The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 03121991 - 1.16 CLAIM /. /(v BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, ,CALIFORNIA Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT • MARCH 12, 1991 and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed,to you is your notice of California Government Codes. ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), given pursuant to Governme 41 adeCEIVE-D Amount: Undetermined Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings". CLAIMANT: CONLEY, Michael and Karen ]eqj ATTORNEY: Ronald M. Schwartz Esq. 540 Lennon- Lane, Ste. 250 Date received ADDRESS: Walnut Creek, CA 94.598 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON February 15 , 199.1 (hand delivered) BY MAIL POSTMARKED:, I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. February 19 , 1991 PpHHIL ATCHELOR, Cler DATED: BY: Deputy I1. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8): ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that itjiwas filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: ^. c Dated: .� 19 `BY: /� Deputy County Counsel I1I. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely'with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present This Claim is rejected in full . ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered' in its minutes for this date. Dated: 3� la -C11 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy Clerk . WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice wa's personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section, 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. I,f you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. • i AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: D-- �1� BY: PHIL BATCHELOR by r Deputy Clerk i CC: County Counsel County Administrator CLAIM AGAINST COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA Please take notice that Michael Conley and Karen Conley, who reside at 555 Chollo Court, #26, in Pleasant Hill, California 94523, hereby present their claim for damages against the County of Contra Costa as follows: On or about August 17, 1990 Michael Conley was injured as he was riding his motorcycle at or near Chilpancingo Park Way, near its intersection with Contra Costa Boulevard in the City of Pleasant Hill, County of Contra Costa. Said accident was investigated and a police report made by the California Highway Patrol, No. 90-6131. The accident occurred when claimant Michael Conley was struck by an automobile driven by Dorothy Ann Jenkins, 17 Ross Drive, Moraga, California 94556, as she was exiting a driveway onto Contra Costa Boulevard. The County of Contra Costa contributed to and/or caused said accident by creating, or allowing the creation of, a dangerous condition of public property in and about the area where the accident occurred as described above. The name of the public employee or employees causing said injury or damage are at this time unknown. As a result of the negligent acts and/or omissions of the County of Contra Costa, Michael Conley sustained serious bodily injury, as well as property damage. At the present time, Mr. Conley's medical bills total approximately $32 , 500, with additional treatment currently being incurred. Claimant Michael Conley, as a result of this incident, sustained injuries including, but not limited to, broken bones in both arms, severe lacerations requiring stitches in his leg, torn, strained, and/or sprained ligaments and tendons in his legs, and injury to his right knee, ultimately requiring surgery. In addition, he has sustained loss of use of his motorcycle, property damage, towing charges, storage charges for the motorcycle, loss of wages, and loss of future earning capacity. Claimant Karen Conley, wife of claimant Michael Conley, has sustained loss of consortium, emotional distress and other damages as a result of the negligence and/or omissions of the County of Contra Costa. The bases for liability in this claim against the County of Contra Costa include, but are not limited to, the public entity' s negligent design, construction and/or maintenance of the public roads and intersection, so as to the roadway constitute a dangerous condition of public property, and that the public entity failed to warn claimant Michael Conley or Dorothy Jenkins or other drivers Claim Against County of Contra Costa February 14, 1991 Page 2 of said dangerous condition or to take other such action to rectify the dangerous condition of public property, thereby proximately causing the accident and the injuries complained of herein. In addition, the public entity contributed and/or caused the happening of this accident by failing to properly mark and post signs regarding the exit area from where Dorothy Jenkins was exiting, failed to have sufficient traffic stop lights, signage warnings or other safeguards for the safe flow of traffic, negligently allowed traffic to cross streets where it was known or should have been known that allowing traffic to do so would create a dangerous condition, and also that it defectively designed and/or constructed and maintained the grassy median strip on or near Contra Costa Boulevard, allowing traffic to cross through said grassy median area, thereby creating a danger to all traffic in the area. Investigation is still ongoing and claimants reserve their right to amend or supplement this notice of claim when such relevant facts are discovered. All notices regarding this claim should be sent to their attorney of record, Ronald M. Schwartz, 540 Lennon Lane, Suite 250, Walnut Creek, California 94598, telephone: (415) 932-4314 . DATED: February 14, 1991 C J RECEIVED RONALD M. SCHWARTZ FEB 1 51991 a :.*o a CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. rrr.■ 5 OF St3PERVi50 CONTRA COSTA CO. CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT MARCH 12 , 1991 and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your notice of California Government Codes. ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), given pursuant to Government Code Amount: $115. 00 Section 913 and 915.4. i Please ;note. al l "Warnil OVE CLAIMANT: STAMP, Michael W. FEB 1 1991 ATTORNEY: Michael W. StampCOUNTY COUNSEL Stamp and Frankli:ii Date received AMRTINEZ, CAUF. ADDRESS: 605 Pine Avenue BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON' February 8, 1991 Pacific Grove, CA 93950 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: February 4 , 1991 I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. . DATED: February 19 , 1991 PpHHIL ggeTCHELOR, Clerk BY: �D puty II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of upervis0rs �y ) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( . ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days.(Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: f11 Dated: 2 2G q) BY: /J Deputy County Counsel III. . FRO.M:. Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely-with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present ( This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I . I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: 3 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code s 13) Subject to certain exceptions,_ you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited.in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: 3 BY: PHIL BATCHELOR by Deputy Clerk i CC: County Counsel County Administrator Michael W. Stamp STAMP AND FRANKLIN RECEIVED Attorneys at Law 605 Pine Avenue FEB 81991 Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Telephone: (408) 373-1214 CLER CONTRAOCOSTA CO.�SORS CLAIM TO THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA: This claim .is presented by Michael W. Stamp, attorney at law. The mailing address of claimant is c/o Stamp and Franklin, 605 Pine Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950. All notices pertaining to this claim are to be directed to that address. This claim arises out of overpayments for transcripts on appeal. The Notice to Prepare Transcripts, dated October 20, 1989, in the case of Hummer v. Seeno, Contra Costa County Superior Court Action No. 280125; Court of Appeal, First District Action No. A047660, is Exhibit A to this claim. Background The essence of this claim is this: we paid $250 for a $135 transcript. We prepared the clerk's appendix (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 5. 1) ourselves, so the only charge should have been for the reporter's transcript. We were billed twice for the reporter's transcript, and paid the bill the second time under protest, and paid it only because the Court of ^Appeal was threatening to dismiss the appeal. 1 On April 20, 1990, subsequent to the filing of the Notice To Prepare Reporter's Transcript, this office forwarded a check in the amount of $150 to the Clerk of the Superior Court based upon an estimate that the cost of the transcript would not exceed that amount. A copy of the April 20 letter and the check are attached as Exhibit B. Despite several follow-up phone calls, the requested transcript was not forwarded to the Court of Appeal or this office. A transcript for a different hearing date was prepared and filed with the Court of Appeal and copies received by this office. In the Clerk's letter of September 7, 1990 (Exhibit C) , this office was informed that the Reporter's Transcript on Appeal for the date requested had- been completed. We were billed $135 for this transcript. We were given a $35.00 credit and �we were charged another $100. We were told that only upon receipt of another check (this one for $100 made payable to Maryann Costa Davi) , would we be mailed the transcript. We corresponded with the Clerk's office on September 17, 1990 (Exhibit D) to see if our account had been credited the $150 paid for this transcript in April, and to inform the clerk that the oversight may have been related to the change of address i filed in this case earlier. We received no transcript or i correspondence pursuant to this letter. i 2 To expedite filing of the transcript with the Court of Appeal, an additional $100 check was mailed on October 18, 1990, even though a check for $150 for this transcript had been mailed on April 20, 1990. Along with this check were sent a cover letter (Exhibit E) requesting a refund of the original $150 check, a copy of the letter of April 20, 1990, the canceled check, and a new check in the amount of $100 made out to Maryann Costa Davi, C.S.R. Conclusion The whole sorry story is explained in the correspondence. Our October 18, 1990, request for a refund elicited no response, so this claim appears to be our only method of seeking reimbursement. In light of -the foregoing facts and the attached documentation, we request reimbursement of the $115 left unaccounted for in this matter. Dated: February 4, 1991 STAMP AND FRANKLIN By: Michael W. Stamp 3 FILED 1 BELLI, BELLI, BROWN, MONZIONS FABBRO & ZAKARIA UT 2 2 MELVIN M. BELLI, SR. PAUL M. MONZIONE. fLURCOOCLU 3 722 Montgomery St. CatAACmc=ffy San Francisco, CA 94111 4 (415) 981-1849 5 ELLEN LAKE 4230 Lakeshore Avenue 6 Oakland; CA 94610 (41.5) 272-9393 Attorneys for. Plaintiffs and Appellants 8 SUPER.IO:? COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 10 GREGORY M. HUMMER, et al. , ) NO. 280125 I1 ) Plaintiffs/Appellants, ) 12 ) VS. ) NOTICE TO PREPARE 13 ) REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT ALBERT D. SEENO, JR. , et al. , ) AND NOTICE OF ELECTION 14 ) TO PROCEED BY APPENDIX Defendants/Respondents ) 15 ) 16 To the Clerk of the Court: 17 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Plaintiffs and Appellants 18 Gregory M. Hummer, et al. , request the preparation of a 19 reporter's transcript, which shall include the hearing on May 31, 20 1939 on Plaintiffs' Notian to be Relieved :f Court Order of 21 Dismissal and the hearing on October 20, 1989 on Plaintiffs ' Motions for Reconsideration and to Vacate Order of Dismissal. 23 The hearing on May 31., 1989 was previously transcribed and the 24 original of that transcript will be provided as soon as possible. 255 NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that Plaintiffs and Appellants elect- 26 lect26 to proceed by preparation of an appendix pursuant to Rule 5. 1 0f 27 the California Rules of Court, in lieu of a clerk's transcript 28 tv*+-nim r j under Rule 5. 2 Dated: October 25, 1989 BELLI, , BELLI, BROWN, MONZIONr FABBRO & ZAKARIA 3 ELLEN LAKE 4 5 By: 6 ELLEN L Attorneys for Plaintiffs and 7 Appellants 8 PROOF OF SERVICE BY !!-A�lL 9 I am employed in the County of Alameda, State of Oakland. 10 My business address is 4230 Lakeshore Avenue, Oakland, California 11 94610. I am over the age of 18, and not a party to this action. 12 On October 25, 1989 I served the NOTICE TO PREPARE 13 f REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT AND NOTICE OF ELECTION TO PROCEED BY 14 APPENDIX on defendants' attorneys by depositing in the U.S. mail- in ailin Oakland, California a true and correct copy in a sealed 16 envelope, with postage fully prepaid, addressed as follows: 17 Ernest B. Lageson 18 Thomas J. Nolan William J. Feeney 19 Archer, McComas & Lageson 2033 North Main Street, Suite 800 20 P. C. Box o0Z5 Walnut. Creek, CA 94596 21 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is 22 true and correct. Executed at Oakland, California on Octo er 25, 23 1989. 24 25 ELLEN LAKE' 26 27 28 ,1 i STAMP AND ROSEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW MICHAEL W. STAMP 549 LIGHTHOUSE AVENUE TELEPHONE (408) 373-1214 RICHARD A. ROSEN FAX (408) 373-0242 LORETTA L. LOOP PACIFIC GROVE, CALIFORNIA 93950 April 20, 1990 Mary Buda - Appeal Clerk Contra Costa County 822 Main St. Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Hummer v. Seeno Contra Costa County Superior Court Action No. 280125 Court of Appeal, First District Action ;No. A047660 Dear Ms. Buda: We represent Plaintiffs and Appellants in the above- . referenced appeal. It is our understanding, based upon conversations with the Court of Appeal, that the transcript of October 20, 1989, was not received by the Court off Appeal, although it was designated in the October 26, 198'9, notice to prepare reporter's transcript. It is our furtherfunderstanding that no copy of that transcript was provided to Appellants ' counsel. We have been advised that the estimated fee for preparing the October 20 transcript so that it can be transmitted to the Court of Appeal is not expected to exceed $150. Our trust check in that amount, made payable to the Superior Court, is enclosed so as to expedite matters. Thank you for your courtesy. Very truly yours, Michael W. St MWS:bjs EXHIBIT B t MICHAEL STAMP 0379 ATTORNEY TRUST ACCOUNT 549 LIGHTHOUSE AVENUE 408-373-IZI4 -4 11-571720 PACIFIC GROVE, CALIFORNIA 93950 / 19L 1210 PAY To'THE ORDERER OF V IV X,xl� 4GLL aF_ First Int e First of Cant Interstate Pacific Grove Office Bank 589 Lighthouse Avenue Pacific Grove.CA 93950 FOR /j V.� !: 11000 '; 7EP: 7 20 7 2040 30 0 3 7 2 11 .t' 000 13000-1' ., ro rm hx— ,`.....i..� _..3 .-.b.►....-.tin..aF ::n-..s+�:... a.. --w� ,. �yr+�eJ'�.-,,�t�44�^a 'ri y .ayy,,,.-'�'.?.,�,,,,.t-as- Fr`"ar _..'-��„�.�-��++.Lf'r„ � C•" Mw'n'"n�.�.�"� r .... - .. �` J.wo-r.rn.}S�^wa„„C - ` .•.ywyw.l'A"tY�,.1- EXHIBIT B hen L. Clerk's Office Contra County Clerk Weir 103 Court House Costa Ex-Officio Clerk of the Superior Court P.O. Box 911 County Martinez, California 94553. (415) 646-2950 September 79 1990 sra coify'� MICHAEL, W. STAMP STAMP & ROSEN 549 Lighthouse Ave. Pacific Grove, CA 93950 RE: HUMMER vs. SEENO No. 280125 Please be advised that the Reporter's Transcript on Appeal of the date of October 20, 1989, has been completed. The Reporter's fee-for preparing the trriascript is $135.00. You have already paid a $35.00 fee for a transclrPt which apparently was the wrong date, this $35.00 has been deducted from the cost of the Reporter s fee. Upon receipt of $100.00, payable to MARYANN COSTA DAVI, the transcript will be mailed to both your office and to District Court of Appeal. Very truly yours, STEPHEN L. WEIR, COUNTY CLERK By: Mary Buda, Appeal Clerk EXHIBIT C LAW OFFICES OF STAMP AND FRANKLIN TELEPHONE MICHAEL W. STAMP (408) 373- 12(4 JOEL FRANKLIN 605 PINE AVENUE FACSIMILE LORETTA L. LOOP PACIFIC GROVE, CALIFORNIA 93950 (408) 373-0242 September 17, 1990 Mary Buda Appeal Clerk Contra Costa County 822 Main St. • Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Hummer v. Seeno Contra Costa County Superior Court Action No. 280125 Court of Appeal, First District Action No. A047660 Dear Ms. Buda: We have received your September 7 letter advising us of the transcript in this appeal. In April of this year, we paid $150. 00 as the estimated cost of this Reporter's Transcript. Please check your records to see if that amount was credited. We will give you a call later this week. Incidentally, we filed a change of address on this case. Please use the matching address shown above. Thank you for your continuing courtesy. Very truyours, Michael W. tamp MWS:bjs EXHIBIT D LAW OFFICES OF STAMP AND FPANKLIN TELEPHONE MICHAEL W. STAMP (408) 373- 1214 JOEL FRANKLIN 60S PINE AVENUE FACSIMILE LORETTA L. LOOP PACIFIC GROVE, CALIFORNIA 93950 (408) 373-0242 October 18, 1990 Mary Buda Appeal Clerk Contra Costa County 822 Main St. Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Hummer v. Seeno Contra Costa County Superior Court Action No. 280125 Court of Appeal, First District Action"No. A047660 Dear Ms. Buda: We have been advised by the Clerk of the Court of Appeal that the reporter's transcript for October 20, 1989, is being withheld by the reporter or by your office until we pay the cost of the transcript ($100) . Enclosed are the following: 1. Our letter of April 20, 1990, transmitting payment of $150. 00 for that transcript; 2 . A copy of the cashed check; 3. Our letter of September 17, 1990, addressing this issue; 4. A new check for $100; made payable to "Maryann Costa Davi, C.S.R. " You already have in your files our many written requests that the transcript be prepared, including our requests for an order to show cause. The Court of Appeal and the parties are expressing considerable impatience with the delay in the forwarding and lodging of the transcript. We appreciate the impatience, for we wish to proceed with the appeal as promptly as possible. The October 20 transcript, however, is important to the case and we are anxious to get the opening brief on file. We suggest that the reporter cash the new check if. that will move things along, and we would like to request a refund of the $150 originally paid for the transcript. In the alternative, EXHIBIT E; Mary Buda Appeal Clerk October 18, 1990 Page. Two any other procedure would be suitable, just so long as the transcript gets lodged and our copy gets sent to us at the address shown above. Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, Michael W. Stamp MWS:bjs Encl. cc: Norm B. Lageson, Esq. Clerk of the Court of Appeal LAW OFFICES OF STAMP AND FRANKLIN TELEPHONE MICHAEL W. STAMP (408) 373- 1214 JO:JL FRANKLIN 605 PINE AVENUE FACSIMILE LCRETTA L. LOOP PACIFIC GROVE, CALIFORNIA 93950 (408) 373-0242 RECEIVE® Date: February 4 , 1991 To: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors FEB 81991 From: Michael W. Stamp CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. Subject: Claim ENCLOSED PLEASE FIND the original and two copies of the claim and all exhibits attached thereto, pertaining to the fees for transcripts in the case of Hummer v. Seeno. Please present to Judge for approval and signature Please original ;/ /xx/ file g 1 and return endorsed copies Please record and return A. check for $� is enclosed Please telephone me STAMP AND FRANKLIN By: Enclosure taat�trtlaA9Ai�it 1 all r a . i m } �r Ul (� 4 -H N 3 N O LO U ,z M (� Z CO }4 3 y Q 4a r, wo ° v M ro Lr) LL < rd O � ®�ZU °Pq rn =ZQ-L QorLo> �0 C) U = +-3 O M UO N O 0 LL w,' .c: rw r r� U � 4 ; -u � n¢. a) 4-40 F O U a