Katie Saldana complaint for damages v. city of Capitola

Document Sample
Katie Saldana complaint for damages v. city of Capitola Powered By Docstoc
					 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
 4
     Attorney for Plaintiff:
 5   KATIE SALDANA

 6

 7

 8                    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
 9                                     COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
10

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,            )
15                                       )
                    Defendants.          )
16   ____________________________________)

17                                        FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
                                                 [Negligence]
18
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.

28
                                                      -1-
 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.

28
                                                      -2-
 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
                                            [Inverse Condemnation]
 9

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;
                                                        -3-
 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:
                                                                  KATIE SALDANA
 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28
                                                     -4-

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:1536
posted:2/21/2012
language:Latin
pages:4