1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SHADI YADEGAR Case No. 2:24-cv-01128-MWF 11 (RAOx) 12 Plaintiff,

FINDINGS OF FACT AND

13 v. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 This matter came on for trial before the Court sitting without a jury on July 15, 19 September 30, and October 3, 2025. Following the presentation of evidence and the 20 parties’ closing arguments, the matter was taken under submission. 21 Having carefully reviewed the record and the arguments of counsel, as presented at 22 the trial and in their written submissions, the Court now makes the following findings of 23 fact and reaches the following conclusions of law under Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of 24 Civil Procedure. Any finding of fact that constitutes a conclusion of law is also hereby 25 adopted as a conclusion of law, and any conclusion of law that constitutes a finding of fact 26 is also hereby adopted as a finding of fact. 27 The following witnesses were called and examined by the parties in the order 28 recited below: 1 On July 15, 2025, Setareh Panah appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Shadi Yadegar and 2 gave an opening statement. Zakariya K. Varshovi and David Pinchas appeared on behalf 3 of Defendant United States of America. Mr. Varshovi gave an opening statement. 4 On the same day, following opening statements, Ms. Panah examined Plaintiff 5 Shadi Yadegar, the front-seat passenger in the BMW vehicle that collided with the 6 government vehicle. Defense counsel cross-examined Ms. Yadegar. Ms. Panah re- 7 examined Ms. Yadegar. 8 Next, Ms. Panah examined Masoud Masjedi, Esq., Plaintiff’s husband. Defense 9 counsel cross-examined Mr. Masjedi. Ms. Panah re-examined Mr. Masjedi. 10 Next, Ms. Panah examined Steven Foose, the driver of the government vehicle 11 involved in the collision. Defense counsel examined Mr. Foose. 12 Next, Ms. Panah read the transcript of the deposition of Israel Sanowicz, the rear- 13 seat passenger in the BMW. 14 On September 30, 2025, Ms. Panah examined Arthur Kreitenberg, M.D., an 15 orthopedic surgeon who treated Plaintiff for her wrist fracture. Defense counsel cross- 16 examined Dr. Kreitenberg. Ms. Panah re-examined Dr. Kreitenberg. 17 Next, Ms. Panah examined Phillip Salzman, an eyewitness who was driving 18 behind the BMW and observed the accident. Defense counsel cross-examined Mr. 19 Salzman. Ms. Panah re-examined Mr. Salzman. 20 Next, Ms. Panah examined Kourosh Noorman, M.D., a pain-management 21 specialist who administered care to Plaintiff. Defense counsel cross-examined Dr. 22 Noorman. 23 Next, Ms. Panah examined Alfred Derakhshesh, M.D., a medical provider who 24 also evaluated and treated Plaintiff. Defense counsel cross-examined Dr. Derakhshesh. 25 Next, Ms. Panah examined Roy Kimia, a physical-therapy and acupuncture 26 provider who treated Plaintiff. Defense counsel cross-examined Mr. Kimia. Ms. Panah 27 re-examined Mr. Kimia. 28 1 On October 3, 2025, defense counsel examined Brian Rudin, M.D., an orthopedic 2 surgeon retained as a medical expert. Ms. Panah cross-examined Dr. Rudin. 3 Next, defense counsel examined Yosef Percia, the driver of the BMW in which 4 Plaintiff was a passenger. Ms. Panah examined Mr. Percia. 5 Next, defense counsel examined Jason Snibbe, M.D., orthopedic surgeon and 6 defense expert who examined Plaintiff regarding her right wrist and shoulder Ms. Panah 7 cross-examined Dr. Snibbe. Defense counsel re-examined Dr. Snibbe. 8 On the same day, Ms. Panah made her closing argument for Plaintiff. Mr. Varshovi 9 made his closing argument for Defendant. 10 I. FINDINGS OF FACT 11 A. The Accident 12 1. This action concerns a car accident which occurred on August 16, 2020, on 13 the Interstate 405 freeway in Los Angeles, California. 14 2. Yosef Percia was driving his BMW sedan northbound in the leftmost lane — 15 the HOV lane — with Plaintiff in the right-front passenger seat and Israel Sanowicz in the 16 back seat. 17 3. In the lane to the immediate right of the HOV lane was Steven Foose, a U.S. 18 Navy servicemember, who was driving a Hyundai. Mr. Foose was a recruiting officer 19 returning to the U.S. Navy base at Port Hueneme, California. The Hyundai was a 20 government vehicle, and Mr. Foose was acting in the scope of his employment with the 21 U.S. Navy while driving. 22 4. Mr. Foose testified that he was traveling with the flow of traffic at 23 approximately 65 miles per hour and maintaining five car lengths between his vehicle and 24 the vehicle in front of him. 25 5. Shortly before the collision, an object — later identified as a mattress — fell 26 off an unknown vehicle and landed in the lane in which Mr. Foose was driving. The 27 driver of the vehicle carrying the mattress did not stop and remains unidentified. 28 1 6. There were two vehicles between Mr. Foose’s vehicle and the mattress. One 2 vehicle drove over the mattress, while the other braked abruptly to avoid it. Mr. Foose 3 testified that the second vehicle’s tires screeched as it came to a sudden stop. 4 7. Mr. Foose testified that he began to apply his brakes as well, but quickly 5 determined that he could not stop in time without colliding with the vehicle ahead. 6 8. Mr. Foose testified that he looked to his right and noticed that traffic in the 7 lane to his right was slowing. He then looked to the lane to his left, including his blind 8 spot, and did not see Mr. Percia’s BMW prior to the lane change. He then executed what 9 he described as an emergency lane change into that lane. 10 9. Mr. Foose cleared the lane change, but his vehicle overshot and continued 11 toward the freeway median. Mr. Foose attempted to straighten his vehicle which began to 12 fishtail. As he attempted to regain control, Mr. Percia’s vehicle rear-ended Mr. Foose’s 13 vehicle. 14 10. Mr. Foose testified that he could not have come to a safe stop and that a lane 15 change was necessary. Mr. Foose also testified that he did not see Mr. Percia’s vehicle at 16 any point prior to the collision. 17 11. Plaintiff testified that she did not see Mr. Foose’s vehicle until it was in front 18 of Mr. Percia’s vehicle. Plaintiff further testified that she also did not see the mattress. 19 12. Mr. Percia testified that he did not see the mattress until a few seconds before 20 the accident. Mr. Percia observed other vehicles in between Mr. Foose’s car and the 21 mattress, and that Mr. Foose swerved into his lane. Mr. Percia testified that he was unable 22 to avoid the collision with Mr. Foose. 23 13. Phillip Salzman testified that he was driving in the HOV lane directly behind 24 Mr. Percia’s BMW. Mr. Salzman testified that he saw the mattress fall into Mr. Foose’s 25 lane and observed Mr. Foose slow down and then swerve into Mr. Percia’s lane. Mr. 26 Salzman did not observe a car between Mr. Foose and the mattress. Mr. Salzman testified 27 that Mr. Percia appeared to slow his vehicle but could not have avoided the collision with 28 Mr. Foose. 1 14. The point of impact on Mr. Foose’s vehicle was on the rear driver’s side, and 2 the corresponding point of impact on Mr. Percia’s vehicle was on the front passenger’s 3 side. 4 B. Post-Accident Medical Care and Injuries 5 15. Immediately after the collision, Plaintiff reported shock and pain in her right 6 wrist. 7 16. Plaintiff was assessed at the scene by California Highway Patrol and the Los 8 Angeles Fire Department. 9 17. Plaintiff was transported to UCLA Medical Center’s emergency department 10 by ambulance. There, Plaintiff was examined for her complaints of pain. Plaintiff was 11 diagnosed with a closed fracture at her right wrist, and a splint was applied. 12 18. Plaintiff later received chiropractic treatments at New Wave Health Center 13 from Dr. Alfred Derakhshesh. 14 19. Plaintiff attended a follow-up appointment with Arthur Kreitenberg, M.D., an 15 orthopedic surgeon, for her complaints regarding her wrist. Dr. Kreitenberg examined 16 Plaintiff, ordered various tests, and instructed Plaintiff to undertake physical therapy. 17 20. Plaintiff was referred to Christopher Zahiri, M.D., who examined Plaintiff 18 and recommended physical therapy and electromyography and nerve conduction studies. 19 21. Plaintiff was further referred to Kevin Aminian, M.D., for those studies, 20 which were conducted and displayed normal results. 21 22. Plaintiff received physical therapy treatment and acupuncture from Kimia 22 Wellness. Mr. Roy Kimia testified as to these treatments. 23 23. Plaintiff saw Kourosh Noormand, M.D., for a pain management consultation 24 regarding shoulder pain. Dr. Noormand recommended and conducted a platelet-rich 25 plasma (PRP) injection in Plaintiff’s right shoulder. 26 24. The Court heard testimony from Defendant’s rebuttal experts, Jason Snibbe, 27 M.D., and Brian Rudin, M.D., who are both orthopedic surgeons. Dr. Snibbe and Dr. 28 1 Rudin testified that while Plaintiff sustained several injuries, she recovered from all such 2 injuries at the latest by approximately October 2020. 3 25. Plaintiff and Masoud Masjedi, her husband, both testified as to how 4 Plaintiff’s injuries affected her personal life and activities, including interfering with her 5 ability to cook, clean, and attend to personal hygiene. 6 26. There is no dispute that Plaintiff has since recovered from her injuries as a 7 result of the accident and does not seek to recover for future medical care. 8 C. The Court’s Findings 9 Based on the foregoing testimony and evidence, and applying the California “sudden 10 emergency doctrine” as set forth in Conclusions Nos. 41–42, the Court now specifically 11 FINDS as follows: 12 27. The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Foose was confronted with a sudden 13 emergency when the vehicle ahead of his slammed on its brakes and attempted to come to 14 a complete stop to avoid the mattress. 15 28. Mr. Foose did not behave negligently in creating the emergency by, for 16 example, speeding or following too closely to the vehicle ahead of his in violation of 17 California Vehicle Code sections 22350 and 21703. Mr. Foose’s unrebutted testimony 18 was that he was travelling with the flow of traffic and five car lengths behind the vehicle. 19 There is no evidence, let alone a preponderance of evidence, to the contrary. 20 29. Instead, the emergency was caused by the falling mattress and the sudden 21 stop of the vehicle ahead of Mr. Foose. 22 30. Mr. Foose’s response to the emergency was reasonable under the 23 circumstances. Mr. Foose’s unrebutted testimony is that he was unable to come to a 24 complete stop in time to avoid hitting the vehicle in front of him. Further, traffic to his 25 right was slowing or stopped, and Mr. Foose looked over his left shoulder and confirmed 26 the HOV lane was clear before proceeding to that lane. 27 28 1 31. The brief fishtailing of Mr. Foose’s vehicle does not compel a different 2 conclusion; it reflects the difficulty of maintaining traction during an emergency 3 maneuver conducted at freeway speed. 4 32. No witness — including Mr. Percia, Mr. Salzman, or Plaintiff — testified 5 that Mr. Foose’s lane change was unnecessary or unsafe. The testimony uniformly 6 described a rapid series of events that left no meaningful time for a different response. 7 33. To the extent there are implicit issues of credibility between the recollections 8 of Ms. Yadegar, Mr. Percia, or Mr. Salzman, on the one hand, and Mr. Foose, on the 9 other, the Court resolves all such differences in favor of the testimony of Mr. Foose. 10 34. The Court therefore FINDS that Mr. Foose acted as a reasonably prudent 11 driver would have acted under similar emergency circumstances. 12 II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 13 35. Plaintiff asserts a single claim for negligence under the Federal Tort Claims 14 Act (“FTCA”), alleging that Mr. Foose negligently operated his vehicle, resulting in 15 Plaintiff’s injuries. 16 36. Liability under the FTCA is determined by reference to California law for 17 claims arising from acts or omissions that occurred in California. See 28 U.S.C. § 18 1346(b)(1); Molzof v. United States, 502 U.S. 301, 305 (1992). 19 37. Under California law, to establish negligence, Plaintiff must prove by a 20 preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant had a legal duty to use due care, that 21 Defendant breached such a legal duty, that Plaintiff was harmed, and that Defendant’s 22 negligence was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm. Ladd v. Cty. of San Mateo, 23 12 Cal. 4th 913, 917, 50 Cal. Rptr. 2d 309 (1996); see also CACI No. 400, Negligence. 24 38. “A failure to use reasonable care in driving a vehicle is negligence.” CACI 25 No. 700, Basic Standard of Care. “Drivers must keep a lookout for pedestrians, obstacles, 26 and other vehicles. They must also control the speed and movement of their vehicles.” Id. 27 39. Additionally, violations of the California Vehicle Code may give rise to a 28 presumption of negligence as negligence per se. Negligence per se is an evidentiary 1 doctrine under which the “violation of a statute gives rise to a presumption of negligence 2 in the absence of justification or excuse.” Ramirez v. Nelson, 44 Cal. 4th 908, 918 (2008). 3 To establish negligence per se, a plaintiff must prove (1) the defendant violated a statute, 4 ordinance, or regulation, and (2) the violation was a substantial factor in bringing about 5 the harm. CACI No. 418, Presumption of Negligence Per Se. The presumption of 6 negligence may be rebutted “by proof that the person violating the statute, ordinance, or 7 regulation did what might reasonably be expected of a person of ordinary prudence, acting 8 under similar circumstances, who desired to comply with the law.” Cal. Evid. Code § 9 669(b). 10 40. Pursuant to California Vehicle Code section 22107, a driver must use 11 reasonable care when changing lanes. CACI 705, Turning; see also Butigan v. Yellow 12 Cab Co., 49 Cal. 2d 652, 656, 320 P.2d 500 (1958) (Section 22107 “does not require the 13 driver to know that a turn can be made with safety but only that he must exercise 14 reasonable care[.]”). Driving at an unreasonable speed or following too closely in 15 violation of California Vehicle Code sections 21703 and 22350 is also negligence per se. 16 CACI No. 706, Basic Speed Law; see also Hert v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 4 Cal. 17 App. 2d 598, 599, 41 P.2d 369 (1935). 18 41. California negligence law also includes a well-established “sudden 19 emergency” doctrine, which “shields a defendant from liability in a negligence action.” 20 Shiver v. Laramee, 24 Cal. App. 5th 395, 397, 234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 256 (2018), as 21 modified (July 11, 2018); CACI No. 452, Sudden Emergency. Under the doctrine, “a 22 person who, without negligence on his part, is suddenly and unexpectedly confronted with 23 peril, arising from either the actual presence, or the appearance, of imminent danger to 24 himself or to others, is not expected nor required to use the same judgment and prudence 25 that is required of him in the exercise of ordinary care in the calmer and more deliberate 26 moments.” Leo v. Dunham, 41 Cal. 2d 712, 714 (1953); Abdulkhadhim v. Wu, 53 Cal. 27 App. 5th 298, 301–02, 266 Cal. Rptr. 3d 636 (2020) (affirming summary judgment to 28 defendant because “[a] freeway driver with the right of way is not required to anticipate an 1 . . that unexpectedly causes merging traffic in front of him to come to almost a dead 2 || stop’). 3 42. The defense of sudden emergency is not available to a driver whose 4 |) negligence brought on the emergency or who has not used due care to avoid the 5 ||emergency. Pittman v. Boiven, 249 Cal. App. 2d 207, 216, 57 Cal. Rptr. 319 (1967). 6 Il. VERDICT 7 The Court FINDS and RULES as follows: 8 The verdict is returned in favor of Defendant the United States of America. A 9 || separate judgment shall issue on January 12, 2026. Any deadline arising from the filing o 10 || these Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law is CONTINUED to that date. 11 D Dated: December 22, 2025

14 MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28