Order: RIGOLI -V- C.R. ENGLAND, INC., ET AL Print

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                I   SAN BERNARDINO SUPERIOR COURT
     SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTER
     247 W THIRD STREET
 2
     DEPARTMENT S29
     SAN BERNARDINO CALIFORNIA 92415
 3

                                                                  SUPERIQR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
 4                                                                 COUNTY OF SAt BERNARDSNO
                                                                    SAN BERNARDI VO 0lSTRICT

 5                                                                     JUL 2 0 2018
 6                                                                             lI
                                                            gy                  1
                                                                 e




                                                                                       DEPUTY
 7


 8


 9


10


11
                      SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
l2

            COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTER
13


14

       BRIANNE RIGOLI                                   CASE NO       CIVDS     j      J
 5


 6                                      Plaintiff       ORDER ON MOTION
                                                        FOR NEW TRIAL
17           v

                                                        SUBMITTED
18

       C R       ENLGLAND   INC
19

                                    Defendants
20


21
             Plaintiff Brianne Rigoli s Motion for New Trial was heard by the court on July 10
22   2018    Plaintiff appeared by THE RAGER LAW FIRM by Jeffrey A Rager Esq
23
     Defendant C R England Inc appeared by SNYDER LAW LLP by Barry Clifford
24   Snyder Esq After considering 1 the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the
25   motion and 2 the oral argument of counsel the matter was submitted for decision

26   The Court now rules as follows


27


28

                                                    1
    1
        Procedure           657 6 as to only the Second Cause of Action for Retaliation in Violation of
    2
        FEHA     and      the Third Cause     of   Action for Violation         of   Labor Code        1102 5   as her

    3
        basis for the motion

    4
                 On a motion for new trial the judge sits as an independent trier of fact reweighs

    5
        the evidence and reevaluates the credibility of witnesses Barrese v Murray 2011 198
    6               4th                                                                                                     4tn


        Cal   App         494 503 Case               South West Dealer Servs                  Inc    2007   157 Cal
                                              a v                                                                     App
        1127 1159 1160           As stated by the Defendant in its Opposition brief
    g
                 The term insufficiency of the evidence means either an absence
    9
                 of evidence or that the evidence admitted at the trial is lacking in
                 probative force to establish the proposition of fact to which it is
                 addressed       In   re   Estate   of   Bainbridge       1915       169 Ca    166    Stated
10
                 another way insufficiency of the evidence as a ground for new
11               trial means the insufficiency that arises in the mind of the trial
                 judge when s he weighs the conflicting evidence and finds that
12               which supports the verdict and judgment weighs in                         her opinion
                 less than that    which     is   opposed    to it       Musgrove v Ambrose
                                                                                 2
13               Properties      1978 87 Cal         App    3d 44 5       sic


l4               Plaintiff s position is that the verdict cannot stand because the circumstantial

15      evidence was overwhelming that there was not a legitimate non discriminatory reason

16      for the termination and the termination was based on retaliation for Plaintiff s complaints

        of racial favoritism and violation of the wage laws
1


18
                 Defendant opposes the motion arguing that there was no retaliation but

19
        substantial and consistent evidence presented of a non discriminatory legitimate

        reason for Plaintiff s termination as a result of her direct violation of an order by her
20

        supervisor Lorraine Torres to bring a doctor s note clearing her from illness before she
21
        returned to work
22
                 Second Cause of Action for Retaliation in Violation of FEHA
23
                 There is insufficient evidence of the stated basis for termination because there is
24
        no evidence that Plaintiff actually returned to work on October 27 2014
25


26          The motion is not directed to the Third or Ninth Causes of Action which found in favor
        of Defendant
        2
27
            See DefendanYs Opposition to Plaintiff s Motion for New Trial filed June 5 2018 page
        1    line 28 to page 2 line 7
28

                                                                     2