This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Personal Injury
Auto v. Bus
Rear-End Collision

Susana Batman, Michael Henderson, Joshua Torres v. David Perez, Yuma Union High School District

Published: Mar. 10, 2023 | Result Date: Nov. 16, 2021 | Filing Date: Mar. 4, 2020 |

Case number: 3:20-cv-02298-JLS-RBM Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

Janis L. Sammartino

Court

USDC Southern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Patrick G. Shea
(Law Office of Patrick G. Shea APC)


Defendant

Scott J. Loeding
(Murchison & Cumming)

Ravi V. Patel
(Jones, Skelton & Hochuli PLC)

Georgia A. Staton
(Jones, Skelton & Hochuli PLC)

Cory E. Tyszka
(Jones, Skelton & Hochuli PLC)


Facts

David Perez worked as a school bus driver employed by the Yuma Union High School District. On September 5, 2020, Perez was involved in a vehicle collision with Susana Batman's vehicle. Michael Henderson and Joshua Temores were passengers in Batman's vehicle at the time of the accident. Batman, Henderson, and Temores subsequently filed suit against Yuma Union High School District on February 27, 2020.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended they were rear ended by a school bus owned by Yuma School District driven by Perez; that this collision occurred because Perez was negligent; that plaintiffs suffered injuries as a result of the collision; that Perez was an agent of the school district; and that the school district was liable for Perez's negligence.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied any wrongdoing or liability and all the plaintiffs' material allegations. Moreover, defendants contended that the plaintiffs failed to comply with Arizona's notice statute for claims governing public entities or employees of public entities; and that plaintiffs failed to comply with California's notice statute.

Result

The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice, and the case was later dismissed with prejudice after plaintiffs failed to file an amended complaint.


#140388

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390