Romero Fernandes do Espirito Santo v. Matilde Bello, et al.

Case Background

On November 19, 2021, Romero Fernandes Do Espirito Santo filed a personal injury lawsuit against Matilde Bello and Luis Bello after their dog allegedly bit him while Santo was delivering food to their house. The dog bite lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County. Judges Eric Harmon, Karen Moskowitz, Michael B. Harwin, and Michelle C. Kim presided over this case. [Case Number: 21STCV42798]

Cause

On October 15, 2020, at approximately 2:45 p.m., Plaintiff Romero Fernandes Do Espirito Santo arrived at the Defendants Matilde Bello and Luis Bello’s residence to deliver food through Postmates. As he approached, Defendants’ dog suddenly attacked him without warning, biting his lower leg.

Allegedly, Plaintiff was just fulfilling the delivery request and did nothing to provoke the dog. He had no reason to expect aggression from the animal.

The complaint stated that the Plaintiff later learned that Defendants owned the dog at the time of the attack. He also discovered that they knew—or should have known—that the dog had a history of aggression and posed a danger to others. Despite this, they allowed the animal to remain unrestrained or in the care of someone incapable of handling it. Their negligence created a serious risk of injury or death to the public.

Despite awareness of the dog’s dangerous tendencies, Defendants allegedly failed to take precautions. They did not restrain the animal, warn visitors, or implement safety measures.

Injury

As per the complaint, the bite was severe, immediately breaking the skin and causing deep lacerations on his left leg. He bled profusely and required emergency medical attention. At the hospital, doctors cleaned and dressed his wounds. The Defendants’ inaction directly led to the attack, leaving Plaintiff with significant injuries and medical expenses.

Damages

The complaint stated that the Defendants’ negligence caused Plaintiff to suffer severe physical, mental, and emotional injuries. These injuries may be permanent, and he may never fully recover. Beyond the physical harm, Plaintiff’s mental health also suffered. He developed overwhelming anxiety toward dogs, making daily activities more difficult. This fear directly impacted his ability to continue working as a food delivery driver. The attack not only caused immediate pain but also created lasting emotional distress that disrupted his livelihood.

It was claimed that Plaintiff continued to struggle with these effects, facing both physical limitations and psychological trauma.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Romero Fernandes Do Espirito Santo
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Teresa A. Johnson | Brandon C. Salumbides
  • Defendant(s): Matilde Bello | Luis Bello
    • Counsel for Defendant(s):  John K. Paulson | Emily T. Zinn

Claims

Plaintiff included the following claims in his lawsuit:

Negligence

Defendants’ negligence caused Plaintiff to suffer severe physical and emotional injuries. They failed to properly restrain or control their aggressive dog, which attacked Plaintiff while he delivered food to their home. Despite knowing the dog posed a risk, Defendants took no precautions to prevent the attack.

Defendants had a duty to ensure their dog did not harm visitors or the public. They breached that duty by allowing the dog to roam freely, creating a dangerous situation. Plaintiff had no warning of the risk and could not protect himself.

As a result, Plaintiff suffered deep lacerations, requiring medical treatment. The injuries caused ongoing physical pain and emotional distress. The attack also impaired his ability to work, leading to lost income and financial strain.

Premises Liability

Defendants negligently maintained their property by harboring a dangerous dog. They failed to warn Plaintiff about the risk, even though they knew their dog was aggressive. If Defendants had provided a warning, Plaintiff could have taken precautions to avoid injury.

Defendants had a responsibility to keep their property safe for visitors. By allowing an unrestrained, dangerous dog on the premises, they created a hazardous condition. Their failure to act directly led to Plaintiff’s injuries and financial losses.

Strict Liability

Under California law, dog owners are liable for attacks that occur in public or on private property where the victim is lawfully present. Defendants owned the dog that attacked Plaintiff and knew, or should have known, of its aggressive nature.

The attack caused severe injuries, requiring extensive medical care. Plaintiff also suffered financial losses due to his inability to work.

Emotional Distress

The attack caused Plaintiff serious emotional distress, including anxiety and fear of dogs. This distress continues to impact his daily life and work. Defendants’ negligence was a significant factor in causing this suffering

Defense

Defendants Matilde Bello and Luis Bello deny all allegations in the Complaint, including that Plaintiff suffered any injuries. They argue that the Complaint lacks sufficient legal grounds and claim that Plaintiff’s own negligence caused his injuries. Defendants also assert that Plaintiff knowingly took on the risk, which should bar his recovery.

They further contend that the lawsuit is time-barred under the statute of limitations. Additionally, they argue that other parties may have contributed to the incident and that their own actions were not a substantial factor in Plaintiff’s injuries. If found liable, they insist their responsibility should be proportionate to their fault, not joint.

Defendants claim Plaintiff failed to minimize his damages by not seeking proper medical care. They also argue that their alleged negligence, if any, was secondary to that of others. They maintain that Plaintiff lacks standing to sue and that they did not own or control the dog in question.

Finally, Defendants challenge Plaintiff’s medical expenses, stating they should be reduced to reasonable rates or excluded if incurred on a lien basis. They argue that Plaintiff’s claims for damages are speculative and lack proper evidence. They also dispute the validity of any punitive damages claims.

Jury Verdict

On November 20, 2024, the jury determined that Matilde Bello and Luis Bello’s dog did not bite the Plaintiff.

On December 05, 2024, Hon. Eric Hamon passed a final judgment consistent with the verdict, declaring Defendants Matilde Bello and Luis Bello as the prevailing parties.

Court Documents:

Documents are available for purchase upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com