City v. United States of America

D. Nevada

City v. United States of America

DecidedSeptember 4, 2024

Docket2:20-cv-02193

StatusUnknown

This text of City v. United States of America (City v. United States of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City v. United States of America, (D. Nev. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 JASON M. FRIERSON United States Attorney 2 District of Nevada Nevada Bar No. 7709 3 R. Thomas Colonna 4 Assistant United States Attorney 501 Las Vegas Blvd. So., Suite 1100 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 (702) 388-6552 6 Richard.Colonna@usdoj.gov 7 Attorneys for the United States 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 Tameia City, 11 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:20-cv-02193-JCM-EJY 12 vs. AMENDED JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER 13 The United States of America, 14 Defendant. 15 Emely Johana Portillo, an individual; and Eva Lilian Leonzo De Portillo an individual 16 Plaintiffs, 17 vs. 18 The United States of America, 19 Defendant 20 Comes now Plaintiff Tameia City (“City”), by and through her attorneys Jordan 21 Schnitzer, Esq., and Plaintiffs Emely Johanna Portillo (“Emely Portillo”) and Eva Lilian Leonzo 22 de Portillo (“Eva Portillo”); and Defendant United States of America, by the United States 23 Attorney, submit this proposed Amended Joint Pretrial Order pursuant to the Court’s Order on 24 1 August 19, 2024, and Local Rules 16-3 and 16-4. 2 I. 3 Summary of Action 4 This is a tort action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), wherein 5 Plaintiffs Tameia City and Plaintiffs Emely Johana Portillo and Eva Lilian Leonzo de

6 Portillo allege they sustained personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident occurring 7 on May 7, 2019. 8 II. 9 Statement of Jurisdiction 10 The Court’s subject matter jurisdiction arises under the FTCA, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 11 1346 et. seq. Because this is an FTCA case, the Court will be acting as the trier-of-fact. There 12 will be no jury trial in this case. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). 13 III. 14 The following facts are admitted by the parties and require no proof: 15 1. Plaintiff Tameia City, Defendant’s employee Kyle Loose, and Plaintiffs Emely

16 Portillo and Eva Portillo, were involved in a motor vehicle accident on or about May 7, 2019. 17 2. At the time of the accident, Mr. Loose was acting in the course and scope of his 18 duties as an employee of the United States. 19 IV. 20 The following facts, though not admitted, will not be contested at trial by evidence 21 to the contrary: 22 None. 23 V. 24 1 The following are the issues of fact to be tried and determined at trial. 2 1. The duty of care owed and to whom. 3 2. The actions or inactions taken to constitute a breach of duty of care. 4 3. The mechanism of the cause of the accident. 5 4. Whether, and to what extent, Plaintiff City, suffered injury and/or sustained

6 damages from the accident. 7 5. Whether, and to what extent, Plaintiff Emely Portillo, suffered injury and/or 8 sustained damages from the accident. 9 6. Whether, and to what extent, Plaintiff Eva Portillo suffered injury and/or 10 sustained damages from the accident. 11 7. The extent and quality of Plaintiff City’s pre-existing medical conditions. 12 8. The extent and quality of Plaintiff Emely Portillo’s pre-existing medical 13 conditions. 14 9. The extent and quality of Plaintiff Eva Portillo’s pre-existing medical conditions. 15 10. Whether Plaintiff City’s alleged damages, if any, are attributable to medical

16 conditions that pre-existed the accident. 17 11. Whether Plaintiff Emely Portillo’s alleged damages, if any, are attributable to 18 medical conditions that pre-existed the accident. 19 12. Whether Plaintiff Eva Portillo’s alleged damages, if any, are attributable to 20 medical conditions that pre-existed the accident. 21 13. Whether Plaintiff City contributed to her own alleged damages. 22 14. Whether Plaintiff Emely Portillo contributed to her own alleged damages. 23 15. Whether Plaintiff Eva Portillo contributed to her own alleged damages. 24 1 16. Whether, and to what extent, Plaintiff City incurred damages as a proximate 2 cause of the negligence of others. 3 17. Whether, and to what extent, Plaintiff Emely Portillo incurred damages as a 4 proximate cause of the negligence of others. 5 18. Whether, and to what extent, Plaintiff Eva Portillo incurred damages as a

6 proximate cause of the negligence of others. 7 19. The type and extent of damages claimed for (1) past medical expenses; (2) future 8 medical expenses; (3) pain and suffering; (4) lost wages; (5) property damages; (6) other 9 general and special damages. 10 20. Whether Plaintiff City’s claim for medical damages were reasonably and 11 necessarily incurred and caused by the accident. 12 21. Whether Plaintiff Emely Portillo’s claim for medical damages were reasonably 13 and necessarily incurred and caused by the accident. 14 22. Whether Plaintiff Eva Portillo’s claim for medical damages were reasonably and 15 necessarily incurred and caused by the accident.

16 23. Plaintiff City’s efforts to mitigate her alleged damages. 17 24. Plaintiff Emely Portillo’s efforts to mitigate her alleged damages. 18 25. Plaintiff Eva Portillo’s efforts to mitigate her alleged damages. 19 VI. 20 The following are the issues of law to be tried and determined at trial: 21 1. Duty of Care. Generally, everyone has a duty to exercise reasonable care when 22 their conduct creates a risk of physical harm to others. Nev. J.I. 4.3. Negligence is the failure to 23 exercise the degree of care which an ordinarily careful and prudent person would exercise under 24 1 the same or similar circumstances. Id. Ordinary care is care which persons of ordinary prudence 2 would exercise in the management of their own affairs to avoid injury to themselves or to 3 others. Id. The issues as to duty are: 4 a. Whether the parties owed a duty of care. 5 2. Proximate Cause. A proximate cause of injury, damage, loss, or harm is a cause

6 which, in natural and continuous sequence, produces the injury, damage, loss, or harm, and 7 without which the injury, damage, loss, or harm, would not have occurred. Nev. J.I. 4.4. The 8 issues as to causation are: 9 a. Whether a breach in the duty of care proximately caused the accident. 10 3. Comparative Negligence. A plaintiff may not recover damages if their 11 comparative negligence has contributed more to their injury than the negligence of the 12 defendant. Nev. J.I. 4.8. However, if the plaintiff is negligent, the plaintiff may still recover a 13 reduced sum, so long as their comparative negligence was not greater than the negligence of the 14 defendant. Id. The issues as to comparative negligence are: 15 a. Whether Plaintiff(s) were negligent (and if so, by what percentage).

16 b. Whether Plaintiff’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing their own 17 harm. 18 c. Does Plaintiff’s percentage of negligence exceed the negligence of Losee, if any, 19 barring recovery pursuant to NRS 41.141.(1). 20 d. The percentage of negligence attributable to the Plaintiff shall reduce the amount 21 of such recovery by the proportionate amount of such negligence and the 22 reduction will be made by the Court. 23 4. Damages. In determining losses, if any, suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate 24 1 (legal) cause of the accident, the Court must take into consideration the nature, extent and 2 duration from the evidence and decide upon a sum to reasonably and fairly compensate: (a) 3 reasonable and necessary medical expenses incurred in the past; (b) reasonable and necessary 4 medical expenses to incur in the future as a result of the accident; (c) lost earnings that were 5 incurred and future earnings that are reasonably certain to have been lost in the future; (d) pain

6 and suffering; (e) loss of household services. See Nev. J.I. 5.1. Additional issues for the Court’s 7 determination are: 8 a.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI