Filed 5/20/20 Pacific v. Preciado CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

PAMELA JEAN PACIFIC et al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.

MARTIN PRECIADO et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

E070359

(Super.Ct.No. CIVDS1609833)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Gilbert G. Ochoa, Judge. Dismissed.

Larson & Gaston, John B. Larson and Yasmine Hussein; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Robert A. Olson and Elanor S. Ruth, for Defendants and Appellants.

The Simon Law Group, Robert T. Simon, Brandon, Brandon J. Simon and Thomas J. Conroy; The Swanson Law Group and Benjamin D. Swanson; Rizio Law Firm and Jason R. Ranchez; The Ehrlich Law Firm and Jeffrey I. Ehrlich, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs and respondents, Pamela Pacific and Lori Erickson, suffered injuries after they were rear-ended by a semi-trailer truck driven by defendant and appellant, Martin Preciado, and owned by his employer, defendant and appellant, A&C Trucking. A jury found defendants liable for the accident. It awarded Pacific nearly $700,000 in economic damages for her medical expenses, and awarded Pacific and Erickson $3 million each for noneconomic damages.

Defendants appealed. After we issued a tentative opinion, but before we held oral argument, the parties informed us that they had reached a settlement. Defendants then moved to dismiss the appeal. We exercise our discretion to dismiss the appeal without reaching the merits.

II.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Around 3:00 a.m. on November 2, 2015, Pacific and Erickson were driving through the Mojave Desert near Needles, California. Pacific was driving while Erickson slept in the passenger seat. Pacific saw a semi-truck approaching her from behind at about 65 miles per hour, when it suddenly rear-ended her car. Preciado drove several miles from the scene of the accident to wait for the authorities. He did not call 911 because he does not speak English well and was concerned he would not be able to communicate with the dispatcher.

The collision crushed the rear of Pacific’s car, which spun rapidly off the road, stopping about 220 feet away from the initial impact area. When the car stopped, Erickson tried to open her door, but it would not open. Pacific was pinned against the steering wheel. Pacific and Erickson smelled gasoline and feared it would ignite while they were trapped in the car.

Erickson called 911 and the police arrived 24 minutes later. A passing motorist stopped to help and was able to get Erickson out of the car, but Pacific remained stuck. After about an hour trapped in the car, emergency responders were able to remove Pacific by prying the steering wheel away from her and pulling her out on the passenger’s side. Pacific’s car was “nearly unrecognizable” because of the damage.

Plaintiffs sued defendants for negligence. The jury awarded Pacific (1) $345,421.42 for past medical expenses; (2) $335,168 for future medical expenses; (3) $1 million for past noneconomic damages (i.e., pain and suffering); and (4) $2 million for future noneconomic damages. The jury awarded Erickson (1) $13,409.25 for past medical expenses; (2) $1 million for past noneconomic damages; and (3) $2 million for future noneconomic damages.

Defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and a motion for a new trial on damages, or, in the alternative, for a remittitur on the damages. In their JNOV motion, defendants argued there was no evidence supporting the jury’s awards for plaintiffs’ economic damages. And in their motion for a new trial on damages, defendants argued the jury’s awards for plaintiffs’ noneconomic damages were excessive and resulted from juror misconduct, attorney misconduct, and the jury’s passion or prejudice.

The trial court denied both motions. The trial court denied defendants’ JNOV motion without explanation. As to defendants’ motion for a new trial, the trial court ruled the damages were not excessive because both plaintiffs experienced “a horrific crash” and the jury permissibly found “their general damages [were] relatively equal.” The court also observed that the jury awarded plaintiffs different amounts for the plaintiffs’ actual, noneconomic damages, which showed the jury “obviously did put some thought into it.” Defendants appeal.

III.

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

An appellant may not dismiss an appeal as a matter of right. (Huschke v. Slater (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1160 [imposing $6,000 sanctions on attorney for unreasonable delay in notifying appellate court that parties had settled and dismissed the underlying case].) Rather, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.244(c)(2), “[o]n receipt of a request or stipulation to dismiss, the court may dismiss the appeal and direct immediate issuance of the remittitur.” (Italics added.) Thus, dismissal is discretionary. Here, because the parties have settled, we grant Defendants’ request to dismiss the appeal.

IV.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed. Each side shall bear their own costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CODRINGTON

J.

We concur:

McKINSTER

Acting P. J.

FIELDS

J.