. Const, art. VI, § 10; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10 (West 2013).
5.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Plaintiffs because they reside inCalifornia.
., 25
This Court haspersonal jurisdiction over Defendants because the corporate Defendants are
l 26
incorporated in California orconduct substantial business inCalifornia, and the individual
-, 27
Defendants reside in California.
) 28"
1
COMPLAINT
11 ']5/2013
6.
1
3 of 15
Venue isproper in this Court because the action is for personal injury and this Court
2
is inLos Angeles County, where the corporate Defendants conduct substantial business and many
3
of the individual Defendants reside. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 395.5 (West2013); L.R. 2.3(a)(1)(A).
OI.
4
7.
5
6
PlaintiffDonnovan Hill is a fifteen-year-old boy who resideswithhis mother and
guardian ad litem, Plaintiff Crystal Dixon, inLos Alamitos, California inOrange County.
8.
7
8
PARTIES
Plaintiff Crystal Dixon, a single woman, is Plaintiff Donnovan Hill's mother and
guardian ad litem who resides with her son ininLos Alamitos, California in Orange County.
9.
9
Defendant Pop Warner Little Scholars, Inc. is a non-profit corporation providing
10
youth football and cheer and dance programs for participants in 42 states, including California, and
11
several countries around the world.' Pop Warner is incorporated andheadquartered in
12
Pennsylvania. On infonnation and belief, over 285,000 children ages five to fifteen participate in
13
Pop Warner football leagues, and the program has produced over two-thirds ofthe players now in
14
the National Football League.3
10.
15
Defendant Orange Empire Conference, Inc. ("OEC") is a non-profit corporation
16
headquartered inHuntington Beach, California, in Orange County, and incorporated under the laws
17
of California. The OEC is a Pop Warner Little Scholars, Inc. organization in the Wescon Region,
18
providing football, cheerleading, and scholastic programs for children ages five to fifteen through
19
its various member associations since 1986.1 The OEC boundaries encompass ali of Orange County
20
and much of Los Angeles County.
11.
21
22
.23
Defendant Lakewood PopWarner is a non-profit corporation headquartered in
Lakewood, California, in Los Angeles County, and incorporated under the laws of California. It is
a Pop Warner Little Scholars, Inc. organization in the Wescon Region and a member association of
24
,25
1 26
• 27
1The Official Website ofPop Warner Little Scholars, Inc., POPWaRJNER.COM, http://www.popwarper.com/About Us.htm (last visited November 3, 2013).
2Anahad O'Connor, Trying to Reduce Head Injuries, Youth Football Limits Practices, N.Y. TIMES, June 14, 2012,
atAl.
^28
'Orange Empire Conference, Inc., http://24.199.2l :46/oecweb/index.html (last visited November 3,2013).
2
COMPLAINT
11
35/2013
4 of 15
Defendant OEC, providing football, cheerleading, and scholastic programs for children ages five to
2
3
12.
On information and belief, Defendants Salvador P. and Jane Doe Hernandez are a
4
married couple who, at all times relevant to this Complaint, resided in Long Beach, California in
5
Los Angeles County. Mr. Hernandez was the head coach of Donnovan's football team in 2011. The
6
true name ofJane Doe Hernandez is unknown and will be amended once it is ascertained by
7
Plaintiffs.
8
9
13.
On information and belief, Defendants Manuel and Jane Doe Martinez are a married
couple who, at all times relevant to this Complaint, resided in Long Beach, California in Los
10
Angeles County. Mr. Martinez was an assistant coach for Donnovan's football team in 2011. The
11
true name of Jane Doe Martinez is unknown and will be amended once it is ascertained by
12
Plaintiffs.
13
14.
On information and belief, Defendants Reginald C. and Jane Doe Nettles are a
14
married couple who, at all times relevant to this Complaint, resided in Orange County, California.
15
On information and belief, Mr. Nettles was an assistant coach for Donnovan's football team in
16
2011. The true name ofJane Doe Nettles isunknown and will be amended once it is ascertained by
17
Plaintiffs.
18
15.
On information and belief, Defendants Kevin and Jane Doe Goddard are a married
19
couple who, at all times relevant to this Complaint, resided in California at an address still
20
unknown to Plaintiffs. Oninformation and belief, Mr. Goddard was anassistant coach for
21
Donnovan's football team in2011. The true name ofJane Doe Goddard is unknown and it, along
22
with Defendants' address, willbe amended once it is ascertained by Plaintiffs.
;„i 23
^
fifteen. Lakewood Pop Warner included Donnovan's football team, the Lakewood Black Lancers.
24
o 25
16.
Oninformation and belief, Defendant Jim and Jane Doe Cunningham area married
couple who, at all times relevant to this Complaint, resided in California at an address still
unknown to Plaintiffs. On information and belief, Mr. Cunningham was an assistant coach for
y i 26
Donnovan's football team in2011. The true name of Jane Doe Cunningham is unknown and it,
''. 27
along with Defendants' address, will be amended once itis ascertained by Plaintiffs,
3
28
COMPLAINT
11 )5/2013
17.
1
5of15
On information andbelief, Defendant Roberto Carlos, and Jane DoeGonzalez are a
2
married couple who, at all times relevant to this Complaint, resided in Long Beach, California in
3
Los Angeles County. On information and belief, Mr. Gonzalez was the President and Athletic
4
Director for Lakewood Pop Warner in 2011. The true name ofJane Doe Gonzalez is unknown and
5
will be amended once it is ascertained by Plaintiffs.
18.
6
On information and belief, Defendant Robert T. and Jane Doe Espinosa are a
7
married couple who, at all times relevant to this Complaint, resided in Brea, California, in Orange
8
County. On information and belief, Mr. Espinosa was an assistant commissioner for Defendant
9
OEC during the 2011 season. The true name ofJane Doe Espinosa is unknown and will be
10
amended once it is ascertained by Plaintiffs.
19.
11
Defendants Does 1through 20 are individuals sued by fictitious names because their
12
true names or capacities are still unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will amend the Complaint to
13
include theirproper names once ascertained.
20.
14
Defendants Black Corporations I through 10 are sued by fictitious names because
15
their true names or capacities are still unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will amend the Complaint to
16
include their proper names once ascertained.
IV.
17
18
19
A.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Donnovan's Pop Warner Football Team
21.
In oraround August 2011, Plaintiff Donnovan Hill enrolled in Defendant Lakewood
20
Pop Warner to play on the Lakewood Black Lancers Midget football team. The Midget team
21
comprised the oldest and largest boys in any Pop Warner football league, including boys twelve to
22
fifteen years old within the weight range 105 to 170 pounds.
„,23
22.
Donnovanwas one of the Lakewood Black Lancers' better players. He was a two-
-"24
way athlete, playing both running back on offense and safety on defense. Because ofhis talents, it
^25
was typical for Donnovan to participate in nearly every play ofevery game.
Jl 26
""; 27
23.
Defendant Lakewood Pop Warner was a member association of Defendant OEC in
the Westcon Region ofDefendant Pop Warner Little Scholars, Inc. (collectively, "Defendant Pop
Q 28
COMPLAINT
11 '35/2013
6 of 15
1
Warner Entities"). Defendant Pop Warner Entities includes any unknown but related entities,
2
designated for now as Black Corporations 1through 10.
24.
3
Defendants Salvador Hernandez, Manuel Martinez, ReginaldNettles, Kevin
4
Goddard, and Jim Cunningham (collectively, "Defendant Coaches") were Donnovan's coaches on
5
the Lakewood Black Lancers Midget football team for the 2011 season. Defendant Coaches
6
includes anyunknown coaches, designated for now as Does 1 through 20.
25.
7
On information and belief, Defendant Roberto Carlos Gonzalez was thePresident
8
and Athletic Directorfor DefendantLakewood Pop Warner duringthe 2011 season. On
9
information and belief, Mr. Gonzalez was present at many, if notall, of Donnovan's games and
10
practices that year.
11
26.
On information andbelief, Defendant Robert Espinosa was an agent or employee of
12
Defendant Pop Warner Entities tasked with monitoring and supervising Defendant Coaches to
13
ensure they complied with safety standards and rules during the 2011 season. On information and
14
belief, Defendant Robert Espinosa observed Defendant Coaches' football practices and instruction
15
and Donnovan's football playing at practices and games.
27.
16
Does 1 through 20 and Black Corporations 1 through 10are unknown persons or
17
entities who are responsible for the instruction oroversight of Donnovan, his coaches, the league,
18
or Donnovan's football play.
19
B.
20
In Practice Defendant Coaches Taught And Encouraged Donnovan To Use
Dangerously Negligent Tackling Technique. And Then Reinforced The Improper
Technique By Failing To Correct Or Reprimand Donnovan When They Observed
Him Repeatedly Using It In Practice And Games
21
22
=>4 23
r, 24
.i 25
W 26
28.
The 2011 football season ran from approximately August to the end of October,
followed by championship games in November.
29.
Donnovan's team typically practiced three times a week for approximately three
hours each practice. There, Defendant Coaches instructed Donnovan and his teammates on all
aspects of tackle football.
J", 27
G
28
COMPLAINT
11 35/2013
30.
7 of 15
Proper football tackling technique according to Defendant Pop Warner Entities'
2
online training course is to keep the head up and slide itto the outside ofan opponent's body
3
before making contact, so as to lead with the shoulder rather than the head.
4
31.
Leading with your head while tackling, often referred to as "face tackling," occurs
5
when adefensive player initiates contact with aball carrier with the front ifhis helmet. This
6
practice, along with "spearing"—launching at an opponent with the top of the helmet—are both
7
widely prohibited in football at all levels.
8
9
32.
tackling or spearingtechniques, stating:
Ifsuch techniques or any others forbidden by the National Federation or
NCAA rulebooks aretaught by Pop Warner coaches, said coaches shall be
dismissed from the program, upon being found guilty following a hearing.
10
11
12
The 2011 Pop Warner Little Scholars Official Rules expressly prohibited face
33.
The 2011 Pop Warner Little Scholars Official Rules also stressed the importance of
13
proper blocking and tackling in football, saying "[i]t is the responsibility ofevery Pop Warner
14
coach to be folly informed of, and abide by, all such rules ofthe governing body (National
15
Federation or NCAA) under whose jurisdiction his state falls, and to review [the rales] every year."
16
(Emphasis added.)
17
34.
Contrary to these rules, Defendant Coaches taught and coached Donnovan to lead
18
with his head when tackling opponents and promoted the face tackling technique in both practice
19
and games. Defendant Hernandez insisted that Donnovan tackle inthis manner.
20
35.
As evident innumerous game films, Donnovan consistently tackled head-first
21
throughout the 2011 season. Defendant Hernandez admitted this in an interview with ESPN for its
22
show Outside The Lines.
23
36.
Defendant Coaches regularly observed Donnovan tackling in an incorrect and
24
dangerous manner in practices and atgames, but, on information and belief, never corrected
25
Donnovan's technique.'
26
27
37.
Defendant Coaches tolerated this prohibited practice by observing Donnovan use
this tackling technique over and over again in practice and in games without reprimanding or
28
COMPLAINT
11
1
2
8of15
punishing him. On information and belief, Defendant Coaches never benched Donnovan from a
practice or game—or even verbally threatened to do so—to deter his head-first tackling.
38.
3
4
15/2013
On information and belief, Defendant Coaches encouraged and promoted such
technique by directly ordering the head-first tackling and even lauding it as "tough."
39.
5
During one-on-one hitting drills at apractice during the 2011 season, Donnovan
7
expressed concern to Defendant Hernandez about head-first tackling, saying he was afraid it would
injure him. In response Defendant Hernandez chastised Donnovan for "whining," reaffirmed that
8
Donnovan should tackle head-first, and sent him to the back ofthe practice line tocontinue drills.
9
On information and belief, another one ofDonnovan's teammates, Anselm Umeh, also complained
6
10
that day to Defendant Coaches about the danger ofhead-first tackling.
40.
11
Shortly after this reprimand, Donnovan attempted another tackling drill under
12
Defendant Hernandez's instruction and suffered mild injury his neck. Defendant Coaches knew or
13
should have known of the neck injury Donnovan sustained thatday.
41.
14
15
Rylee Isbell, Donnovan's teammate, and Defendant Martinez later confirmed this
practice incident involving Donnovan in their interviews for Outside The Lines.
42.
16
Defendant Martinez also confirmed in hisinterview that Donnovan andhis
17
teammates weretaught to useface tackling against opponents.
18
C.
19
20
Defendant Pop Warner Entities And Its Agents Failed To Properly Train And
Supervise Defendant Coaches It Knew Or Should Have Known Were Negligent
43.
Defendant Pop Warner Entities required all head coaches, including Defendant
Hernandez, to pass an online coaching education course every three years. The course provided
21
video clips depicting the proper technique for tackling.
22
44.
23
On information and belief, head coach Defendant Hernandez did notcomplete the
required coaching education course for the 2011 season and was delinquent in taking his required
., 24
v' 25
J126
coaching education course.
45.
And even though the 2011 Pop Warner Little Scholars Official Rules expressly
require each coach, including assistant coaches, to review the rules every year and "to be fully
.'".. 27
;:•) 28
COMPLAINT
11 35/2013
9 of 15
I
inlbrmed of, and abide by, all such rules," upon information and belief, Defendant Coaches did not
2
do so. Defendant Martinez admits this in his Outside The Lines interview.
46.
3
As the supervisory bodies responsible for Defendant Coaches' conduct, Defendant
4
Pop Warner Entities, Defendant Gonzalez, and Defendant Espinosa knew or should have known
5
that Defendant Coaches were noncompliant with the ruies and engaging in prohibited and
6
dangerous coaching techniques.
47.
7
On information and belief, Defendant Pop Warner Entities, Defendant Gonzalez,
8
and Defendant Espinosa did not checkto ensure DefendantHernandezcomplied with required
9
educational courses, nor did they ensure Defendant Coaches were familiar and compliant with the
10
rules each year.
48.
11
12
and Defendant Espinosa did not check to ensure Defendant Coaches were teaching proper, safe
13
tackling techniques while correcting, discouraging, or penalizing those athletes not complying with
14
tackling rules. Upon information and belief, there were no safeguards or protections to ensure
15
coaches were enforcing the rules relating to safe tackling.
49.
16
On information and belief, Defendant Coaches, including Defendant Hernandez,
17
were not first-time Pop Warner coaches in the 2011 season. Defendant Pop Warner Entities,
18
Defendant Gonzalez, and Defendant Espinosa therefore knew or should have known that
19
Defendant Coaches used unreasonable and dangerous football techniques, did not comply with
20
coaching standards and applicable football rules, did not prohibit unsafe practices, and did not
21
follow organizational directives.
50.
22
'
-* 23
and Defendant Espinosa never reprimanded, suspended, or fired any Defendant Coaches for failure
... 24
to review, be informed of, and abide by Pop Warner football rules.
-i 25
D.
Donnovan Is Paralyzed While Tackling An Opponent Using The Negligent Technique
Taught To Him And Promoted By Defendant Coaches
Jl 26
"; 27
9
28
8
COMPLAINT
11 '35/2013
51.
1
10 of 15
On the evening of November6,2011, Donnovanand his team were playing in the
2
Division I Midget Orange Bowl championship game against the SaddlebackValley Wolverines at
3
Laguna Hills High School in Laguna Hills, California.
52.
4
In the second half of the game, Donnovan told his coaches he was fatigued and
5
wanted to sit out from play. Defendant Coaches objected to his request, tellingDonnovan they
6
needed him to play so the team would win the game.
53.
7
Defendant Coaches did not permit Donnovan to sit out of the game eventhoughhe
8
was fatigued. Instead, he was sent back into thegame as a substitute foranother defensive player
9
pulled by Defendant Coaches.
54.
10
On a scrimmage play in the third quarter, while playing in the defensive linebacker
11
position, Donnovan attempted to tackle the opposing ball carrier to prevent him from entering the
12
end zone. As Donnovan approached contact with his opponent, he dropped his head down, kepthis
13
arms at his side, and initiated the tackle head-first.
55.
14
Upon contactwith the opposing player,Donnovan immediately went limp and
15
dropped to the field, umnoving. Donnovan told those gathered around him that he could not feel his
16
legs.
56.
17
18
Donnovan wasrushed by ambulance to Mission Hospital Regional Medical Center
in Mission Viejo, California.
57.
19
There, doctors determined Donnovan had suffered a catastrophic spinal cord injury
20
resulting in quadriplegia.
21
E.
22
Donnovan's Post-Injury Treatment
58.
Following his stay at Mission Hospital, Donnovan was transferred to Children's
,i 23
Hospital Los Angeles for rehabilitation. After hisrelease, he continued widiphysical therapy for a
-A24
minimum of two hours, tliree times per week. His physical therapy typically comprised balance and
-25
core strength training using the standing frame, bike, and elliptical machines.
.H26
"; 27
59.
Asa quadriplegic, Donnovan has minimal useof his arms, andno independent
movement from the nipple-level down.
D28
COMPLAINT
11 35/2013
60.
1
2
Donnovan's paralysis requires him to use a catheter and a colostomy bag, and he
suffers from pressure sores because of constant confinement to his bed and wheelchair.
61.
3
4
11 of 15
Donnovan is cared for by his mother with whom he shares a small apartment. He
does not have the facilities or transportation appropriate for someone with his injuries.
5
62.
Donnovan's life expectancy is diminished because of his injuries, as is his future
6
earning capacity.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
F.
The Impact On Crystal After Witnessing Donnovan's Injury
63.
Donnovan's mother, Plaintiff Crystal Dixon, was sitting in the stands at the Division
I Midget Orange Bowl championship game watching Donnovan play on November 6, 2011.
64.
Crystal witnessed Donnovan attempt to tackle his opponent and, in doing so, suffer
a catastrophic spinal cord injury resulting in immediateparalysis.
65.
Witnessing her son's catastrophic injury has affected Crystal's life drastically. She
14
now suffers from depression and anxiety, both of which require regular medication. When she is
15
not at work Domiovan needs her constant care, and so any life she had outside of assisting him has
16
all but disappeared. It has also affected Crystal's employment at Vons Grocery, where she has
17
worked for approximately fifteen years. Working in customer service, she often finds it difficult to
18
focus on tasks, unexpectedly breaksdownemotionally, and experiences a shortened temper and
19
dramatic mood swings. Physically, Crystal feels as though her body is breaking down.
IV.
20
CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
21
(Negligence - Defendant Coaches)
22
^23
H24
.o, 25
Ul 26
66.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations in the foregoing paragraphs.
67.
Defendant Coaches had a duty to exercise reasonable care in training, instructing,
and coaching Donnovan regarding playing football generally and with respect to his tackling
technique.
^ 27
O
28
10
COMPLAINT
11 35/2013
1
68.
12of 15
Defendant Coaches had a duty to exercise reasonable care in monitoring and
2
supervising Donnovan regarding playing football generally and with respect to his tackling
3
technique.
4
69.
Defendant Coaches breached these duties by failing toexercise reasonable care in
5
training, instructing, coaching, monitoring, and supervising Donnovan's football play and his
6
tackling technique.
7
70.
Defendant Coaches' alleged conduct was reckless and grossly negligent because
8
they were aware ofthe dangers and the occurrence ofimproper tackling. Their approach
9
unreasonably increased the risks beyond those inherent in the sport, was entirely outside the range
10
ofordinary activity involved in teaching or coaching football tackling techniques, and directly
11
violated league-wide and industry-wide safety standards.
12
71.
Defendant Coaches' alleged negligent conduct warrants an award ofpunitive
13
damages to Plaintiffs because Defendant Coaches acted with conscious disregard for Donnovan's
14
safety when Defendant Coaches knew or should have known ofthe probable dangerous
15
consequences oftheir conduct and willfully and deliberately failed to avoid such consequences.
16
72.
As a direct and proximate cause ofDefendant Coaches' alleged negligence, Plaintiff
17
Donnovan Hill was seriously and permanently injured, and sustained, and continues to sustain,
18
economic and non-economic damage.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
19
20
(Respondeat Superior - Defendant Pop Warner Entities, Defendant Roberto Carlos
Gonzalez, and Defendant Robert Espinosa)
21
73.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations inthe foregoing, paragraphs.
22
74.
Defendant Coaches acted asagents, servants, employees, special employees, alter
...--23
egos, successors in interest, partners, joint venturers, lessees, and/or licensees ofDefendant Pop
~"24
Warner Entities, Defendant Gonzalez, and Defendant Espinosa.
-,25
^26
75.
In committing the alleged acts and omissions, Defendant Coaches were acting
within the course and scope oftheir authority as agents, servants, employees, special employees,
alter egos, successors in interest, partners, joint venturers, lessees, and/or licensees, and inthe
D28.
transaction of the business of the employment or agency.
11
COMPLAINT
11 55/2013
1
76.
13of 15
Defendant Pop Warner Entities, Defendant Gonzalez, and Defendant Espinosa are
2
therefore liable to PlaintiffDonnovan Hill for the negligent acts and omissions of Defendant
3
Coaches as alleged.
4
5
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligent Training, Supervision, and Retention- Defendant Pop Warner Entities,
Defendant Roberto Carlos Gonzalez, and Defendant Robert Espinosa)
6
77.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations in theforegoing paragraphs.
7
78.
8
and Defendant Espinosa had the authority to train and supervise Defendant Coaches. Defendant
9
Pop Warner Entities, Defendant Gonzalez, and Defendant Espinosa therefore had a duty to exercise
10
reasonable care in training and supervising Defendant Coaches. Defendant Pop Warner Entities,
11
Defendant Gonzalez, and Defendant Espinosaknewor should have known DefendantCoaches
12
were non-compliant with training requirements, were uninformed on the applicable rules and safety
13
standards for tackle football, lacked adequate knowledge, skill, and experience to safely instruct
14
and supervise tackling techniques, and negligently coached Donnovan's football play asalleged,
15
and that such negligence created anunreasonable risk ofharm to Donnovan. Defendant Pop
16
Warner Entities, Defendant Gonzalez, and Defendant Espinosa failed toexercise reasonable care in
17
training and supervising Defendant Coaches because, despite this knowledge, they did not take
18
appropriate corrective action and permitted Defendant Coaches to persist inthe alleged negligent
19
20
conduct.
79.
21
and Defendant Espinosahad the authority to suspend or terminate Defendant Coaches. Defendant
22
Pop Warner Entities, Defendant Gonzalez, and Defendant Espinosa knew or should have known
;-* 23
Defendant Coaches were non-compliant with training requirements, were uninformed on the
i-1 24
applicable rules and safety standards for tackle football, lacked the adequate knowledge, skill, and
^ 25
experience to safely instruct and supervise tackling techniques, and negligently coached
Ul 26
Donnovan's football play asalleged. Defendant Pop Warner Entities, Defendant Gonzalez, and
•\"i 27
Defendant Espinosa failed to exercise reasonable care by retaining Defendant Coaches intheir
G 28
positions and permitting them to persist inthe alleged negligent conduct when suspension or
12
COMPLAINT
11 35/2013
-
14of15
1
termination of Defendant Coaches was thereasonable and appropriate action under the
2
circumstances.
3
80.
Asa direct andproximate result of Defendant Pop Warner Entities, Defendant
4
Gonzalez, and Defendant Espinosa's alleged negligent training, supervision, and retention of
5
Defendant Coaches, PlaintiffDonnovan Hill was seriously and permanently injured, and suffered,
6
and continues to suffer, economic and non-economic damage.
7
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress - All Defendants)
8
81.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations in the foregoing paragraphs.
82.
Defendants engaged inthe negligent conduct alleged herein which caused injury to
9
10
Donnovan.
11
12
83.
Plaintiff Crystal Dixon was present atthe scene ofDonnovan's injury and was
aware that he was injured.
13
14
15
16
84.
Plaintiff Crystal Dixon suffered serious emotional distress in witnessing her son's
catastrophic injury and immediate paralysis, and the serious emotional distress Crystal suffered
was not an abnormal response to the circumstances, in that a reasonable person could not cope with
the mental distress caused by witnessing such an event.
17
18
.85.
Plaintiff Crystal Dixon's serious emotional distress was directly and proximately
caused by Defendants' alleged negligent conduct.
19
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
20
21
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Crystal Dixon, for herself and her minor son, Plaintiff Donnovan
Hill, pray forjudgmentagainstDefendants as follows:
22
23
1* 24
A.
For all compensatory damages suffered due to Defendants' conduct;
B.
For all consequential damages suffered due to Defendants' conduct;
C.
For exemplary or punitive damages;
D.
For themaximum interest provided by law, including but not limited to, Cal. Civ.
s- 25
in 26
Code §3291;
v 27
-^. 28
E.
Attorney's fees;
13
COMPLAINT
11|/|05/2013
w Ace Attorney Service (213) 623-7527
1
F. .
Costs of suit: and
2
G.
For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper and just.
3
4
15 of 15
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiffs demand atrial by jury on all issues triable ofright by jury.
5
6
DATED: November 5, 2013
7
8
9
' 10
11
By
1LT7.
Elaine T. Byszewski (#222304)
301 North Lake Avenue
Pasadena, California 91101
Telephone: 213-330-7150
Facsimile: 213-330-7152
12
[email protected]
13
Robert B. Carey (Pro Hac Vice pending)
Rachel E. Freeman (Pro Hac Vice pending)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Telephone: 602-840-5900
Facsimile: 602-840-3012
[email protected]
[email protected]
Steve W. Berman (Pro Hac Vice pending)
1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
Seattle, Washington 981.01
Telephone:(206)623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
[email protected]
Attorneysfor Plaintiffs
23
^24
^25
jl26
\21
-28
14
COMPLAINT
11/05/2013
SHORT Tm.6:
1of5
CASE NUMBER
Crystal Dixon, et al. v. Pop Warner Little Scholars, Inc., et al.
•&H586842
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND
STATEMENT OF LOCATION
(CERTIFICATE OF GROUNDS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO COURTHOUSE LOCATION)
This form is required pursuant toLocal Rule 2.0 in all new civil casefilings in the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Item I. Check thetypes ofhearing and fill in theestimated length ofhearing expected for this case:
JURY TRIAL? b3 YES CLASS ACTION? Q YES LIMITED CASE? DyES TIME ESTIMATED FOR TRIAL 7
DHOURS/ El DAYS
Item II. Indicate the correct district and courthouse location (4 steps - If you checked "Limited Case", skip to Item III, Pg. 4):
Step 1: After first completing the Civil Case Cover Sheet form, find the main Civil Case Cover Sheet heading for your
case in the left margin below, and, to the right in Column A, the Civil Case Cover Sheet case type you selected.
Step 2: Check one Superior Court type of action in Column B below which best describes the nature of this case.
Step 3: In Column C, circle the reason for the court location choice that applies to the type of action you have
checked. For any exception to the courtlocation, see Local Rule 2.0.
Applicable Reasons for Choosing Courthouse Location (see Column C below)
1. Class actions must be filed in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, centraldistrict
2. May be filed incentral (other county, or no bodily injury/property d3maqe)
3. Location wherecause of actionarose.
4. Location where bodily injury, deathordamage occurred
5. Location whereperformance required or defendant resides.
Location of property or permanently garaged vehicle.
7 Location where petitioner resides.
8 Location wherein defendant/respondent functions wholly
9 Location whereone or more of the parties reside.
10 Location of Labor Commissioner Office
Step 4: Fill in the information re<guested on page 4 in Item III; complete Item IV. Sign the declaration.
R4
f'*1
<n
i h
""5 *i
'
I
»
>•-!.» ~«
o
Auto (22)
—
3
o
<
»-
Uninsured Motorist (46)
Asbestos (04)
^
1., 2., 4. .
O A7110 Personal Injury/Properly Damage/Wrongful Death - Uninsured Motorist
1., 2., 4.
O A6070 Asbestos PropertyDamage
2.
D A7221 Asbestos - PersonalInjury/Wrongful Death
2.
D A7260 Product Liability (not asbestos ortoxic/environmental)
L.2.,3.,4.,8.
D A7210 Medical Malpractice - Physicians &Surgeons
1..4.
O A7240 Other Professional Health CareMalpractice
1..4.
o
o. t—
Product Liability(24)
.2 £
—'41.
O A7100 Motor Vehicle - Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death
CO
Medical Malpractice (45)
-,o' a
O A7250 Premises Liability (e.g., slipand fall)
~rex.
£> S,
0>
«
£
Other
Personal Injury
Property Damage
Wrongful Death
(23)
1.,4.
D A7230 Intentional Bodily Injury/Property DamageWrongful Death (e.g.,
assault, vandalism, etc.)
1., 4.
D A7270 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
1..3.
0 A7220 Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death
i(p
_i
£ACIV 109 (Rev. 03/11)
LASC Appr sved
03-04
CWIL
CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM
AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION
IYFM
Lc cal Rule 2.0
Page 1 of 4
..
Ace Attorney Service (213) 623- 7527
11/05/2013
SHORT TITie:
2 of 5
CASE NUMBER
N, *
Business Tort (07)
T
iAîicab^peasaflsiS
f
,
sjftSeeiStepsrAbpyeM
y
D A6029 Other Commercial/Business Tort (not fraud/breach of contract)
1,3.
Civil Rights (08)
D A6005 CMI Rights/Discrimination
1.,2., 3.
Oefamation (13)
O A6010 Defamation (slander/libe!)
1,2,3:
D A6013 Fraud (no contract)
1., 2.3.
O A6017 Legal Malpractice
1., 2.3.
D A6Q50 Other Professional Malpractice(not medical or legal)
1..2..3.
Q A6025 Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage tort
2,3.
Q A6037 Wrongful Termination
1..2..3.
D A6024 Other Employment Complaint Case
1„2.. 3.
•
10.
o
at
5.'
o -JC
_
<x S
Ê
—
c
CO
O
0
s
en
«
01
co
c
Fraud (16)
Professional Negligence (25)
S
O
CO
Z
O
Other (35)
Wrongful Termination (36)
E
Q.
E
Other Employment (15)
Ul
A6109 Labor Commissioner Appeals
D A6004 Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawfuldetainer or wrongful
eviction)
Breach of Contract/ Warranty
(06)
(not insurance)
c
Collections (09)
o
O
Insurance Coverage (18)
Other Contract (37)
D A6008 Contract/Warranty Breach -Seller Plaintiff (no fraud/negligence)
Condemnation (14)
Wrongful Eviction (33)
CO
2., 5.
D A60f9 Negligent8reach of Contract/Warranty (no fraud)
1..2.. 5.
•
A6028 Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence)
I:, 2.. 5.
O
A6002 Collections Case-Seller Plaintiff
2., 5,6.
D A6012 Other Promissory Note/CollectionsCase
2.5.
D A6015 Insurance Coverage (not complex)
1,2., 5,8.
•
A6009 Contractual Fraud
1.2., 3,5.
O
A6031 Tortious Interference
1..2.. 3., 5.
Q A6027 Other Contract Dispute(notbreach/insurance/fraud/negligence)
Eminent Domain/Inverse
2,5.
•
A7300 Eminent Domain/Condemnation
1,2., 3, 8.
Number of parcels_
O A6023 Wrongful Eviction Case
2.6.
D A6018 Mortgage Foreclosure
2., 6.
D
2,6.
CD
(X
Other Real Property (26)
Unlawful Detainer-Commercial
(31)
Unlawful Detainer-Residential
(32)
"5
Unlawful Detainer-
Post-Foredosure (34)
Unlawful Detainer-Drugs (38)
A6032 Quiet Title
D A6080 Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenanL foreclosure)
2,6.
D A6021 Unlawful Detainer-Commercial (not drugs or wrongful eviction)
2., 6.
D A6020 Unlawful Detainer-Residential(not drugs or wrongful eviction)
2., 6.
O
2., 6.
A6020FUnlawful Detainer-Post-Foreclosure
D A6022 Unlawful Detainer-Drugs
LACIV 109 (Rev. 03/11)
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM
LASC Approved 03-04
2„6.
Local Rule 2.0
Page 2 of 4
4
11/05/2013
Asset Forfeiture (05)
4!
D
Petition re Arbitration (11)
Writ of Mandate (02)
Other Judicial Review (39)
Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03)
Construction Defect (10)
,0>
Claims InvolvingMass Tort
a.
(40)
£
A6108 Asset Forfeiture Case
Q A6115 Petition to Compel/ConfirmA/acate Arbitration
a
O
3 Of 5
CASE NUMBER
A6151 Writ - Administrative Mandamus
2.6.
2.5.
2,8.
D A6152 Writ - Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matter
2.
O A6153 Writ - Other Limited Court Case Review
2.
•
2,8.
A6150 Other Writ/Judicial Review
D A6003 Antitrust/Trade Regulation
1,2., 8.
D
A6007 Construction Defect
1., 2., 3.
a
A6006 Claims Involving Mass Tort
1., 2, 8.
o
o
Securities Litigation (28)
Q A6035 Securities Litigation Case
1.,2„
D
1., 2, 3,8.
CO
c
Toxic Tort
o
Environmental (30)
o
Insurance Coverage Claims
from Complex Case (41)
a.
c
a>
c
<y
i i
.P
=
Enforcement
of Judgment (20)
RICO (27)
in
3
o
1., 2, 5.,8.
Q A6141 Sister State Judgment
2.. 9.
D A6160 Abstract of Judgment
•2„ 6
D A6107 Confession of Judgment (non-domestic relations)
2,9
D A6140 Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes)
2., 8
G A6114 Petition/Certificate forEntry of Judgmenton Unpaid Tax
2,8
D A6112 Other Enforcementof Judgment Case
2., 8
Q A6033 Racketeering (RICO) Case
1.,2
D A6030 Declaratory Relief Only
1., 2., 8.
Q A6040 Injunctive Relief Only (notdomestic/harassment)
2,8.
D A6011 Other Commercial Complaint Case(non-tort/non-complex)
1.. 2., 8.
O A6000 OtherCivil Complaint (non-tort/non-complex)
1.. 2., 8.
O A5113 Partnership and Corporate Governance Case
2., 8.
«—>
Q.
r
tn
Other Complaints
(Not Specified Above) (42)
Partnership Corporation
Governance (21)
D
</>
o
D A60t4 Insurance Coverage/Subrogation (complex case only)
8.
_£_
CO
tO
"5J o
3
A6036 Toxic Tort/Environmental
c
A6121 Civil Harassment
D A6123 Workplace Harassment
o
2.. 3.9.
2,3,9.
c
CO
<U"
o
in*-
S
a.
Other Petitions
>
(Not Specified Above)
SB" o
LACIV 109 (Rev. 03/11)
LASC Approved 03-04
(43)
D A6124 Elder/Dependent AdultAbuse Case
2., 3., 9.
D
2.
A6190 Election Contest
D A6110 Petition for Change of Name
2., 7.
D A6170 Petition for Relief from Late Claim Law
2„ 3.,4„ I
D
2.. 9.
A6100 Other Civil Petition
Local Rule 2.0
Page 3 of 4
11/05/2013
SHORT TITLE;
Crystal Dixon, et al. v. Pop WarnerLittle Scholars, Inc., et al.
4 of 5
CASE NUMBER
Item III. Statement of Location: Enter the address of the accident, party's residence or place of business, performance, orother
circumstance indicated in Item II., Step 3 on Page 1, asthe proper reason for filing in the court location you selected.
ADDRESS:
REASON: Check the appropriate boxes for the numbers shown
under Column C for the type of action that you have selected for
See attachment.
this case.
D1. D2. D3. 04. D5. D6. D7. D8. D9. D10
Item IV. Declaration ofAssignment. Ideclare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true
and correct and that the above-entitled matter is properly filed for assignment to the Stanley Mosk
courthouse in the
Ppntraf
______ District ofthe Superior Court ofCalifornia. County of Los Angeles [Code Civ. Proc., § 392 etseq., and Local
Rule 2.0, subds. (b), (c) and (d)J.
<2_--7
Dated: November 5, 2013
(SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY/FIUNG PARTY)
PLEASE HAVE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS COMPLETED AND READY TO BE FILED IN ORDER TO PROPERLY
COMMENCE YOUR NEW COURT CASE:
1.
Original Complaint or Petition.
2. Iffiling a Complaint, a completed Summons form for issuance by theClerk.
3.
Civil Case Cover Sheet, Judicial Council form CM-010.
4. Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location form, LACIV 109, LASC Approved 03-04 (Rev
03/11).
5. Payment in full of the filing fee, unless fees have been waived.
6. Asigned order appointing the Guardian ad Litem, Judicial Council form CIV-010, if the plaintiff orpetitioner is a
minor under 18 years ofage will be required byCourt in order to issue a summons.
7. Additional copies ofdocuments to be conformed by the Clerk. Copies of the coversheet and thisaddendum
must be served along with the summons and complaint, orother initiating pleading in the case.
LACIV109 (Rev. 03/11)
LASC Approved 03-04
Local Rule 2.0
Page 4 of 4
11/05/2013
5 of 5
ATTACHMENT TO CIVlX CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM
List of Defendants
POP WARNER LITTLE SCHOLARS, INC., a non-profit corporation, incorporated and
headquartered in Langhorne, Pennsylvania in Bucks County;
ORANGE EMPIRE CONFERENCE, INC., a non-profit corporation, incorporated and
headquartered in Huntington Beach, California in Orange County;
LAKEWOOD POP WARNER, a non-profit corporation, incorporated and headquartered in
Lakewood, California in Los Angeles County;
SALVADOR P. and JANE DOE HERNANDEZ, husband and wife, residing in Long Beach, California
in Los Angeles County;
MANUEL and JANE DOE MARTINEZ, husband and wife, residing in Long Beach, California in Los
Angeles County;
REGINALD C. and JANE DOE NETTLES, husband and wife, residing in Orange County, California;
KEVIN and JANE DOE GODDARD, husband and wife, residing in California, address unknown;
JIM and JANE DOE CUNNIGHAM, husband and wife, residing in California, address unknown;
ROBERTO CARLOS and JANE DOE GONZALEZ, husband and wife; residing in Long Beach,
California in Los Angeles County;
ROBERT T. and JANE DOE ESPINOSA, husband and wife, residing in Brea, California inOrange
County; and
DOES 1 through 20; and BLACK CORPORATIONS 1 through 10.
-rw.
•11/05/2013
Aco Attor
i„f-CM-010
S2-3-7627-
FOR COUKT USE ONLY
301 North Lake Avenue, Pasadena, California 91101
telephone no, 213-330-7150
fax no.: 213-330-7152
attorney for(Namey Crystal Dixon and Donnovan Hill
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS AngeleS
strpspi
mim
street address, ill N. Hill Street
MAILING ADDRESS
CtTY AND3P CODE
BRANCH NAME
NOV 05 2013
Los Angeles California 90012
StanleyMosk CentralDistricton Hill Street
J U i i.\
CASE NAME:
Crystal Dixon, et al. v. Pop Warner -ittle Scholars, inc., et al.
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
CZJ Unlimited
•
BtLLJOBmCibLS^SUri
CASE NUMBER:
Complex Case Designation
Limited
•
(Amount
(Amount
demanded
demanded is
exceeds$25,000)
$25,000 or less)
Counter
•
BC 526 8 42
Joinder
JUDGE:
Filed with first appearance bydefendant
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402)
OEPT:
Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2}
1. Check one box below for thecase type that best describes this case:
Auto Tort
Contract
I i Auto (22)
L—I Uninsured motorist (46)
I 1 Rule 3.740 collections (09)
ILI Other collections (09)
J—J Insurance coverage (18)
Other PI/PD/WD (Personal Injury/Property
DamageAVrongful Death) Tort
L__ Asbestos (04)
I
I Product liability (24)
Medical malpractice (45)
L_3 Mass tort (40)
Securities litigation (28)
Real Property
Environmental/Toxic tort(30)
I Eminent domain/Inverse
I 1 Insurance coverage claims arising from the
condemnation (14)
above listed provisionally complex case
1 Wrongful eviction (33)
Non-PI/PO/WO (Other) Tort
I
Antitrust/Trade regulation (03)
I Construction defect (10)
I I Other contract (37)
I
CZ3 Other PI/PD/WD (23)
I
Provisionally Complex CivilLitigation
(Cal. Rulesof Court,rules; 3.400-3.403)
Breach of contract/Warranty (06)
Businesstort/unfair business practice(07)
Civil rights(08)
l Defamation (13)
types (41)
L_Z_ Other real property (26)
Enforcement of Judgment
Unlawful Oetainer
I 1 Enforcement of judgment (20)
I
I Commercial (31)
CHI Fraud (16)
CZ3 Residential (32)
[
I
intellectual property (19)
1 Professional negligence (25)
Judicial Review
I
1 Other non-PI/PDAlVD tort (35)
i
Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
•
RICO (27)
I 1 Other complaint (not specified above) (42)
I Drugs (38)
Miscellaneous Civil Petition
I Asset forfeiture (05)
_"
•-*--»
Employment
I
Petition re: arbitrationaward (11)
, ,. ,
Wnt of mandate (02)
I 7j Wrongful termination (36)
•
L—J Other employment (15)
L I Other judicial review (39)
LJ is
This_____caserequinng
LJ
is pLiisnot
complex under
rule 3.400 of'the California
factors
management:
—t—*• *g exceptional
«"--_jj"iiv*i »_•> judicial
juwiwoi iiicmo^chici
n.
a. LJ Large number of separately represented parties
b. I—] Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel
issues that wifl be time-consuming to resolve
1 Partnership and corporate governance (21)
I
I
1
'
..
,'
I Other petition(notspecified above) (43)
Rules of Court. If the case is complex
H ' markthee
d. LJ Large number ofwitnesses
e. I—I Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts
in otner counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court
c L_J Substantial amount of documentary evidence
f LJ Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision
Remedies sought (check all that apply):
b.•
•>" __T\
——5—• monetary
•/
--I
nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief
1 "vniuiv/Mciaiy, ucuaiaioiy yi injunctive rener
I V )pi
cC. lZj
punitive
Number of causes of action (specify): 4total -Negligence (3), Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (I)
Kli imKnr n f nnimnii ~.f_. _*:_.
iThis case |—| is
/
_ •_
»
L_J is not
jt
i
±
t
_ T
1*
t~ x
•*
t
••
«.
„..
.
._..
a class actionsuit.
6^Jf there are any known related cases, file and serve anotice of related case. (You may use form CM-015.)
date:
Elaine T. Byszewski
_<?<
(TYPEOR PRINTNAME)
(SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY)
NOTICE
"* nS2 IT' Kte,,hr,2)V_ shf'wi,h the firet PaPer filed in »« action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed
%under the Probate Code. FamHy Code, or Werfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result
in ssnctions.
'
•iFile this cover sheet in addition toany cover sheet required by local court rule
•Ifthis case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve acopy of this cover sheet on all
Ûnless this is acollections case under rule 3.740 or acomplex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only.
-.•otherpartiesto the action or proceeding.
FarmAdoptedfar Mandatory Usa
xj6didsf Counca or California
OVWIOIRev. JulyI, 200?)
Cai. Rules ofCourt, rules 2.30, 3.220, 3.400-3,403, 3.740;
Ca(. Standards of Judroat Administrator!, sw. 3.10
«w». ooortinfe.ca gov
IYFAX
J
11/05/2013
w Ace Attorney Service (213) 623-7527
™
2of3 M-010
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET
LlnSlnH
fl!!d along
?thCrS*mn9rFI?f
Paf>erS
"y°UCase**Cover
mn9 Sheet
afirst contained
paper <foronexamPlein awillcivilbe case
must
complete
and fie
with your first paper,
the Civil
page 1. acomplaint)
This information
used toyoucompile
stabd.es about the types and numbers of cases filed. You must complete items 1through 6on the sheet In item 1you musUhS
one box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case fits both ageneral and amore specific type of^se feted in tern 1
?oat«
vonin T* C,0netKlf 'h»f °fSe h3S rU'tiple CaUS6S °f aCti0n' <**<* the *» ,hat best indi<*tes the primary cause of actTon
JLT?$? r,TP ^"* Sheetl eXamp'eS °f the Cases thal be,on9 under each «*>«YPe « item 1are provided below Acover
sheet must be filed only with your initial paper. Failure to file acover sheet with the first paper filed in acivil case may subject adX
its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court.
* J
P ^'
To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A"collections case" under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money
lSorLSZ
t'ed 10 bG Cert3in 'hat iS "0t ^,han$25-000' exdusive of interest and att0™^ fees, arising frcTaTratTsacfonln
rt™^^' r 6Sw°f m°ney «fS aCqU'red °n Credi'' Acollecfons «*> does not include an action seeking the following (1) tort
attSeV
T9**;
? 3.740
fea' P"^'
reCOvery
Personal
a Prejudgment
writ of
attachment. ThPm-r
The .denhfication
of a(3)casereOTVery
as a rule
collections(4)case
on this0fform
meansProPertV.
that it willorbe(5)exempt
from the general
^mteZ^Zr*
3nd °Tfmana9emen'
W,eSSa judgment
adefendant
aresP°nsive P|eadi"9- A«* 3.7^0 collS
case will besubject to the requirements
for service anda"eS'
obtaining
in rulefiles
3,740.
«eT_i_l?ir?_l2St,V
'" TP'eX
^ Paft,eS
mUSt3.400
a!S0 USe
CMI CaseRules
°°ver
Sheet this
t0 desiS"ate
whether the
case s complex. If a plaintiff believes
the caseC3SeS
is complex
under rule
of thetheCalifornia
of Court
must be indicated
bv
Salmon alfoTest
2f*may*?"d6Si9nateS
muT, be ajoinder
serS wX
SlfZ3
fart,eS ,0 KTJ
th* act,on-"TV^
Adefendant
file and serve no3»"2S
later than<*"**>the
the time of «»«
its firstê!
appearance
in the
the22
is complex.
c?mo« 3counter'<ies,9nat,on that *"> «*> is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, adesignation thai
the case is
CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES
Auto Tort
Auto (22)~Personal Injury/Property
Damage/Wrongful Death
Uninsured Motorist (46)(itthe
case involves an uninsured
motorist claim subject to
arbitration, check this item
instead of Auto)
Other PI/PD/WD (Personal Injury/
Property Damage/Wrongful Death)
Tort
Asbestos (04)
Asbestos PropertyDamage
Asbestos Personal Injury/
Wrongful Death
Product Liability (notasbestos or
toxic/environmental) (24)
MedicalMalpractice(45)
Medical MalpracticePhysicians &Surgeons
Other Professional Health Care
Malpractice
Other PI/PD/WD (23)
Premises liability (e.g., slip
and fall) .
Intentional Bodily Injury/PD/WD
(e.g., assault, vandalism)
Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress
Negligent Infliction of
Emotional Distress
Other PI/PD/WD
Non-PI/PDA/VD (Other) Tort
Business Tort/Unfair Business
Practice (07)
Civil Rights (e.g., discrimination,
false arrest) (not civil
r^
harassment) (08)
Defamation (e.g.. slander, libel)
'(13)
. Fraud (16)
intellectual Property (19)
.-^•Professional Negligence (25)
""*•'
Legal Malpractice
ijl Other Professional Malpractice
(not medicalorlegal)
-..Other Non-PI/PD/WD Tort (35)
Employment
:v -Wrongful Termination (36)
,. Other Employment (15)
CM410(Rev. Julyi. 3007]
Contract
Breach ofContract/Warranty (06)
Breach of Rental/Lease
Contract (not unlawful detainer
or wrongfuleviction)
Contract/WarrantyBreach-Seller
Plaintiff (not fraud ornegligence)
Negligent Breach of Contract/
Warranty
OtherBreach ofContract/Warranty
Collections (e.g., moneyowed, open
book accounts) (09)
Collection Case-Seller Plaintiff
Other Promissory Note/Collections
Case
InsuranceCoverage (notprovisionally
complex) (18)
.Auto Subrogation
Other Coverage
Other Contract (37)
Contractual Fraud
Other Contract Dispute
Real Property
Eminent Domain/Inverse
Condemnation (14)
Wrongful Eviction (33)
OtherReal Property(e.g.,quiettitle) (26)
Writ of Possession of Real Property
Mortgage Foreclosure
Quiet Title
Other Real Property (noteminent
domain, landlord/tenant, or
foreclosure)
Unlawful Detainer
Commercial (31)
Residential (32)
Drugs (38)(ifthecase involves illegal
drugs, check thisitem; otherwise,
report as Commercial orResidential)
Judicial Review
Asset Forfeiture (05)
Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11)
Writ of Mandate (02)
Writ-Administrative Mandamus
Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court
Case Matter
Writ-Other Limited Court Case
Review
Other JudicialReview(39)
Provisionally Complex CivilLitigation (Cal.
Rules of Court Rules 3.400-3.403)
Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03)
Construction Defect (10)
ClaimsInvolving Mass Tort (40)
Securities Litigation (28)
Environmental/Toxic Tort(30)
Insurance Coverage Claims
(arising from provisionally complex
case type listed above) (41)
Enforcement of Judgment
Enforcementof Judgment (20)
Abstract of Judgment (Out of
County)
Confession of Judgment (nondomestic relations)
Sister State Judgment
Administrative Agency Award
(not unpaid taxes)
Petition/Certification of Entry of
Judgment on Unpaid Taxes
Other Enforcement of Judgment
Case
Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
RICO (27)
Other Complaint (not specified
above) (42)
Declaratory Relief Only
Injunctive ReliefOnly (nonharassment)
Mechanics Lien
Other Commercial Complaint
Case (non-ton/non-complex)
Other CivilComplaint
(non-tort/non-complex)
Miscellaneous Civil Petition
Partnership and Corporate
Governance (21)
Other Petition (notspecified
above) (43)
Civil Harassment
Workplace Violence
Elder/Dependent Adult
Abuse
Election Contest
Petition forName Change
Petition for Relief From Late
Claim
Other Civil Petition
Review of Health Officer Order
Notice of Appeal-Labor
Commissioner Appeals
P«g«2of2

Crystal Dixon v. Pop Warner, et al

Transcription

Similar documents

2016 May-June - Warren County Bar Association

- Santa Clara Law Digital Commons

2010KA2093 - Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit

i>-fondant .YILELIa/l 37IUCK (Neumann rough draft, unedited) PhlC

Deferred Disposition - Texas Municipal Courts Education Center

Stipulation - Access MCLE

- ACA Marketing

Private I Records - New On The Charts

Surocco v. Geary, 3 Cal. 69, 1853 WL 639, 58 Am.Dec. 385

Lennox Linton et al v Anthony Astaphan et al