`
`
`IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`CASE NO. CGC-24-612582
`
`(Assigned for Case Management Purposes to
`Dept. 610)
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Cross-Complainant,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FELICIANO RUIZ,
`
`
`
`
`
`SATURN CONSTRUCTION CO.; KING
`SCAFFOLDING, INC.; and DOES 1 TO
`25,
`
`
`
`KING SCAFFOLDING, INC.;
`
`
`
`
`
`ROES 1 through 50, inclusive,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Tel: (510) 268-8600 Fax: (510) 268-8682
`
`Richmond, CA 94806
`
`3260 Blume Drive, Suite 130
`
`Kidd Carr LLP
`
`
`
`JOHN N. CARR, State Bar #161970
`ABIGAIL E. LIGHTHART, State Bar #239644
`KIDD ∙ CARR LLP
`3260 Blume Drive, Suite 130
`Richmond, CA 94806
`Tel: (510) 268-8600
`Fax: (510) 268-8682
`
`Attorneys for Defendant KING SCAFFOLDING, INC.
`
`
`
`ELECTRONICALLY
`F I L E D
`
`Superior Court of California,
`County of San Francisco
`04/02/2024
`Clerk of the Court
`BY: JEFFREY FLORES
`Deputy Clerk
`
`
`
`KING SCAFFOLDING, INC.’S CROSS-
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`1. IMPLIED INDEMNITY
`2. EQUITABLE INDEMNITY
`3. COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND
`CONTRIBUTION
`4. DECLARATORY RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`Complaint filed 2/22/24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cross-Defendants.
`
`COMES NOW Defendant/Cross-Complainant KING SCAFFOLDING, INC. (hereinafter
`
`“Cross-Complainant”) and for its Cross-Complaint alleges as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CROSS-COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`1. Cross-Complainant KING SCAFFOLDING, INC. is, and during all times herein
`
`mentioned, was a corporation existing under the laws of the State of California with its principal
`
`place of business in South San Francisco, California.
`
`2.
`
`The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, business or otherwise of
`
`the Cross-Defendants herein designated by the fictitious names ROES 1 through 50, inclusive are
`
`unknown to Cross-Complainant, who therefore sues said Cross-Defendants by such fictitious names.
`
`When the true names and capacities of such fictitiously named Cross-Defendants have been
`
`ascertained, Cross-Complainant will amend this pleading accordingly. Cross-Complainant is
`
`informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously named Cross-Defendants is in
`
`some manner responsible for the acts, omissions and/or occurrences hereinafter alleged and actually
`
`and proximately caused and/or contributed to the various injuries and damages set forth in the
`
`Complaint and referred to herein.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`On or about February 22, 2024 Plaintiff FELICIANO RUIZ (hereinafter “Plaintiff”)
`
`filed a Complaint for Damages (the "Complaint") in the instant action. Plaintiff allege damages due
`
`to a worksite injury at a single family property located at 526 Connecticut St., San Francisco, CA
`
`and as more fully described in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court
`
`under Case Number CGC-24-612582. Cross-Complainant denies any liability upon the Complaint
`
`but incorporates that pleading herein by this reference. By and through this Cross-Complaint, Cross-
`
`Complainant alleges that, to the extent any damage or claim be asserted by Plaintiff, all such
`
`damages are caused, in part or in whole, by the negligence and conduct of others, including the
`
`Cross-Defendants specified herein.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(For Implied Indemnity Against All Cross-Defendants)
`
`
`
`4. Cross-Complainant realleges and incorporates by this reference paragraphs 1 through
`
`3 of this Cross-Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
`
`
`
`5.
`
`In the event that Cross-Complainant is found in some manner legally liable to
`
`Plaintiff and/or any other cross-complainant or anyone else as a result of the events and occurrences
`
`
`
`2
`CROSS-COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`described in Plaintiff’s Complaint and/or any cross-complaints which may be filed herein, Cross-
`
`Complainant’s liability is solely based upon a derivative, vicarious or imputed form of liability, not
`
`resulting from its own conduct, but instead based upon an obligation imposed upon it by law.
`
`Therefore, in the event that Cross-Complainant is found in any manner legally liable, such liability
`
`was proximately caused by the acts and/or omissions of any or all of Cross-Defendants, and Cross-
`
`Complainant is entitled to recover indemnity, whether total or partial, equitable, implied and/or
`
`expressed, from said Cross-Defendants.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(For Equitable Indemnity Against All Cross-Defendants)
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Cross-Complainant realleges and incorporates by this reference paragraphs 1 through
`
`5 and each and every one of the preceding allegations of its First Cause of action as though fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`
`
`7.
`
`In equity and good conscience, if Plaintiff, any cross-complainants or third
`
`parties recover against Cross-Complainant, then Cross-Complainant is entitled to equitable
`
`indemnity, apportionment of liability and contribution among and from Cross-Defendants, and each
`
`of them, according to their respective liability or fault, for the injuries and damages allegedly
`
`sustained by Plaintiff, any cross-complainant or third party, if any by way of any and all sums paid
`
`through settlement, or in the alternative, judgment rendered against Cross-Complainant in the
`
`underlying action.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(For Comparative Negligence and Contribution Against All Cross-Defendants)
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Cross-Complainant realleges and incorporates by this reference paragraphs 1 through
`
`7 and each and every one of the preceding allegations of its First and Second Causes of action as
`
`though fully set forth herein
`
`
`
`9.
`
`In event Plaintiff should establish liability on the part of Cross-Complainant, which
`
`liability is expressly denied, Cross-Complainant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that it
`
`may be obligated to pay and will be damaged to the extent that it must satisfy more than its share of
`
`Plaintiff’s claims and pay sums representing a percentage of liability not its own. Therefore, Cross-
`
`
`
`3
`CROSS-COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`Complainant requests an adjudication and determination of the respective degrees or proportion of
`
`liability or fault, if any, on its part and on the part of the Cross-Defendants, and each of them. If
`
`Cross-Complainant is found liable to Plaintiff, an adjudication and determination requiring a
`
`proportionate contribution from all Cross-Defendants, and each of them is requested.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(For Declaratory Relief Against All Cross-Defendants)
`
`
`
`10.
`
`Cross-Complainant realleges and incorporates by this reference paragraphs 1 through
`
`9 and each and every one of the preceding allegations of its First, Second, and Third Causes of action
`
`as though fully set forth herein
`
`
`
`11.
`
`A dispute has arisen and an actual controversy exists as between Cross-Complainant
`
`and Cross-Defendants in relation to the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`The respective liability for Plaintiff’s or other cross-complainant's damages, if any;
`
`Whether Cross-Defendants must indemnify Cross-Complainant for damages which it
`
`may be obligated to pay Plaintiff and/or any other cross-complainant;
`
`
`
`c.
`
`A declaration of the respective liability and rights to indemnity is necessary as Cross-
`
`Complainant has no other adequate remedy at law; such declaration will avoid circuity and
`
`multiplicity of actions that will otherwise be required if Cross-Complainant must defend this action
`
`and then bring a separate action against Cross-Defendants; and
`
`
`
`d.
`
`Cross-Complainant desires a judicial declaration of rights in accordance with their
`
`contentions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainant prays for judgment as follows:
`
`That Cross-Complainant be entitled to indemnity, whether total or partial,
`
`equitable, implied and/or express, from the Cross-Defendants, and each of them, in the event
`
`a settlement is entered into or a judgment and/or verdict is rendered in favor of Plaintiff and/or any
`
`other cross-complainant as against Cross-Complainant;
`
`
`
`2.
`
`For a judicial determination of the rights of Cross-Complainant and the respective
`
`liabilities and duties of the Cross-Defendants, and each of them, relating to Cross-Complainant’s
`
`claim of implied indemnity and equitable indemnity and contribution as against the Cross-
`
`
`
`4
`CROSS-COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`Defendants, and each of them; and for a judicial determination that Cross-Complainant has no
`
`obligation to Cross-Defendants, and each of them;
`
`For attorneys’ fees as permitted by law and also costs of suit incurred herein; and
`
`For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: ________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KIDD • CARR LLP
`
`By_______________________________
`John N. Carr
`Abigail E. Lighthart
`Attorneys for Defendant
`KING SCAFFOLDING, INC.
`
`5
`CROSS-COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`3/29/24
`
`

`

`
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE
`
`Feliciano Ruiz v. Saturn Construction Co., et al.
`
`San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-24-612582
`
`
`I am employed in the County of Contra Costa, State of California. I am over the age of 18
`
`and not a party to the within action. My business address is at Kidd Carr LLP, located at 3260
`Blume Drive, Suite 130, Richmond, CA 94806.
`
`
`
`
`On March 29, 2024, I served the foregoing document(s) described as:
`
`KING SCAFFOLDING, INC.’S CROSS-COMPLAINT
`
` on all other parties and/or their attorney(s) of record to this action as follows:
`
`
`
`Lien Claimant Norguard Insurance
`Christopher J. Capalbo, Esq.
`MISA STEFEN KOLLER WARD, LLP 13950
`Milton Avenue, Suite 200A Westminster,
`California 92683 Telephone: (714) 625-8566
`Facsimile: (714) 855-1241
`capalbo@mskwlaw.com
`subroservice@mskwlaw.com
`
`
`Executed on March 29, 2024, at Richmond, County of Contra Costa in California.
`
`Plaintiff
`John P. Strouss III, Esq.
`LAW OFFICES OF JOHN P. STROUSS III
`548 Market Street
`P.O. Box 41333
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Tel: (800) 484-5161
`Fax: (415) 236-6102
`john@johnstrousslaw.com
`
`
`
`__X_ ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Only by e-mailing the document(s) to the
`persons at the e-mail address(es). This is necessitated during the declared National Emergency due
`to the Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic because this office will be working remotely under
`directives from officials consistent with the SHELTER IN PLACE ORDER, not able to send
`physical mail as usual, and is therefore using only electronic mail. No electronic message or other
`indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the
`transmission. We will provide a physical copy, upon request only, when we return to the office at the
`conclusion of the national emergency.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the State of California that the foregoing is
`
`true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_______________________________
`Abigail E. Lighthart
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`CROSS-COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`