Maria Esther Villanueva Rostro vs. Robert PettisMotion in LimineCal. Super. - 4th Dist.January 21, 2014oe RX N n R A W O N N N N N N N N N N e e m m em p m em em N S A nt RA W N = O O R N T R W N = Oo 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 750 The City Drive Suite 400 Orange, CA 92868-4940 Phone (714) 823-4100 Fax (714) 823-4101 ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of Orange Michael L. Wroniak, Esq. (State Bar No. 210347) 02/07/2019 at 07:19:00 PM John D. Perkins, Esq. (State Bar No. 242984) COLLINS COLLINS MUIR +STEWART LLP 750 The City Drive, Suite 400 Orange, CA 92868-4940 (714) 823-4100 - FAX (714) 823-4101 Attorneys for Defendant, COUNTY OF ORANGE Clerk of the Superior Court By Clarissa Bustamante, Deputy Clerk Exempt from Payment of Filing Fee Pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE DISTRICT MARIA ESTHER VILLANUEVA ROSTRO,) an individual, JUAN ALBERTO CACIQUE ) (aka CASIQUE) VILLANUEVA, an ) individual; JUANA SALINAS HERNANDEZ, individually, and as guardian ad litem for JENNIFER CACIQUE (aka CASIQUE) VARGAS, a minor, ALONDRA CACIQUE (aka CASIQUE) VARGAS, a minor; and CASSANDRA CACIQUE (aka CASIQUE) VARGAS, a minor, Plaintiff, VS. ROBERT PETTIS an individual; DEKKEN NOLAN MCKEEVER, an individual; MISSION IMPORTS, a business entity form unknown; MERCEDES BENZ LAGUNA NIGUEL, a business entity form unknown; THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA including but not limited to CALTRANS and the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, a) governmental entity; COUNTY OF ) ORANGE, a governmental entity; CITY OF ) LAGUNA BEACH, a governmental entity; ) CITY OF LAGUNA HILLS, a governmental ) entity; CITY OF LAGUNA NIGUEL, a ) governmental entity; LAGUNA BEACH ) ) ) N r N N N e N e N e N e N e N N N e N N N N N N N N COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, a governmental entity; CITY OF IRVINE, a 18970 CASE NO. 30-2014-00700005-CU-PA-CJC Lead Case c/w 30-2014-00703925-CU-PP-CJC [Assigned to Judge John C. Gastelum, Dept. C11] DEFENDANT COUNTY OF ORANGES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF PRIOR, NON-SIMILAR ACCIDENTS; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL L. WRONIAK IN SUPPORT THEREOF Complaint Filed: 02/10/14 Trial Date: 02/13/19 1 COUNTY OF ORANGES’ MIL NO. 2 oe RX N n R A W O N N N N N N N N N N e e m m em p m em em N S A nt RA W N = O O R N T R W N = Oo 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 750 The City Drive Suite 400 Orange, CA 92868-4940 Phone (714) 823-4100 Fax (714) 823-4101 governmental entity; and DOES 1-250, INCLUSIVE, Defendants. TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 13, 2019 or as soon thereafter as the Court shall determine, in Department C11 of the above entitled court, Defendant COUNTY OF ORANGE (“County”) will and hereby does move this Court to preclude Plaintiffs MARIA ESTHER VILLANUEVA ROSTRO, an individual, JUAN ALBERTO CACIQUE (aka CASIQUE) VILLANUEVA, an individual, JUANA SALINAS HERNANDEZ, an individual, JENNIFER CACIQUE (aka CASIQUE) VARGAS, a minor, ALONDRA CACIQUE (aka CASIQUE) VARGAS, a minor, and CASSANDRA CACIQUE (aka CASIQUE) VARGAS, a minor (“Plaintiffs”) from offering any evidence, reference or argument of prior accidents in and around the intersection of Laguna Canyon Road and El Toro Road, including the area north of the intersection where the subject accident took place, which are not substantially similar to the subject accident. This motion is made on the grounds that: 1. In presenting evidence of prior accidents for purposes of proving the existence of a dangerous condition, Plaintiffs must be limited to accidents that are substantially similar to the subject accident “and not too remote in time” [emphasis added]. Sambrano v. City of San Diego (2001) 94 Cal. App.4th 225, 236-37; see also Fuller v. State of California (1975) 51 Cal. App.3d 926, 943; 2. Under the provisions of Evidence Code sections 210, 350 and 351, prior unrelated incidents are irrelevant to the question of whether the County was at fault for this incident; and 3. Under the provision of Evidence Code section 352, admission of evidence of prior unrelated accident would likely mislead the jury, confuse the issues and result in a high degree of prejudice against the County. 1" 18970 2 COUNTY OF ORANGES’ MIL NO. 2 oe RX N n R A W O N N N N N N N N N N e e m m em p m em em N S A nt RA W N = O O R N T R W N = Oo 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 750 The City Drive Suite 400 Orange, CA 92868-4940 Phone (714) 823-4100 Fax (714) 823-4101 This motion is based upon this notice, the attached memorandum of points and authorities, the attached declaration of Michael L. Wroniak, the Court’s files in this action, and such other evidence or oral argument as may be presented at the hearing on this motion. DATED: February 4, 2019 18970 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART LLP 16: D. PERKINS MICHAEL L. WRONIAK Attorneys for Defendant COUNTY OF ORANGE 3 COUNTY OF ORANGES’ MIL NO. 2 oe RX N n R A W O N N N N N N N N N N e e m m em p m em em N S A nt RA W N = O O R N T R W N = Oo 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 750 The City Drive Suite 400 Orange, CA 92868-4940 Phone (714) 823-4100 Fax (714) 823-4101 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION This dangerous condition action arises out of a car accident that took place on April 2, 2013, where Defendants Robert Pettis, M.D. and Dekker McKeever, M.D. were apparently racing each other northbound on I-133 (Laguna Canyon Road) as they passed through and beyond its intersection with El Toro Road. Doctor Pettis crossed over the painted center median island (consisting of two sets of double yellow lines approximately 11 feet apart) and into oncoming southbound traffic, colliding head-on with a southbound Honda Accord, killing driver Alberto Casique and his passenger, Armando Gonzalez. The family of decedent Casique filed a wrongful death action against the County, asserting that the accident location was a dangerous condition at the time of the accident. Plaintiffs assert a variety of factors contributed to the dangerous condition, including lack of a center median barrier, a short merge lane and obscured signage warning of the merge. To that end, Plaintiffs’ primary contention is that the shot merge lane creates an inherently dangerous condition because it creates a “conflict” between motorists trying to negotiate the merge. Throughout the course of this litigation, Plaintiffs’ counsel has relied on a 2012 Report authored by Habib Temori and Jason Osman from Caltrans. The report references 28 accidents in and around the intersection of Laguna Canyon Road and El Toro Road, and more specifically focuses on the high accident rate for vehicles traveling southbound on Laguna Canyon Road. Notwithstanding, the fact that not one of these accidents involved northbound vehicles in the merge lane, the County anticipates that at trial, as they have done throughout this litigation, Plaintiffs will attempt to offer evidence of, and/or make reference to, these prior accidents, and others not included in the report, that are unrelated to the merge lane north of the intersection as a basis to show that the merge lane is a dangerous condition and/or that the County was on notice of a high accident history at the intersection. The clear intent here is to induce the jury into finding liability for reasons unrelated to the merge lane and signage that Plaintiffs’ contend contributed to this accident. 18970 4 COUNTY OF ORANGES’ MIL NO. 2 oe RX N n R A W O N N N N N N N N N N e e m m em p m em em N S A nt RA W N = O O R N T R W N = Oo 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 750 The City Drive Suite 400 Orange, CA 92868-4940 Phone (714) 823-4100 Fax (714) 823-4101 It is well settled that evidence of prior accidents is inadmissible unless the accidents occurred in a manner that was substantially similar to the subject accident. Furthermore, allowing Plaintiffs to go back in time to introduce evidence of prior unrelated accidents would require a mini-trial of each prior instance to determine whether the facts and circumstances are comparable to those in this case. Such an endeavor would be a colossal waste of time, however, as none of the prior accidents at the subject intersection involve the type of collision that occurred in this case. Thus, permitting Plaintiffs to offer evidence of prior, non-related accidents would only serve to mislead the jury and result in prejudice to County. Accordingly, County respectfully requests that this Court grant this motion in limine and issue an order excluding all testimony or references to prior unrelated incidents from the trial. II. THE COURT HAS THE INHERENT AUTHORITY TO GRANT MOTIONS IN LIMINE Motions in limine are used to preclude prejudicial or objectionable evidence before it is presented to the jury. Blanks v. Shaw (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 336, 375 (the usual purpose of a motion in limine is to preclude the presentation of evidence deemed inadmissible and prejudicial by the moving party); Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Superior Court (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 272, 288; K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology & Operations, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 939, 951-952. The primary advantage of the motion is to avoid the futile attempt of trying to undo the harm done where jurors have been exposed to damaging evidence, even where stricken by the court. This scenario has been described as “the obviously futile attempt to ‘unring the bell” in the event a motion to strike is granted in the proceedings before the jury.” Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325, 337; Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1582, 1593. Motions in limine serve other purposes as well, such as permitting more careful consideration of evidentiary issues than would take place during the heat of battle during trial, which minimizes side-bar conferences and disruptions during trial. People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 188, overruled on other grounds in People v. Stansbury (1995) 9 Cal.4th 824, 830, fn.1. 18970 5 COUNTY OF ORANGES’ MIL NO. 2 oe RX N n R A W O N N N N N N N N N N e e m m em p m em em N S A nt RA W N = O O R N T R W N = Oo 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 750 The City Drive Suite 400 Orange, CA 92868-4940 Phone (714) 823-4100 Fax (714) 823-4101 They also resolve potentially critical issues at the outset, which enhances the efficiency of trials and promotes settlements. Id. “Under appropriate circumstances, a motion in limine can function as a ‘motion to exclude’ under Evidence Code Section 353 by allowing the trial court to rule on a specific objection to particular evidence.” Id. III. PLAINTIFFS MUST BE PROHIBITED FROM OFFERING EVIDENCE AND MAKING REFERENCE TO PRIOR ACCIDENTS THAT AT NOT SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THE SUBJECT ACCIDENT In presenting evidence of prior accidents for purposes of proving the existence of a dangerous condition, Plaintiffs must be limited to accidents that are substantially similar to the subject accident “and not too remote in time” [emphasis added]. Sambrano v. City of San Diego (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 225, 236-37; see also Fuller v. State of California (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 926, 943. While the Court of Appeal in Sambrano, acknowledged that “no two accidents happen in precisely the same way,” the Court held that “if offered to show a dangerous condition of a particular thing, ... the other accident must be connected in some way with that thing.” Sambrano, at 236-37. Furthermore, if Plaintiffs attempt to present evidence of automobile accidents at other locations near the intersection in order to prove the element of notice, “there must be substantial similarity to offer other accident evidence for any purpose.” Salas v. Department of Transportation (2011) 198 Cal. App.4th 1058, 1072. Accident statistics from areas other than the accident site are irrelevant and such evidence is insufficient to show the road has become dangerous. Mirzada v. Department of Transportation (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 802, 808-09. Here, Plaintiffs are alleging the dangerous condition present at the time of the accident consisted of a merge lane that was too short under applicable design guidelines and a warning sign prior to the merge that was partially obscured by a nearby oak tree. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ contend that short merge lane created a conflict for Defendants Pettis and McKeever, such that Pettis was unable to merge and was forced to cross over into the southbound lane. All of this occurred north of the intersection of Laguna Canyon Road and El Toro Road. Therefore, any prior accidents that did not occur north of the intersection while motorists were in the merge or 18970 6 COUNTY OF ORANGES’ MIL NO. 2 oe RX N n R A W O N N N N N N N N N N e e m m em p m em em N S A nt RA W N = O O R N T R W N = Oo 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 750 The City Drive Suite 400 Orange, CA 92868-4940 Phone (714) 823-4100 Fax (714) 823-4101 attempting to merge are irrelevant to show that a dangerous condition existed at the time of the subject accident or that County had notice of the alleged dangerous condition. Pursuant to Evidence Code section 350, “[n]o evidence is admissible except relevant evidence.” Evidence and reference to unrelated prior collisions at the intersection are irrelevant and have no logical or factual connection to the subject accident and are thus inadmissible. Evidence Code section 352 states in relevant part: “The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.” In addition to the lack of probative value, reference to unrelated prior accidents at the subject intersection would require an in-depth exploration of the circumstances of each prior collision to contrast it with the circumstances of the subject accident. Such an exercise would invariably confuse the relevant legal issues, mislead the jury into believing that the mere existence of prior accidents in and around the intersection somehow makes the merge lane a dangerous condition for which the County can be held liable. Even if there were some probative aspect of this evidence, which County denies, it would be substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will “create a substantial danger of undue prejudice.” Evid. Code § 352; Mozzetti v. City of Brisbane (1997) 67 Cal.App.3d 565, 578. Generally, evidence of prior accidents is inadmissible where the only purported relevance is to enhance the probability of negligence in the current case. Downing v. Barrett Mobile Home Transport, Inc. (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 519, 524 (citations omitted). The policy basis of this prohibitory rule rests on the fact that the probative force of this kind of evidence is too slight to overbear the dangers of prejudice, distraction by side issues, and unfair surprise. Id., at 524-25. As such, the potential prejudice to County more than substantially outweighs the non- existent probative value and thus the evidence should be properly excluded. 1" 1" 1" 18970 7 COUNTY OF ORANGES’ MIL NO. 2 oe RX N n R A W O N N N N N N N N N N e e m m em p m em em N S A nt RA W N = O O R N T R W N = Oo 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 750 The City Drive Suite 400 Orange, CA 92868-4940 Phone (714) 823-4100 Fax (714) 823-4101 IV. A FOUNDATIONAL SHOWING UNDER EVIDENCE CODE SECTIONS 402 AND 403 SHOULD BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ADMISSION OF ANY EVIDENCE OF PRIOR ACCIDENTS Evidence Code section 402(a) provides for a foundational showing of the existence or nonexistence of a disputed fact. “The court may hear and determine the question of the admissibility of evidence out of the presence or hearing of the jury...” Evidence Code § 402(b). Further, Evidence Code section 403(a) instructs that the proponent of proffered evidence “has the burden of producing evidence as to the existence of the preliminary fact.” Section 403(a) also states that the “proffered evidence is inadmissible unless the court finds that there is evidence sufficient to sustain a finding of the existence of the preliminary fact, when: ... [t]he relevance of the proffered evidence depends on the existence of the preliminary fact [...]. Here, it is anticipated that Plaintiffs will proffer evidence of prior automobile accidents in the vicinity of the intersection, including the 28 accidents referenced in the 2012 Caltrans report. The admissibility of any such evidence is dependent upon the substantial similarity of these prior accidents to the subject accident; consequently, this issue should be determined as a preliminary fact. 1" 1" 1" 1" 1" 1" 1" 1" In 1" In 18970 8 COUNTY OF ORANGES’ MIL NO. 2 1 V. 2 CONCLUSION 3 For each of the foregoing reasons, County respectfully requests that the Court grant this 4 motion in full and issue an order prohibiting Plaintiffs and any other party from offering evidence 5 of, or making reference to, unrelated prior accidents at the intersection of Laguna Canyon Road and 6 El Toro Road. In the alternative, County requests a hearing under Evidence Code section 402 7 regarding the admissibility of any such evidence outside of the presence of the jury. 8 9 10 (DATED: February 4, 2019 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART LLP 11 12 By: 13 . PERKINS MICHAEL L. WRONIAK 14 Attorneys for Defendant 15 COUNTY OF ORANGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 te fam COUNTY OF ORANGES’ MIL NO. 2 oe RX N n R A W O N N N N N N N N N N e e m m em p m em em N S A nt RA W N = O O R N T R W N = Oo 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 750 The City Drive Suite 400 Orange, CA 92868-4940 Phone (714) 823-4100 Fax (714) 823-4101 DECLARATION OF MICHAEL L. WRONIAK I, Michael L. Wroniak, declare as follows: I. I am an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice before all of the courts of the State of California, and I am a Partner with the law firm of Collins Collins Muir + Stewart LLP, attorneys of record for Defendant County of Orange (“County”). The following is based upon my personal knowledge, or matters made known to me, and if called upon to testify as a witness, I could and would competently do so. 2 I am lead trial counsel for the County and have been involved in defending the County in this matter from the inception of the case. I am familiar with the discovery that has occurred, including depositions. Throughout the course of this litigation, Plaintiffs’ counsel has relied on a 2012 Report authored by Habib Temori and Jason Osman from Caltrans. The report references 28 accidents in and around the intersection of Laguna Canyon Road and El Toro Road, and more specifically focuses on the high accident rate for vehicles traveling southbound on Laguna Canyon Road. Notwithstanding, the fact that not one of these accidents involved northbound vehicles in the merge lane, the County anticipates that at trial, as they have done throughout this litigation, Plaintiffs will attempt to offer evidence of, and/or make reference to, these prior accidents, and others not included in the report, that are unrelated to the merge lane north of the intersection as a basis to show that the merge lane is a dangerous condition and/or that the County was on notice of a high accident history at the intersection. The clear intent here is to induce the jury into finding liability for reasons unrelated to the merge lane and signage that Plaintiffs’ contend contributed to this accident. 3. In addition to the lack of probative value, reference to unrelated prior accidents at the subject intersection would require an in-depth exploration of the circumstances of each prior collision to contrast it with the circumstances of the subject accident. Such an exercise would invariably confuse the relevant legal issues, mislead the jury into believing that the mere existence of prior accidents at around the intersection somehow makes County culpable for the subject accident, and more specifically, that the merge land and partially blocked signage created a dangerous condition of public property. 18970 10 COUNTY OF ORANGES’ MIL NO. 2 oe RX N n R A W O N N N N N N N N N N e e m m em p m em em N O N nt RA W N = O NN N N R W = O 28 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART. 750 The City Drive Suite 400 Orange, CA 92868-4940 Phone (714) 823-4100 Fax (714) 823-4101 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 4th day of February 2019, at Orange, California. 18970 MICHAEL L. WRONIAK 11 COUNTY OF ORANGES’ MIL NO. 2 PROOF OF SERVICE (CCP §§ 1013(a) and 2015.5; FRCP 5) State of California, ) ) ss. County of Orange. ) I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 750 The City Drive, Suite 400, Orange, California 92868. On this date, I served the foregoing document described as DEFENDANT COUNTY OF ORANGES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF PRIOR, NON-SIMILAR ACCIDENTS; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL L. WRONIAK IN SUPPORT THEREOF on the interested parties in this action by placing same in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: ad 0 x a SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST (BY MAIL) - I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail in Orange, California to be served on the parties as indicated on the attached service list. I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Orange, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. (BY CERTIFIED MAIL) - I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to be placed in the United States Mail in Orange, California. BY EXPRESS MAIL OR ANOTHER METHOD OF DELIVERY PROVIDING FOR OVERNIGHT DELIVERY (BY ELECTRONIC FILING AND/OR SERVICE) -I served a true copy, with all exhibits, via Dropbox on designated recipients listed on the attached Service List on: (Date) at (Time) FEDERAL EXPRESS - I caused the envelope to be delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized to receive documents with delivery fees provided for. (BY FACSIMILE) - I caused the above-described document(s) to be transmitted to the offices of the interested parties at the facsimile number(s) indicated on the attached Service List and the activity report(s) generated by facsimile number (714) 823-4101 indicated all pages were transmitted. (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) - I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the office(s) of the addressees). Executed on _February 4, 2019_ at Orange, California. (STATE) - I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. (FEDERAL) - I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Jazmine Aylor Jaylor @ccmslaw.com ROSTRO v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES c/w GARCIA v. PETTIS OUR FILE NO. 18970 CASE NUMBER: 30-2014-00700005-CU-PA-CJC Lead Case c/w 30-2014-00703925-CU-PP-CJC SERVICE LIST Otto L. Hasehoff, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF OTTO L. HASSELHOFF, P.C. 201 Wilshire Blvd., Second Floor Santa Monica, CA 90401 (800) 667-1880; Fax: (800) 667-0991 otto @olhpc.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS MARIA ESTHER VILLANUEVA ROSTRO, JUAN ALBERT CACIQUE VILLANUEVA, JUANA SALINAS HERNANDEZ AND AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR JENNIFER CACIQUE VARGAS, ALONDRA CACIQUE VARGAS, CASSANDRA CACIQUE VARGAS Counsel unavailable 12/7/18 through 12/12/18 Michael Schonbuch, Esq. Taylor M. Smith, Esq. Erin Hallissy, Esq. DANIELS, FINE, ISREAL, SCHONBUCH & LEBOVITS, LLP 1801 Century Park East, 9 Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Hallisy @dfis-law.com (310) 556-7900 - Fax: (310) 556-2807 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT/CROSS- COMPLAINANT/CROSS-DEFENDANT ROBERT MCFARLAND PETTIS & ROBERT MCFARLAND PETTIS, M.D., INC. Jack Briscoe. BREMBER WHYTE BROWN & O’MEARA, LLP 21215 Burbank Blvd, Ste 500 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 (818) 712-9800 - Fax: (818) 712-9900 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS/CROSS- DEFENDANT DEKKEN NOLAN MCKEEVER Heidi.skinner@dot.ca.gov Ronald W. Beals, Chief Counsel Jeffrey R. Benowitz, Deputy Chief Counsel Glenn B. Mueller, Assistant Chief Counsel John Frederick Smith, Assistant Chief Counsel Heidi A. Wierman, Deputy Attorney Julie E. Saake, Deputy Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA LEGAL DIVISION 4050 Taylor Street, MS-130 San Diego, CA 92110 (619) 688-2531 - FAX: (619) 688-6906 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT/CROSS- COMPLAINANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY AND THROUGH THE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION Tigran Martinian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARTINIAN & ASSOCIATES 2801 W. Cahuenga Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90068 (323) 850-1900 - Fax (323) 850-1943 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS MARIA ESTHER VILLANUEVA ROSTRO, JUAN ALBERT CACIQUE VILLANUEVA, JUANA SALINAS HERNANDEZ AND AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR JENNIFER CACIQUE VARGAS, ALONDRA CACIQUE VARGAS, CASSANDRA CACIQUE VARGAS Allan F. Davis, Esq. Patrick B. Embrey, Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC. 19 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 720-1288 - FAX: (949) 720-1292 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS RELATED CASE: MARIBEL ALEJANDRE GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR ANDREA GARCIA ALEJANDRE, A MINOR, FAVIAN GARCIA ALEJANDRE, A MINOR; AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO ARMANDO GARCIA GONZALES, DECEASED adavis @robinsonfirm.com Marla G. Ness, Esq. SKEBBA, ISAAC & BUECHLER One MacArthur Place, Ste 650 Santa Ana, CA 92707 (714) 436-2700 - FAX: (877) 569-7395 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS/CROSS-DEFENDANT MISSION IMPORTS AND MISSION IMPORTS DBA MERCEDES BENZ OF LAGUNA NIGUEL, SUED IMPROPERLY HEREIN AS MERCEDES BENZ OF LAGUNA NIGUEL