Howard v. United States of America ex rel United States Postal Service

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedAugust 23, 2024
Docket2:21-cv-00643
StatusUnknown

This text of Howard v. United States of America ex rel United States Postal Service (Howard v. United States of America ex rel United States Postal Service) 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
Howard v. United States of America ex rel United States Postal Service, (D. Nev. 2024).

Opinion

1 | PAUL A. SHPIRT, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 10441 2 || DIMOPOULOS INJURY LAW 6671 South Las Vegas Boulevard, Suite 275 3 || Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 O: (702) 800-6000 4 || F: (702) 224-2114 ps@stevedimopoulos.com 5 || Attorney for Plaintiff 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 JOEL KANE HOWARD, individually; . CASE NO.: 2:21-cv-00643-APG-EJY 9 Plaintiff, 10 VS. JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER 11 || UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DOE INDIVIDUALS 1-20, inclusive; and ROE 12 CORPORATIONS 1-20, inclusive, 13 Defendants.

2 14 15 Plaintiff, JOEL KANE HOWARD, by and through his attorney of record, Paul A. Shpirt, o = 16 || DIMOPOULOS INJURY LAW;; and Defendant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by and throug 17 || its counsel of record, Virginia T. Tomova, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney, hereby submit th 18 || following Joint Pretrial Order pursuant to the requirements of LR 16-3 as follows: 19 I. 20 STATEMENT OF ACTION 21 A. NATURE OF ACTION: 22 This matter arises out of a collision on April 23, 2018, in Las Vegas, Nevada. Plaintiff wa 23 || operating his bicycle eastbound on Westcliff Drive at the Intersection of Underhill Court. At the sam 24 || time, Kristopher Pinaula Scharff, operated a 1989 Grumman LLV-A utility vehicle while workin 25 || for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Post Office, and was exiting a private drive, located on th 26 || north side of Westcliff Drive. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Scharff failed to see Plaintiff approaching o: 27 || his bicycle and struck him, propelling him into the air and off his bicycle. Defendant disputes thes 28 || allegations and alleges that Plaintiff ran into the Postal vehicle and was responsible for the accident Page 1 of 14

1 B. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF: 2 PLAINTIFF: 3 Plaintiff prays for judgment on all claims for relief as follows: 4 1. For general damages according to proof; 5 2. For special damages according to proof; 6 3. For post-judgment interest as allowed by law; 7 4. For costs of suit incurred herein; and 8 5. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem Just and proper. 7 DEFENDANT: 10 Defendant requests that this Honorable Court: 1] 1. Deny all of Plaintiffs claims with prejudice; 12 2. Award costs to Defendant; and 13 3. Provide any other relief that the Court deems just and proper. 14 C. CONTENTIONS: 15 PLAINTIFF: 16 1. That Defendant operated the Defendant’s vehicle in a negligent and unsafe manner. 17 2. Defendant had a duty to operate his vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner an

breached this duty when he caused a vehicle collision with Plaintiffs vehicle. 19 3. That as a direct and proximate result of the negligence and breach by □□□□□□□□□ 20 Plaintiff suffered personal injuries and general and special damages in an amount 1 21 excess of $75,000.00. 22 DEFENDANT: 23 A. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim or any claim upon which relief can be grantec 24 B. Plaintiff's recovery is limited to the damages recoverable under the FTCA. 25 C. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2675(b), Plaintiff is prohibited from claiming or recovering a 26 amount against the Defendant more than that set forth in a claim presented to the USPS. 27 28 Page 2 of 14

1 D. Plaintiffs injuries, damages, and losses, if any, were solely and proximately caused by th 2 negligence, carelessness or recklessness of Plaintiff and/or other third-persons. 3 E. In the alternative, and without admitting any liability, pursuant to NRS § 41.141 4 Plaintiff cannot recover from Defendant as Plaintiff's fault and negligence in causing the allege 5 accident is greater than the negligence, if any, of Defendant. 6 F. In the further alternative, and without admitting any liability, pursuant to NRS § 41.141 7 Plaintiff's fault and negligence in causing the alleged accident must be compared against the faul 8 and negligence, if any, of Defendant, and Plaintiff's recovery, if any, must be diminished 1 9 proportion to his fault and negligence in causing the alleged accident. 10 G. Without admitting any liability, Plaintiff is not entitled to any preyudgment interes 1] should he obtain a judgment against Defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 2674. 12 H. Any injuries Plaintiff alleges are not causally related to the occurrence alleged 1 13 Plaintiff's Complaint. 14 I. Defendant discharged any duties it may have owed Plaintiff. 15 5 J. The negligent or otherwise wrongful acts or omissions of Plaintiff and/or others ove a 16 whom the United States has no control, constitute an intervening and superseding cause and therefor 17 . sever any alleged negligence that might be attributable to the United States. K. Plaintiff assumed the risks of operating his bicycle in the manner in which he did. 19 L. Plaintiffis not entitled to attorney’s fees. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1); 2671-80. 20 M. Plaintiff's use of fictitiously named defendants is improper. See Graziose v. Am. Hom 21 Prods. Corp., 202 F.R.D. 638, 643 (D. Nev. 2001). 22 Il. 23 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 24 Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1331 as this is a civil action involving the Federal Tot 25 Claims Act, which provides that the federal district courts “shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civ 26 actions on claims against the United States . . . for injury or loss of property, or personal injury 27 death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government whil 28 Page 3 of 14

acting within the course and scope of his office or employment, under the circumstances where th United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of th 3 place where the act or omission occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C § 1402(b). ° HI. 6 ADMITTED FACTS The following facts are admitted by the parties and require no proof: None currently. 8 IV. 7 FACTS NOT ADMITTED 10 The following facts, though not admitted, will not be contested at trial by evidence to th contrary: None currently. 12 V. 13 ISSUES OF FACT 3 14 The following are the issues of fact to be tried and determined at trial: 15 1. Whether Defendant had a duty of care to Plaintiff. z 16 2. Whether Defendant breached that duty of care to Plaintiff; and 17 3. Whether Defendant’s breach of duty of care caused damages to Plaintiff.

19 ISSUES OF LAW 20 The following are the issues of law to be to be tried and determined at trial: 2] 1. Whether Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of care. 22 2. Whether Defendant breached any duty owed to Plaintiff. 23 3. Whether Plaintiff can establish that Defendant’s breach, if any, caused Plaintiff? 24 damages. 25 4. Whether the United States is liable to Plaintiff; and 26 5. Whether and to what extent Plaintiff's own negligence caused or contributed to th 27 accident. 2g | ///

Page 4 of 14

1 VIL. 2 EXHIBITS 3 A. STIPULATED: 4 The following exhibits are stipulated into evidence in this case and may be so marked b 5 the clerk: None at this time. 6 B. OBJECTED TO: 7 As to the following exhibits, the party against whom the same will be offered objects to g || their admission on the grounds stated: 9 PLAINTIFF: 10 1.

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

Related

Graziose v. American Home Products Corp.
202 F.R.D. 638 (D. Nevada, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Howard v. United States of America ex rel United States Postal Service, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-united-states-of-america-ex-rel-united-states-postal-service-nvd-2024.