Castro-Gonzalez v. Cazarez CA4/1

Filed 9/13/24 Castro-Gonzalez v. Cazarez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

MARTIN CASTRO-GONZALEZ, D081659

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2020- 00017427-CU-PA-CTL) FELIPA CAZAREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Timothy B. Taylor, Judge. Affirmed. Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester, John D. Marino, Emily I. Ellse and Steven J. Renick for Defendant and Appellant. Dolan Law Firm, Christopher B. Dolan and Allison L. Stone; The Arkin Law Firm and Sharon J. Arkin for Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Felipa Cazarez appeals a $100,000 jury award of punitive damages arising from a personal injury action brought by Martin Castro-Gonzalez. Cazarez claims the award is excessive in light of evidence regarding her ability to pay it. Because she failed to move for a new trial on this basis

below, she waived this claim. We resolve this case by memorandum opinion (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851–854), and affirm. I. In 2019, Castro-Gonzalez was standing next to his car when Cazarez crashed her car into it. The impact caused Castro-Gonzalez’s car to rotate and strike him, causing serious injuries and permanent paralysis. Cazarez was driving while intoxicated. In a criminal proceeding, Cazarez pled guilty to felony driving under the influence and was sentenced to six years in prison. She was released in June 2022, after serving approximately two and a half years. While Cazarez was in prison, Castro-Gonzalez brought a negligence suit against her seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The only evidence regarding Cazarez’s financial condition came through her oral testimony at trial, in December 2022. During Castro- Gonzalez’s case-in-chief under Evidence Code section 776, Cazarez testified she had been employed at a hospital for 19 years before the incident. While working at the hospital, Cazarez was a member of a union, had a pension, and earned $24 or $25 per hour. She did not know how much money, if any, she might receive in the future from the pension. At the time of the trial, Cazarez was working 40 hours per week as a pharmacy cashier earning $17.50 per hour. She worked overtime approximately once a month. She had no savings or property of value, nor did she receive or expect to receive money from any other source. Cazarez claimed she could not secure a second job because she needed to care for her children.