Preview
1 LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD JACOBS
RICHARD JACOBS, SBN 252226
2 13512 Hatteras St.
Valley Glen, California 91401
3 Tel: (818) 216-0663
Fax: (818) 780-8696
4 RichardJacobsLaw@gmail.com
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff, BIG WASHINGTON, LLC.
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN – METROPOLITAN DIVISION
9
10 BIG WASHINTON, LLC., a Case No.: BCV17-102341 SDS
California Limited Liability
11 Company MOTION FOR VIEWING OF THE PROPERTY BY
THE TRIER OF FACT AT TRIAL
12 Plaintiff;
13 v.
14 BENHONG (AMERICA)
RECYCLING CO. LTD, a
15 California Limited Liability
Company; and THOMAS H.
16 FRY; RUTH M. FRY, as
Trustees of the T & R FRY
17 FAMILY TRUST, and Does 1 to
100,
18
Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 Please take notice that on the date and time set forth above, or as soon as the
3 matter can be heard in the Department of the Kern County Superior Court set forth
4 above, Plaintiff Big Washington hereby moves this Court for an Order to have the trier
5
of fact visit the property at issue in this lawsuit.
6
This motion is made under Code of Civil Procedure Section 651 on the grounds
that such a visit would aid the trier of fact in its determination of the case.
7
This Motion will be based upon this Notice, the attached Memorandum of Points
8
and Authorities, the Declaration of Richard B. Jacobs, the exhibits, and papers,
9
pleadings, and documents contained on file, and upon all further oral and documentary
10
evidence as may be presented at the time of the hearing on this motion.
11
May 4, 2022
12
13
14 ___________________________________
15 Richard Jacobs, Esq.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 This case is a dispute between Big Washington (“Plaintiff”) and the Fry’s
4 (“Defendant”) regarding the Fry’s abandoning 8,000,000 pounds of plastic at Plaintiff’s
5
property when they moved out.
6
As it is nearly impossible to illustrate the enormity of 8,000,000 pounds of plastic and
the effects on Plaintiff’s property, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court order a viewing of
7
the Plaintiff’s property by the trier of fact.
8
II. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 651 PROVIDES FOR ON-
9
SITE VIEWINGS BY THE TRIER OF FACT
10
“(a) On its own motion or on the motion of a party, where the court finds that such a
11
view would be proper and would aid the trier of fact in its determination of the case, the court
12
may order a view of any of the following:
13
(1) The property which is the subject of litigation.
14
(2) The place where any relevant event occurred.
15
(3) Any object, demonstration, or experiment, a view of which is relevant and
16
admissible in evidence in the case and which cannot with reasonable convenience be viewed
17
in the courtroom.” (Code of Civ. Proc. Section 651.)
18
In this case, the plastic that was abandoned on Plaintiff’s property by Defendants takes
19 up 8 warehouses, each of which is 30,000 sq. ft. As it is nearly impossible to comprehend
20 the scope of the abandoned plastic, Plaintiff respectfully suggests that a site visit will save
21 days of testimony regarding the scope of damage to Plaintiff and will allow the trier of fact to
22 understand the issues involved in remediation.
23 Notably, the property is only a few miles from the Courthouse where this case is being
24 tried. Both are in Bakersfield, CA and according to Google Directions, the property is only 9
25 minutes from the Courthouse. Therefore, this will not cause any significant inconvenience
26 and will save the Court and jury from days of additional testimony.
27
28
-3-
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 III. CONCLUSION
2 The trier of fact in this case deserves an opportunity to view the issues rather than deal
3 with them in the abstract. Therefore, as provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff
4 respectfully requests the Court order an on-site visit for the trier of fact.
5
May 4, 2022
6
7
___________________________________
8
Richard Jacobs, Esq.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
PROOF OF SERVICE
PROOF OF SERVICE )
1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss:
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
2
I am employed in the City and County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am
3 over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 13512
Hatteras St., Valley Glen, CA 91401. My electronic service address is
4 RichardJacobsLaw@gmail.com. I am readily familiar with the business' practice for
filing electronically, and the documents listed below have been or will be electronically
5 served this same day in the ordinary course of business following ordinary business
practices.
6
On May 23, 2022, I electronically served 1 and delivered the following
7 documents via overnight delivery. These documents are described as:
8 MOTION FOR VIEWING OF THE PROPERTY BY THE TRIER OF FACT AT
TRIAL
9
William Alexander
10 Elizabeth Estrada
1925 G Street
11 Bakersfield, CA 93301
12
A true and correct copy of transmittal will be produced if requested by any party
13 or the court.
14 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that
the above is true and correct and was executed on May 23, 2022.
15
16
_______________________
17
Richard Jacobs
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1 Duly served in accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 2.251.
27 Effective January 1, 2019.
28
-5-
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
1 LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD JACOBS RICHARD JACOBS, SBN 252226 2 13512 Hatteras St. Valley Glen, California 91401 3 Tel: (818) 216-0663 Fax: (818) 780-8696 4 RichardJacobsLaw@gmail.com 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff, BIG WASHINGTON, LLC. 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN – METROPOLITAN DIVISION 9 10 BIG WASHINTON, LLC., a Case No.: BCV17-102341 SDS California Limited Liability 11 Company MOTION FOR VIEWING OF THE PROPERTY BY THE TRIER OF FACT AT TRIAL 12 Plaintiff; 13 v. 14 BENHONG (AMERICA) RECYCLING CO. LTD, a 15 California Limited Liability Company; and THOMAS H. 16 FRY; RUTH M. FRY, as Trustees of the T & R FRY 17 FAMILY TRUST, and Does 1 to 100, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- PROOF OF SERVICE 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 Please take notice that on the date and time set forth above, or as soon as the 3 matter can be heard in the Department of the Kern County Superior Court set forth 4 above, Plaintiff Big Washington hereby moves this Court for an Order to have the trier 5 of fact visit the property at issue in this lawsuit. 6 This motion is made under Code of Civil Procedure Section 651 on the grounds that such a visit would aid the trier of fact in its determination of the case. 7 This Motion will be based upon this Notice, the attached Memorandum of Points 8 and Authorities, the Declaration of Richard B. Jacobs, the exhibits, and papers, 9 pleadings, and documents contained on file, and upon all further oral and documentary 10 evidence as may be presented at the time of the hearing on this motion. 11 May 4, 2022 12 13 14 ___________________________________ 15 Richard Jacobs, Esq. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- PROOF OF SERVICE 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 This case is a dispute between Big Washington (“Plaintiff”) and the Fry’s 4 (“Defendant”) regarding the Fry’s abandoning 8,000,000 pounds of plastic at Plaintiff’s 5 property when they moved out. 6 As it is nearly impossible to illustrate the enormity of 8,000,000 pounds of plastic and the effects on Plaintiff’s property, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court order a viewing of 7 the Plaintiff’s property by the trier of fact. 8 II. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 651 PROVIDES FOR ON- 9 SITE VIEWINGS BY THE TRIER OF FACT 10 “(a) On its own motion or on the motion of a party, where the court finds that such a 11 view would be proper and would aid the trier of fact in its determination of the case, the court 12 may order a view of any of the following: 13 (1) The property which is the subject of litigation. 14 (2) The place where any relevant event occurred. 15 (3) Any object, demonstration, or experiment, a view of which is relevant and 16 admissible in evidence in the case and which cannot with reasonable convenience be viewed 17 in the courtroom.” (Code of Civ. Proc. Section 651.) 18 In this case, the plastic that was abandoned on Plaintiff’s property by Defendants takes 19 up 8 warehouses, each of which is 30,000 sq. ft. As it is nearly impossible to comprehend 20 the scope of the abandoned plastic, Plaintiff respectfully suggests that a site visit will save 21 days of testimony regarding the scope of damage to Plaintiff and will allow the trier of fact to 22 understand the issues involved in remediation. 23 Notably, the property is only a few miles from the Courthouse where this case is being 24 tried. Both are in Bakersfield, CA and according to Google Directions, the property is only 9 25 minutes from the Courthouse. Therefore, this will not cause any significant inconvenience 26 and will save the Court and jury from days of additional testimony. 27 28 -3- PROOF OF SERVICE 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 The trier of fact in this case deserves an opportunity to view the issues rather than deal 3 with them in the abstract. Therefore, as provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff 4 respectfully requests the Court order an on-site visit for the trier of fact. 5 May 4, 2022 6 7 ___________________________________ 8 Richard Jacobs, Esq. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- PROOF OF SERVICE PROOF OF SERVICE ) 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss: COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) 2 I am employed in the City and County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am 3 over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 13512 Hatteras St., Valley Glen, CA 91401. My electronic service address is 4 RichardJacobsLaw@gmail.com. I am readily familiar with the business' practice for filing electronically, and the documents listed below have been or will be electronically 5 served this same day in the ordinary course of business following ordinary business practices. 6 On May 23, 2022, I electronically served 1 and delivered the following 7 documents via overnight delivery. These documents are described as: 8 MOTION FOR VIEWING OF THE PROPERTY BY THE TRIER OF FACT AT TRIAL 9 William Alexander 10 Elizabeth Estrada 1925 G Street 11 Bakersfield, CA 93301 12 A true and correct copy of transmittal will be produced if requested by any party 13 or the court. 14 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the above is true and correct and was executed on May 23, 2022. 15 16 _______________________ 17 Richard Jacobs 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 Duly served in accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 2.251. 27 Effective January 1, 2019. 28 -5- PROOF OF SERVICE