Case Background
Susana Ochoa Gomez, acting as Guardian Ad Litem for the minor Plaintiff, I.G.O., filed a personal injury lawsuit against Alexey Kharis on May 5, 2022, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, case number 22-CIV-01891. The Plaintiff filed the case as an unlimited civil action, indicating that the amount in controversy exceeded $25,000. Attorneys Elie Aghabi and David F. Garcia of the law firm Windsor Troy represented the Plaintiff, and David F. Garcia signed the complaint. Kharis, represented by Marc J. Zimet and Benjamin Reccius of Cruser, Mitchell, Novitz, Sanchez, Gaston & Zimet LLP, filed his answer on September 2, 2022, denying the allegations and raising twenty affirmative defenses. The case proceeded to a jury trial from April 7 to April 16, 2025, before Judge Jeffrey R. Finigan in Department 24. At trial, Alberto D. Ramos and Cherilynn C. Heath of Windsor Troy represented the Plaintiff, and Bradley R. Larson and Michael S. Richardson of Sims, Lawrence & Broghammer represented Kharis.
Cause
The Plaintiff brought two causes of action against Kharis: motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. The complaint alleged that on September 5, 2021, Kharis struck the minor Plaintiff with his vehicle while the Plaintiff crossed the street at the intersection of S. Grant Street and Betty Lane in San Mateo, California. The complaint stated that Kharis negligently, carelessly, and unlawfully operated his vehicle, causing the collision, and that his conduct was a substantial factor in causing the Plaintiff's injuries and damages.
Injury
The complaint stated that the collision left the Plaintiff with visible lacerations to his left arm and left wrist, to the left side of his face near his jawbone, and a wound to the right side of his chest. The complaint further stated that the Plaintiff required, and continued to require, medical treatment as a result of these injuries.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiff sought compensatory damages according to proof, covering hospital and medical expenses, general damages, loss of earning capacity, future medical expenses, and future general damages. The complaint also requested a jury trial and prejudgment interest under California Civil Code section 3291. The complaint did not specify a dollar amount.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: I.G.O., a minor, by and through Guardian Ad Litem Susana Ochoa Gomez
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Alberto D. Ramos | Cherilynn C. Heath of Windsor Troy represented the Plaintiff at trial. David F. Garcia of Windsor Troy signed and filed the original complaint. Elie Aghabi was also listed as counsel for the Plaintiff at Windsor Troy and appeared on the service list when Kharis's answer was served in September 2022.
Defendant: Alexey Kharis
· Counsel for Defendant: Bradley R. Larson | Michael S. Richardson of Sims, Lawrence & Broghammer represented Kharis at trial. Marc J. Zimet | Benjamin Reccius represented Kharis when the answer was filed in September 2022.
Claims
The Plaintiff's complaint rested on two causes of action. The first, for motor vehicle negligence, alleged that Kharis operated, owned, and had entrusted the vehicle involved in the collision, and that his negligent operation of that vehicle proximately caused the Plaintiff's injuries. The second cause of action, for general negligence, alleged that Kharis negligently, carelessly, and unlawfully operated his vehicle, causing the September 5, 2021 collision and the resulting injuries. The Plaintiff also named Does 1 through 25 as Defendants, alleging that they were agents or employees of the named Defendant, that their capacities were unknown to the Plaintiff, and that they were liable for the Plaintiff's injuries in some other manner.
Defense
Kharis filed his answer on September 2, 2022, generally and specifically denying every allegation in the complaint under California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30. He denied any wrongful conduct and denied that the Plaintiff had suffered, incurred, or would suffer any injury, loss, or damages because of any act or omission by him or his agents or employees.
Kharis raised twenty affirmative defenses in his answer. He argued that the Plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable diligence to mitigate the damages alleged, that the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure sections 312, 335.1, 337(1), 338(a)-(c), 339(1), and 343. He further asserted that his own conduct had been consistent with that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances.
Kharis also argued that any damages the Plaintiff sustained were caused by the Plaintiff's own acts or omissions, or by the acts or omissions of third parties, and that such causes were the proximate and legal cause of any alleged damages. He invoked comparative negligence principles under California Civil Code section 1431 et seq., arguing that any fault attributable to him should be reduced accordingly. He claimed entitlement to indemnification and contribution from other parties whose negligence may have contributed to the Plaintiff's alleged injuries, and argued that independent, intervening, or superseding causes, including acts or omissions of the Plaintiff or others that could not have been foreseen, barred the Plaintiff's claims.
Kharis further argued that the Plaintiff knowingly assumed the risk of the injuries alleged and consented to the risk of the conduct alleged in the complaint. He asserted that the Plaintiff lacked standing to bring the action, that the action required additional necessary or indispensable parties for complete adjudication, and that he was entitled to a setoff to the extent the Plaintiff's own conduct caused him financial loss. He argued that the Plaintiff's non-economic damages, if any, were limited under applicable law, and that the Plaintiff's claims were barred by the doctrine of estoppel. He also claimed entitlement to set off any settlements or judgments the Plaintiff received against any judgment rendered in the Plaintiff's favor. Kharis reserved the right to assert further affirmative defenses based on information obtained during discovery.
In his prayer for relief, Kharis asked the Court to order that the Plaintiff take nothing by the complaint, that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice, that the Court decree he was not obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for any claimed damages, that he be awarded costs and disbursements including reasonable attorneys' fees, and for such other and further relief as the Court deemed just and proper.
Jury Verdict
The case proceeded to trial before Judge Jeffrey R. Finigan in Department 24 of the San Mateo County Superior Court, running from April 7 to April 16, 2025. Plaintiff I.G.O., a minor, appeared in person by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Susana Ochoa Gomez, and with his attorneys Alberto D. Ramos and Cherilynn C. Heath. Defendant Alexey Kharis also appeared in person, with his attorneys Bradley R. Larson and Michael S. Richardson.
A jury of twelve persons and two alternate jurors was duly impaneled and sworn, and witnesses testified. After the Court duly instructed the jury, the jury deliberated and returned a special verdict answering a single question: whether Kharis was negligent. The jury answered no.
Based on that finding, the Court determined that Plaintiff I.G.O., a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Susana Ochoa Gomez, was entitled to recover nothing from Kharis for damages, interest, or costs. Judge Finigan signed the judgment on May 8, 2025, and the Court electronically filed it on May 9, 2025. The judgment adjudged, ordered, and decreed that the Plaintiff take nothing from Kharis and that judgment be entered in the Defendant's favor, with Kharis entitled to recover costs in an amount to be determined.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
