Judge Thomas Falls, Case 21PSCV00411 2023-01-03 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

INDA AVERSA,, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO THE ESTATE OF JEREMY RICHARD OLIVAS,DECEASED, et al. vs FORD MOTOR COMPANY, LTD., A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, et al. (21STCV17487)

______________________________________________________________________________

DEFENDANTS FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND WILL TIESIERA FORD, INC.’S (collectively, “Defendants”) MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO DEPOSE DEFENDANT KAJ FAABORG IN PRISON

DEFENDANTS’s MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO DEPOSE DEFENDANT KAJ FAABORG IN PRISON is GRANTED.

This case arises from vehicular manslaughter.[1] Decedent Jeremy Olivas (“Decedent”) was driving a 2004 Ford Mustang when Defendant Kaj Faaborg (“Faaborg”), while driving under the influence of alcohol, rear-ended Decedent’s vehicle. This impact caused Decedent to collide into a vehicle driven by Plaintiff Marshall Tanaka.

On May 10, 2021, Plaintiff LINDA MARIE AVERSA, Individually and as the Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of JEREMY RICHARD OLIVAS, Deceased, filed suit.

On January 5, 2022, Plaintiff Aversa filed an amended complaint against FORD MOTOR COMPANY, LTD, a ) Michigan Corporation; WILL TIESIERA ) 16 FORD, INC., a California Corporation; KAJ ) WENDALL FAABORG for:

1. Strict Product Liability[2] 2. Negligent Product Liability 3. Motor Vehicle Negligence 4. Successor In Interest Damages Including Decedent Jeremy Olivas' Non-Economic Damages And For Exemplary Damages.

The Motion is made pursuant to California Penal Code sections 2622 and 2623. (Motion p. 2.)

CCP §1995 states: “If the witness be a prisoner, confined in a jail within this state, an order for his examination in the jail upon deposition, or for his temporary removal and production before a court or officer may be made as follows: 1. By the court itself in which the action or special proceeding is pending, unless it be a small claims court. 2. By a justice of the Supreme Court, or a judge of the superior court of the county where the action or proceeding is pending, if pending before a small claims court, or before a judge or other person out of court.” Penal Code §2623 states: “If in a civil action or special proceeding a witness be a prisoner, confined in a state prison within this state, an order for the prisoner’s examination in the prison by deposition may be made (1) By the court itself in which the action or special proceeding is pending, unless it be a small claims court or (2) By a judge of the superior court of the county where the action or proceeding is pending, if pending before a small claims court or before a judge or other person out of court. Such order can only be made on the motion of a party, upon affidavit showing the nature of the action or proceeding, the testimony expected from the witness, and its materiality. The deposition, when ordered, shall be taken in accordance with Section 2622.”

Defendants argue that Faaborg’s anticipated testimony is relevant to the claims because he is expected to testify about, among other things, his role in the accident and his observations at the accident scene. The court agrees that as the driver of the vehicle that rear-ended Decedent’s vehicle, Faaborg’s deposition is material as it relates to causation (negligence).

To the extent that the other involved parties would oppose, Defense Counsel explains that “Counsel for the parties responded that they did not plan on opposing or objecting Ford’s efforts or motion.” (Adams Decl., p. 7.)

[1] Three lawsuits thereafter were consolidated – one brought by the Decedent’s father, Ricardo Olivas; one by Plaintiff Tanaka; and the other by the Decedent’s mother, Linda Aversa.

[2] Plaintiff bases its product liability cause of action upon the following allegation(s): “A defective and unsafe driver's seat and seat back which failed to perform safely and collapsed rearward, causing JEREMYs body to be thrown into the rear passenger compartment and caused JEREMY to become incapacitated and/or trapped and unable to escape the vehicle, thereby leading to his death. C. A defective and unsafe restraint system which, following the foreseeable collapse of the front seat back, failed to restrain JEREMY.”