federal complaint
DESCRIPTION
Complaint for wrongful death and personal injury damages based upon the FTCA/NegligenceTRANSCRIPT
1
COMPLAINT Case No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James P. Frantz, Esq., SBN 87492
William P. Harris III, Esq., SBN 123575
Kira C. Guisto, Esq., SBN 292544
George T. Stiefel, Esq., SBN 297611
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC 402 West Broadway, Suite 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GABRIEL J. OLIVAS, an
individual; GABRIEL J. OLIVAS as
successor in interest to Guadalupe
Olivas; GUILLERMINA
MORALES, an individual;
PAMELA MORALES, an
individual; FRANCISCO GARCIA-
JIMENEZ, an individual; MARIELA
GARCIA JIMENEZ, an individual;
FRANCISCO GARCIA
ARCINIEGA; FRANCISCO
GARCIA ARCINIEGA as successor
in interest to Elvira Guadalupe
Garcia Jimenez; FERNANDO
HERNANDEZ ROMO, an
individual; RAFAEL BECERRA, an
individual; LOURDES VERONICA
CORVERA HERNANDEZ, an
individual; PAOLA BECERRA
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )))))))
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL
DEATH AND PERSONAL INJURY
DAMAGES BASED UPON THE
FTCA/NEGLIGENCE
'15CV2882 RBBH
Case 3:15-cv-02882-H-RBB Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 1 of 17
2
COMPLAINT Case No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CORVERA, a minor by and through
her guardian ad litem Luis Manuel
De La Parra Ahumada and
JONATHAN MORAN CUELLAR
Plaintiffs,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
and DOES 1-50, Inclusive,
Defendants.
______________________________
))))) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Come now the Plaintiffs and for causes of action against the Defendants, and
each of them, complain and allege upon information and belief as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is a wrongful death and personal injury action arising out of a
commercial bus collision, which was regulated, overseen, inspected, and certified
by the United States of America, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). Just three months and two days before
the subject incident, the FMCSA placed a CVSA decal on the subject bus,
signifying to Plaintiffs, the public, and other inspectors/regulators (including the
California Highway Patrol) that the subject bus was safe and fit for operation. Less
than a month prior to the subject incident, FMCSA conducted a Compliance
Review of the subject operating company; the review was prompted by repeated
roadside maintenance deficiencies but the inspector did not review full
maintenance records which were required to be produced and the review did not
include an inspection of any vehicles. FMCSA issued a “Satisfactory” rating
following the review, which occurred at a self-storage facility (the review is
required to take place at the carrier’s principal place of business). For the weeks,
months, and years prior to the subject collision, FMCSA failed to properly perform
Case 3:15-cv-02882-H-RBB Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 2 of 17
3
COMPLAINT Case No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and apply its clear duties and instead issued a CVSA decal and Satisfactory rating
to the subject bus and carrier in violation of clear rules, procedures, laws and
policies that did not involve the exercise of discretion.
JURISDICTION & VENUE
2. This action is brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act
(FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq., against the United States of America,
which vests exclusive subject matter jurisdiction of Federal Tort Claims litigation
in the Federal District Court.
3. Venue is proper in the Southern District of California pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1402(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1), because the United States is a
defendant and plaintiff GABRIEL J. OLIVAS resides in the County of San Diego,
State of California which is in the jurisdiction of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California. Actions alleged herein by the United States
occurred in the City of San Diego and National City, both situated in the County of
San Diego, State of California.
PARTIES
4. GABRIEL J. OLIVAS was a passenger on the subject bus and the
husband of Guadalupe Olivas, deceased. GABRIEL J. OLIVAS is, and at all times
mentioned was, a resident of the County of San Diego, California. Plaintiff
GABRIEL J. OLIVAS brings this action individually and as successor-in-interest
to Guadalupe Olivas (also known as Maria Guadalupe Jimenez Reynoso).
5. GUILLERMINA MORALES was a passenger on the subject bus and
the mother of Pamela Morales, also a passenger.
6. PAMELA MORALES was a passenger on the subject bus and
daughter of Guillermina Morales.
7. JONATHAN MORAN CUELLAR was a passenger on the subject
bus.
8. FRANCISCO GARCIA-JIMENEZ is the son of Guadalupe Olivas,
Case 3:15-cv-02882-H-RBB Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 3 of 17
4
COMPLAINT Case No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
deceased.
9. MARIELA GARCIA JIMENEZ is the daughter of Guadalupe
Olivas, deceased.
10. FRANCISCO GARCIA ARCINIEGA is the father of Elvira
Guadalupe Garcia Jimenez, deceased. Plaintiff FRANCISCO GARCIA
ARCINIEGA brings this action individually and as successor-in-interest to Elvira
Guadalupe Garcia Jimenez.
11. FERNANDO HERNANDEZ ROMO was a passenger on the subject
bus.
12. RAFAEL BECERRA was a passenger on the subject bus. Rafael
Becerra brings this action individually and for loss of consortium for the injuries to
his wife, Lourdes Veronica Corvera Hernandez.
13. LOURDES VERONICA CORVERA HERNANDEZ was a
passenger on the subject bus and is the wife of Rafael Becerra.
14. PAOLA BECERRA CORVERA, a minor by and through her
guardian ad litem Luis Manuel De La Parra Ahumada, was a passenger on the
subject bus and the daughter of Rafael Becerra and Lourdes Veronica Corvera
Hernandez.
15. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of the
defendants sued herein as DOES 1-100, inclusive, and therefore sue these
defendants by such fictitious names. Wherever in this Complaint it refers to
"Defendants," such reference shall include each expressly named defendant and all
DOE Defendants. Plaintiff will seek leave of this Court to amend this Complaint to
set forth the true names of the fictitiously named Defendants when their true
identities become known. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon
allege that each of the fictitiously named defendants is negligently responsible in
some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that plaintiffs’ injuries as
herein alleged were proximately caused by that negligence.
Case 3:15-cv-02882-H-RBB Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 4 of 17
5
COMPLAINT Case No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times
herein mentioned each of the defendants was the agent and employee of the
remaining defendants, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, was acting
within the course and scope of such agency and employment.
STATUTORY BASIS OF LIABILITY AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
17. This case is brought against the United States of America pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., commonly referred to as the “Federal Tort Claims Act”.
Liability of the United States is predicated specifically on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1)
and 2674 because the personal injuries, wrongful death, and resulting damages that
form the basis of this complaint, were proximately caused by the negligence,
wrongful acts and/or omissions of employees of the United States of America
through its agency, the United States Department of Transportation and the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Admiration (collectively, “FMCSA”). These employees
were acting within the course and scope of their office or employment, under
circumstances where the United States of America, if a private person, would be
liable to the Plaintiff in the same manner and to the same extent as a private
individual under the laws of the State of California
18. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2675, this claim was presented to the
appropriate agency of Defendant, the United States of America, namely the U.S.
Department of Transportation, FMCSA for the claims of Plaintiffs. Said
Defendant denied the claims in a letter dated June 24, 2015.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
19. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference each and all of the allegations
contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
20. On or about February 3, 2013, Plaintiffs were passengers on a
motorcoach operated by Scapadas Magicas LLC (hereinafter “SCAPADAS”). The
motorcoach (hereinafter the “subject bus”) contained a Commercial Vehicle Safety
Case 3:15-cv-02882-H-RBB Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 5 of 17
6
COMPLAINT Case No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Alliance (CVSA) decal placed upon it by agents of the United States of America
acting through the Department of Transportation and the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (“FMCSA”) and DOES 1-50.
21. The CVSA decal indicated to passengers, the public and other
regulators (such as the California Highway Patrol) that the subject bus was safe, fit
and did not require further inspection.
22. However, unknown to Plaintiffs, the subject bus had major
mechanical deficiencies.
23. As the subject bus was going down a winding mountain road
returning from Big Bear Lake, California, the driver lost control of the subject bus
due to mechanical failures of the brakes. Plaintiffs were terrified, grasping their
loved ones and thinking that their lives were about to end.
24. The subject bus collided with another vehicle, crossed into an
opposing uphill lane, struck an embankment on the left side of the roadway, and
overturned toward the passenger side and collided with a Ford F-150. Several
passengers were ejected from the subject bus. The subject bus and F-150 were
redirected to the westbound lanes, where the bus rolled upright, struck a boulder
adjacent to a drainage ditch on the right side of the roadway, and came to rest
blocking both lanes of SR-38.
25. As a result of the incident Plaintiff GABRIEL J. OLIVAS was
injured and witnessed his wife, Guadalupe Olivas, die.
26. Elvira Guadalupe Garcia Jimenez died as a result of the subject
incident.
27. Plaintiffs GUILLERMINA MORALES, PAMELA MORALES,
JONATHAN MORAN CUELLAR, FERNANDO HERNANDEZ ROMO,
RAFAEL BECERRA, LOURDES VERONICA CORVERA HERNANDEZ, and
PAOLA BECERRA CORVERA were all seriously injured in their health and
strength and suffered emotionally as a result of the incident.
Case 3:15-cv-02882-H-RBB Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 6 of 17
7
COMPLAINT Case No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28. The subject bus had numerous mechanical problems that directly
contributed to the incident. Mechanical deficiencies were identified for all six
brakes that qualified the brakes as defective according to clear North American
Standard Inspection Program OOS criteria.
29. The FMCSA conducted Compliance Reviews of SCAPADAS in the
years and months prior to the subject incident. According to the National
Transportation Safety Board, FMCSA failed to make a complete review of
SCAPADAS’ business records.
30. The National Transportation Safety Board also found that despite the
FMCSA having documented numerous vehicle violations associated with
SCAPADAS in roadside inspections, the most recent precrash Compliance Review
of SCAPADAS did not include inspection of any vehicles.
31. On October 25, 2012, a FMCSA agent issued the aforementioned
CVSA decal to the subject bus. Vehicles bearing a CVSA decal will not be
stopped or reinspected for approximately three months. Clear, non-discretionary
guidelines were in place for the FMCSA agent to issue a CVSA decal and the
agent was not allowed not charged with, nor did said agent exercise, any discretion
authority. The agent was acting in the course and scope of the agent’s duties as an
employee of the FMCSA, U.S. Department of Transportation, and the United
States.
32. On January 9, 2013, less than a month before the subject incident,
FMCSA conducted a Compliance Review of SCAPADAS and rated the company
Satisfactory. The inspector noted that SCAPADAS failed to provide the necessary
documentation for the review. The inspection occurred at a self-storage facility in
National City, County of San Diego, State of California. Although the January 9,
2013 Compliance Review was conducted because of excessive maintenance issues,
the review did not address any mechanical violations.
33. The mechanical conditions that were identified postcrash as a cause
Case 3:15-cv-02882-H-RBB Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 7 of 17
8
COMPLAINT Case No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of the incident were present at the time of the October 25, 2012 roadside inspection
and the January 9, 2013 Compliance Review. According to the NTSB, the
deficiencies were longstanding problems.
34. With respect to the October 25, 2012 roadside inspection, leading to
the FMCSA’s sanctioning of the subject bus, in violation of clear policies and
standards for issuing a CVSA decal and inspecting the subject bus, the inspection
reported only axle number two brake measurements. The wedge brakes on the first
and third axles were omitted from the inspection, even though required.
Furthermore, the brake measurement numbers from axle two do not appear
realistic such that it does not appear that they were actually measured or that they
were misreported.
35. The FMCSA failed to meet its mandatory duties, and as such,
breached its duty of care to Elvira Guadalupe Garcia Jimenez, Guadalupe Olivas
and Plaintiffs and plaintiffs herein, which breach was a substantial factor in
bringing about the damages as more fully set forth herein. Furthermore, given the
breach of the aforesaid mandatory duties, the FMCSA did not have the discretion
to breach its duty of care. Furthermore, the breach of the aforesaid mandatory
duties were not breached as a matter of public policy, and as a result, the FMCSA
did not have the discretion to act in the way that it did in allowing the subject
CVSA decal and Satisfactory rating and in failing to appropriately monitor the
subject bus and SCAPADAS, which if they had been monitored, would have
disclosed the breaches by the FMCSA and SCAPADAS as set forth herein.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – FTCA/NEGLIGENCE
(Against Defendant United States of America and DOES 1-50)
36. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation as
though fully set forth herein at length.
37. Defendant, the United States of America, and DOES 1-50 were
negligent in its conduct leading up to and during the conduct that led to the death
Case 3:15-cv-02882-H-RBB Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 8 of 17
9
COMPLAINT Case No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of Elvira Guadalupe Garcia Jimenez, Guadalupe Olivas and significant injuries to
Plaintiffs GABRIEL J. OLIVAS, an individual; GABRIEL J. OLIVAS as
successor in interest to Guadalupe Olivas; GUILLERMINA MORALES, an
individual; PAMELA MORALES, an individual; FRANCISCO GARCIA-
JIMENEZ, an individual; MARIELA GARCIA JIMENEZ, an individual;
FRANCISCO GARCIA ARCINIEGA; FRANCISCO GARCIA ARCINIEGA as
successor in interest to Elvira Guadalupe Garcia Jimenez; FERNANDO
HERNANDEZ ROMO, an individual; RAFAEL BECERRA, an individual;
LOURDES VERONICA CORVERA HERNANDEZ, an individual; PAOLA
BECERRA CORVERA, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem Luis
Manuel De La Parra Ahumada and JONATHAN MORAN CUELLAR and said
Defendants were grossly negligent and enhanced the risk of injury and death to
Elvira Guadalupe Garcia Jimenez, Guadalupe Olivas and Plaintiffs. FMCSA and
DOES 1-50 failed to adequately discharge their responsibilities and failed to apply
clear laws, regulations and standards and, in fact, acted contrary to said clear laws,
regulations and standards.
38. The FMCSA and DOES 1-50 undertook to advise, warn and/or
certify to Plaintiffs the fitness, or lack thereof, of a particular bus. Plaintiffs relied
upon representations by the FMCSA and DOES 1-50, including placement of the
aforementioned CVSA decal, that the subject bus was fit and safe and acted based
upon the representation that the subject bus and SCAPADAS were fit and safe.
The FMCSA and DOES 1-50 did not exercise reasonable care in its actions and
omissions. As alleged herein, the FMCSA and DOES 1-50 did negligently fail to
conduct and/or negligently conducted the October 25, 2012 inspection of the
subject bus.
39. The FMCSA’s and DOES 1-50’s negligent performance of their
tasks placed Plaintiffs in a more vulnerable position than they would have been in
had the government not acted at all. The subject bus would not have been
Case 3:15-cv-02882-H-RBB Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 9 of 17
10
COMPLAINT Case No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
operating had the government not acted at all. Furthermore, FMCSA and DOES 1-
50 placement of the aforementioned CVSA decal prevented others from inspecting
the subject bus.
40. The FMCSA and DOES 1-50 negligently conducted and/or
negligently failed to conduct the January 2013 Compliance Review. Compliance
Review policies and procedures are mandated by FMCSA headquarters through,
among other things, the Electronic Field Operations Training Manual (“eFOTM”).
The eFOTM state that Compliance Reviews are to be conducted at the carrier’s
principal place of business. The eFOTM further states that the inspector is to
determine the carrier’s operational characteristics, review the paperwork flow of
the company, identify issues and tour the facility. According to Federal
Regulations, the motor carrier must make records required by the Federal
Regulations available at its principal place of business within 48 hours after a
request has been made for a special agent or representative of the FMCSA. Due to
a substantial number of deficiencies in roadside inspections of SCAPADAS
vehicles, the FMCSA’s database issued an alert requiring a Compliance Review.
On January 9, 2013, less than a month before the subject incident, FMCSA
conducted a Compliance Review of SCAPADAS and rated the company
Satisfactory. The FMCSA and DOES 1-50 conducted the January 9, 2013
Compliance Review at an off-site, self-storage facility – which is not a principal
place of business that the regulations, laws and standards required the review to
take place. FMCSA and DOES 1-50 further did not inspect any SCAPADAS
vehicles. SCAPADAS advised FMCSA agents, including DOES 1-50, that
maintenance records were maintained at its principal place of business and the
maintenance records SCAPADAS produced were written in the Spanish language.
If FMCSA and DOES 1-50 exercised reasonable care and diligence, the
Compliance Review would have resulted in an order to cease operations and/or
placed the subject bus out of service.
Case 3:15-cv-02882-H-RBB Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 10 of 17
11
COMPLAINT Case No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
41. The FMCSA and DOES 1-50 assumed a duty to inspect the subject
bus and SCAPADAS, failed to exercise due care, caused Plaintiffs and subsequent
inspectors and regulators to rely on the October 25, 2012 CVSA decal and January
9, 2013 Compliance Review, and thereby caused damages
42. The FMCSA and DOES 1-50 were not engaged in rule-making or
discretionary functions in performing the actions alleged herein but rather FMCSA
agents were applying and/or failed to apply clear rules, regulations, laws and
standards. The laws, rules, regulations and standards and the conduct of FMCSA
and DOES 1-50 involved the matching of facts against a clear rule or standard such
that the actions alleged herein were operational and not discretionary. FMCSA and
DOES 1-50 did not exercise policy judgment in performing the acts alleged herein
nor did FMCSA’s agents who conducted the inspections and reviews have policy-
making authority.
43. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid conduct and other
tortious acts and omissions of the defendant, the United States of America, the
subject bus and SCAPADAS operated and continued to operate by, from Plaintiffs’
viewpoint, sanction of the UNITED STATES and the events alleged herein
occurred. Elvira Guadalupe Garcia Jimenez, Guadalupe Olivas, and Plaintiffs
were permitted to board the subject bus, believing it was safe. Other regulators
and inspectors did not reinspect the subject bus to take it off the road.
44. Prior to the wrongful death of Guadalupe Olivas, she was a source of
love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society,
moral support, financial support, gifts and benefits, sexual relations, training and
guidance to her husband Plaintiff GABRIEL J. OLIVAS.
45. Prior to the wrongful death of Guadalupe Olivas, she was a source of
love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society,
moral support, financial support, gifts and benefits, training and guidance to her
daughter Plaintiff MARIELA GARCIA JIMINEZ and her son FRANCISCO
Case 3:15-cv-02882-H-RBB Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 11 of 17
12
COMPLAINT Case No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
GARCIA-JIMENEZ.
46. Prior to the wrongful death of Elvira Guadalupe Garcia Jimenez, she
was a source of love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection,
affection, society, moral support, financial support, gifts and benefits, training and
guidance to her father, Plaintiff FRANCISCO GARCIA ARCINIEGA.
47. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid conduct and other
tortious acts and omissions of the defendant, the United States of America, and the
resulting death of Elvira Guadalupe Garcia Jimenez, Plaintiff FRANCISCO
GARCIA ARCINIEGA has suffered and continues to suffer non-economic losses,
including but not limited to: loss of the decedent’s love, companionship, comfort,
care, assistance, protection, affection, society, moral support, training and
guidance, in an amount according to proof at trial. As a direct and proximate result
of the aforesaid conduct and other tortious acts and omissions of the defendant, the
United States of America, and the resulting death of Elvira Guadalupe Garcia
Jimenez, Plaintiff FRANCISCO GARCIA ARCINIEGA has suffered and
continues to suffer economic losses, including: loss of income, loss of support, loss
of services, loss of gifts, and loss of other economic benefits, in an amount
according to proof at trial. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct and
other tortious acts and omissions of the defendant, the United States of America,
the decedent’s property was lost, damaged or destroyed, causing economic loss in
an amount according to proof at trial.
48. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid conduct and other
tortious acts and omissions of the defendant, the United States of America, and the
resulting death of Guadalupe Olivas, Plaintiffs GABRIEL J. OLIVAS,
FRANCISCO GARCIA-JIMENEZ, and MARIELA GARCIA JIMENEZ, have
each suffered and continue to suffer non-economic losses, including but not limited
to: loss of the decedent’s love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance,
protection, affection, society, moral support, training and guidance, in an amount
Case 3:15-cv-02882-H-RBB Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 12 of 17
13
COMPLAINT Case No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
according to proof at trial. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid
conduct and other tortious acts and omissions of the defendant, the United States of
America, and the resulting death of Guadalupe Olivas, Plaintiffs GABRIEL J.
OLIVAS, FRANCISCO GARCIA-JIMENEZ, and MARIELA GARCIA
JIMENEZ have each suffered and continue to suffer economic losses, including:
loss of income, loss of support, loss of services, loss of gifts, and loss of other
economic benefits, in an amount according to proof at trial. As a direct and
proximate result of the conduct and other tortious acts and omissions of the
defendant, the United States of America, the decedent’s property was lost,
damaged or destroyed, causing economic loss in an amount according to proof at
trial.
49. As a further direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts, conduct
or omissions of Defendants and DOES 1-50, and each of them, which proximately
caused the death of decedent Guadalupe Olivas, Plaintiff GABRIEL J. OLIVAS as
successor in interest makes claim for special damages including, but not limited to,
funeral, burial, medical expenses and property damage in an amount to be proven
at trial pursuant..
50. As a further direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts, conduct
or omissions of Defendants and DOES 1-50, and each of them, which proximately
caused the death of decedent Elvira Guadalupe Garcia Jimenez, Plaintiff
FRANCISCO GARCIA ARCINIEGA as successor in interest makes claim for
special damages including, but not limited to, funeral, burial, medical expenses and
property damage in an amount to be proven at trial.
51. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid conduct and other
tortious acts and omissions of the defendant, the United States of America,
Plaintiffs GABRIEL J. OLIVAS, GUILLERMINA MORALES, PAMELA
MORALES, FERNANDO HERNANDEZ ROMO, RAFAEL BECERRA,
LOURDES VERONICA CORVERA HERNANDEZ, PAOLA BECERRA
Case 3:15-cv-02882-H-RBB Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 13 of 17
14
COMPLAINT Case No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CORVERA, JONATHAN MORAN CUELLAR were hurt and injured in their
health, strength, and activity, sustaining injury to his body and shock and injury to
their nervous systems and persons, all of which said injuries caused and continue
to cause plaintiffs great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering, all to
plaintiffs’ damage in an amount according to proof at trial. Plaintiffs are informed
and believe and thereon allege that said injuries will result in some permanent
disability to the plaintiffs, the exact amount of which is unknown. Plaintiffs have
suffered and will continue to suffer in the future severe mental and emotional pain
and suffering resulting from their injuries. Leave of court will be sought to amend
this complaint to set forth the exact amount of said general damages at such time as
they are ascertained.
52. As a further, direct and proximate result of said carelessness and
negligence of Defendant and DOES 1-50, and each of them, Plaintiffs GABRIEL
J. OLIVAS, GUILLERMINA MORALES, PAMELA MORALES, FERNANDO
HERNANDEZ ROMO, RAFAEL BECERRA, LOURDES VERONICA
CORVERA HERNANDEZ, PAOLA BECERRA CORVERA, JONATHAN
MORAN CUELLAR were required to, and did employ physicians and surgeons to
examine, treat and care for them and did incur medical expenses in an amount
according to proof, the exact amount of which is unknown to plaintiffs, and
plaintiffs pray leave to amend this complaint to set forth the exact amount thereof
when it is ascertained by them. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon
allege that there will be additional medical expenses, the exact amount of which
are unknown, according to proof at trial.
53. As a further, direct and proximate result of said carelessness and
negligence of Defendant and DOES 1-50, and each of them, Plaintiffs GABRIEL
J. OLIVAS, GUILLERMINA MORALES, PAMELA MORALES, FERNANDO
HERNANDEZ ROMO, RAFAEL BECERRA, LOURDES VERONICA
CORVERA HERNANDEZ, PAOLA BECERRA CORVERA, JONATHAN
Case 3:15-cv-02882-H-RBB Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 14 of 17
15
COMPLAINT Case No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MORAN CUELLAR were prevented from attending to their usual occupation,
sustaining a loss of earnings thereby in a sum as yet ascertained. Plaintiffs are
informed and believe and thereon allege that they will be prevented from attending
to said usual occupation in the future and will sustain further loss of earnings and
loss of earning capacity; plaintiffs pray leave of court to amend this complaint to
set forth the exact amount of such further loss of earnings, loss of opportunity and
loss of earning capacity once the same is ascertained.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendant as follows:
a. The support and financial benefit which Plaintiffs GABRIEL J.
OLIVAS, FRANCISCO GARCIA-JIMENEZ, and MARIELA GARCIA
JIMENEZ would have received from Guadalupe Olivas during the period of
Guadalupe Olivas’s and Plaintiffs’ life expectancy;
b. Damages to Plaintiffs GABRIEL J. OLIVAS, FRANCISCO
GARCIA-JIMENEZ, and MARIELA GARCIA JIMENEZ for being deprived of
the love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society,
and moral support of Guadalupe Olivas;
c. Damages to Plaintiffs GABRIEL J. OLIVAS, FRANCISCO
GARCIA-JIMENEZ, and MARIELA GARCIA JIMENEZ for funeral expenses
and services in memory of Guadalupe Olivas and for burial expenses;
d. For the reasonable value of household services that Guadalupe Olivas
would have provided to Plaintiffs GABRIEL J. OLIVAS, FRANCISCO GARCIA-
JIMENEZ, and MARIELA GARCIA JIMENEZ;
e. For the loss of gifts and benefits from Guadalupe Olivas that Plaintiffs
GABRIEL J. OLIVAS, FRANCISCO GARCIA-JIMENEZ, and MARIELA
GARCIA JIMENEZ would have expected to receive;
f. The support and financial benefit which Plaintiff FRANCISCO
GARCIA ARCINIEGA would have received from Elvira Guadalupe Garcia
Case 3:15-cv-02882-H-RBB Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 15 of 17
16
COMPLAINT Case No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Jimenez during the period of Elvira Guadalupe Garcia Jimenez’s and Plaintiffs’
life expectancy;
g. Damages to Plaintiff FRANCISCO GARCIA ARCINIEGA for being
deprived of the love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection,
affection, society, and moral support of Elvira Guadalupe Garcia Jimenez;
h. Damages to Plaintiff FRANCISCO GARCIA ARCINIEGA for
funeral expenses and services in memory of Elvira Guadalupe Garcia Jimenez and
for burial expenses;
i. For the reasonable value of household services that Elvira Guadalupe
Garcia Jimenez would have provided to Plaintiff FRANCISCO GARCIA
ARCINIEGA;
j. For the loss of gifts and benefits from Elvira Guadalupe Garcia
Jimenez that Plaintiff FRANCISCO GARCIA ARCINIEGA would have expected
to receive;
k. Plaintiff FRANCISCO GARCIA ARCINIEGA as successor in
interest makes claim for special damages including, but not limited to, funeral,
burial, medical expenses and property damage in an amount to be proven at trial;
l. Plaintiff GABRIEL J. OLIVAS as successor in interest makes claim
for special damages including, but not limited to, funeral, burial, medical expenses
and property damage in an amount to be proven at trial pursuant;
m. Damages for emotional distress;
n. For economic damages;
o. For non-economic damages;
p. For Special Damages;
q. For General Damages; and
///
///
///
Case 3:15-cv-02882-H-RBB Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 16 of 17
17
COMPLAINT Case No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
r. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.
Dated: December 21, 2015 FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
/S/ George T. Stiefel
James P. Frantz, Esq.
William P. Harris III, Esq.
Kira C. Guisto, Esq.
George T. Stiefel III, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Case 3:15-cv-02882-H-RBB Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 17 of 17