HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 8 CLAIM #90-28 10-01-90iv DAA"
AG E -/-9d
DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 1990
CONSENT CALENDAR-N.O. 8
10-1,W, ..;,
Inter - Com
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: CLAIMANT: ROY REDMOND; D/L: 3/14/88; DATE FILED W/CITY:
8/24/90; CLAIM NO: 90-28; CARL WARREN FILE NO: s 54808 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. �,,.44
City Attorney
JGR:kbg(claim.frm)
Enclosure: Copy of Claim
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9'
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2511
2611
27
28
MADORY, BOOTH, ZELL AND PLEISS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
SUITE 205 nIIE CENTRL BUILDING
17822 BAST 1711-1 STRBBT
TUSTIN, CALIFOIZNIA 92680
(714) 832-3772 •213) 626-3787
MAIL TO: Facsimile (714) 832-7163
POST OFFICE BOX 11120
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92711
11 Attorneys for Claimant, Roy Somers Redmond
IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF
ROY SOMERS REDMOND,
Claimant,
li!
AGAINST
THE CITY OF TUSTIN, COUNTY OF
ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Respondent.
(SPACE BELOW FOR FILING STAMP ONLY)
CASE NO: 58 47 58
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES PURSUANT
TO GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION
910
TO: CITY CLERK FOR THE CITY OF TUSTIN:
1. You are hereby notified that defendant and cross-complainant
Roy Redmond, whose address is
seeks equitable contribution and indemnity from
respondent City of Tustin, County of Orange, State of
California, in amounts not presently known.
2. Claimant desires all notices and communications sent to
Margaret M. Cahill of the law firm of Madory, Booth, Zell &
Pleiss our address Post Office Box 11120, Santa Ana, California
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
II 92711-1120.
11 3. The subject claim arises out of a lawsuit entitled Phillip
Parkinson vs. Roy Redmond, City of Tustin, County of Orange,
State of California filed in Orange County Superior Court on
March 131 1989 bearing docket number : 584758.
Claimant/defendant Roy Redmond was served with a copy of the
summons and complaint by way of personal delivery on June 20,
1990. The subject claim has been filed within the allowed six
month period set forth in Government Code, Section 901. The
underlying lawsuit is based upon damages sustained by plaintiff
Phillip Parkinson, arising out of motor vehicle accident which
occurred on or about March 14, 1988 at approximately 9:00 a.m.
on Irvine Boulevard near Plaza Drive in the City of Tustin,
County of Orange. At said time, Plaintiff Phillip Parkinson was
westbound on Irvine Boulevard when he attempted to turn left
when his vehicle was struck by defendant Roy Redmond's vehicle
which was traveling east bound on Irvine Boulevard, attempting
to turn right onto Plaza Drive.
4. The nature of the injuries and damages sustained by
plaintiff Phillip Parkinson are unknown at this time.
5. The claimant contends that he is not liable for the events
and occurrences described in the underlying action brought by
plaintiff Phillip Parkinson. Claimant is informed and believes
that respondent City of Tustin, County of Orange, State of
California, was responsible in hole or part for the damages
suffered by the claimant and the plaintiff due to its design,
operation and control of the subject accident location, causing
-2-
F
1
2
3
4
5
C-1
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
0: I
191
20
21
22
23
24
25
261
to exist a dangerous and defective condition of said roadway
area, including improper roadway signs, inadequate site
distances, and a blind type intersection.
6. If claimant is found in some manner responsible to plaintiff
or to any else result of the incident then occurrences described
in plaintiff's complaint, claimants liability would be based
solely upon a diverted form of liability not arising from
claimant conduct, but only from a obligation imposed upon the
claimant by law. Therefor claimant would be entitled to
complete indemnity from respondent City of Tustin, County of
Orange, State of California, or at a minimum, said public entity
should be required to pay a share of claimants judgement, if
any, which is in proportioned to a comparative negligence of
said public entity and causing plaintiff's damages and to
reimburse claimant for any payments claimant might make to
plaintiff Phillip Parkinson in excess of claimants proportioned
share of negligence.
7. The names of the public employees causing damages sustained
by plaintiff Phillip Parkinson, under the above described
circumstances are unknown to cross-complainant at this time.
DATED: August 20, 1990
M:ya
-3-
MADORY, BOOTH, ZELL & PLEISS
A Professional Corporation
MARGARET tl/ CAHILL
Attorney for Defendant
Roy Somers Redmond
PROOF OF SERVICE
1013A (3 ) CCP
STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE
I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California.
I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to the within
action; my business address is 17822 E. 17th Street, Suite 205,
Tustin, California 92680.
On August 20, 1990, I served the foregoing document described
as CROSS-COMPLAINT on all parties in this action by placing a true
copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows:
Certified
P 947 848 977
City Clerk
300 Centenial Way
Tustin, California 92680
❑ X BY MAIL: I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of
collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that
practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on the same
day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Tustin, California in the
ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the
party served, service is presumed invalid if postage cancellation
date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of
deposit for mailing in affidavit.
❑ BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I delivered such envelope by hand to the
offices of the addressee.
Executed on August 20, 1990, at Tustin, California.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws the state
of California that the foregoing is true. -a- co r
KAREN IBE