Latest news with #AlamedaCountySuperiorCourt
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Alameda County jurors' compensation cut back to $15 a day
(KRON) — A pilot program providing Alameda County Superior Court jurors with $100 per day in compensation is being paused indefinitely. Any juror selected to serve for a trial after June 4 will only receive $15 daily, court officials said. The goal for paying jurors $100, instead of a meager $15, was to diversify jury pools. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Thomas Nixon said, 'Jurors are an essential part of our judicial system, and we need to do all we can to increase participation.' During jury selection, prospective jurors can request to be dismissed by a judge for a wide range of reasons. Financial hardships are common reasons for dismissal requests. Man who allegedly gunned down 2 people at Vallejo encampment captured: VPD The Jury Pilot Program was created as part of AB1981, which was signed by Newsom in 2022. In a notice sent this week to seven superior courts participating in the $100 per day pilot program, the Judicial Council of California requested that each court suspend the program because Gov. Gavin Newsom's revised budget cut funding. The National Center for State Courts, which was tracking juror demographics and diversity in all seven counties, was scheduled to release a report at the conclusion of the pilot program. The status of that report is currently unknown given the program is ending less than halfway through its designed length of time, court officials said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
San Francisco Chronicle
02-05-2025
- San Francisco Chronicle
Injured cyclist may sue Oakland for damages after hitting pothole, court rules
A bicyclist who was seriously injured after he hit a pothole on an Oakland street during an organized ride may sue the city for damages — even though he had signed a waiver of liability required by the ride's organizers, California's highest court ruled Thursday. Ty Whitehead of San Francisco was on a training ride in preparation for an AIDS fundraising bike trip to Los Angeles in March 2017 when his bicycle struck a pothole while going downhill on Skyline Boulevard in Oakland. His lawyers said Whitehead was thrown over the handlebars, suffered brain damage, was in a coma for two weeks and remains disabled. When he sued for his injuries, the city cited a release Whitehead and other riders were required to sign on the morning of the ride, releasing the trip's organizers and government agencies from liability for any negligence that caused them harm. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Richard Seabolt and the state's 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that the release required dismissal of the suit, but the state Supreme Court unanimously reinstated it Thursday. Such agreements may be enforceable if they do not violate a city's obligations under state law, Justice Kelli Evans said in the 7-0 decision. But in this case, she said, Whitehead's lawsuit relies on a California law requiring a city 'to maintain its streets in a reasonably safe condition for travel by the public.' 'An agreement to exculpate a party for future violations of a statutory duty designed to protect public safety is against the policy of the law … and is not enforceable,' Evans wrote. 'To hold otherwise would substantially undermine the Legislature's ability to protect the public.' That doesn't necessarily mean Oakland was negligent in maintaining its streets, but it could allow the claim to go to a jury, Evans said. She said Oakland might still seek dismissal of the suit if it can show Whitehead knowingly 'assumed the risk' of such an accident. In a filing with the court, the city attorney's office said allowing such lawsuits would have 'dire consequences for public entities, inevitably increasing their liability.' But Evans said Oakland's warning that such liability would lead cities to make recreational use of their property prohibitively expensive — or even illegal — 'seems exaggerated.' 'The city already owes a duty to the public to maintain its public roadways in a safe condition,' and even before the ruling it could have been sued by any cyclist who was injured while on a personal trip and had not signed a waiver of liability, the justice said. Anthony Label, a lawyer for Whitehead and his family, said the ruling 'emphasizes that California cities must proactively maintain public roads and facilities, rather than relying on overreaching waivers to escape accountability. This outcome is not only crucial for public safety but also sets a new statewide precedent that will compel cities to prioritize infrastructure repairs to prevent injuries.' The case is Whitehead v., City of Oakland, S284303.
American Military News
26-04-2025
- Automotive
- American Military News
Tesla settles lawsuit by Black worker who alleged widespread racism at Fremont electric car factory
Tesla has settled a lawsuit by a worker in its Fremont electric car factory who claimed she was harassed and discriminated against because she is Black. Raina Pierce sued the automaker in 2022, alleging that her manager referred to the facility as 'the plantation' and the 'slave house,' and that her supervisor called her a racial slur that was pervasive in the factory. Pierce still worked at Tesla when she filed her lawsuit, but has since left the company, her lawyer said Monday. Tesla, led by CEO Elon Musk, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Pierce's case, first filed in Alameda County Superior Court and moved the next month to San Francisco U.S. District Court, is one of several claiming widespread, anti-Black racism at the Fremont plant. Two are scheduled to go to trail in September. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed in the court filing Friday about the agreement. Pierce's lawyer Hunter Pyle said the settlement was confidential. The deal followed court-ordered arbitration that started in March 2023, and mediation in October 2024 that concluded early this month in the agreement, according to an earlier court filing. Pierce had claimed that when a manager noticed she had been assigned to push two carts that were too heavy for one person, and notified her direct supervisors, one of them angrily claimed she got him in trouble, and later made a vulgar comment about not being able to tolerate Black people. Pierce's supervisors let non-Black workers swap work stations regularly, but denied her requests to switch stations, and also disciplined her more frequently and severely than non-Black colleagues, the lawsuit claimed. Pierce had reported alleged harassment and discrimination to Tesla's human resources department in May 2021, after she had begun, a month before, to feel a sharp pain in her left knee and lower leg that was made worse by standing for long periods, walking long distances or carrying heavy items, the lawsuit said. A few months later, suffering from the leg pain and an infection, she called out sick and was told she was being put on leave, the lawsuit claimed. Tesla, in addition to discriminating against her on the basis of race and gender, and failing to stop the alleged race-based harassment, retaliated against her by making her stay on leave for more than three months, the lawsuit alleged. She was seeking unspecified general, punitive and compensatory damages. The car maker continues fighting a number of legal actions claiming it failed to properly address anti-Black racism in its facilities. California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing — the state's civil rights regulator — filed suit against Tesla in 2022, alleging Black workers at the company's Fremont facility were paid less than White workers, denied advancements, and faced daily racist abuse, including a noose drawn in a bathroom next to a lynching reference and a racial slur. Tesla has called the lawsuit, in Alameda County Superior Court, 'misguided' and 'unfair.' The case is set to go before a jury Sept. 15. In the widest-ranging ongoing racism case against the pioneering EV company, hundreds of current and former Black workers for Tesla filed declarations supporting a 2017 class-action lawsuit by former Tesla contractor Marcus Vaughn, alleging that despite complaint after complaint, the company did not stop race-based abuse and discrimination, with Black workers segregated into the hardest, most dangerous, lowest-paid jobs and subjected to a barrage of racist treatment, language and images. Thousands of current and former Black workers at Tesla have signed on to the lawsuit. Tesla said in a 2022 blog post that it 'strongly opposes all forms of discrimination and harassment' and claimed it 'has always disciplined and terminated employees who engage in misconduct, including those who use racial slurs or harass others in different ways.' The judge in the case, Noël Wise, said last year that the experiences of workers who submitted declarations 'might reasonably be characterized as race harassment.' A jury trial in the Vaughn case is scheduled to start Sept. 8 in Alameda County Superior Court. In 2021, a San Francisco federal court jury awarded a Black former Tesla worker, Owen Diaz, almost $137 million after he sued the company over alleged 'daily racist epithets' in a workplace where colleagues drew swastikas and left racist graffiti and drawings around the facility. San Francisco U.S. District Judge William Orrick later cut the award to $15 million, saying 'disturbing' evidence supported the verdict against Tesla, but legal principles compelled him to slash the payment. Diaz rejected the award in favor of a new trial, where a jury found that Tesla should pay $3.2 million. After Diaz filed a court notice that he would appeal, he and Tesla reached a confidential final settlement in March 2024. In May, an arbitrator ordered Tesla to pay $1 million to Melvin Berry, a Black former Tesla factory worker called racial slurs by supervisors. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Tesla in 2023, accusing the company of 'tolerating widespread and ongoing racial harassment of its Black employees and … subjecting some of these workers to retaliation for opposing the harassment.' Tesla in a court filing claimed the lawsuit arose from 'run-amok competition' between the commission and the California civil rights regulator, and that it lacked 'any sound factual basis.' The next hearing in the case is scheduled for June. ___ © #YR@ MediaNews Group, Inc. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Yahoo
Parents file lawsuit in Piedmont Cybertruck crash that killed 3 college students
The Brief The lawsuit was filed Wednesday in Alameda County Superior Court. The parents of 19-year-old Krysta Tsukahara are suing the estate of Soren Dixon, the driver of the Cybertruck, along with Charles Patterson, the owner of the car involved in the crash. The parents allege Dixon "negligently and carelessly drove" the Cybertruck, losing control of the car, which caused it to catch on fire. PIEDMONT, Calif. - A grieving family on Wednesday filed a wrongful death lawsuit stemming from a deadly Cybertruck crash in Piedmont where three college students died on the day before Thanksgiving. Carl and Noelle Tsukahara, the parents of 19-year-old Krysta Tsukahara, are suing the estate of Soren Dixon who was the 19-year-old driver of the Cybertruck. Also named as a defendant is Charles Patterson, the owner of the vehicle in the November crash. Patterson is a relative of Dixon. There are also unnamed defendants listed as "DOES 1 through 20" which the Plaintiffs say could be amended, if evidence emerges of either individuals or corporate entities that played a role in the crash. Autopsy reports show that Dixon had alcohol, cocaine, and meth in his system. Tsukahara and Nelson also tested positive for alcohol and cocaine. The Tsukahara family says they filed the lawsuit to obtain more details about what happened before 3 a.m. on Nov. 27, 2024, when Dixon drove his relative's Cybertruck and crashed with three other friends, including Carl and Noelle's daughter, Krysta, Jack Nelson, 20, and Jordan Miller, 20 inside. "The family still doesn't know what the course of events were that evening that led to this crash and why this vehicle caught fire. The family wants and deserves answers to those questions," the Tsukuhara family's statement said. The family is looking for access to the Cybertruck itself, which is currently with the California Highway Patrol, the family's attorney, Roger Dreyer, told KTVU. KTVU reached out to Patterson by phone, but was told he had no comment. The backstory Police said that Dixon was speeding, though the exact speed hasn't been made public, and that he crashed into a tree at Hampton Road and King Avenue in Piedmont.. Upon impact, the Tesla Cybertruck became engulfed in fire, and Dixon, Tsukahara and Nelson died. Miller was the only one to survive – he was pulled out by a friend who broke the windows of the vehicle and dragged him to safety. Community members say that Miller has since returned to the University of Wisconsin, where he is a business student. Dig deeper In the lawsuit filed Wednesday, the parents allege Dixon "negligently and carelessly drove" the Cybertruck, losing control of the car, which caused it to catch on fire. "This fire that started after the collision resulted in the death of Decedent Krysta Michelle Tsukahara, who was trapped in the subject vehicle," the lawsuit said. The parents allege Patterson negligently entrusted Dixon with the Cybertruck "in such a fashion as to cause and/or contribute to the occurrence of the incident." The parents said Wednesday, through a statement from a representative, that Krysta was not physically injured in the crash, but trapped in the Cybertruck after it caught fire. "Krysta was seated in the rear passenger seat of the vehicle when it crashed into a tree and caught fire. She was not physically injured in the impact, but was tragically trapped inside the vehicle as it burned, unable to escape," Kellie DeMarco, a representative for the family, said. Click to open this PDF in a new window. The parents say they've suffered both economic and non-economic damages, including the loss of their daughter's "love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, and moral support." The Tsukahara family is claiming damages for the medical expenses they incurred from the care Krysta received prior to her death, in addition to damages to her personal property. They're also asking for monetary damages to cover funeral and burial costs, along with the cost of their legal action. "Krysta was a beautiful, bright young woman with her whole life ahead of her," her father, Carl, said in a statement. "We've had to endure not only the loss of our daughter, and our son the loss of his sister, but we have had to suffer through the silence of those who were with her that night and how it is that someone could be in this vehicle in the condition that he was in relative to his alcohol and drug use. Our family is seeking additional information regarding all aspects of this tragedy." Dreyer, the family's attorney, reiterated that Krysta's parents are looking for answers to learn who is accountable for the Cybertruck crash. "Our clients don't want to speculate as to who is to blame," Dreyer said. "They want answers and additional information in order to see who is accountable for this tragedy and who played a role in their daughter's death." The lawsuit does not name Tesla as a defendant. KTVU has reached out to the other families involved in the crash in the past, and they have asked for their privacy. No other family has filed a lawsuit at this point. The Source Alameda County Superior Court documents, previous reporting and the crash and interview with the family's attorney and representative.
San Francisco Chronicle
23-04-2025
- San Francisco Chronicle
Parents of woman killed in Piedmont crash sue driver's family seeking access to Cybertruck
The parents of a 19-year-old college student who died in a fiery Cybertruck crash in Piedmont last year filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the Cybertruck driver's family and the vehicle's registered owner. On Wednesday, Carl and Noelle Tsukahara filed the lawsuit against the estate of Soren Dixon, 19, who was driving the Tesla Cybertruck and died in the Nov. 27 crash, and Charles Patterson, the owner of the vehicle. The lawsuit was filed in Alameda County Superior Court. The vehicle apparently belonged to Dixon's grandparents, KTVU reported. Krysta Tsukahara was one of four college students in the Cybertruck that veered off the road, rammed a retaining wall and got wedged between the wall and a tree before bursting into flames. The crash killed Krysta, Dixon and Jack Nelson, 20. The fourth occupant, Jordan Miller, 20, survived the crash. They were all graduates of Piedmont High School and were home for Thanksgiving break when the crash occurred. In a news release, Krysta's parents said they seek to 'uncover what led to the deadly collision and to gain access to the Cybertruck itself.' The family's legal team and experts claim to have not had access to the truck since the crash, the parents said. Dixon's parents did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Phone calls to Charles Patterson went unanswered Wednesday afternoon. Roger Dreyer, the family's attorney, said the autopsy report did not indicate that Krysta died from physical injuries but 'by her inability to get out of the car and being consumed in the fire.' She was sitting in the rear passenger seat of the car, he said. 'This young woman suffered the most horrifying death one could imagine,' Dreyer said in a statement. 'The family still doesn't know what the course of events were that evening that led to this crash and why this vehicle caught fire. The family wants and deserves answers to those questions.' The three victims who died had alcohol and cocaine in their systems, according to Alameda County toxicology reports. Their deaths were ruled an accident. The autopsy report listed the cause as asphyxia due to inhalation of smoke from the vehicle. Burns were also a 'significant' factor in their deaths. In a traffic crash report from California Highway Patrol, two unidentified witnesses provided a detailed description of the crash and their attempt to rescue the victims before emergency responders arrived. One of the witnesses said they grabbed Tsukahara's arm to try to pull her out of the car, 'but she retreated because of the fire.' 'I could hear (Tsukahara) yelling and the car saying 'crash detected' and something along the lines of calling the police,' the witness said. Carl, the father, described his daughter as a beautiful, young woman who had 'her whole life ahead of her.' He said his family filed the lawsuit in hopes of seeking additional information about the crash. 'We've had to endure not only the loss of our daughter, and our son the loss of his sister, but we have had to suffer through the silence of those who were with her that night and how it is that someone could be in this vehicle in the condition that he was in relative to his alcohol and drug use,' he said in a statement.
