Espinoza

Espinoza v. MacHonga

Good Law
11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 498·1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 1068·9 Cal. App. 4th 268·92 Daily Journal DAR 12244·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7630
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 1, 1992F016135California2,658 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ardaiz, J.

Richard Espinoza sued Albert Kantor, Larry Machonga and the Housing Authority of Fresno County (hereinafter Housing Authority) for personal injuries after the glass portion of a door shattered and glass fragments struck Espinoza’s eye. The Housing Authority settled with Espinoza for $5,000. The superior court found the settlement to have been made in good faith. The case then went to judicial arbitration.

Espinoza, Kantor, Machonga and the Housing Authority all participated in the arbitration. The parties stipulated that Kantor had no liability in the case. The arbitrator found that Espinoza had incurred medical expenses of $6,242.94. He found that Espinoza himself was 10 percent at fault, that the Housing Authority was 45 percent at fault, and that Machonga was 45 percent at fault. The arbitrator’s award also stated that “Plaintiff is hereby awarded the sum of $6,242.94 and an additional amount of $15,000 for general damages.” The arbitrator also awarded costs of suit to Espinoza.

The “Decision of Arbitrator” was filed with the court. No party sought a trial de novo. After more than 30 days had passed from the filing of the arbitrator’s decision (see Code Civ. Proc., §…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.