Document for PHILLIP GARCIA VS. CARRIE WILSON, IN HER CAPACITCY AS TRUSTEE OF THE et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Goodman
Neuman

Hamilton LLP

So 6 ADH RF WH

NNN a aaa gas
NF SOD WN DUH BR wWBNH SS

23

JOSHUA S. GOODMAN, ESQUIRE - State Bar #116576
JAMES F. HETHERINGTON, ESQUIRE - State Bar #151331

GOODMAN NEUMAN HAMILTON LLP
417 Montgomer, Street, 10 Floor bree Onieer
San Francisco, California 94104 FILED
Jelephene: (415) 705-0400 eet apaet moneee ee
Facsimile: (415) 705-0411 ie oe
oo 98/09/2017,
Attorneys for Defendant Sloeie Brena
CARRIE WILSON, individually and in her capacity as TTT iesecty Gree

Trustee of the WILSON FAMILY TRUST

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

PHILLIP GARCIA, Case No. CGC-14-538560

Plaintiff, DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE

vs. NO. 9 TO EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT
EVIDENCE OR PREJUDICIAL

CARRIE WILSON, in her capacit as EVIDENCE UNDER EVIDENCE CODE

Trustee of the WILSON FAMIL §352

TRUST, et al,

Action Filed: April 10, 2014
Trial Date: August 7, 2017

Defendants.

L INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff broadly seeks to exclude evidence pertaining to a long list of matters on
the basis that the evidence is either unduly prejudicial or irrelevant. Defendant opposes
Plaintiff's motion as to video and audio recordings of Plaintiff, noise complaints against
Plaintiff, and each of the matters Plaintiff claims was established by the Court's order
imposing issue sanctions. The recordings of Plaintiff and noise complaints are relevant
and necessary to defend against Plaintiff's invasion of privacy claims. Plaintiff also
mischaracterizes the Court's order as establishing that the previously-filed unlawful
detainer action was unlawful.

Mi

-l-Ce AY DH BF WwW HY =

ea a a eka
ony KH nA BP WwW BH F&F GS

19

iL BACKGROUND
This is a landlord-tenant and invasion of privacy action arising from Plaintiff

PHILLIP GARCIA's tenancy at 1665 Hayes Street, San Francisco (the "Property"). The
property was owned by Defendant and managed by ANGELO WILSON. ANGELO
WILSON brought an unlawful detainer action against PHILLIP GARCIA. During the
initial action ANGELO WILSON introduced video and audio recordings taken by
SHAWN MARKHAM (another tenant) from outside Mr. Garcia's apartment to
demonstrate excessive noise by Plaintiff. These audio and video recordings form the
basis of Plaintiff's privacy claims in the present lawsuit. The unlawful detainer action
was unsuccessful—the Court found that Mr. Wilson failed to mect his burden of proof—
and resulted in a judgment for attorney's fees being awarded against ANGELO WILSON.

On April 10, 2014 Plaintiff filed this action against ANGELO WILSON, CARRIE
WILSON in her capacity as Trustee of the WILSON FAMILY TRUST, SHAWN
MARKHAM, and others. On February 10, 2017, Plaintiff amended the complaint to add
CARRIE WILSON as a Defendant in her personal capacity. The operative complaint
asserts causes of action for tenant harassment, invasion of privacy, wrongful eviction, and
"enforcement of judgment”. ANGELO WILSON filed a petition for bankruptcy on April
20, 2015.

Ii, ARGUMENT
Audio and video recordings of Plaintiff and evidence of noise complaints against

Plaintiff are relevant and necessary to Defendant as to Plaintiff's invasion of privacy
causes of action, for which Plaintiff seeks punitive damages. To establish a claim for
invasion of privacy, Plaintiff must demonstrate that the Defendants intentionally intruded
into his unit in such a way as to be highly offensive to a reasonable person, that Plaintiff
had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that the intrusion was harmful. CACTI 1800.
In determining whether the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person,
the jury must consider "the degree of intrusion, the context, conduct and circumstances

surrounding the intrusion as well as the intruder’s motives and objectives, the setting into

2-which he intrudes, and the expectations of those whose privacy is invaded.” (Miller v.
National Broadcasting Co., (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1463, 1483—1484.) Here, Plaintiff
was making excessive noise with an amplified electric bass in his unit at all hours of the
day. Defendants Angelo Wilson and Sean Markham sought to document Plaintiff's
misconduct through audio and visual recordings. The complaints of noise from his unit
and some of the video and audio evidence establish that the Plaintiff was in fact making
excessive noise and mitigates to the offensiveness of the alleged intrusion.

Plaintiff claims that evidence pertaining to matters established by the issue
sanctions order executed by the Court is no longer relevant and should therefore be
excluded. As an initial matter, Defendant is seeking an order vacating the march 27,

2017 issue sanctions under §473. Further, Plaintiff incorrectly claims that the order

established the prior unlawful detainer action was unlawful. The Court did not make
such a broad sweeping ruling. Rather, the Court granted an issue sanction establishing
that Defendant in bad faith sought to recover possession of Plaintiff's unit contrary to San
Francisco Administrative Code § 37.9.

IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny

Plaintiff's motion.

DATED: August 5, 2017 GOODMAN NEUMAN HAMILTON LLP

Blas
ay 2
Kf et
py: / Ay #AU
ie S. GOGUMANY
JAMES F. HETHERINGTON
ttorneys for Defendant
CARRIE WILSON, individually and in

her capacity as Trustee of the Wilson
Family Trust

3-

Defendant Carrie Wilson’s Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion In Limine No. #9PROOF OF SERVICE

CASE NAME: Phillip Garcia v. Carrie Wilson, et al.
CASE NUMBER: CGC-14-538560

DATE OF SERVICE: August 8, 2017
DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS SERVED:

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9
TO EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE OR PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE UNDER
EVIDENCE CODE $352

SERVED ON THE FOLLOWING:

[See File & ServeXpress Service List]

oOo NY DH BF wD DP

lam over the age of 18 years and not a party to or interested in the above-named
case. Iam an employee of Goodman Neuman Hamilton LLP, and my business address is
417 Montgomery Street, 10” Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104. On the date stated above,
I served a true copy of the document(s) described above, by E-Mail or Electronic
Transmission: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by
e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the person(s) at the
e-mail address(es) listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the
transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
unsuccessful.

ae
bh Ww NHN KF OO

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on the date stated
above.

—
nun

Q
>
g
Z.
9
&
Oy
E
‘S

Nw Ye NY NY NY NR NY NY & &
IA A BF BN —& S © &

“Tas 15} 708-000
28

PROOF OF SERVICE