Preview
i £ Deeket No.: HHD-CV17-6084684-SNOTICE(recommended by the Fourteenth Session ofHague Conference of October, 1980)identité et adresse du destinataireidentity and address of the addressee CUTLITE PENTA S.R.L.Via Baldanzese 17Calenzano, Firenze 50041ITALY TRES IMPORTANTLE DOCUMENT CILJOINT EST DE NATURE JURIDIQUE ET PEUT AFFECTER VOS DROITS ET OBLIGATIONS. LES "ELEMENTSESSENTIELS DE L'ACTE" VOUS DONNENT QUELQUES INFORMATIONS SUR SA NATURE ET SON OBJET. IL EST TOUTEFOISINDISPENSABLE DE LIRE ATTENTIVEMENT LE TEXTE MEME DU DOCUMENT. IL PEUT ETRE NECESSAIRE DE DEMANDERUN AVIS JURIDIQUE.‘SI VOS RESSOURCES SONT INSUFFISANTES, RENSBIGNEZ-VOUS SUR LA POSSIBILITE DOBTENIR L'ASSISTANCE JUDICIAIREET LA CONSULTATION JURIDIQUE SOIT DANS VOTRE PAYS SOIT DANS LE PAYS DORIGINE DU DOCUMENT.LES DEMANDES DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES POSSIBILITES DOBTENIR VASSISTANCE JUDICIAIRE OU LACONSULTATION JURIDIQUE DANS LE PAYS D'ORIGINE DU DOCUMENT PEUVENT ETRE ADRESSEES :Greater Hartford Legal Aid, Inc.999 Asylum Avenue, 3 FloorHartford, Connecticut 06105USA.Tel. 1.860.541.5000IMPORTANTTHE ENCLOSED DOCUMENT IS OF A LEGAL NATURE AND MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. THE“SUMMARY OF THE DOCUMENT TO BE SERVED" WILL GIVE YOU SOME INFORMATION ABOUT ITS NATURE AND PURPOSE,YOU SHOULD, HOWEVER, READ THE DOCUMENT ITSELF CAREFULLY. IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO SEEK LEGAL ADVICE.IF YOUR FINANCIAL RESOURCES ARE INSUFFICIENT YOU SHOULD SEEK INFORMATION GN THE POSSIBILITY OFOBTAINING LEGAL AID OR ADVICE EITHER IN THE COUNTRY WHERE YOU LIVE OR IN THE COUNTRY WHERE THEDOCUMENT WAS ISSUED.ENQUIRIES ABOUT THE AVAILABILITY OF LEGAL AID OR ADVICE IN THE COUNTRY WHERE THE DOCUMENT WAS ISSUED.MAY BE DIRECTED TO:Greater Hartford Legal Aid, Inc.999 Asylum Avenue, 3” FloorHartford, Connecticut 06105USA.Tel. 1.860.541.5000c i Docket No.: HHD-CV17-6084684-SSUMMARY OF THE DOCUMENT TO BE SERVEDELEMENTS ESSENTIELS DE L'ACTE Convention on the service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commerciatmatters, signed at The Hague, November 15, 1965.Convention relative & ta signification et & la notification & léwanger des actes judiciatres et extrajudiciaresen matidre civile ou conmerciale, signde & La Haye, le 1S Novembre 1965.{article 5, fourth paragraph)(article 5, alinéa 4Name and address of the requesting authority: Peter L. Milano, Esq.Nom et adresse de Fautorité requdraute : MILANO & WANAT LLC471 East Main Street, Branford, Connecticut 06405, U.S.A.Tel, 1.203.315.7000Particulars of the partics*:ddentité des parties: _VCRV, LLC, PREFERRED DISPLAY, INC., ct al, PlaintifysAMERICAN AIR FILTER COMPANY, INC. doing business as AAF INTERNATIONAL, et al., DefendantsATLANTIC VENTILATING & EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., Apportionment Plaintiff’EL.EN. S.P.A. and CUTLITE PENTA S.R.L., Apportionment DefendantsJUDICIAL DOCUMENT**ACTE JUDICIAIRENature and purpose of the docuasent:Nature et objet de tucte: _ To,give notice to the Defendant of the commencement of a civil claim against itand to Summon il to answer or otherwise respond,Nature and purpose of the proceediags and, where appropriate, the emount in dispute:Naiure et objet de linstance, te cas échéant, te montant du litige: __A civil action has been commenced against the Defendant. Date and piace for entering appearance**:Date et liew dela companition: ° On or before the second day after the Return Date of May 29, 2018, before the Clerk of the Superior Court ofthe State of Connecticut, Judicial District of Hartford, located at: 80 Washington Street, Hartford, Connecticut, 06406, U.S.A.Court which has given judgmen:**;Juridiction quia vemtu la décision + N/A Date of judgment**:Date de ter décision : NIA ‘Time limits stated in the documient**:Indication des délais figurent dans Vacie: _ Defendant or Defendant’s Attorney must file a form called an “Appearance” with the Clerk of theCourt on or before the second day after the Retum Date of May 29, 2018, if Defendant or Defendant's Attomey do nol file a written“Appearance” form on time, @ judgment may be entered against it by default,EXTRAJUDICIAL DOCUMENT**ACTE EXTRAJUDICIAIRENature and purpose of the document:Nature et objet de Facte : N/A ‘Time limits stated in the document**:Indication des déials figurant dans Uacte : NA * trappropriste identity and ulérass of the persou interested in the transmission afte dacaament.Sila few. ident et adresse de la peesanne tneéreszée dla transmission de Vacte, -*US. Gavernmnnt Prati Oe 19M I-21 HU1S3O2+ Dale ttnoppeopeate °faye tes motos ites 3LEGAL LANGUAGE SERVICESLeawood, KS 66208 wow legallanguage.comApril 11, 20187 aprile 2018To whom it may concern:Alle persone intaressate:This is to certify that the attached translation from English into Italian is an accurate representation ofthe document received by this office. This document is designated as:Si certifica che la traduzione dall'inglese all’italiano allegata alla presente rappresenta la pedissequa copiadel documenta in lingua originale presentato presso quest'ufficio. Tale documento viene definite come:Sumnions-CivilCitazione in Giudizio ~ CivileMaria Victoria Portuguez, Manager of this company, certifies that Vincenzo Giordano, who translatedthis document, is fluent in Italian and standard North American English and qualified to translate.He/She attests to the following:Maria Victoria Portuguez, in qualité di dirigente di questa societa attesta che Vincenzo Giordano, la personache ha tradotto il presente documento, é esperto conoscitore della lingua italiana e di quella inglese del nordAmerica. A tal proposito, l’autore/autrice della traduzione dichiara:“To the best of my knowledge, the accompanying text is a true, fall and accurate translation of thespecified document.”“Secondo coscienza e diligenza, il testo qui allegato rappresenta la traduzione completa, veritiera ed accuraiadel documento specificato,”Signature of Maria Victoria PortuguezFirma di Maria Victoria PoriuguezSubscribed and sworn to before me this April 11, 2018.Per autentica della firma apposta davanti a ime il 1] aprile 2018. Nancy Andrade Ox Nog WeNotary PubliegS we sane boty, Notaie pubblico per to stato del KansasQualified in Bho! by % per il distretio della contea di JohnsonCommissio: pigs dpb dd, z Seadenza mandato: 11 luglio 202) Sincerely,In fede,areVictor J. Hertz EOF EESPresident/PresidenteA Division of ALS Internaifonat, inc. Telephone (913) 341-31678014 State Line Road Toll Free (800) 755-5775Suite 110 Telefax (913) 341-3168CITAZIONE IN GYUDIZIO - CIVILESD-CV-1 Rev. 4-16Para. 51-346, 51-347, 51-389, $1-350, 32-452,$2-48, 52-259, P.B, dal pam, 3-1 al 3-21, 8-1,10-13 del C.G.S,Perie istruzioni cousultare Pattra facchata inferiore a $2,500.STATO DEL CONNECTICUTCORTE SUPERIOREse Pimporto, Minteressc legate o la proprietd in questione, escluso interessi e spese, &C1 “X" se Pimporto, linteresse legale o la proprietd in questione, esoluso interessi e spese, édi almeno $2,500.Bl “X" se si rivendica alira soddisfazione oltre o invece di denaro o risarcimento danni.|A: qualsiasi funzionario autorizzato; PER AUTORITA DELLO STATO DEL CONNECTICUT, vi si ordina di notificare legalmente ¢ debitamente questa citazione ingiudizio e Hallegata domanda giudiziale, ladirizzo del canceiliere dove si depositanc ordinanze c altri documenti (Nuntero, vin. citth ¢ CAP) N.so telefonice de! canceilion: Data di restituzione (Deve essere ta giovedi}(Pare, 54-346, 51-350 del CGS) (con prefisso) 29 Burggio ‘202880 Washington Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06106 (860 ) 756.2020 Gino Mose ‘AnoCimascrizione gindiziale Do Numero GA: A (Citta in cit é restiuibile Uordinanza) (Para. 51-346, 51-349 del CGS.) Codice del tipo di caso (Ved. elence a pag. 2)O Sessione abitativa Hartford Generico: T Specifico: 72 Per Pattore(i) inserire ia comparsa di:Note ¢ indirizzo deil'avvocato, dello studio legale o delt'attore se autorappresentato (Numero, via, citté e CAP) Numero giudiziario (solo per avvocatiy Milano & Wanat LLC, 471 Enst Main Street, Branford, Connecticut 06405 406611N,ro teisfonico (con prefisso) : Firma del? attore (Se autorappresentatop(203 ) 315-7000L'avvocata 0 fo studio legate che compare per Mattore o Paltore se Indirizzo e-mail per la consegna di documenti secondo la Sezione 10-13 (se courordate)auforappresentato, s'impegna ad aceettare i documenti (notifica) | Bsi ONo pmilano@mwile.uselenranicamenre in queste caso seconde ia Sezione 10-13 del Volume diPratica dei Commctiout.Numero di nttori: | YT Numem di convenuti: J [0 Moduio JD-CV-2 allegato per pani supplementatiParti Nome (Coguonse, nome, inisiale secondo nome) ¢ indirizeo di ciascana parte (Numero; Via; Casetta poxtale; Citta; Stato; CAP; Paese, se nait gli USA)Primo attore Nome: Attrice per la ripartizione, Atlantic Ventilating & Equipment Company, Inc. POEIndirizzo: 125 Sebethe Drive, Cromwell, Connecticut 96416Altore Nome; P02supplementare | Indirizzo:Primo Nome: ‘Convenuta per fa ripartizione, ELE. S.ip.Ay D-O1convennlo Indirizzo:' Via Baldanzese 17, Calenzano, Firenze, Htalia $0041Conveunto Nome: , Convenuta per la ripartizione, Cuflite Penta s.r, DAZsupplementare Indirizzo;, Via Baldanzese 17, Calenzano, Firenze, Italia 50041Convenuto Nome: B03sepplementare Indirizzo:Convenuto Nome: Ddsupplementare __| Indirizzo: Avviso a ciascun convenutoI. SIETE STATO CITATO. Questo documento & una citazione in giudizio in una causa legate. La domanda giudiziale allegata a questi documenti afferma terivendicazioni che ciascun attore presenta contro di voi in questa causa legale,“2, — Perricevere Ja notifica di altri procedimenti, voi o if vostro avvocsto dovete depositare un module chiamato "Comparsa” presso il cancelliere detta sopra sominata Cone presso i'indirizzo della medesima entra il secondo giomo dalla data di restituzione sopra indicata. La data di restituzione non é una data diudienza. Non dovete presentarvi in Corte alla data di cestituzione a meno che non riceviate un avviso scparato che vi ordina di farlo. +3. Se-voio il vostro avvacato non depositate tempestivamente un madulo di “Comparsa” scritto, potrebbe emettersi una sentenza in contumacia contro di voi. 1modulo di "Comparsa” si pud ottenere alf'inditizzo della Corte sopma indicato 0 su wiv judd. ct.gov sotto "Moduli giudiziari”,» 4. Se ritenete che la vostra assicurazione passa coprire la rivendicazione presentata contro di vol in questa causa legale, dovete contattare immediatamente ilvostro agente assicurativo, Alire azioni intraprendibifi sono descritte net Volume di Pratica del Connecticut reperibile presso la biblioteca giudiziaria deliaCorte Superiore 0 online su wasw.jud.ct.gav sotto “Norme giudiziari5, Per eventual informazioni sulla citazione in giudizio e domanda giudiziale, rivo'getevi subito ad un avvocato. Al cancelliere non & consentito di dare consigli ~su question’ fegali,Firmato (Firmare e apporre wna "X" uell'apposita caseita) — B& Sovrintendente della Cone Superiore | Nome della persona che fina a sinistra Data delta firma{Firma} Bi Canceltiere assistente Peter L. Milano 2 aprile 2018Se questa citaztone in giudizio & firmata da un cancellicre: Soto per uso detia Cortea. La firma ¢ stata apposta in modo che ail’attore(i) now sard negato accesso ai tribunal, ‘Data di depositob. Evesponsabilita del!’attore(j) cumrsi che la notifica sia eseguita con Je modafitd stabilite dalla legge.¢. Al cancettiere non & consentilo dare alcun consiglio legale in relazione a qualsiasi causa legate.d. Hcancelliere che firma questa cltnzione in giudizio a richiesta dell'attore{i) non ¢ responsabite in alcun modo per eventualierrori od ontissioni nella citazione in giudizio, nelle affermazioni contenute neila domanda giudiziale o nella notifiea dellacitazione in giudizio o domanda giudiziale.Certifico di aver Ietta ¢ Firmato (Atiore autorappresentato) Data ‘Numero def registro di vuolecapito quanto precede: Stampa modulo (Pagina | di 2) Reimposta moduloIstruzioni2 Danitorafae o srivare a stampatelo in modo feggibie, mare ix ciacione in gio.aNPreparare 0 fotocepiare una citazione in giudizio per clascun convenuta, Allegare ta citazione in giudisto originale alla domanda giudiziate originale ¢ allegare una copia della citazione a ciascuna copia della domanda giudiziale.Poi, tn caso di piit di 2 attovi o pitt di 4 convemui preparare il modulo JD-C¥-2 ¢ allegario all’originate e a tutte te copie della domanda giudiziale.4, Dopo Wesecuzione della notifica da parte di wn funsionario competente, depositare gli originali ¢ la relata di notifica presso la cancelleria.5. Non usare questo madulo per le seguenti azioni:(a) Questioni familiari (per esempic divorzio, mantenimento figtl. @ Procedimenti relativi ad arbitrataeustodta, paternité e dirint di visita) 2) Qualsiasi azione o procedimento per ottenwre sequestri,(6) Aztoni relative al pracesso sommaria pignoramenti presso terzi o recuperi contro cauzionetc) Richieste di cambio di nome (i) Procedimenti di ammissione e detenzione( Omologazione di appeltt () Azioni applicative del Codice Alloggi(e) Appelli amministrativiAVVISO ADA11 ramo giudiziario dello Stato del Connecticut si attiene alla legge Americans withDisabilities Act (ADA). Se occorre una ragionevole sistemazione in conformitalPADA, contattere un cancelliere o uno dei punti di contatto ADA elencati suww jud.ct. gowADA.Codici del tipo di casoDeserizione | Codict Descrizione specifica Descrizione | Codict Descrizione specificagenerica | Generici/ generica | Generici/Specitict SpecificiContratti | COO i - Tutto it resto Proprieth POO Pignoramentoc10 Costruzioni - Statali ¢ focali PIO Ripartizione20 Polizze assiourative P20 Azione negatoria/Svincolo di pegno ¢ ipoteca30 Prestazione specifica P30 Confisca di beniC40 Riscossioni P90 Tutto il restoC0 Tutto if restoDominio £00 Condanna di strada statale Hleciti Tz ‘Sede difettosa Privata - Neve o ghiaecioeminente | E10 Condanna di ristrutturazione (diversida | 703 Sede difettosa - Privat - Altro£20 Altri enti statali o municipalt quelli Tit Sede difettosa - Publica - Neve o ghiaccioE30 Utenze pubbliche e societa di trasporto det gas associatia =| T12 Sede difettosa - Publica - AltroE90 Tutto i resto veleoli} T20 Responsabilita oggettiva - Diversa da quellaVarie M00 ingiunzione associata a veicoliM10 Amiinistrazione conirollata 728 Negligenza professionale - MedicaM20 Mandamus 729 Negligenza professionale - LegaleM30 Habeas Corpus (estradizione, rilascio da istituto 730 ‘Negligenza professionale - Tunto il restopenale) T40 Aggressione e percosseM40 “Arbitrato T50 DiffamazioneM50 Sentenza dichinrativa T6 Animali - CaniM63 Etica associata ad albo professionale T69 Animali - AltraM66 Applicazione di compenso da disoccupazione - T7 Faiso arrestoDipart. det lavoro mH Danni da incendioM68 Etica associata ad aibo professionate - Stato T90 Tutto il restoinattivo Iecitt VOI Veicoll a motore* - Conducente JoM10 Ordinanza municipale e applicazione di associati a passeggera(i) contro conducente(i)tegolamento veicol vod Veicoli a motore* - Pedone contro conducenteM80 Sentenze civili straniere - Para, 52-604 C.GS, ¢ vos Veicoti a motore® - Solo danni a propricté. $0a-300.G.8, vag Veicoli a motore* - Respansabilita opgettivaMaz ‘Trasferimento di controverste di modesta entith compreso geranaiaal ruoto ordinario vag Veicoli s motore* - Tutt gli aliiM34 ‘Ondine protettivo straniera vi10 ImbarcezioniM90 Tutto it resto v20 AcromobiltAlloggio HIO Alloggio - Restituzione di deposito cauzionale v0 FerrovieHi2 Alloggio- Affitto efo danni vao MowslitteH40 Alloggio - Ingiunzione/Audita guerela v90 Tutto il restoHO Alloggto~ Appelio amministrativa * veicoli a motore comprendano automobili,Heo Alloggio- Esccuzione a livello municipale autocarni, motouicli ¢ motoscooter.H90 Alloggio - Tutto il resto ‘Testament, | Wi0 Redazione di testamenti e trustpatrimoni | W90 Tutlo if restoereditari e| frust ID-CV-1 Rev, 4-16 (Retro/Pagina 2)(Pagina 2 di2)Reimposta moduto.JD-CV- Rev, 4-16SSS 8 She Set, 51-048, sta, sass, SUPERIOR COURT3, S229, P.B. 99 3-1 through 3-21, Bt, www. jud.cti.govSee other side for Instructions.oa “X" If amount, tegal interest or property in demand, not including interes andamount egal interest jn demand, not including interest and“X" if amount, int ‘oF propel land, not including interest an0 costs is abo more. Property[] "X° if claiming other relief in addition to or in lieu of money of damages.‘TO: Any proper officer; BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, you are hereby commanded to make due and legal service ofthis Summons and altached Complaint.SUMMONS - CIVIL | STATE OF CONNECTICUT & “Address of courl der where wil on3 other papers shali be Med (Nuniber, sireet, lown and zip cods) | Telephone number of dark Return Date {Must be « Tuesday)(C.G.S, $5 51-346, 51-350) (win aree code}80 Washington Street, Haitford, Connecticut 06106 (880 ) 756-2020 So 29 2 0t81X] Judicial District oO GA At (Town in which wri is returnable) (CGS. §§ 51-346, 57-349) ‘Case type code. (See hl on page 3 =Housing Session Number: Hartford Major: 1 Minor 741For the Plaintiff(s) please enter the appearance of;Name: of atiomey, law firm oF ‘sclfeepresented (Number, streel, town and zip cade) ‘Juris number i> be entered by ettomey onlyMilano & Wanat LLC, 471 East Main Street, Branford, Connecticut 05405 406614"Telephione sumber (uh wrea code} Sipnalcie of Pinte (it sek rapresented)(203) 348-7000 . “The ailomey or faw frm appearing for the plaint, or He plainGi it Email eddies tar delivery of papers under Secon T1S fi agreed fp‘selfrepresented, agrees to atcept piapers (service) atactonicatlyin [X] Yes [_] No | pmilano@mwile.usthis case under Section 10-13 of the Connecticut Praciice Book, Number of Plaintitiss 4 Number of Defendants: 4 | ( Form J0-CV-2 attached for additional partiesParties: Namo (Lest, First, Middie tnitie) and Addrass of Each party (Number; Street; P.O. Box; Town; State; Zip; Country, if not USA}First Hama: Apportionment Plaintiff, Adantic Ventilating & Equipment Company, inc, POTPlaintiff |Address: 495 Sebethe Drive, Cromwell, Connecticut 06416‘Additional | Neme: P02Plaintiff | Address:First Name: Apportionment Defendant, ELEn. S.pAy BtDefendant | Addross: Via'Baldanzese 17, Calenzano, Firenze, Italy 50044Additional | Name: Apportionment Defendant, Cutlite Penta s.rJ. D-02Defendant | Address: via'Batdanzese 17, Calonzano, Firenze, ttaly 50041‘Additionat — | Nemo: b-03Dafendant | Address:‘Additional — j Nemo: Boa}Defendant | Addross: Notice te Each Defendant1, YOU ARE BEING SUED. This ‘paper is a Summons in a lawsuit. The complaint allached to these papers states the claims that each plaintiff is makingagainst you in this tawsuit.2. To be nolified of further proceedings, you or your atiomey must file a form called an "Appearance" with the clerk of the above-named Court al the aboveCourt address on or before tHe second day atter the above Return Date. The Relurn Date is not a hearing date, You do nal have fo come fo courl on theRelum Date unless you recelve a separate notice telling you to come to court.3, Ifyou or your altorney do not file a written "Appearance" form on lime, a judgment may be entered against you by default. The "Appearance" form may beobtained at the Courl addres above or at wirwjuct.ct.gov under “Court Forms,"4, Ifyou believe that you have insurance that may cover the claim that is being made against yous In this lawsull, you should immediately contact yourinsurence representative. Other action you may have to take Is described in the Connecticut Practice Book which may be found in a superior court tawlibrary of on-fine at waww.jud.stgav under “Court Rules.”5. Hyou have questions about the Summons and Complaint, you should talk to en elforney quickly. The Clork of Court Is not allowed to give advice on legal questions.Bigned (Sign and x proper bony Tic] Siiiinnisianer at ia Naine of Paved Signing at Lan Bate signed3 = ‘Sus ‘CountBeer Mave’ [Lasttont clone Peter L. Milano Aprll 2, 2018H this Summons is signed by a Clerk: For Court Use OniyFile Dale‘2. The signing has been done $0 that the Plaintltf(s) wall not be denied access fo the courts.b. flis the responsibilty of the Piaintilf(s) to see (hat service is made in the manner provided by law., The Clerk fs not permitted fo give any legal advice in connection with any lawsuit,d, The Clerk signing this Summons at the requesl of (he Plaintiffs) is nol responsible in any way for any errors or omissionsin the Summons, any allegations contained In the Compiainl, of the service of the Summons or Complaint,:Teertify Thave read and | Soned (Sei Represented Prauiap tate ‘Bocket Numberunderstand the above: | *PatFom | (age T 912) Resetroimninstructions:1. Type or print legibly; sign summons.2. Prepare or pholocopy @ summons for each defendant.3. Alfach the original summons to the original complaint, and attach a copy of the summons to each copy of the complaint. Also, if there aremore than 2 plaintiffs or more than 4 defendants prepare form JD-CV-2 and attach It to the orlginal and all copies of the complaint4. After service has been made by a proper officer, file original papers and officer's retum with the clerk of court.5. Do not use this form for the following actions:(a) Family matters (for example divorce, child support,custedy, patemity, and visitation matters)(D Proceedings pertaining to arbitration{g) Any wctions or proceedings in which an allachment, {b} Summary Process acilans gamishment or replevy is sought(¢) Applications for change of name {h} Entry and Detsiner proceedings(Q Probate appeals * (® Housing Code Enforcement actions(e) Administrative appealsADA NOTICEThe Judicial Branch of the State of Connecticut complies with the Americans wilhDisabilities Act (ADA). if you need a reasonable accommodation In accordance withthe ADA, contact a court clerk or an ADA contact person listed at wavw,fud.ct. gow/ADA.Case Type CodesWelor Description ied Minor Description Major Description ison ‘Minor DescriptionContracts, coo | Constuction - all other Property P00 | Foreclosure610 | Construction - State and Local P10 | Partition20 | insurance Policy P20 _ | Quiet TiteMDIscharge of Morigage of LienC30 | Specie Petormance P30 | Asset ForfatiureGap | Collections Pao | Atoter80 | AvotherTorts (Other than} Tz | Defecive Premises - Private - Snow or keeEminent Domain | £00 | State Highway Condemnation Vehicular) 703 | Detective Premises - Private - Other£40 | Redevefopment Condemnation 41 | Defective Premises - Publie - Snow ar iceE20 | Other State or Municipal Agencies Ti2 | Detective Premises - Pubic - OtherE30. | Public Uulives & Gas Transeission Campanies 720 | Products Habilty - Other than Vebfeuiar#90 | Atother 128 | Malpractice - Mecicat129 | Malpractice - LegalMiscellaneous: M00 | Injunction ‘T30 | Molpractice - All otherM10 | Recelvership T40 | Assautt and BatteryM20 | Mandamus 50 | Defamation‘M30 | Habeas Corpus (extraditlen, celease from Penat T8t | Anunals -Doginstttion) Teo | Antnats- Other$40. | Aibtraon 770 | False Arestq eazy Sudgrrent TT | Fire Damage63 | Bx Diseiping 80 | Alother(466. | Department of Labor Unemployment GompensalionMeo oh Diecpine -Iacive Status Vehicular Torts | vot Motor bis Diver andor Faseengegs) v8.M470 | Municipal Ordinance and Regulation Enforcement vad | Motor Vehicles" - Pedestiian vs. DriverM20 | Foreign Chil dudgments CGS. 626048668, v.05 | Motor Vehicles" - Property Oamage only¥06 | Motor Vehicie* - Products Ltabiliy tnetuding Warr4483] Small Clalms Transfer to Regular Docket vos | Motor Vehicles other " nlyWee | Fixeign Protective Onder vie | goat1490 | ARotberv20 | AtrpionesHousing 4D [Housing - Rotum of Security Deposit v30 | Rattroads12 | Mbusing - Rent andlor Damages v40 | SnowmabiiesH40_ | Housing ~ Auclta Querelatnjunction v90 | All other60 | Housing - Administratve Appeat ‘Motor Vehicles Include cars, trucks, motorcycles,Hep | Housing - Munkeipal Enforcement ‘and moter scooters.H90 | Housing - Au Other: Wills, Estates W140 | Consirucilon of Wiis and Trustsand Trusts wso | Ailother‘JD-CV Rev. 4-16 (BackPage 2(BHBTESAT] (Page 202)EGAL LANGUAGE SERVICESA Division of ALS International, inc, Telephone (913) 341-31678014 State Line Road Toll Free = (806) 755-5775Suite 170 Telefax (913) 341-3168Leawood, KS 68208 vaww.jegatlanguage.com April 11, 20181] aprile 2018To whom it may concern:Alle persone interessate:This is to certify that the attached translation from English into Italian is an accurate representation ofthe document received by this office. This document is designated as:Si certifica che la traduzione dall’inglese all italiano allegata alla presente rappresenta la pedissequa copiadel documento in lingua originale presentato presso quest'ufficio. Tale documento viene definito came:Apportionment ComplaintDomanda Giudiziale di RipartizioneMaria Victoria Portugnez, Manager of this company, certifies that Vincenzo Giordano, who translatedthis document, is fluent in Italian and standard North American English and qualified to translate,He/She attests to the following:Maria Victoria Portuguez, in qualité di dirigente di questa societa attesta che Vincenzo Giordano, la personache ha tradotto il presente documento, é esperio conoscitore della lingua italiana e di quella inglese del nordAmerica, A tal proposite, Uautore/autrice della traduzione dichiava: “Yo the best of my knowledge, the accompanying text is a true, full and accurate translation of thespecified document.”“Secondo coscienzi e diligenza, il testo qui allegato rappresenta la traduzione completa, veritiera ed accuratadei documento specificato.”"eESignature of Maria Victoria PortuguezFirma di Maria Victoria PortuguezSubscribed and sworn to before me this April 11, 2018.Per autentica della firma apposta davanti a me il 1} aprite 2038. Nancy A . N AND Ry “ Naney AndradeNotary Publi x “atari ‘ Notaio pubblico per lo stato del Kansas:Qualified in Bhngon ‘ounty per il distretto della contea di JohnsonCommission Expires Jedpitaa2t Scadenza mandato: {1 luglio 2024t EXPIRES 7-41-2021 Sincerely, %%,%%In fede,oO eVictor J. Hertz “innaPresident/PresidenteRUOLO N. HHD-CV17-6084684-S : CORTE SUPERIOREVCRV, LLC, PREFERRED DISPLAY, INC., : CIRCOSCRIZIONEHARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, . GIUDIZIALE DI HARTFORDSURROGATA DI PREFERRED DISPLAY, INC., :GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF : AD HARTFORDNEW YORK, SURROGATA DI PREFERRED ;DISPLAY, INC. E SENECA INSURANCE COMPANY, :INC., SURROGATA DI VCRV, LLC ;controAMERICAN AIR FILTER COMPANY, INC.OPERANTE COME AAF INTERNATIONAL; EATLANTIC VENTILATING & EQUIPMENT : 2 APRILE 2018COMPANY, INC. :DOMANDA GIUDIZIALE DI RIPARTIZIONECAPO PRIMO (Riguardo a BLEn. 8.p.A.)I L/attrice per la ripartizione, Atlantic Ventilating & Equipment Company, Inc. (AtlanticVentilating"), & una convenuta nella materia del contendere sopra identificata.2. Nella domanda giudiziale revisionata (2a volta) integrata nel presente come Allegato A,le attrici, VCRV, LLC, et al. sostengono, inter alia, di aver sostenuto danni alla propriet personale eattrezzatura per uso aziendale, con sede a 32 East Roaring Brook Plaza, East Glastonbury, Connecticut (diqui in poi "la Sede") oltre alla perdita d’uso delle predette a causa della negligenza della convenuta,Atlantic Ventilating.3. AlPepoca dei fatti in questione, la convenuta per Ja ripartizione, ELEn. S.p.A., (di qui inpoi “El. En.") era una societa italiana con sede e strutture ubicate a Via Baldanzese 17, Calenzano,Firenze, Italia 50041.4. Nella loro domanda giudiziale, fe attrici sostengono che 11 novembre 2015, sisviluppava ue incendio allorquando il rivestimento cartaceo di una lamina poliacrilica tagliata da unamacchina laser da taglio prendeva fuoco diffondendosi rapidamente attraverso il sistema di ventilazionedeli’aria,5. Nella loro domanda giudiziale, le attrici sostengono che Atlantic Ventilating si rendevanegligente e causava loro danni come indicato nel paragrafo 113 del capo sedicesimo, nel paragrafo 119del capo diciassettesimo, nel paragrafo 123 del capo diciottesimo, nel paragrafo 127 del capodiciannovesimo. enel paragrafo 131 del capo ventesimo. (Allegato A.)6. Atlantic Ventilating nega espressamente di essersi resa negligente in qualsiasi modo ¢inoltre nega qualsiasi altra responsabilité riguardo l'incidente.7. La macchina laser da taglio indicata nella domanda giudiziale revisionata, integrata alpresente come Allegato A, era stata progettata, fabbricata ¢ fornita dalla El.En. ¢ venduta alla convenutaper la ripartizione PEMCO Manufacturing, Inc.8. Nella misura in cui l’attrice sostiene di aver subito danni a causa della negligenza diAtlantic Ventilating, il che & stato espressamente negato, El.En. S.p.A. é responsabile per una quotaproporzionale di dletti danni come previsto dal para. 52-572h degli Statuti Generali a seguito della suanegligenza e noncuranza, in quanto Ja convenuta per fa ripartizione:a consentiva l’esistenza del pericola ¢ rischio d’incendio presso la sede;b. ometteva di awvertire, istruire, comunicare o altrimenti informare Preferred Display, Inc.,PEMCO Manufacturing, Inc. e/o altri utenti finali della macchina laser da taglio deipericoli d’incendio associati alla macchina ¢ relativi accessori;c. ometteva di istruire o indicare a Preferred Display, Inc., PEMCO Manufacturing, Inc. ¢/oaltri utenti finali della macchina laser da taglio le precauzioni di sicurezza necessarie daprendere per l’uso corretto della macchina ¢ relativi accessori;9.ometteva di istruire o indicare a Preferred Display, Inc., PEMCO Manufacturing, Inc. e/oaltri utenti finali della macchina laser da taglio come riconoscere e evitare pericolid’incendio e/o per la sicurezza associati alla macchina ¢ relativi accessori;ometteva di istruire o indicare a Preferred Display, Inc., PEMCO Manufacturing, Inc, e/oaltri utenti finali della macchina laser da taglio come mantenere, pulire e/o riparare lamacchina e relativi accessori;ometteva di fornire raccomandazioni o istruzioni a Preferred Display, Inc,, PEMCOManufacturing, Inc. e/o altri utenti finali della macchina laser da taglio su come ventilareja macchina e relativi accessori;ometteva di proteggere la macchina laser da taglio ¢ relativi accessori dal rischiod?incendio e/o dai pericoli per la sicurezza;ometteva di ispezionare la macchina laser da taglio e relativi accessori per i pericolidincendio e/a per la sicurezza;sapeva o avrebbe dovuto sapere che la mancata protezione o ispezione della macchinalaser da taglio e relativi accessori creavano un pericolo ¢ un rischio d’incendio per lasede;sapeva o avrebbe dovuto sapere che la mancata avvertenza, educazione, comunicazione,istruzione o indicazione agli utenti fixali della macchina laser da taglio e relativiaccessori di pericoli d’incendio e/o per la sicurezza, precauzioni di sicurezza, usocorretto, manutenzione, pulizia, riparazioni ¢/o ventilazione creava pericolo e il rischiod’incendio per la sede; €consentiva a Preferred Display, Inc., PEMCO Manufacturing, Inc. e/o ad altri utenti finaliFuso della macchina laser da taglio e relativi accessori anche se sapeva, a avrehbe dovutosapere, che essa presentava un pericolo e un rischio per la sede.A seguito di quanto appena affermato, ELEn. S.p.A. é legalmente responsabile per unaquota proporzionale di detti danni come previsto dal para. 52-572h degli Statuti Generali, oltre che per lasua negligenza e noncuranza.10. Nella misura in cui le attrici riportavano perdite o danni a causa della negligenza diqualsiasi parte, la negligenza di El.En. S.p.A. deve essere ripartita come previsto dai para. 52-572h e 52-102b, et seg. degli Statuti Generali.CAPO SECONDO (Riguardo a Cutlite Penta s.r1.)I L’attrice per la ripartizione, Atlantic Ventilating & Equipment Company, Inc. ("AtlanticVentilating"), é una convenuta nella materia del contendere sopra identificata.2. Nella domanda giudiziale revistonata (2a volta) integrata al presente come Allegato A, leattrici, VCRV, LLC, ef al. sostengono, inter alia, di aver sostenuto danni alla proprieta personale eattrezzatura per uso aziendale, con sede a 32 East Roaring Brook Plaza, East Glastonbury, Connecticut (diqui in poi "la Sede") oltre alla perdita d’uso deli¢ predette a causa della negligenza della convenuta,Atlantic Ventilating,3. Allepoca dei fatti in questione, la convenuta per la ripartizione, Cutlite Penta s.r1. (di quiin poi “Cuilite") era una societa italiana con sede ¢ strutture ubicate a Via Baldanzese 17, Calenzano,Firenze, Italia 50041.4, Nella loro domanda giudiziale, le attrici sostengono che 1’11 novembre 2015, sisviluppava un incendio allorquando if rivestimento cartaceo di una lamina poliacrilica tagliata da unamacchina laser da taglio prendeva fuoco diffondendosi rapidamente attraverso il sistema di ventilazionedellaria.5. Nella loro domanda giudiziale, le attrici sostengono che Atlantic Ventilating si rendevanegligente e causava loro danni come indicato nel paragrafo 113 del capo sedicesimo, nel paragrafo 119del capo diciassettesimo, nel paragrafo 123 del capo diciottesimo, nel paragrafo 127 del capodiciannovesimo e nel paragrafo 131 del capo ventesimo. (Allegato A.)6. Atlantic Ventilating nega espressamente di essersi resa negligente in qualsiasi modo ejnoltre nega qualsiasi altra responsabilita riguardo l’incidente.7. La macchina laser da taglio indicata nella domanda giudiziale revisionata, integrata alpresente come Allegato A, era stata progettata, fabbricata e fornita dalla Cutlite e venduta alla convenutaper ja ripartizione PEMCO Manufacturing, Inc.8. Nella misura in cui l'attrice sostiene di aver subito danni a causa della negligenza diAtlantic Ventilating, il che € stato espressamente negato, Cutlite ¢ responsabile per una quotaproporzionale di detti danni come previsto dal para. 52-572h degli Statuti Generali a seguito della suanegligenza e noncuranza, in quanto Ja convenuta per la ripartizione:a consentiva |’esistenza del pericolo ¢ rischio d’incendio presso la sede;b. ometteva di awvertire, istruire, comunicare 0 altrimenti informare Preferred Display, Inc.,PEMCO Manufacturing, Inc. ¢/o altri utenti finali della macchina laser da taglio deipericoli d’incendio associati alla macchina e relativi accessor;G ometteva di istruire o indicare a Preferred Display, Inc., PEMCO Manufacturing, Inc. e/oaltri utenti finali della macchina laser da taglio le precauzioni di sicurezza necessarie daprendere per l’uso corretto della macchina e relativi accessori;da ometteva di istruire o indicare a Preferred Display, Inc., PEMCO Manufacturing, Inc. e/oaltri utenti finali della macchina laser da taglio come riconoscere ¢ evitare pericolid’incendio e/o per la sicurezza associat alla macchina e relativi accessori;e. ometteva di istruire o indicare a Preferred Display, Inc., PEMCO Manufacturing, Inc. e/oaltri utenti finali della macchina laser da taglio come mantener, pulire e/o riparare lamacchina e relativi accessori;i ometteva di fornire raccomandazioni 0 istruzioni a Preferred Display, Inc., PEMCOManufacturing, Inc. e/o altri utenti finali della macchina laser da taglio su come ventilarela macchina e¢ relativi accessori;9.omeiteva di proteggere la macchina laser da taglio ¢ relativi accessori dal rischiod’incendio e/o dai pericoli per Ja sicurezza;ometteva di ispezionare la macchina laser da taglio e relativi accessori per i pericolid’incendio e/o per la sicurezza;sapeva 0 avrebbe dovuto sapere che la mancata protezione o ispezione della macchinalaser da taglio e relativi accessori creavano un pericolo ¢ rischio d’incendio per la sede;sapeva 0 avrebbe dovuto sapere che la mancata avvertenza, educazione, comunicazione,istruzione o indicazione agli utenti finali della macchina laser da taglio ¢ relativiaccessori di pericoli d’incendio e/o per la sicurezza, precauzioni di sicurezza, usocorretto, manutenzione, pulizia, riparazioni e/o ventilazione creava pericolo e il rischio.d’incendio per la sede; ¢consentiva a Preferred Display, Inc., PEMCO Manufacturing, Inc. e/o ad altri utenti finali}'uso della macchina laser da taglio e relativi accessori anche se sapeva, o avrebbe dovutosapere, che essa presentava un pericolo ¢ un rischio per la sede.A seguito di quanto appena affermato, Cutlite é legalmente responsabile per una quotaproporzionaie di detti danni come previsto dal para. 52-572h degli Statuti Generali, oltre che per la suanegligenza e noncuranza.10.Nella misura in cui le attrici riportavano perdite o danni a causa della negligenza diqualsiasi parte, 1a negligenza di Cutlite deve essere ripartita come previsto dai para. 52-572h e 52-102b, etseg. degli Statuti Generali.PERTANTO, la convenuta/attrice per Ja ripartizione, Atlantic Ventilating, chiede quanto segue:1,una determinazione della percentuale di negligenza che causava nocumento, danni e/operdite direttamente alle attrici in rapporto percentuale che sia attribuibile alle azioni oomissioni delle convenute per Ja ripartizione, El-En. S.p.A. ¢ Cutlite Penta s.r;una determinazione deila quota proporzionale di danni per i quali tutte le parti sonoresponsabili, se del caso; ¢quant’altra soddisfazione di diritto o equity che la Corte ritenga appropriato.LA CONVENUTA,ATLANTIC VENTILATING& EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC.RAPPRESENTATA DAMILANO & WANAT LLCFito: [Firma}Peter L. MilanoMilano & Wanat LLC471 East Main StreetBranford, Connecticut 06405(203) 315-7000ALLEGATO ARUOLO N. X03-HHD-CV17-6084684-S x: CORTE SUPERIOREVCRY, LLC, PREFERRED DISPLAY, INC., :HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, . CIRCOSCRIZIONE GIUDIZIALESURROGATA DI PREFERRED DISPLAY, INC., : DI HARTFORDGREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF +NEW YORK, SURROGATA DI PREFERRED : AD HARTFORDDISPLAY, INC, E SENECA INSURANCE :COMPANY, INC., SURROGATA DI VCRY, LLCcontroAMERICAN AIR FILTER COMPANY, INC.OPERANTE COME AAF INTERNATIONAL; & :ATLANTIC VENTILATING & EQUIPMENT : 7MARZO 2018COMPANY, INC. xDOMANDA GIUDIZIALE REVISIONATA (2a VOLTA)1 L’attrice, VCRV, LLC ("VCRV") é un ente commerciale organizzato ed esistentesecondo ¢ in virth delle leggi dello Stato del Connecticut ¢ all’ epoca dei fatti in questione possedeva laproprieta ubicata a 32 East Roaring Brook Plaza, East Glastonbury, Connecticut (la "Sede").2. Lattrice, Preferred Display, Inc. (Preferred Display"), é un ente commercialeorganizzato ed esistente secondo ¢ in virti delle leggi dello Stato del New Jersey ¢ all’epoca dei fatti inquestione aveva la principale sede commerciale e svolgeva la sua attivita di produzione presso la Sede.3. L’attrice, Hartford Fire Insurance Company, surrogata di Preferred Display, Inc.("Hartford"), & un ente commerciale organizzato ed esistente secondo e in virtd delle leggi dello Stato delConnecticut con ufficio e sede commerciale ubicati a One Hartford Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut ¢autorizzata a svolgere i suoi affari ¢ ad emettere polizze assicurative nello Stato del Connecticut.17242872-vb4. Lattrice, Great American Insurance Company of New York, surrogata di PreferredDisplay, Inc. ("GAIC"), ¢ un ente commerciale organizzato ed esistente secondo e in virti: delle leggidello Stato del New York con ufficio e sede commerciale ubicati a 301 Kast 4th Street, 24th Floor,Cincinnati, Ohio e autorizzata a svolgere i suoi affari e ad emettere polizze assicurative nello Stato de!Connecticut.5. L’attrice, Seneca Insurance Company, Inc., surrogata di VCRV, LLC ("Seneca"), é unente commerciale organizzato ed esistente secondo ¢ in virti delle leggi dello Stato del New York conufficio & sede commerciale ubicati a 160 Water Street, 16th Floor, New York, New York e autorizzata asvolgere affari ed emettere polizze assicurative nello Stato del Connecticut.6. La convenuta, American Air Filter Company, Inc. operante come AAF International(AAF"), é una societa organizzata secondo le leggi dello Stato del Delaware, con principale sedecommerciale a 9920 Corporate Campus Drive, Suite 2200, Louisville, Kentucky e all’epoca dei fatti inquestione svolgeva attivita commerciale di, tra Paltro. progettazione, fabbricazione, costruzione,distribuzione, vendita, installazione, riparazione, manutenzione, pulizia e/o fomitura di attrezzature per laventilazione dell’aria, anche nello Stato del Connecticut.7 La convenuta, Atlantic Ventilating & Equipment Company, Inc. ("Atlantic Ventilating"),una societa organizzata secondo le leggi dello Stato del Connecticut, con principale sede commerciale a125 Sebethe Drive, Cromwell, Connecticut e all’ epoca dei fatti in questione svolgeva attivitacommerciale di, tra Paltro, progettazione, fabbricazione, costruzione, distribuzione, vendita, fornitura,installazione, riparazione, manutenzione e/o pulizia di attrezzature per fa ventilazione dell’aria, anchenello Stato det Connecticut.8. LI novembre 2015, nel corso dell'attivita produttiva di Preferred Display presso laSede, si sviluppava un incendio (I’ "Incendio").9 L’Incendio di sviluppava alorquando il rivestimento cartaceo di una lamina poliacrilicatagliata da una macchina laser da taglio prendeva fuoco propagandosi rapidamente attraverso il sistema diventilazione dell’aria (il “Sistema SAAF").10. A seguito deli’ Incendio, VCRV subiva gravi e ingenti danni aila Sede causati da fuoco,calore e fumo, oltre alla perdita d’uso della medesima e Preferred Display riportava gravi e ingenti dannida fuoco, calore ¢ fumo alla proprieta personale e attrezzatura per uso aziendale, oltre alla perdita d’usodella medesima, interruzione dell’attivita aziendale e spese supplementari (la "Perdita").ik AlPepoca dei fatti in questione, Seneca forniva protezione assicurativa a VCRV per laSede, compresa la perdita d’uso della medesima.12. AlPepoca dei fatti in questione, Hartford e GAIC fornivano protezione assicurativa aPreferred Display riguardo ad una determinata proprieta personale per uso aziendale nello stabilimento diproduzione presso la Sede, oltre a coperture per intenmzione dellattivita aziendale e spese supplementari.13. Come previsto dai termini e condizioni dei lore contratti assicurativi, Seneca, Hartford, eGAIC erano obbligate ad eseguire pagamenti a VCRY e/o a Preferred Display per i danni riportati aseguito della Perdita.14. A seguito dei pagamenti di Seneca, Hartford e GAIC a VCRV e/o a Preferred Display inbase alle loro rispettive polizze assicurative e in virth dei contratti assicurativi ¢ per effetto di legge,Seneca, Hartford e GAIC sono surrogate ai diritti di VCRV e Preferred Display contro le convenute,nella misura in cui i] pagamento assicurativo era stato eseguito.CAPO PRIMO: YCRYV contro AAF (Responsabiliti oggettiva)15. VCRV quivi riafferma ¢ ripete i paragrafi da uno a quattordici di questa domandagiudiziale come se questi fossero quivi riportati integralmente.16, Uf Sistema SAAF era stato progettato, fabbricato, realizzato, costruito, assemblato,distribuito, fornito, installato, riparato, mentenuto, pulito, venduto e/o altrimenti immesso nel flussocommerciale dalla convenuta, AAF e, pertanto, AAF é una venditrice del prodetto secondo il para. 52-S72mf{a) del C.G.S.17, All’epoca in cui il Sistema SAAF era stato progettato, fabbricato, realizzato, costruito,assemblato, distribuito, fornito, installato, riparato, mantemuto, pulito, venduto e/o altrimenti immesso nelflusso commerciale dalla convenuta, AAF, il Sistema SAAFP era in condizioni difettose, il che rendeva ilSistema SAAF irragionevolmente pericoloso per 1a proprietd di altri,18. La condizione izragionevolmente pericolosa e difettosa del Sistema SAAF esisteva nelmomento in cui questo lasciava il possesso della convenuta, AAF.19. All’epoca della Perdita, il Sistema SAAF non era stato sostanzialmente alterato dallacondizione in cui’si trovava nel momento in cui lasciava il possesso della convenuta, AAF.20. if Sistema SAAF non era stato abusato o alterato in alcun modo dalla condizione in cui sifrovava nel momento in cui lasciava i] possesso della convenuta, AAF.21, AAF é responsabile legalmente e di fatto verso VCRV per i danni causati dal SistemaSAAP in virth del para. 52-572m del C.G.S., ef seq., per uno o pit dei seguenti fattori:(a)@)©(a){e)@(s)il Sistema SAAF si trovava in condizioni irragionevolmente difettose ¢pericolose in quanto non era dotato di un sistema di soppressione del fucco e/orilevamento di scintille;AAF ometteva di fornire un Sistema SAAF adatto, adeguato e sicuro, con tutte lenecessarie caratteristiche di sicurezza;AAF progettava, fabbricava, costruiva, realizzava, assemblava, distribuiva,forniva e/o vendeva il Sistema AAF in una condizione che sapeva, 0 avrebbedovuto sapere, esponeva la Sede e la proprieta di altri ad un imprevedibile eirragionevole rischio di pericolo;AAF progettava, fabbricava, costruiva, realizzava e/o assemblava il SistemaSAAF in una condizione che non era commerciabile o idonea allo scope per i!quale tali prodotti sono ordinariamente e prevedibilmente usati;AAF ometteva di fomire adeguate e appropriate avvertenze e/o istruzioni per ilSistema SAAF;AAF ometteva di progettare i] Sistema SAAF in modo sicuro ¢ in modo che leprevedibili scintille non presentassero aleun rischio d’incendio e la suapropagazione;AAF ometteva di fornire appropriate ed adeguate protezioni per impedire alSistema SAAF di contribuire alla propagazione dell*incendio;(h)@&()(mn)@)AAF ometteva di fomire appropriate ed adeguate protezioni al Sistema SAAFche avrebbero rilevato prima l’Incendio;AAF ometteva di fornire appropriate e adeguate protezioni al Sistema SAAF cheavrebbero impedito la propagazione dell’ Incendio, i successivi danni e la Perdita;AAF causava 0 consentiva l’immissione nel flusso commerciale de! SistemaSAAF progettato e/o fabbricato in modo difettoso;AAF progettava, fabbricava, costruiva, realizzava, assemblava, distribuiva,forniva e/o vendeva negligentemente il Sistema SAAF;AAF violava la garanzia implicita di commerciabilité in quanto il Sistema SAAFnon era commerciabile per il suo scopo previsto;AAF ometteva di richiamare il Sistema SAAF e/o di avvertire che il SistemaSAAF poneva un rischio d’incendio; e/oAAF causava 0 consentiva il verificarsi dell’Incendio e/o della Perdita.22. Quale conseguenza diretta della responsabilita di AAF come previsto dal para. 52-572met seq. del C.G.S., si verificava la Perdita.23. Quale conseguenza della Perdita, VCRV riportava ingenti danni alla Sede, compreso laperdita d’uso della medesima.24, AAF é responsabile verso VCRV per i danni subiti a seguito dell’Incendio, nella misuranon coperta da Seneca.CAPO SECONDO: Preferred Display contro AAF (Responsabilitd oggettiva)25. Preferred Display quivi riafferma e ripete i paragrafi da uno a venti di questa domandagiudiziale come se questi fossero quivi ripetuti integralmente.26. AAF é responsabile legalmente e di fatto verso Preferred Display per i danni causati dalSistema SAAF in virtd del para. 52-572m del C.G.S., et seq., per uno o pitt dei seguenti fattori:(a) il Sistema SAAF si trovava in condizioni irragionevolmente difettose ¢pericolose in quanto non era dotato di un sistema di soppressione del fuoco e/orilevamento di scintille;) AAF ometteva di fornire un Sistema SAAF adatto, adeguato e sicuro, con tutte lenecessarie caratteristiche di sicurezza;tc) AAF progettava, fabbricava, costruiva, realizzava, assemblava, distribuiva,fomiiva e/o vendeva i} Sistema AAF in una condizione che sapeva, o avrebbedovuto sapere, esponeva fa Sede ¢ Ja proprieta di altri ad un prevedibile eirragionevole rischio di danni;(d) AAF progetiava, fabbricava, costruiva, realizzava e/o assemblava il SistemaSAAF in una condizione che non era commerciabile o idonea allo scopo per ilquale tali prodotti sono ordinariamente e prevedibilmente usati;(e) AAF ometteva di fornire adeguate ¢ appropriate avvertenze e/o istruzioni per ilSistema SAAF;©thy@oOa9ay(m)@AAF ometteva di progetiare i] Sistema SAAF in modo sicuro e in modo che leprevedibili scintille non presentassero alcun rischio d’incendio ¢ 1a suapropagazione;AAF ometteva di fornire appropriate ed adeguate protezioni per impedire alSistema SAAF di contribuire alla propagazione dell’ incendio;AAF omeiteva di fornire appropriate ¢ adeguate protezioni al Sistema SAAF cheavrebbero rilevato prima l’Incendio;AAF ometteva di fomnire appropriate e adeguate protezioni al Sistema SAAF cheavrebbero impedito la propagazione dell’Incendio, i successivi danni c la Perdita;AAF causava 0 consentiva l’immissione nel flusso commerciale del SistemaSAAF progettato e/o fabbricato in modo difettoso;AAF progettava, fabbricava, costruiva, realizzava, assemblava, distribuiva,forniva e/o vendeva il Sistema SAAF;AAF violava Ja garanzia impiicita di commerciabilita in quanto il Sistema SAAFnon era commerciabile per il suo scopo previsto;AAF ometteva di richiamare i! Sistema SAA
Related Contentin Hartford County
Case
BATOR, MELISSA v. COASTAL CARRIERS OF CONNECTICUT LLC
Aug 23, 2024 |V01 - Vehicular - Motor Vehicles - Driver and/or Passenger(s) vs. Driver(s) |HHD-CV24-6190263-S
Case
CURTIS, STACY, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE E Et Al v. JOHNS, KIRAN Et Al
Aug 20, 2024 |V01 - Vehicular - Motor Vehicles - Driver and/or Passenger(s) vs. Driver(s) |HHD-CV24-6190008-S
Case
SAFETY INSURANCE COMPANY v. TESFAYE, KIDIST
Aug 20, 2024 |V05 - Vehicular - Motor Vehicles - Property Damage only |HHD-CV24-6189992-S
Case
HAMILTON, MAKEDA v. SHERROD, JOHNNIE LAMARK
Aug 21, 2024 |V01 - Vehicular - Motor Vehicles - Driver and/or Passenger(s) vs. Driver(s) |HHD-CV24-6190192-S
Case
WARD, JODI v. SAVAGE, WILLIAM Et Al
Aug 20, 2024 |H13 - Housing - Small Claims Housing - Rent and/or Damages |NBH-CV24-5004668-S
Case
SANTANA, ROSA v. HART, OKSANA
Aug 21, 2024 |V01 - Vehicular - Motor Vehicles - Driver and/or Passenger(s) vs. Driver(s) |HHD-CV24-6190145-S
Case
RODRIGUEZ, RAYMOND Et Al v. BCI, INC Et Al
Aug 23, 2024 |V01 - Vehicular - Motor Vehicles - Driver and/or Passenger(s) vs. Driver(s) |HHD-CV24-6190264-S
Case
BUTLER, ANTON Et Al v. HOWARD, ANDREW Et Al
Aug 22, 2024 |V01 - Vehicular - Motor Vehicles - Driver and/or Passenger(s) vs. Driver(s) |HHD-CV24-6190239-S
Case
DUNCAN, SHAWN A. v. CT TRANSIT (CONNECTICUT TRANSIT) Et Al
Aug 21, 2024 |S50 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Tort - Motor Vehicle |HHD-CV24-5084843-S
Ruling
JONATHAN RAMIREZ VS GLORIVIC PARONG
Aug 20, 2024 |23CHCV02414
Case Number: 23CHCV02414 Hearing Date: August 20, 2024 Dept: F51 MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 23CHCV02414 Motion filed: 4/22/24 MOVING ATTORNEY: Victor Cruz (Counsel) CLIENT: Plaintiff Jonathan Ramirez (Plaintiff) NOTICE: OK RELIEF REQUESTED: An order relieving Counsel as attorney of record for Plaintiff. TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted. In a civil action, an attorney may move to be relieved as counsel at any time during the proceedings after giving notice to his client. (Code Civ. Proc. § 284.) The moving attorney shall file with his motion: (1) a notice of the motion, directed to the client using Judicial Council form MC-051; (2) a declaration in support of the motion using Judicial Council form MC-052; and (3) a proposed order granting the motion; all to be served on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) In his declaration, the moving attorney is required to state in general terms, and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1). (Id., subd. (c).) The client must be provided no less than five days notice before hearing on the motion. An attorney may withdraw from a case when it can be accomplished without undue prejudice to the clients interests. (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.) On the other hand, if the attorney withdraws at a critical point in the action, thereby prejudicing his client, he has violated his ethical duties. (Ibid.) Here, Counsel filed this motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendant on 4/22/24. Counsel served his client by mail on 4/22/24, and declares that the clients mailing address has been confirmed by telephone. (Decl. of Victor Cruz ¶ 3b.) Counsels proof of service also shows that the requisite documents were served electronically on Defendants counsel on 4/22/24. Counsel properly filed an accompanying notice of the motion using Judicial Council form MC-051, a declaration in support of his motion using form MC-052, and a proposed order granting the motion using form MC-053. In the MC-052 declaration, Counsel cited a breakdown of communication with Plaintiff such that Counsel must withdraw from representation thereof. (Cruz Decl., ¶ 2.) The next hearing date in this action is a mandatory settlement conference, set for 5/15/25. Jury trial is set for 8/4/25. Therefore, Counsels withdrawal does not raise the risk of unduly prejudicing his client. Accordingly, the statutory requirements for the motion have been satisfied, and Counsels motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff is GRANTED.
Ruling
ASHLEY HORNBEAK VS JJM REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, LLC, ET AL.
Aug 21, 2024 |6/18/2022 |22SMCV02596
Case Number: 22SMCV02596 Hearing Date: August 21, 2024 Dept: I The court would normally DENY the motion. Good cause has not been shown. The fact that defense lead counsel has another trial is not sufficient. For that to be sufficient, counsel would have to explain why that was not brought to the courts attention when the trial was set last August. If the other case was set for trial after this case was set for trial, the court would need to understand why it is that the other judge was not made aware of the conflict with the instant case. The fact that defense counsel double books is not really this courts concern. (The court also notes that the counsel with the conflict did not provide a declaration, so as a technical matter there is no evidence of the conflict, but the court will overlook that.) The defense also states it has not finished discovery. But that was the whole point of showing diligence. The case has been pending for over two years. The court has no reason to believe that defense counsel began moving forward with diligence until the last few months. What the court was expecting to see was the efforts that have been made for at least the last year to get the discovery done. As to mediation, the court ordered mediation to be completed no later than February 29, 2024. The fact that the parties elected to view that order as more of a suggestion is, again, no cause to continue the trial. In short, there has been no showing of diligence or cause made. But that said, there is a very good chance that the court will be engaged in trial on September 30, 2024. While the court could simply deny the motion and wait and see, there is a point at which denying the motion serves no truly useful purpose other than to make the parties lives miserable. Because the court will likely be unavailable for trial on September 30, 2024, the court will reluctantly GRANT the motion. The court will discuss convenient dates with the parties, but the court will have little tolerance for anything but truly unavoidable conflicts. The court makes no promise as to what the continued date might beit could well be during the holiday season. Further, on whatever day is chosen, this case will have the lowest priority of the cases ready for trial and where the parties want to go to trial. The court will not bump a case being handled by diligent parties and counsel for a case where that was not done.
Ruling
PETRA GONZALEZ VS MICHAEL MANUEL LUGO
Aug 21, 2024 |23NWCV03686
Case Number: 23NWCV03686 Hearing Date: August 21, 2024 Dept: SEC GONZALEZ v. LUGO CASE NO.: 23NWCV03686 HEARING: 8/21/24 @ 9:30 A.M. #4 TENTATIVE ORDER Plaintiff Petra Gonzalezs Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED. No sanctions awarded. Moving Party to give NOTICE. The motion is unopposed as of August 19, 2024. This is about a motor vehicle collision. Defendant Michael Manuel Lugo moves to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one. Form Interrogatories Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (b) allows the propounding party to file a motion to compel responses to interrogatories if a response has not been received. If responses are untimely, the responding party waives objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a).) On January 8, 2024, Defendant propounded the first set of special interrogatories on Plaintiff. (Decl. Baharvar, ¶ 3, Ex. A.) No responses have been provided. (Decl. Baharvar, ¶ 7.) Thus, the Court grants the motion. Plaintiff must serve responses without objections within 30 days. Sanctions: Discovery sanctions may not be imposed under Section 2023.030, even together with Section 2023.010, absent another provision of the Discovery Act that authorizes the imposition of sanctions. (City of L. A. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 500.) Sanctions with respect to interrogatories are only authorized against a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel responses. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (c).) Because the motion is unopposed, the Court does not award sanctions.
Ruling
Padilla, et al. vs. Rawlins, et al.
Aug 20, 2024 |23CV-0202171
PADILLA, ET AL. VS. RAWLINS, ET AL.Case Number: 23CV-0202171Tentative Ruling on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint: This matter is oncalendar for further proceedings on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.The amendment is the addition of Franchisor British Petroleum West Coast Products, LLC as aDoe Defendant. The matter has been properly noticed, with proof of service on file. The Motionis unopposed.Merits of Motion: CCP § 473(a)(1) permits any pleading to be amended in furtherance of justiceand on any terms as may be proper, after notice to the adverse party. The Court’s discretion in thisregard will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment. Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6Cal. 3d 920, 939. Leave to amend should be liberally granted so long as there is no statute oflimitations issue or prejudice to the opposing party. Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56Cal.4th 203, 240.Here, no party opposes the motion, no trial date is set, and discovery is ongoing. Defendants havenot alleged any prejudice based on the amendment, and it does not appear any will result. TheMotion is GRANTED. A proposed order has been lodged and will be executed. Plaintiff isgranted ten days leave to file the First Amended Complaint; it will not be deemed filed.****************************************************************************** 9:00 a.m. Review Hearings******************************************************************************
Ruling
OZZ SATURNE VS LYFT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
Aug 19, 2024 |23STCV02365
Case Number: 23STCV02365 Hearing Date: August 19, 2024 Dept: 32 PLEASE NOTE: Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that partys intention to submit. The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsels contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling. If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely. Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. TENTATIVE RULING DEPARTMENT 32 HEARING DATE August 19, 2024 CASE NUMBER 23STCV02365 MOTION Motion to Reopen Discovery and Move Discovery Cutoff and Trial Related Dates and to Continue Trial Date MOVING PARTIES Defendant Babak Nassimizadeh OPPOSING PARTY Plaintiff Ozz Saturne MOTION Defendant Babak Nassimizadeh (Defendant) moves to reopen discovery and continue trial. Plaintiff Ozz Saturne (Plaintiff) opposes and Defendant replies. BACKGROUND This case involves a motor vehicle accident. The complaint was filed on February 2, 2023. Trial was initially set for August 1, 2024. Defendant filed his answer on May 3, 2023. Based on the August 1, 2024 trial date, fact discovery in this case closed on July 2, 2024. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.020.) On July 12, 2024, the Court denied Defendants motion to continue trial and related dates, finding that Defendant did not properly move to reopen discovery, and thus failed to show good cause to continue trial. (Min. Order, 7/12/24.) On July 18, 2024, the Court granted in part Defendants ex parte application and continued trial to September 10, 2024. All discovery and pre-trial motion cut off dates remained associated with the previous trial date. (Min. Order, 7/18/24.) ANALYSIS Legal Standard ¿Continuances are granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring a continuance.¿ (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.)¿ A trial court has broad discretion in considering a request for a trial continuance.¿ (Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 11, 13-18.)¿ California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 sets forth factors for the Court to consider in ruling on a motion to continue trial.¿ To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).) A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(b).) Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: 1. The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; 2. The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; 3. The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; 4. The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; 5. The addition of a new party if: A. The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or B. The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new partys involvement in the case; 6. A partys excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or 7. A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial. 8. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include: 1. The proximity of the trial date; 2. Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; 3. The length of the continuance requested; 4. The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; 5. The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; 6. If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; 7. The courts calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; 8. Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; 9. Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; 10. Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and 11. Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).) In determining whether to reopen discovery, the court must consider the necessity of and reasons for the additional discovery, the diligence or lack thereof by the party seeking to reopen discovery in attempting to complete discovery prior to the cutoff, whether permitting the discovery will prevent the case from going forward on the trial date or will otherwise prejudice any party, and any past continuances of the trial date.¿ (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)¿¿ Discussion As an initial matter, the meet and confer requirement is met. Defendants counsel declares that he sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs counsel to continue the trial date to complete discovery. On July 16, 2024, the parties spoke on the phone; Plaintiff did not stipulate to reopening discovery and continuing trial. (Reider Decl. ¶ 21-22.) Defendant argues discovery should be reopened because Plaintiff was treated at MedTrak Diagnostics in November 2023 for his claimed neurological injuries. (Reider Decl. ¶ 11.) A letter from Medtrak recommended future care for Plaintiff that would total at least $1,482,264 over the remainder of Plaintiffs life. Defendant asserts he did not know of this treatment until it was disclosed in a June 12, 2024 supplemental discovery response. Moreover, Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not reveal the treatment during his deposition on April 8, 2024, when he was asked if he had seen any other medical providers not already discussed. (Id. ¶ 10.) Due in part to the Medtrak records, Defendants expert neuro-ophthamologist, Dr. Krauss, recommended retaining a neurologist. (Id. ¶ 12.) As a result, Defendant has retained Barry I. Ludwig, M.D. as a neurologist and seeks an independent medical examination with Dr. Ludwig and Plaintiff. Additionally, Defendant argues that the depositions of Plaintiffs experts, Dr. Grewal, Dr. Zdenek, Dr. Newman, Dr. Filler, Dr. Travis, and Mr. Auerbach, have not been conducted. The depositions were previously on-calendar for July 12, 2024, July 15, 2024, and July 16, 2024. However, Defendant argues they were taken off-calendar after Plaintiff failed to produce the expert files within three business days as required under Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.415. In opposition, Plaintiff points out that he first claimed a traumatic brain injury in discovery responses served in June 2023. Therefore, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has failed to show that he acted diligently in seeking a medical examination. Plaintiffs counsel also contends that due to an impacted trial scheduled, if trial is continued, he will not be available until late-2025. (Burunsuzyan Decl. ¶ 19.) In reply, Defendant argues the June 2023 discovery responses only showed two telemedicine visits in May 2021 and April 2023, and one brain imaging in January 2022. Furthermore, Defendant argues the discovery response did not articulate a clear future recommended treatment for the brain injury. Plaintiff does not dispute that the Medtrak treatment was not disclosed until June 2024 in this case, despite occurring in November 2023. Given that Plaintiffs claimed neurological injuries did not appear as serious as they were before the Medtrak records were disclosed, the Court finds that Defendant acted reasonably diligently in conducting discovery. As for the expert depositions, Plaintiff does not dispute that the expert files were not timely provided. Therefore, given the late disclosure of the Medtrak records, and the limited time to complete expert discovery, there is good cause to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of completing a neurological independent medical examination and completing the expert depositions. To complete the necessary discovery, Defendant seeks a trial date of October 30, 2024. Based on the discovery required, the Court finds good cause to continue trial. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part Defendants Motion to Reopen Discovery and to Continue Trial Date. Discovery is reopened for the limited purpose of completing Plaintiffs neurological examination and completing the previously noticed expert depositions. Trial is continued to December 10, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.¿ ¿ The Final Status Conference is continued to November 25, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.¿ Defendant shall give notice of this order, and file a proof of service of such. TENTATIVE RULING DEPT: 32 HEARING DATE: August 19, 2024 CASE NUMBER: 23STCV02365 MOTIONS: Motion to Compel Physical Examination and Independent Medical Examinations of Plaintiff MOVING PARTY: Defendant Babak Nassimizadeh OPPOSING PARTY: Plaintiff Ozz Saturne MOTION Defendant Babak Nassimizadeh (Defendant) now moves to compel a neurological examination with Dr. Barry Ludwig, an orthopedic examination with Dr. Theodore K. Gregorius, and a neuro ophthalmological examination with Dr. Howard Krauss. Plaintiff opposes and Defendant replies. LEGAL STANDARD In any case in which a plaintiff is seeking recovery for personal injuries, any defendant may demand one physical examination of the plaintiff, if both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The examination does not include any diagnostic test or procedure that is painful, protracted, or intrusive. (2) The examination is conducted at a location within 75 miles of the residence of the examinee. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.220, subd. (a).)¿¿¿ Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.250 provides that, when a plaintiff fails to respond to a demand, or refuses to submit to the physical examination, the defendant may move for an order compelling a response to the demand and compelling compliance with the request for an exam. The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. If any party desires to obtain discovery by a physical examination other than that described in Article 2 (commencing with Section 2032.210), or by a mental examination, the party shall obtain leave of court. A motion for an examination under subdivision (a) shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and the specialty, if any, of the person or persons who will perform the examination. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subds. (a)-(b).) The court shall grant a motion for a physical or mental examination under Section 2032.310 only for good cause shown. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320, subd. (a); see also Sporich v. Superior Court (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 422, 427 [the good cause which must be shown should be such that will satisfy an impartial tribunal that the request may be granted without abuse of the inherent rights of the adversary].) A showing of good cause generally requires that the party produce specific facts justifying discovery and that the inquiry be relevant to the subject matter of the action or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840.) And [a] party who chooses to allege that he has mental and emotional difficulties can hardly deny his mental state is in controversy. (Id. at p. 839.) The examination will be limited to whatever condition is in controversy in the action.¿ (Code Civ. Proc. §2032.020(a).)¿ This means the examination must be directly related to the specific injury or condition that is the subject of the litigation.¿ (Roberts v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 330, 337.)¿ Often, a party's pleadings put his or her mental or physical condition in controversy ... as when a plaintiff claims continuing mental or physical injury resulting from defendant's acts: A party who chooses to allege that he has mental and emotional difficulties can hardly deny his mental state is in controversy.¿ (See Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 837, wherein the plaintiff claimed ongoing emotional distress from sexual harassment by former employer.)¿ Discovery responses can also frame the issues regarding the injuries and damages alleged.¿¿ MEET AND CONFER The Declaration of Stephen P. Reider, Defendants counsel, states that he sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs counsel on July 1, 2024, regarding the examinations at issue. (Reider Decl. ¶ 18, Exh. F.) However, it does not appear that Defendant met and conferred about the neurological examination. DISCUSSION As an initial matter, the Court has only reopened discovery for the limited purpose of conducting a neurological examination with Dr. Ludwig. Therefore, because Defendant did not adequately discuss the further examinations in the motion to reopen, or show diligence in that regard, the Court denies the motion to compel examinations with Dr. Gregorius and Dr. Krauss. To support the need for the neurological examination, Defendant points to Plaintiffs previous treatment with neurologists, the claimed injuries of a traumatic brain injury, post-concussive syndrome, and post-concussive headaches, and the recent Medtrak records which recommends future treatment. In opposition, Plaintiff does not dispute the injuries warranting a neurological exam, but rather argues that Defendant was again dilatory in not seeking an examination earlier. Plaintiff also asserts that Defendant has never served a demand for a neurological examination. (Opp., 2.) In reply, Defendant does not address the issue that no demand was served for the neurological examination with Dr. Ludwig. Therefore, because no demand has been served, Defendant provides no basis for compelling attendance for the examination under sections 2032.220 and 2032.250. Even if the Court were to consider the motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.310, the motion vaguely states that Dr. Ludwig will complete (1) a standard neurological examination, which may include & any non-intrusive tests Dr. Ludwig deems necessary& (Motion at p. 9.) This is insufficient. (Carpenter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 249, 260 [the court is to describe in detail who will conduct the examination, where and when it will be conducted, the conditions, scope and nature of the examination, and the diagnostic tests and procedures to be employed. The way to describe these diagnostic tests and procedures fully and in detail is to list them by name.] [emphasis in original].) As a result, the motion to compel the physical and independent medical examinations is denied. In light of the Courts ruling reopening discovery for a limited purpose, the parties are ordered to meet and confer to schedule the examination by Dr. Ludwig. Prior to the meet and confer, Defendant shall provide Plaintiff with a notice describing where and when the examination will be conducted, the conditions, scope and nature of the examination, and a list by name of the diagnostic tests and procedures. This information must be provided to counsel for Plaintiff within 10 days. The parties may then file a stipulation and proposed order, or, if no agreement is reached following a telephonic meet and confer, Defendant may file a motion. Such stipulation or motion must be filed within 20 days. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Accordingly, Defendants Motion to Compel Physical Examination and Independent Medical Examinations of Plaintiff is DENIED. Defendant shall provide notice of the Courts order and file a proof of service of such.
Ruling
RACHEL TABB VS MATTHEW TYLER RAY, ET AL.
Aug 19, 2024 |Renee C. Reyna |23STCV05733
Case Number: 23STCV05733 Hearing Date: August 19, 2024 Dept: 29 Tabb v. Ray 23STCV05733 Motion to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiff Rachel Tabb and Produce Documents filed by Defendants Matthew Tyler Ray and Counsel Productions LLC. Motion to Compel Compliance with Request for Production filed by Defendant Counsel Productions LLC. Tentative The motion to compel Plaintiff to appear for deposition and produce documents is denied without prejudice. The motion to compel compliance is granted. The request for sanctions is denied. Background On March 15, 2023, Rachel Tabb (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants Matthew Tyler Ray (Ray), Counsel Productions LLC (Counsel), and Does 1 through 10, for negligence arising out of an automobile accident on March 24, 2022, at or near the intersection of North Cahuenga Boulevard and Ivar Avenue in Los Angeles. Ray and Counsel filed their answer on June 6. 2023. On June 12, 2024, Counsel filed the two motions that are set for hearing on August 19: (1) Counsels motion to compel Plaintiff to appear for deposition and product documents and (2) Counsels motion to compel Plaintiff to comply with her representation in verified responses to document requests that she would produce documents. No opposition has been filed. On July 16, 2024, Defendants filed replies. The hearings on these motions were initially set for July 23 and were continued by the Court to August 19. Legal Standard Motion to Compel Deposition Any party may obtain discovery & by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.210 through 2025.280 provide the requirements for (among other things) what must be included in a deposition notice, when and where depositions may be taken, and how and when the notice must be served. The service of a deposition notice & is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying. (Id., § 2025.280, subd. (a).) Section 2025.230 provides: If the deponent named is not a natural person, the deposition notice shall describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. In that event, the deponent shall designate and produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to those matters to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the deponent. Section 2025.410, subdivision (a), requires any party to serve a written objection at least three days before the deposition if the party contends that a deposition notice does not comply with the provisions of sections 2025.210 through 2025.280. Section 2025.450, subdivision (a), provides: If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for¿inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponents attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. Any such motion to compel must show good cause for the production of documents and, when a deponent has failed to appear, the motion must be accompanied by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. (Id., subd. (b).) Motion to Compel Compliance with Request for Production In response to a document request, the responding party must set forth (1) a statement of compliance; (2) a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply; or (3) an objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210, subd. (a).) If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling & thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that partys statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a).) [T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel compliance with a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (b).) Discussion Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Deposition On March 12, 2024, Counsel first noticed Plaintiffs deposition for May 2, 2024. (Blair Decl., ¶ 6.) The parties met and conferred, and postponed the deposition. (Id., ¶ 8.) On April 30, 2024, Counsel served the second notice of deposition for May 31, 2024; Plaintiffs counsel informed Counsel that he would be away that date. (Id. ̧¶¶ 11, 13.) On May 16, 2024, the parties agreed to set Plaintiffs deposition for June 19; Counsel served the third notice of deposition on May 29, 2024. (Id., ¶¶ 14, 16.) Before the scheduled deposition date, Counsel filed this motion. After the motion was filed, on June 17, Plaintiff served untimely objections to the deposition notice. (Reply Blair Decl., ¶ 4 & Exh. G.) Nonetheless, Plaintiff did appear for the deposition and Plaintiff did produce some documents, while failing to produce others. (Id., ¶¶ 2, 5, 6-9 & Exhs H-I.) Counsels motion is denied without prejudice. The deposition has occurred. Counsel now contends that Plaintiffs document production was improperly incomplete, and Counsel seeks an order compelling a further production, but Counsel has not given Plaintiff (or the Court) adequate notice as to the relief Counsel seeks including which document requests, Counsel contends, should be the subject of the order for further production. Motion to Compel Compliance with Request for Production Counsel filed this motion seeking an order compelling Plaintiff to comply with her statement of compliance. On September 21, 2023, Counsel propounded discovery, including document requests, to Plaintiff. Plaintiff served responses on November 27, 2023. (Blair Decl., ¶¶ 6, 8 & Exhs. A-B.) In Plaintiffs responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1-4, and 6-17, Plaintiff represented that she would comply with the requests (in whole or in part). (Id., Exh. B.) At least as of the time the motion was filed, however, Plaintiff had failed to produce documents as promised in her statement of complaint. (Id., ¶¶ 10, 18, & 23.) Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. Accordingly, the motion is granted. The request for sanctions is denied. In the notice of motion and motion, Counsel does not state the amount of sanctions sought, as is required. Conclusion The Court DENIES, without prejudice, the motion of Counsel Productions LLC to compel Plaintiff to attend her deposition and to produce documents. The Court GRANTS the motion of Counsel Productions LLC to compel compliance. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Rachel Tabb to comply with her statement of compliance and produce the documents that she represented that she would produce in response to Requests for Production Nos. 1-4, and 6-17 within 15 days of notice of this order. The Court DENIES the request of Counsel Productions LLC for sanctions. Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.
Ruling
EWELLS vs UHS-CORONA, INC.
Aug 19, 2024 |CVRI2400413
Motion to Compel Plaintiff Thayes Ewellsto Respond to Form Interrogatories, SetEWELLS vs UHS-CORONA, One, Special Interrogatories, Set OneCVRI2400413INC. and Request for Production ofDocuments, Set One by YUKO REUS,N.P.Tentative Ruling:The unopposed motion to compel is granted. Defendant is to provide responses without objectionwithin 30 days. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $410.
Ruling
UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY VS. BERNARDINO PONCE ZAMORA ET AL
Aug 19, 2024 |CGC23604070
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Monday, August 19, 2024, Line 6. DEFENDANT U-HAUL CO. OF CALIFORNIA's Motion For Order Discharging It From Liability And For Costs. Off calendar per 7/17/24 notice of assignment of case to arbitration. =(302/RBU)
Document
KRAUSHAAR, ASHLEY v. JOSEPH, MARCUS W. Et Al
Apr 18, 2024 |Susan Quinn Cobb |V01 - Vehicular - Motor Vehicles - Driver and/or Passenger(s) vs. Driver(s) |HHD-CV24-6183584-S
Document
QUINTANA, ANGEL v. PEREZ, DANIEL Et Al
May 20, 2024 |V01 - Vehicular - Motor Vehicles - Driver and/or Passenger(s) vs. Driver(s) |HHD-CV24-6185184-S
Document
BYRNES, JAMES v. COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC
Mar 30, 2023 |Kimberly A. Knox |T02 - Torts - Defective Premises - Private - Snow or Ice |HHB-CV23-6078163-S
Document
HUSSAIN, SYED A. AND SADIA, AS CO-CONSERVATORS OF v. DEFINA, MD, MAURICE E. Et Al
May 03, 2021 |Matthew D. Gordon |T28 - Torts - Malpractice - Medical |HHD-CV21-6141455-S
Document
WRIGHT, WILLIAM ET AL Et Al v. RIOS, DANIELA
Jul 03, 2023 |Kimberly A. Knox |V01 - Vehicular - Motor Vehicles - Driver and/or Passenger(s) vs. Driver(s) |HHB-CV23-6080128-S
Document
THOMPSON, EVAN v. GIANOPLUS, EMMA J.
May 23, 2024 |V01 - Vehicular - Motor Vehicles - Driver and/or Passenger(s) vs. Driver(s) |HHD-CV24-6185449-S
Document
CARILLI, JUDITH v. ALLMERICA FINANCIAL BENEFIT INSURANCE COMPANY
Jan 03, 2023 |Stuart D. Rosen |V01 - Vehicular - Motor Vehicles - Driver and/or Passenger(s) vs. Driver(s) |HHD-CV23-6164097-S
Document
COOPER, KIMBERLY v. WALMART INC.
May 10, 2024 |T03 - Torts - Defective Premises - Private - Other |HHD-CV24-6184632-S