PUBLIC NOTICES
Published In The Daily Transcript
Advertised public notices, printed in a newspaper of general circulation, are required by California law. Within the individual category, notices are arranged by print publish day in reverse chronological order.
Online, on a selected date, the notices are arranged in alphabetical order.

501 Miscellaneous Notices
PUBLISHED: Friday May 13, 2005


NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ADOPT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
FOR STUDENT SUCCESS PROGRAMS dba CHARTER SCHOOL OF SAN DIEGO
---
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Student Success Programs dba Charter School of San Diego (the "School") has tentatively approved and intends to finally adopt a Conflict of Interest Code pursuant to Government Code section 87300 at its meeting via teleconference on June 20, 2005. Pursuant to Government Code sections 87200 and 87302, the Code will designate public officials, employees and consultants of the School who make governmental decisions, manage the SchoolÕs investments, and who, therefore, must disclose certain investments, interests in real property, sources of income and business positions, and disqualify themselves from making or participating in the making of governmental decisions affecting those interests.
A public comment period has been established commencing on May 3, 2005 and terminating on June 16, 2005. Any interested person may present written comments concerning the proposed code no later than June 17, 2005, to the School representative at the address listed below. No public hearing on this matter will be held unless any interested person or his or her representative requests a public hearing no later than 15 days prior to the close of the written comment period.
The exact terms of the proposed Conflict of Interest Code, and all of the information upon which the Code is based, are available for inspection and copying by interested persons by contacting the School representative at the address listed below. The School has prepared a written explanation of the reasons for the designations and the disclosure responsibilities and has available all of the information upon which its proposed Conflict of Interest Code is based. Any general inquiries concerning the proposed Code should be directed to the School representative listed below.
Mary Searcy Bixby
President/Chief Executive Officer
Student Success Programs dba Charter School of San Diego
2245 San Diego Avenue, Suite 127
San Diego, CA 92110
Tel. (619) 686-6666
Fax (619) 299-6127
Pub. May 3, 4, 5, 6, 9,10, 11,12,13,16- k113881/k113891




NOTICE OF INTENTION TO APPLY FOR ORDER DECLARING STATUS OF NEWSPAPER AS ONE OF
GENERAL CIRCULATION
---

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
SOUTH COUNTY DIVISION
500 THIRD AVENUE
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
CASE NO. GIS 20094
In the Matter of the Petition of Jose S. Healy to Have the Standing of Diario Latino as a Newspaper of General Circulation Ascertained and Established.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on JUNE 7, 2005, at 8:30, a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department 4 of this court, located at 500 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, California, petitioner Jose S. Healy intends to apply for an Order declaring the newspaper known as Diario Latino to be a newspaper of general circulation for San Diego County, California.
DATED: April 6, 2005
Attorney for Petitioner
/s/James C. Stevens
402 West Broadway, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92101
(619)934-9946
Pub. May 13, 16, 17,18,19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26-k113898




PUBLIC NOTICE
---
SPECIAL EMPLOYMENT DEFENSE DISPOSITIVE IN WRONGFUL DEATH VERDICT

Defendants Jose Martinez and Checkmate Staffing Inc. prevailed in a wrongful death action brought by a widow, Monica Castillo, and her three minor children. The 9-3 jury verdict hinged entirely on the affirmative defense of special employment.
PlaintiffsÕ decedent, Benito Rios Barajas, was crushed to death when a tractor-trailer rig operated by Jose Martinez backed into him as he was standing next to a forklift on July 24, 2003. His wife and three minor sons, Miguel, Angel and Javier Rios survived decedent. He was a long time employee of Sandberg Furniture Manufacturing Company, where the accident occurred. Sandberg has manufactured bedroom furniture in Vernon, California for many years. Mr. Martinez had been working as a driver at Sandberg exclusively for about nine months. Sandberg did not hire its drivers directly, but rather contracted through a staffing agency, in this case defendant Checkmate Staffing, Inc. Plaintiff and Sandberg claimed that Martinez was not an employee of Sandberg, but instead the employee of Checkmate and, therefor, plaintiffsÕ complaint was not barred by the WorkersÕ Compensation Exclusive Remedy Rule, set forth in Labor Code, section 3600 et seq.
DefendantsÕ Checkmate and Martinez contended that Sandberg had full control over Mr. MartinezÕ work activities and even though they administrated the payroll for Sandberg, Mr. Martinez was still specially employed by Sandberg, relieving Checkmate of all responsibility for this accident. Additionally, defendants argued that Checkmate only became the new payroll agency just days before the fatal accident. Mr. MartinezÕ job was to transport and unload furniture on SandbergÕs premises.
PlaintiffsÕ complaint was based solely on negligence theories. Plaintiffs alleged that Martinez was negligent in the operation of the rig, e.g., that he failed to properly inspect his surroundings before backing up, failed to use a spotter, failed to look into his right rear view mirror and should have driven around the block, instead of backing up to the warehouse. Plaintiffs also claimed that Checkmate was negligent in hiring and supervising Martinez, who had been a Class A driver for only about one year and received two moving violations in the year preceding the accident. Mr. Martinez testified that he had complained for months about palletized materials being stored in the driveway which obstructed his pathway to the warehouse. He had also complained about workers crossing in front and back of him while he was driving. Sandberg ignored these complaints which were made as much as one hour before the accident. Mr. Martinez further testified that prior to backing up that day, he walked around his rig to make sure no one was in his way. He also checked both mirrors, activated his emergency lights, and activated his air horn at least three times, all within the forty seconds of the fatal accident.

In addition to the special employment defense, defendants also raised the defense of comparative negligence on the part of the decedent and further contended that Sandberg was the substantial factor and cause of the accident. It was alleged that decedent failed to be cognizant of vehicular traffic around him. As to Sandberg, defendants claimed it failed to provide a safe workplace, e.g., failed to keep the driveway clear of pallets and finished product (a condition about which Martinez frequently complained to Sandberg); allowed and encouraged employees to park and work in the subject driveway; failed to provide spotters for drivers; failed to equip its tractor-trailers with back-up alarms; failed to install bollards at the work station where decedent was working; failed to include drivers in orientation and safety meetings; and overall failed to establish, maintain and enforce an effective safety policy which would ensure a safe working environment.
During his nine-month tenure at Sandberg, Martinez was under contract to three different staffing agencies, but continuously and exclusively worked at Sandberg. His duties consisted of transporting finished furniture from SandbergÕs three manufacturing plants to its warehouse. He also unloaded furniture at SandbergÕs warehouse. Most of these activities took place on SandbergÕs premises. The tractor and trailer he used were both owned by Sandberg. He reported to and received all day to day instructions from Sandberg personnel. However, he received his paycheck and other benefits, including WorkersÕ Compensation insurance, from Checkmate. He was also required to complete an application form and related documentation for Checkmate prior to the accident. These forms included releases to obtain prior work and driving related records from various sources.
Prior to the trial, Martinez and Checkmate filed separate motions for summary judgement on the special affirmative defense of special employment based on the forgoing facts. Both motions were denied. A Writ of Mandate was taken by both defendants, but was ultimately denied by the Second District Court of Appeal.
Plaintiffs called an employment expert who essentially testified that the relationship between Martinez and Checkmate was typical of that of an employee and employer and that Checkmate merely provided contract drivers to Sandberg, but retained control over them. Sandberg management similarly testified that although Sandberg provided "direction" to Martinez and other drivers, e.g., where they should go to load and unload furniture, they did not supervise the drivers. Sandberg personnel also testified that Sandberg relied on outside contracting agencies, such as Checkmate, to supply qualified drivers and to oversee their work.
Under Marsh v. Tilley Steel Company (1980) 26 Cal.3d 486, 492, a Ôspecial employmentÕ relationship arises when an employer lends an employee to another employer and relinquishes to the borrowing employer all right of control over the employeeÕs activities. The borrowed employee is "held to have two employers Ð his original or ÔgeneralÕ employer and a second, the Ôspecial employer.Õ (Kowalski v. Shell Oil Company (1979) 23 Cal.3d 168, 174.) Under Kowalski, the primary consideration in determining whether a special employment relationship exists is whether the special employer has the right to control and direct the activities of the alleged employee or the manner and method in which the work is performed, whether exercised or not. Upon a finding that Martinez was SandbergÕs special employee, plaintiffs are barred from recovery, pursuant to the WorkerÕs Compensation Exclusive Remedy Rule.
Through a special verdict form the jury of six (6) men and six (6) women asked to make findings as to the special employment relationship before making any findings as to if anybody beared responsibility for the accident itself. Specifically the jury was called upon to decide whether Sandberg or Checkmate had full control of the work activities of Mr. Martinez. Alternatively, if they were to find that neither Sandberg nor Checkmate had full control of Mr. MartinezÕ activities they were asked to find whether Sandberg and Checkmate shared the control over Martinez work activities.
In the event the jury were to find that Sandberg had full control of Mr. MartinezÕ work activities or had the right to control said activities, they would make no further findings on the verdict and simply sign and return the verdict form. Since the chief component in determining if an entity is the special employer is the element of control, such a finding would effectively end the inquiry and Mr. Martinez would, as a matter of law, be deemed to have been employed by Sandberg. Sine the decedent was also employed by Sandberg, their action (as a matter of law) would be deemed barred under the exclusivity provisions of Labor Code section 3600 et seq.
The jury returned with a 9-3 finding that Sandberg Furniture fully controlled the activities and/or had the right to fully control the work activities of Mr. Martinez. Having made this inquiry, they were instructed to sign and return the verdict since such a finding, as a matter of law, would render Sandberg the special employer of Mr. Martinez. Since the decedent was employed by Sandberg, Checkmate and Mr. Martinez would be relieved of any legal responsibility for the accident.
Sandberg executives and managers attempted to divorce themselves from contract drivers such as Mr. Martinez in an obvious and transparent attempt to persuade the jurors that they did not control the work activities of Mr. Martinez. They admitted that Martinez was not invited to safety meetings, was not invited to safety orientation meetings, claimed they did not train Martinez and further admitted to never asking him if he had any safety concerns relative to driving in the warehouse. PlaintiffÕs counsel never challenged the pervasive lack of safety oversight at Sandberg which the defendants argued all along was both the substantial factor and cause of this fatal accident.
Prior to trial, plaintiffs demanded $1.5 million, which was increased to $4.5 million at trial. Defendants offered $150,000 prior to trial.
The case was tried before the Honorable Mary Thornton House of the Central Branch of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Yuk K. Law of Bonne, Bridges, Mueller, OÕKeefe & Nichols represented plaintiffs. Defendant Jose Martinez was represented by Steven J. Joffe of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker. John A. Koeppel of Ropers, Majesky, Kohn & Bentley represented defendant Checkmate Staffing, Inc. The trial lasted eighteen (18) days.
PlaintiffsÕ experts were Peter Formuzis (economics), Charles Holmes (employment), Jon Landerville (accident reconstruction) and John Riggins (trucking). DefendantsÕ experts were Paul Guthorn (accident reconstruction), Stan MacArthur (trucking), Ted Vavoulis (economics) and Ned Wolfe (safety engineering).
Pub. May 13,16,17,18,19-c508030




PETITION OF JOSE S. HEALY TO ASCERTAIN AND ESTABLISH STANDING AS A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION
---

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
SOUTH COUNTY DIVISION
500 THIRD AVENUE
CHULA VISTA CA 91910
CASE NO. GIS 20094
In the Matter of the Petition of Jose S. Healy to Have the Standing of Diario Latino as a Newspaper of General Circulation Ascertained and Established.
Petitioner Jose S. Healy alleges:
1. Petitioner is the publisher for the newspaper known as Diario Latino, hereinafter referred to as "the newspaper."
2. The newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation published for the dissemination of local and telegraphic news and intelligence of a general character in San Diego County, California. The business address of the newspaper is 637 Third Ave., Suite A-1, Chula Vista, California 91910.
3. The newspaper has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers numbering 123 in San Diego County and has an average daily circulation of 6,000.
4. For more than one year preceding the filing of this petition, the newspaper has been established under the name of Diario Latino and has been printed and published regularly. Monday through Friday in San Diego County, California.
5. During the whole of the one-year period preceding the filing of this petition, the mechanical work of producing the newspaper, that is the work of typesetting and impressing the type on paper, has been preformed in San Diego County, California; the newspaper has been issued from the same county where it is printed and sold; it has been both printed and published in the same county; and it has bee published as a daily newspaper on each Monday through Friday of each calender week
WHEREFORE, petitioner prays for judgment ascertaining and establishing Diario Latino as a newspaper of general circulation, as defined in Section 6000 of the Government Code, for the County of San Diego, State of California
DATED: April 6, 2005
/s/Jose S. Healy, Publisher
Attorney for Petitioner
/s/James C. Stevens
VERIFICATION
I, Jose S Healy, am the petitioner in the above-entitled proceeding. I have read the foregoing petition and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief and as to those matters, I believe it to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 6th day of April, 2005, at Chula Vista, California.
/s/Jose S. Healy
Pub. May 13,16,17, 18,19, 20, 23, 24, 25,26-k113897




501 Miscellaneous Notices
PUBLISHED: Friday May 13, 2005


Browse By Publication Date Months in 2005 Days in May 2005
2005 Public Notices
May
05/13/2005