Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Serquina v. Raymond Corp.

January 20, 2009

URBANO SERQUINA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
THE RAYMOND CORPORATION AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20 DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

SCHEDULING ORDER

(Fed. R. Civ. P. 16)

Discovery Deadlines: Non-Expert: Oct. 30, 2009

Expert Disclosures: Plaintiff Nov. 13, 2009

Defendant. Nov. 27, 2009 Suppl. Expert Disclosures Dec. 18, 2009

Expert Discovery Jan. 22, 2010

Motion Deadlines: Non-Dispositive: Feb. 12, 2010

Dispositive: March 5, 2010

Settlement Conference: None Scheduled

Pre-Trial Conference: April 22, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. Courtroom 2 (AWI), 8th Floor

Trial: June 8, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. Courtroom 2 (AWI), 8th Floor Two Weeks Jury Trial

I. Date of Scheduling Conference January 13, 2009

II. Appearances of Counsel

Mio Quatraro specially appearing for Edward Chatoian appeared personally on behalf of Plaintiff Urbano Serquina ("Plaintiff").

Michael Ball appeared personally on behalf of Defendant The Raymond Corporation ("Defendant").

III. The Pleadings

A. Summary of the Pleadings

1. Plaintiff's Contentions

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant negligently designed, manufactured, distributed, built, inspected, and sold a Raymond R40-C400M High Lift, Stand-Up Rider Forklift and/or its component parts (hereinafter "the Product"), which failed. Plaintiff contends that this failure included, but was not necessarily limited to, a failure of the hand and foot controls, controlling movement and stopping of the Product. Plaintiff further alleges that such failure occurred while an employee of Leprino Foods was operating the Product on September 18, 2006 at Leprino Foods, located at 351 N. Bellehaven Drive in Lemoore, California. Plaintiff contends that the failure of the Product, operated by Plaintiff's co-worker, resulted in an industrial accident in which Plaintiff sustained serious and permanent personal injuries, emotional distress, loss of income, loss of future income and a loss of earning capacity. Plaintiff additionally contends that the Product contained a defect and that the Defendant breached certain implied and express warranties, both written and oral, with respect to the Product. Plaintiff further contends that the defect in the Product and/or in its component parts resulted in a failure of the Product. Plaintiff lastly contends that the Product's failure was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's alleged harm.

2. Defendant's Contentions

Defendant disputes Plaintiff's contentions in their entirety and denies that it was negligent in any respect. Defendant additionally denies that any acts or omissions on its parts were substantial factors in causing Plaintiff's alleged harm. Defendant denies that the Product and/or any of its component parts were defective in design or in any other aspect, including the hand and foot controls, controlling movement and stopping of the Product. At this present time, Defendant does not have sufficient facts, has not performed sufficient investigation and inspection, and has not conducted sufficient discovery concerning the cause of Plaintiff's industrial accident to offer definitive contentions as to how the accident occurred.

Defendant contends, however, that the acts and/or omissions of Plaintiff and of his co-worker, who was operating the Product at the time of the September 18, 2006 accident, were substantial factors in causing Plaintiff's alleged harm. At the present time, Defendant does not have sufficient facts, has not performed sufficient investigation and inspection, and has not conducted sufficient discovery concerning the circumstances surrounding the industrial accident to offer definitive contentions as to whether the acts or omissions of any other persons or entities, including, but not limited to, Plaintiff's employer, Leprino Foods, were substantial factors in causing and/or contributing to the harm alleged by Plaintiff. Defendant reserves the right to make such contentions should additional investigation, inspection and discovery reveal facts upon which to base such contentions.

3. Proposed Amendments to the Pleadings

At this time, the parties do not anticipate any amendments to the pleadings. Any amendments to the pleadings shall be filed no later than February 13, 2009.

IV. Factual Summary

A. Uncontested Facts

1. At approximately 10:00 p.m. on September 18, 2006, an industrial accident occurred at Leprino Foods, located at 351 N. Bellehaven Drive in Lemoore, Fresno County, California.

2. Plaintiff, a Leprino Foods employee, received personal injuries in the industrial accident.

3. Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California.

4. The Raymond Corporation is not a citizen of the State of California.

5. The Raymond Corporation is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in the State of New York.

6. The industrial accident at Leprino Foods occurred in the State of California, County of Kings.

7. The amount in controversy in this action exceeds $75,000, exclusive of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.