Complaint Unlimited Fee Applies

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.November 4, 2020

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 E-FILED 11/4/2020 12:36 PM Clerk of Court Michael Chaloupka, SBN 3 16390 Superior Court 0f CA, Ryan Harris, SBN 217154 County Of Santa Clara Harris Personal Injury Lawyers, Inc. ZOCV373053 1025 Farmhouse Lane, 2F Reviewed By: D Harris San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Telephone: (805) 544-0100 Email: michael@hpilaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Kenward Ng SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA - UNLIMTED CIVIL KENWARD NG, an individual; CASE No_ZOCV373053 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES vs. 1. Negligence TURO, INC., a business entity; JEFFREY ROSS MEYER, an individual; MARCO AGUILAR, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive; Defendants. PlaintiffKENWARD NG (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, KENWARD NG (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is an individual residing in Los Angeles, California. 2. Upon information and belief, Defedant TURO, INC., is a business entity doing business in the state 0f California. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant JEFFREY ROSS MEYES, is an individual residing in Sunnyvale, California. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant MARCO AGUILAR, is an individual residing in Redwood City, California. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. Plaintiff is unaware 0f the true names and capacities 0f Defendants DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, and therefore sues them by fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint t0 show the true names and capacities 0f these Defendants once they are ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believe and thereon allege that each 0f these Defendants are responsible in some manner for the wrongful acts alleged in this Complaint with respect t0 the collision that occurred in the County 0f Santa Clara, California 0n 0r about October 23, 2019, and proximately caused Plaintiff” s damages. VENUE 6. At all times herein mentioned, the collision 0n which this action is based occurred within the boundaries 0f the Superior Court 0f the State 0f California, County 0f Santa Clara, said accident occurring 0n HWY 85, County 0f Santa Clara, California. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 7. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 6 as though fully set forth herein. 8. At all times herein mentioned “Defendants” refers t0 TURO INC., a business entity; JEFFREY ROSS MEYER, an individual; MARCO AGUILAR, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive. 9. At all times herein mentioned DEFENDANTS operated a certain vehicle owned by DEFENDANTS. 10. At all times herein mentioned, DEFENDANTS were the operators and/or permissive users 0f that certain vehicle owned by DEFENDANTS. 11. At all times herein mentioned DEFENDANTS were acting within the course and scope 0f their employment with DEFENDANTS. DEFENDANT employees, through their employment with DEFENDANT employers, were required t0 use their personal vehicle for work as an express 0r implied condition 0femployment 0r, in the alternative, DEFENDANT employees expressly 0r implicitly agreed t0 make their vehicle available t0 DEFENDANT employers such that the DEFENDANT employers had reasonably come t0 rely upon the vehicle’s use and t0 expect DEFENDANT employees t0 make the vehicle available 0n a regular basis while still not requiring COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 it as a condition 0f employment. As such, DEFENDANT employers derived an incidental benefit from the use 0f that certain vehicle that was operated by DEFENDANTS at all times herein mentioned. 12. At all times herein mentioned DEFENDANTS owed Plaintiff a duty 0f care. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE (AS t0 All Defendants) 13. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all above paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 14. On 0r about October 23, 2019, Defendants operated Defendants’ vehicle in such a negligent manner as t0 cause a motor vehicle collision which caused serious injuries t0 Plaintiff. 15 . At said times and places, Defendants negligently, carelessly, and without due care or regard for the life, safety, and rights 0f Plaintiff, did so fail t0 own, entrust, operate, and/or maintain the vehicle driven by Defendants in a safe manner, causing the subject incident, all 0f which caused serious injuries to Plaintiff. 16. Defendants were employees 0f Defendants, caused the aforementioned collision while in the course and scope 0f their employment with, and while acting as an agent for them. Therefore, Defendants are all fully responsible for Defendants’ conduct through the doctrine 0f respondeat superior. 17. As a proximate result 0f the negligence 0f Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff was hurt and injured in his health, strength, and activity, sustaining injury t0 his body and shock and injury t0 his nervous systems and persons, all ofwhich said injuries have caused, and continue t0 cause Plaintiff great mental, physical, and emotional distress, and nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that said injuries will result in some permanent disability to said Plaintiff, all in addition t0 Plaintiff’s general damages in an amount t0 be proven at trial. 18. As a proximate result 0f the negligence 0f Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has incurred and will continue t0 incur medical and related expenses, in an amount that is COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 unknown at this time but which will be proven at the time 0f trial. 19. As a further proximate result 0f the negligence 0f Defendants, and each 0f them, Plaintiffhas suffered and will continue t0 suffer general damages in an amount presently unknown but which will be proven at the time 0f trial. 20. As a further proximate result 0f the negligence 0f Defendants, and each 0f them, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue t0 suffer economic damages and loss 0f earnings in an amount presently unknown but which will be proven at the time 0f trial. 21. As a further proximate result 0f the negligence 0f Defendants, and each 0f them, Plaintiffhas suffered and will continue t0 suffer, a loss 0fearning capacity in an amount presently unknown but that will be proven at the time 0f trial. JURY DEMAND 22. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury 0n all claims so triable. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffprays for judgment against the Defendants, and each 0f them, as follows: 1. 990899999.“ H .O General damages t0 Plaintiff, according to proof; Economic damages t0 Plaintiff, according t0 proof; Medical and related expenses 0f Plaintiff, according t0 proof; Loss 0f earnings 0f Plaintiff, according t0 proof; Loss 0f earning capacity 0f Plaintiff, according t0 proof; Costs of suit herein; Loss 0f Plaintiff’s property, according t0 proof; Loss 0f use 0f Plaintiff s property t0 Plaintiff, according t0 proof; Prejudgment interest; Such other further relief as the Court deems just and proper. DATED: November 4, 2020 Harris Personal Injury Lawyers, Inc. By: V Michael Chaloupka Attorney for Plaintiff COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 5