PUBLIC NOTICE Arizona Superior Court Pinal County Arauza v. Lopez et al. Case No.: S1100CV202502531

PUBLIC NOTICE Arizona Superior Court Pinal County Arauza v. Lopez et al. Case No.: S1100CV202502531 COMPLAINT Plaintiffs ERNIE ARAUZA and MARIA F ARMANF ARMAI submit their Complaint and allege as follows: PARTIES, JURISDICTION & VENUE 1. Plaintiffs ERNIE ARA UZA and MARIA F ARMANF ARMAI ("Plaintiffs") are a married couple who reside and/or resided in Pinal County, Arizona during all times mentioned in this complaint. 2. Defendant Juan Antonio Lopez ("Defendant") and Jane Doe Lopez, husband and wife, are individuals who resides and/or resided in Pinal County, Arizona during all times mentioned in this complaint. Jane Doe Lopez is named as a fictitious individual who may be liable by virtue of her community property interest with Juan Antonio Lopez. 3. Defendants JOHN DOES I-V and JANE DOE I-V ("Fictitious Individuals") are fictitious individuals and BLACK CORPORATIONS I-X and WHITE PARTNERSHIPS I-X ("Corporate Defendants") are corporations, businesses, entities, agents, servants, or employees whose true names are currently unknown to Plaintiff. 4. The Fictitious Individuals and Corporate Defendants were either spouses, servants, employees, employers, owners, parent companies or subsidiaries of the named defendants. 5. Upon information and belief, the Fictitious Individuals and Corporate Defendants are, in some manner, responsible for the acts alleged in this Complaint. 6. The Fictitious Individuals and Corporate Defendants are believed to reside or conduct business in Pinal County, Arizona. 7. Plaintiffs will seek to amend this Complaint when and if they discover the true names of the Fictitious Individuals and/or the Corporate Defendants. 8. Upon information and belief, each Defendant (collectively, "Defendants") were agents, servants, employees, successors in interest, and/or joint venturers of their codefendants and were acting within the course, scope, and authority of said agency, employment, and/or venture. 9. Each Defendant, when acting as principal, was negligent in the selection and hiring of each other Defendant as an agent, servant, employee, successor in interest, and/or joint venture. 10. Each Defendant was the employee and/or agent of each of the other Defendants, and all acts by any of the Defendants were in the course and scope of their employment and/or agency with all the other Defendants, and each was acting on their own behalf, as well as on behalf of all Defendants. 11. No other action is pending in relation to the events alleged in this Complaint. 12. Jurisdiction is proper under ARIZ. CONST. art. VI, § 14 and A.R.S. § 12-123. 13. Pinal County is the proper venue under A.R.S. § 12-401. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 14. On March 5, 2024, Plaintiffs were lawfully operating their 2017 Toyota pickup truck ("Vehicle") westbound on Hunt Highway in the City of Florence, Pinal County, Arizona, when they were suddenly and without warning rear-ended at a high rate of speed by Defendant. 15. Defendant admitted to the police that he "zoned out" wherein he struck an unrelated vehicle in the side before striking Plaintiffs' Vehicle in the rear at a high rate of speed. 16. Law enforcement responded to the scene, and a police report was generated. Plaintiffs complained of injuries at the scene, and at least one Plaintiff was transported by ambulance for emergency medical treatment. 17. As a result of the collision, Defendant Juan Antonio Lopez was cited by law enforcement for violating A.R.S. § 28-701(A), which prohibits driving at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances. The citation was issued at the scene of the incident. 18. Plaintiffs have no comparative fault. COUNT I NEGLIGENCE (Against All Defendants) 19. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege, and incorporate all prior allegations by this reference further alleging as follows: 20. Defendant owed all other drivers on the road a duty to drive in a safe and prudent manner considering the circumstances at the time of the Collision. 21. Defendant's failure to contain his vehicle in his lane caused or contributed to the Collision. 22. Defendant's failure to stay alert and pay attention while operating his vehicle caused or contributed to the collision. 23. Defendant's failure to watch for and keep a safe distance from cars directly in front of him caused or contributed to this collision. 24. Defendant's failure to keep and maintain a safe and legal speed caused or contributed to this collision. 25. Defendant's failures were the proximate cause of the Collision because such actions and/or omissions caused Defendant's Vehicle to strike Plaintiffs' vehicle resulting in their injuries and damages. 26. Both Plaintiffs suffered physical, emotional, and economic injuries and damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's careless, reckless, unlawful, and negligent acts and/or omissions. 27. Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs for all damages allowed by law for the injuries and damages they sustained. COUNT II NEGLIGENCE PER SE (Against All Defendants) 28. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege, and incorporate all prior allegations by this reference further alleging as follows: 29. At the time of the Collision, Defendant, like all drivers in the State of Arizona, owed a duty to all other drivers to comply with Title 28 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. 30. As stated above, Defendant's negligent and reckless failure to maintain and control his speed resulted in the collision and a citation for the same – a violation of Title 28. 31. The statutes within Title 28 of the Arizona Revised Statutes were meant to protect drivers in Arizona, such as the Plaintiffs, from accidents such as the Collision. 32. Hence, Plaintiffs are within the class of persons Title 28 are meant to protect. 33. Defendant breached his duties to comply with all traffic laws in Title 28 of the Arizona Revised Statutes by violating the same. 34. Defendants are negligent per se. 35. Defendant's statutory violations caused or contributed to Plaintiffs' injuries and damages as he never should have "zoned out" causing him to change lanes unsafely and then rear end plaintiffs at high speed. 36. Defendant's statutory violations were the proximate cause of the Collision because Defendant's actions and/or omissions caused Defendant's Vehicle to strike Plaintiffs' vehicle resulting in Plaintiffs' injuries and damages. 37. Plaintiffs both suffered physical, emotional, and economic injuries and damages alleged herein as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's careless, reckless, unlawful, and negligent acts and/or omissions. 38. Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs for all damages allowed by law for the injuries and damages they sustained. COUNT III LOSS OF CONSORTIUM (Against All Defendants by Ernie Arauza) 39. Mr. Arauza re-alleges and incorporates all prior allegations by this reference further alleging as follows: 40. Defendants' actions and/or omissions caused Mrs. Farmanfarmai's injuries for the reasons stated above. 41. Mrs. Farmanfarmai's injuries negatively impacted the society, companionship, care, support, and affection Mr. Arauza ordinarily received from Mrs. Farmanfarmai. 42. Defendants caused Mr. Arauza's loss of consortium. 43. Defendants are liable for all damages resulting from the negative impact Defendants' actions and/or omissions had on the society, companionship, care, support, and affection Mr. Arauza ordinarily received from Mrs. Farmanfarmai. COUNT IV LOSS OF CONSORTIUM (Against All Defendants by Maria Farmanfarmai) 1. Mrs. Farmanfarmai re-alleges and incorporates all prior allegations by this reference further alleging as follows: 2. Defendants' actions and/or omissions caused Mr. Arauza's injuries for the reasons stated above. 3. Mr. Arauza's injuries negatively impacted the society, companionship, care, support, and affection Mrs. Farmanfarmai ordinarily received from Mr. Arauza. 4. Defendants caused Mrs. Farmanfarmai's loss of consortium. 5. Defendants are liable for all damages resulting from the negative impact Defendants' actions and/or omissions had on the society, companionship, care, support, and affection Mrs. Farmanfarmai ordinarily received from Mr. Arauza. TIER DESIGNATION Plaintiff certifies this case is a Tier 2 case pursuant to Rule 26.2(b), Ariz. R. Civ. P. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows: A. For Plaintiffs' general damages in a fair, just, and reasonable sum in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court; B. For Plaintiffs' past, current, and future medical expenses in a sum according to proof; C. For Plaintiffs' past, current, and future pain and suffering in a sum according to proof; D. For Plaintiffs' past, current, and future mutual loss of consortium in a sum according to proof; E. For Plaintiffs' costs as allowed by A.R.S. § 12-341; and F. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. DATED this 7th day of August, 2025. KELLY LAW TEAM PLLC /s/ David Iversen David I. Iversen Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff Publication Dates LAZS0408782