Case Background
Stanislaw M. Gierczak filed this lawsuit on January 31, 2022, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, under Case No. CIVSB2200922. The matter was classified as an Unlimited Civil case. Gierczak represented himself throughout the litigation as a pro per litigant. The case was initially assigned to Judge Khymberli S. Apaloo in Department 14-SBJC. Over the course of the proceedings, the complaint went through multiple amendments, with the Fourth Amended Complaint filed on January 29, 2026. The case also named Loya Casualty Insurance Company and Does 1 through 8 as co-Defendants. Defendant Ana R. Ocampo-Bustos filed her answer on May 6, 2024, through attorney Dev D. Patel of Martinez, Dieterich & Zarcone Legal Group. The case was later reassigned to Judge Kevin C. Lee in Department S26, where it proceeded to a jury trial in March 2026.
Cause
The dispute stemmed from a motor vehicle accident in which Gierczak alleged that Ocampo-Bustos operated her vehicle negligently and that her negligence was a substantial factor in causing the collision. The complaint centered on a single negligence cause of action against the individual Defendant.
Injury
Gierczak claimed he suffered bodily injuries as a direct result of the collision. He reported past medical expenses and asserted he experienced pain and suffering tied to the accident. The defense contested the nature and severity of these injuries throughout the proceedings, and the specific medical diagnoses were not detailed in the available filings.
Damages Sought
Gierczak sought monetary damages for past economic losses, past non-economic losses including pain and suffering, future economic losses, and future non-economic losses. The exact amount demanded was not specified in the available filings, but the case proceeded as an Unlimited Civil matter, indicating the amount in controversy exceeded $25,000.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Stanislaw M. Gierczak
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Pro Per (self-represented)
Defendant: Ana R. Ocampo-Bustos
· Counsel for Defendant: Dev D. Patel, Esq.
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Gierczak chose to represent himself against a professionally represented Defendant, which shaped the dynamics of the litigation. The case took over four years from initial filing to trial, during which Gierczak amended his complaint multiple times – ultimately filing a Fourth Amended Complaint just weeks before the trial began. The defense mounted a broad strategy, raising ten separate affirmative defenses that challenged everything from Gierczak’s comparative fault to his insurance status and seatbelt use at the time of the accident.
Claims
Gierczak’s central claim was that Ocampo-Bustos acted negligently and that her negligence was a substantial factor in causing him harm. He pursued recovery for past economic damages such as medical bills, past non-economic damages for pain and suffering, and sought future damages in both categories. The complaint also originally named Loya Casualty Insurance Company as a co-Defendant, though the trial verdict form addressed only the claim against Ocampo-Bustos.
Defense
Ocampo-Bustos filed her Answer to the Complaint on May 6, 2024, through attorney Dev D. Patel. The defense denied all allegations generally and specifically, and raised ten affirmative defenses. The first defense argued that Gierczak’s own lack of due care contributed to his injuries, and any recovery should be reduced accordingly. The second defense attributed fault to unnamed third parties. The third defense invoked California’s proportionate liability statute under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1431.2, limiting non-economic damage liability to the Defendant’s share of fault. The fourth defense asserted that Gierczak was uninsured at the time of the accident, barring non-economic damages under Sections 3333.3 and 3333.4. The fifth defense raised assumption of risk, claiming Gierczak knew of and voluntarily accepted the dangers that led to his injuries. The sixth defense alleged failure to mitigate damages. The seventh defense raised the statute of limitations under Sections 335.1, 337, and 338. The eighth defense argued Gierczak failed to wear a seatbelt, and any recovery should be limited to injuries he would have sustained with proper restraint. The ninth defense reserved the right to assert additional defenses pending further discovery. The tenth defense argued there were no facts supporting punitive damages claim under Civil Code Section 3294. The defense also demanded a jury trial.
Jury Verdict
The case proceeded to a jury trial before Judge Kevin C. Lee in Department S26 of the San Bernardino County Superior Court. The jury returned its Special Verdict on March 16, 2026.
On the threshold question of liability, the jury answered “Yes” – finding that Ocampo-Bustos’ negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to Gierczak. The jury then moved to the damages assessment.
The jury awarded Gierczak $3,000 in past economic losses and $3,000 in past non-economic losses. The jury awarded nothing for future economic losses and nothing for future non-economic losses. The total damages came to $6,000.
The verdict reflected the jury’s conclusion that while Ocampo-Bustos bore fault for the accident, Gierczak’s damages were modest. The jury declined to award any future damages, suggesting it found no lasting or ongoing impact from the incident. The relatively small award – in a case filed as an Unlimited Civil matter – indicated the jury was not persuaded that the Plaintiff’s injuries were as severe or far-reaching as claimed. The presiding juror signed and dated the Special Verdict Form on March 16, 2026.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
