On September 25, 2014 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Flores, Desiree,
and
Winco Foods, Llc A Limited Liability Company,
for PI personal injury not MV
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
w
1 James W Pincin SBN 125443 v
NISSON PINCIN HILL
2 A Professional Corporation
F E
3
P O Box 992710 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNlA
COUt TY OF SAN BERfVARDiNO
Redding CA 96099 2710 SAN BERNARDtNO DISTRiCT
4 Telephone 530 246 4201
Facsimile 530 246 1426 MAR 2 9 20i7
5
BY
Attorneys for Defendant
6 SICA
WINCO FOODS LLC BLE DEPUTY
7
g IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
DESIREE FLORES Case No CIV DS 1414602
11
Plaintiff MOTION FOR NONSUIT
12 v
13 WINCO FOODS LLC et al
Trial March 27 2017
14
Defendants
15
L INTRODUCTION
16
Defendant WinCo Foods LLC hereinafter WinCo hereby moves the Court for
l
nonsuit pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581 c a According to this statute nonsuit
1g
19
may be made Only after and not before the plaintiff has completed his or her opening
20
statement or after the presentation of his or her evidence in a trial by jury the defendant without
21
waiving his or her right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted may move for a
22
judgment of nonsuit
23
24 This motion is based on the fact that plaintiff has provided absolutely no evidence that
25 WinCo had notice actual or constructive of the water on the floor that plaintiff claims caused
26
her to slip and fall The grounds for granting a motion for nonsuit are laid out in the case of
27
Estates ofLances 1932 216 Cal 397 400
28
MOTION FOR NONSUIT PAGE 1
1 It has become the established law of this state that the power ofthe court to
direct a verdict is absolutely the same as the power of the court to grant a
2
nonsuit A nonsuit or directed verdict may be granted only when
3 disregarding conflicting evidence and giving to plaintiff s evidence all of the
value to which it islegally entitled herein divulging every legitimate
4 inference which may be drawn from that evidence the result is a
determination that there is no evidence of sufficient substantiality to support a
5 verdict in favor of the plaintiff if such a verdict were given
6
IL PLAINTIFF HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT WINCO HAD NOTICE OF THE
WATER PLAINTIFF CLAIMS CAUSED HER TO FALL
8
9 The law regarding premises liability is very well established and set forth in CACI jury
instructions 1000 1001 1003 1004 1011
10 and
In essence plaintiff has the burden of proving
11
that WinCo knew or should have known that a dangerous condition was present on its property
12
WinCo is held to a reasonable care standard
13
In this matter plaintiff has presented no evidence that WinCo knew of the water in
14
question or through the exercise of reasonable care should have known about it Plaintiff has
15
16 presented no evidence that the water was of such a nature and existed long enough that WinCo
17 had sufficient time to discover it Plaintif s only evidence was that she testified there was water
1g
on the floor This is not enough as a matter of law
19
20 III CONCLUSION
21
Without some evidence as to how or how long the water was on the floor plaintiff cannot
22
meet her burden of proo This matter should be dismissed
23
DATED March 23 2017
24
NISSON PINCIN HILL
25
26
JAME S PINCIN
27
Attorne s for Defendant
W1NC FOODS LLC
28
MOTION FOR NONSUIT PAGE 2
Document Filed Date
March 29, 2017
Case Filing Date
September 25, 2014
Category
PI personal injury not MV
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
w 1 James W Pincin SBN 125443 v NISSON PINCIN HILL 2 A Professional Corporation F E 3 P O Box 992710 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNlA COUt TY OF SAN BERfVARDiNO Redding CA 96099 2710 SAN BERNARDtNO DISTRiCT 4 Telephone 530 246 4201 Facsimile 530 246 1426 MAR 2 9 20i7 5 BY Attorneys for Defendant 6 SICA WINCO FOODS LLC BLE DEPUTY 7 g IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 DESIREE FLORES Case No CIV DS 1414602 11 Plaintiff MOTION FOR NONSUIT 12 v 13 WINCO FOODS LLC et al Trial March 27 2017 14 Defendants 15 L INTRODUCTION 16 Defendant WinCo Foods LLC hereinafter WinCo hereby moves the Court for l nonsuit pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581 c a According to this statute nonsuit 1g 19 may be made Only after and not before the plaintiff has completed his or her opening 20 statement or after the presentation of his or her evidence in a trial by jury the defendant without 21 waiving his or her right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted may move for a 22 judgment of nonsuit 23 24 This motion is based on the fact that plaintiff has provided absolutely no evidence that 25 WinCo had notice actual or constructive of the water on the floor that plaintiff claims caused 26 her to slip and fall The grounds for granting a motion for nonsuit are laid out in the case of 27 Estates ofLances 1932 216 Cal 397 400 28 MOTION FOR NONSUIT PAGE 1 1 It has become the established law of this state that the power ofthe court to direct a verdict is absolutely the same as the power of the court to grant a 2 nonsuit A nonsuit or directed verdict may be granted only when 3 disregarding conflicting evidence and giving to plaintiff s evidence all of the value to which it islegally entitled herein divulging every legitimate 4 inference which may be drawn from that evidence the result is a determination that there is no evidence of sufficient substantiality to support a 5 verdict in favor of the plaintiff if such a verdict were given 6 IL PLAINTIFF HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT WINCO HAD NOTICE OF THE WATER PLAINTIFF CLAIMS CAUSED HER TO FALL 8 9 The law regarding premises liability is very well established and set forth in CACI jury instructions 1000 1001 1003 1004 1011 10 and In essence plaintiff has the burden of proving 11 that WinCo knew or should have known that a dangerous condition was present on its property 12 WinCo is held to a reasonable care standard 13 In this matter plaintiff has presented no evidence that WinCo knew of the water in 14 question or through the exercise of reasonable care should have known about it Plaintiff has 15 16 presented no evidence that the water was of such a nature and existed long enough that WinCo 17 had sufficient time to discover it Plaintif s only evidence was that she testified there was water 1g on the floor This is not enough as a matter of law 19 20 III CONCLUSION 21 Without some evidence as to how or how long the water was on the floor plaintiff cannot 22 meet her burden of proo This matter should be dismissed 23 DATED March 23 2017 24 NISSON PINCIN HILL 25 26 JAME S PINCIN 27 Attorne s for Defendant W1NC FOODS LLC 28 MOTION FOR NONSUIT PAGE 2