On March 02, 2015 a
Hearing
was filed
involving a dispute between
Rigoli, Brianne,
and
C.R. England, Inc. A Utah Corporation,
England Global Logistics Usa, Inc. A Utah Corporation,
Torres, Lorena,
Rigoli, Brianne,
for Wrongful Termination
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
0410312 6 23 Snyder Law I AH 05 892 2801 P Q021007
1 SNYDER LAW LLP F I L E D
SUPERIOR COURT OF CAUFORNIA
BAr 1 y Clifiord Sny de r S 6z844 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDfNO
SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
2 A hiey Ann Dorria SB 229361
Jeseica SB 280123
Farley APR 0 4 2018
3 5383 Tollister Avenue Sui e 240
Santa Barbara California 93111
4 Telephone No 805 692 2800 BY
805 692 2801 DANiEL IERLEIN DEPUTY
Facsimile No
5 bsnyder a snyderlaw com
adorris snyderlaw com
6 jfarley a snyderlaw corn
7 Attameys far De ez dazzts C R ENGLAND INC
C ENGLAND GLaBAL LOGZS ZCS USA TN C
S and LORENA TORRES
9 SLTPERIOR CQURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1p t THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARD VO
11 BRIANN RICr LY Case No C V 51502545
12 PlaintifF I on Janet M Frangie l7epartment 529
v
13 UPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S MOTION
NLIMIlYE NO 7 TO PRECLUDE
C t ENGLAND INC a Utah Cozporation
14 E1 GLAND GLOBAL LOGIST CS USA AAMISSYON OF EVIDENCE AND
TNC a Utah Corporation LO TA ARGUM NT RELATED TQ MS RIGOLI
15 TQ 2ES an individual ancl DOES E NG Al AT WILL EMPLOYEE
through 10 inclusive
1
Defenda ts
17
I8 1 z troduction
Plain iff is claiming wrangful terrninatian The fact that plaintiff was an at wilX
19
20 employee is a central foundational fact about plaintiff s employment t C R England and is
21 directly relevatxt to what was required of de endants in terminating plaintiff There is a jury
22 instruction on the topic for this very reason
he fact that there was employment contraet must be known to the jury the
23 o
24 evidenee is excluded the jury wi11 oz ly be confused and eft with c nestions Was plain tiff
2S guaranteed employment through 2Q1 7 Was there good carzse far plaintifPs termination Were
26 defendants requir d to give pIaintif a justifiable reason for her termination or substantiate the
27 reasons fot tex x inating pIaintiff Tlaese questions must be answered for the juxy
zs i
IVYDER LAW LLP 1
SI83 Holli tet AVEiI W
1vYpTION INLIMINE Nq 7 TO PRECLUDE AADMI59ION OF EVIDENCE AND
8 y p qa
O PpS1TION TO PLAIIrITI
pRf iJ1ViRNT RTI A1 Tn MS Ri fl y B 1NC AN AT WTI T FMPi nYFF
ONIa
8 0
38 NyS
bOrt
g oz
o de
Q
a
Document Filed Date
April 04, 2018
Case Filing Date
March 02, 2015
Category
Wrongful Termination
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
0410312 6 23 Snyder Law I AH 05 892 2801 P Q021007 1 SNYDER LAW LLP F I L E D SUPERIOR COURT OF CAUFORNIA BAr 1 y Clifiord Sny de r S 6z844 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDfNO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT 2 A hiey Ann Dorria SB 229361 Jeseica SB 280123 Farley APR 0 4 2018 3 5383 Tollister Avenue Sui e 240 Santa Barbara California 93111 4 Telephone No 805 692 2800 BY 805 692 2801 DANiEL IERLEIN DEPUTY Facsimile No 5 bsnyder a snyderlaw com adorris snyderlaw com 6 jfarley a snyderlaw corn 7 Attameys far De ez dazzts C R ENGLAND INC C ENGLAND GLaBAL LOGZS ZCS USA TN C S and LORENA TORRES 9 SLTPERIOR CQURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1p t THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARD VO 11 BRIANN RICr LY Case No C V 51502545 12 PlaintifF I on Janet M Frangie l7epartment 529 v 13 UPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S MOTION NLIMIlYE NO 7 TO PRECLUDE C t ENGLAND INC a Utah Cozporation 14 E1 GLAND GLOBAL LOGIST CS USA AAMISSYON OF EVIDENCE AND TNC a Utah Corporation LO TA ARGUM NT RELATED TQ MS RIGOLI 15 TQ 2ES an individual ancl DOES E NG Al AT WILL EMPLOYEE through 10 inclusive 1 Defenda ts 17 I8 1 z troduction Plain iff is claiming wrangful terrninatian The fact that plaintiff was an at wilX 19 20 employee is a central foundational fact about plaintiff s employment t C R England and is 21 directly relevatxt to what was required of de endants in terminating plaintiff There is a jury 22 instruction on the topic for this very reason he fact that there was employment contraet must be known to the jury the 23 o 24 evidenee is excluded the jury wi11 oz ly be confused and eft with c nestions Was plain tiff 2S guaranteed employment through 2Q1 7 Was there good carzse far plaintifPs termination Were 26 defendants requir d to give pIaintif a justifiable reason for her termination or substantiate the 27 reasons fot tex x inating pIaintiff Tlaese questions must be answered for the juxy zs i IVYDER LAW LLP 1 SI83 Holli tet AVEiI W 1vYpTION INLIMINE Nq 7 TO PRECLUDE AADMI59ION OF EVIDENCE AND 8 y p qa O PpS1TION TO PLAIIrITI pRf iJ1ViRNT RTI A1 Tn MS Ri fl y B 1NC AN AT WTI T FMPi nYFF ONIa 8 0 38 NyS bOrt g oz o de Q a