1 JOHN P. HANNON II
SB No: 111692
2 716 Capitola Avenue, Ste. F
Capitola, CA 95010
3 PH: (831) 476-8005
FAX: (831) 476-8984
Attorney for Plaintiff:
5 KATIE SALDANA
8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
11 KATIE SALDANA, ) CASE NO:
12 Plaintiff, )
13 v. ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
) [Negligence and Inverse
14 CITY OF CAPITOLA and DOES 1 ) Condemnation]
1 through 20, inclusive, )
17 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
19 1. Plaintiff, Katie Saldana, is a resident of the City of Capitola, County of Santa Cruz, State
20 of California.
21 2. City of Capitola is a Municipal Corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of
22 California and operating in the County of Santa Cruz, State of California.
23 3. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and identities of those individuals named herein as
24 Does 1 through 20, inclusive. At such time as Plaintiff becomes aware of the true names and
25 identities of such fictitiously named Defendants, Plaintiff will pray relief to this court to amend
26 this complaint accordingly.
27 4. On or about March 24, 2011, a flood occurred in the City of Capitola.
1 5. Prior to this flood, Defendants were responsible for and maintained a system of pipes
2 beneath the city streets. In undertaking this duty to maintain these pipes, Defendants necessarily
3 agreed to exercise due care in the operation, repair, maintenance, construction, and inspection of
4 such pipes.
5 6. Prior to the flood occurring on March 24, 2011, Defendants breached their duty of due care
6 in regard to their operation, repair, maintenance, construction, and inspection of such pipes.
7 7. As a result of their breach of their duties, the pipes that were designed to carry rain water
8 fell into disrepair. Such disrepair resulted in the pipes becoming blocked or otherwise unable to
9 handle ordinary unexpected water flow.
10 8. On March 24, 2011, and in the days leading up thereto, rain fell upon the Santa Cruz
11 County area. This rain was not unusual in amount or duration.
12 9. Due to the failure of Defendants to properly maintain the piping system underneath the
13 City of Capitola, the pipes were unable to be used for the reasonable and ordinary expected use.
14 As a further result, the pipes became blocked allowing flood water to accumulate on Capitola
15 Avenue and in adjacent neighborhoods.
16 10. As of March 24, 2011, Plaintiff was a renter in the City of Capitola. Due to the flooding
17 that was a result of Defendants negligence, Plaintiffs residence was flooded resulting in damages
18 to her personal property.
19 11. Furthermore, in moving this personal property back to her residence after it had been
20 moved in order to avoid the further damage to such property, Plaintiff injured her shoulder. Such
21 injury was a foreseeable result of the conduct of Defendants in failing to repair, maintain, and
22 inspect the piping system as a reasonable person would understand that the moving of personal
23 property would be necessary to avoid further damage.
24 12. As a proximate result of the personal and property damages to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has
25 suffered loss of use of her property as well as damage to such property. The amount of damage to
26 her property and loss of use is an amount according to proof but is in excess of the minimum
27 jurisdiction of this court.
1 13. Furthermore, Plaintiff has suffered personal injury to her shoulder resulting in the
2 necessity for surgery. Such injury has resulted in Plaintiff losing time from work as well as
3 suffering injury to her mind, body and psyche. Such damages are uncertain at this time, but are
4 subject to proof and are, in any event, in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court.
5 14. Plaintiff has made a demand upon the City of Capitola to compensate her for her
6 damages. This claim was rejected on May 13, 2011.
7 Wherefore Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below:
8 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
10 15. Plaintiff hereby realleges the first cause of action as if fully set forth herein.
11 16. As alleged herein the Defendants’ design, construction and maintenance of the project
12 posed an unreasonable risk of harm to Plaintiff.
13 17. Such design, construction and maintenance constituted proximately caused the damage to
14 Plaintiff’s property as alleged herein.
15 18. Under the doctrine of inverse condemnation, Defendants are liable for the damages to
16 Plaintiffs property. A balancing of the factors as set forth in the case of Locklin v. City of
17 Lafayette (1994) 7 Cal.4th 327 shows that Defendants should be held liable herein.
18 20. Pursuant to California Law including, but not limited to California Code of Civil
19 Procedure section 1036, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable “attorney, appraisal, and engineering
20 fees, actually incurred because of that proceeding in the trial court or in any appellate proceeding
21 in which the plaintiff prevails on any issue in that proceeding.”
22 21. As a proximate result, Plaintiff has suffered damages as alleged in the first cause of action
23 on her property claim only under this cause of action as alleged herein.
24 Wherefore Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.
25 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
26 Plaintiff hereby prays for relief as set forth below:
27 1. For general in an amount according to proof, but in a sum not less than the minimum
28 jurisdiction of this court;
1 2. For special damages for in an amount according to proof, but in a sum not less than the
2 minimum jurisdiction of this court.
3 3. For attorney fees as allowed by contract or statute.
4 4. For costs of suit incurred herein.
5 5. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just.
6 Date: __________________ By: ___________________________
JOHN P. HANNON II
7 Attorney for Plaintiff: