HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 3 CLAIM #91-30 07-15-91CONSENT CALENDAR NO. 3
AGENDA7-/, 471 7715-91
SATE:
JULY 2 , -19 91 Inter-Com`�(� ••tib
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: CLAIMANT: SIGNAL MAINTENANCE INC.; D/L: 06-17-81; DATE FILED
W/CITY: 06-20-91; CLAIM NO: 91-30; CARL WARREN FILE NO: S
52023—CLB
After investigation and review it is recommended that the
above -referenced claim be rejected and the City Clerk directed to
give proper notice of the rejection to the claimant and to the
claimant's attorney.
Very tr ly urs,,
J ROURKE
City Attorney
JGR: jab:7-2-91(CL-9130.jab)
Enclosure: Copy of Claim
11
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
23
26
27
28
Claimant
SIGNAL MAINTENANCE INCORPORATED
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
Claim -of Signal Maintenance Inc.
VS.
CITY OF TUSTIN,
NO. 55-64-05
CLAIM FOR PARTIAL
INDEMNITY ON A
COMPARATIVE FAULT BASIS;
CONTRIBUTION; COSTS OF
SUIT AND COURT COSTS;
AND REASONABLE
ATTORNEY'S FEES.
TO CITY OF TUSTIN ATTENTION CITY CLERK :
1. You are hereby notified that Signal Maintenance
Inc. whose address is 2720 East Regal Park Drive, Anaheim,
California, 928061? claims partial indemnification on a
comparative fault basis, contribution, costs of suit and court
costs incurred herein, and reasonable attorney's fees from the
City of Tustin.
2. This claim arises and is based upon a collision
between an automobile operated by Doris Reese and Maria Lopez,
Redhill & Mitchell in the City of Tustin on June 17th, 1987.
- 1 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. The plaintiff alleges she left her apartment on
Redhill and was proceeding north on Redhill on the inside lane.
As she was approaching the intersection of Mitchell she saw the
light was green. She proceeded across and when she was about
half way across she was struck by a van going east.
4. Plaintiff, Doris Reese, filed an Amended Complaint
with the- Orange County Superior Court Case No. 55-64-05 naming,
among others, Signal Maintenance Inc. as Doe 111, a defendant in
the action. Service of the complaint was affected upon Signal
Maintenance Inc., May 8th, 1991, the first indication Signal
Maintenance had that it was a defendant in the action.
5. In the complaint, Plaintiff, Doris Reese seeks to
recover general damages for personal injuries, sums to be
incurred and already incurred for medical treatment, loss of
income, and costs of suit.
6. Signal Maintenance Inc. claims that the negligence
of the City of Tustin contributed to the plaintiff's injuries
inasmuch as plaintiff alleges each of those entities created or
contributed to the creation of a dangerous condition. Signal
Maintenance Inc. therefore contends it is entitled to the relief
claimed above.
- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7. All notices and communications with regard to this
claim should be sent to:
LAW OFFICES OF RAYMOND J. MOSHER
18837 Brookhurst -Suite 201
Fountain Valley, California 92708
DATED: June 18, 1991
- 3 -
ND J. MOSHER
Attorney for Claimant
SIGNAL MAINTENANCE INC.