On March 02, 2015 a
Party Discovery
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
1 SNYDER LAW LLP
SUPERIOR
COURT OF CDqlIFORNIA
COUNTY
SAN g OF SAN SERNARDINO
Sarry Clifford Snyder SB 62844 NARDIi O D STRICT
2 Ashley Ann Dorris SB 229361
Jessica Farley SB 280123 APR 2 5 Z018
3 5383 Holiister Avenue Suite 240
Santa Barbara California 93111 y
4 Telephone No 805 692 2800
i
Facsimile No 805 692 2801
5 bsnyder@snyderlaw com
adorris@snyderlaw com
b jfarley@snyderlaw com
7 Attorneys for Defendants C R ENGLAND INC
ENGLAND GLOBAL LOGISTICS USA INC
8 and LORENA TORRES
9
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 FOR HE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
13 BRIANNE RIGOLI Case No CIVDS1502545
14 Plaintiff Hon Janet M Frangie Department S29
15 v DEFENDANT S SPECIAL JURY
INSTRUCTIONS
16 C R ENGLAND INC a Utah Corporation
ENGLAND GLOBAL LOGISTICS USA
17 INC a Utah Corporation LORENA TORRES Trial Date April 9 2018
an individual and DOES 1 through 10 Time 8 30 a m
18 inclusive Dept S29
19 Defendants
20
21
22 Defendant C R England Inc respectfully requests that the Court give the special
23 instructions enclosed herein
24
25 Dated April 25 2018 SNYDER LAW LLP
26
27 By Barry Clifford Snyder Ashley Ann Dorris
Jessica Farley Attorneys for Def endants C R
28 ENGLAND INC ENGLAND GLOBAL
LOGISTICS USA INC and LORENA TORRES
SNYDER LAW LLP
53 3 Hollister Aicnue
Sune 24u
SantaHarbaraCAvs DEFENDANT S SPECIALJURY INSTRUCTIONS
5pecial Instruction
Special Instruction Speculation Conclusions and Assumptions Are Not
Evidence
No 1
Request Plaintiff Request Defendant X
by by Requested by
Given as Proposed Given as Modified Given on Court s Motion
Refused
W ithdrawn J udge
Instruction
No 1
To satisfy her burden of proof on her claims for wrongful
termination Brianne IZigoli must do so with admissible evidence
not assumptions conclusions or speculation
h
Authoritv State 63 Cal 4 1108 1119 1998
Guthrey v App conclusory assertions that
employees had been discriminated against with no specific facts to support them were
properly excluded from evidence Steckl v Motorola Inc 703 F 2d 392 393 9 h Cir 1983
plaintiff s mere assertions that defendant had discriminatory motive did not prove pretext
People Louie 158 CaL 3d 28 47 1984 Evidence is irrelevant if it has a
v
App Supp
tendency to prove or disprove a disputed fact of consequence only by reason of drawing
speculative or conjectural inference from such evidence citation and internal quotation marks
omitted
Document Filed Date
April 25, 2018
Case Filing Date
March 02, 2015
Category
Wrongful Termination
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
1 SNYDER LAW LLP SUPERIOR COURT OF CDqlIFORNIA COUNTY SAN g OF SAN SERNARDINO Sarry Clifford Snyder SB 62844 NARDIi O D STRICT 2 Ashley Ann Dorris SB 229361 Jessica Farley SB 280123 APR 2 5 Z018 3 5383 Holiister Avenue Suite 240 Santa Barbara California 93111 y 4 Telephone No 805 692 2800 i Facsimile No 805 692 2801 5 bsnyder@snyderlaw com adorris@snyderlaw com b jfarley@snyderlaw com 7 Attorneys for Defendants C R ENGLAND INC ENGLAND GLOBAL LOGISTICS USA INC 8 and LORENA TORRES 9 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 FOR HE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 13 BRIANNE RIGOLI Case No CIVDS1502545 14 Plaintiff Hon Janet M Frangie Department S29 15 v DEFENDANT S SPECIAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS 16 C R ENGLAND INC a Utah Corporation ENGLAND GLOBAL LOGISTICS USA 17 INC a Utah Corporation LORENA TORRES Trial Date April 9 2018 an individual and DOES 1 through 10 Time 8 30 a m 18 inclusive Dept S29 19 Defendants 20 21 22 Defendant C R England Inc respectfully requests that the Court give the special 23 instructions enclosed herein 24 25 Dated April 25 2018 SNYDER LAW LLP 26 27 By Barry Clifford Snyder Ashley Ann Dorris Jessica Farley Attorneys for Def endants C R 28 ENGLAND INC ENGLAND GLOBAL LOGISTICS USA INC and LORENA TORRES SNYDER LAW LLP 53 3 Hollister Aicnue Sune 24u SantaHarbaraCAvs DEFENDANT S SPECIALJURY INSTRUCTIONS 5pecial Instruction Special Instruction Speculation Conclusions and Assumptions Are Not Evidence No 1 Request Plaintiff Request Defendant X by by Requested by Given as Proposed Given as Modified Given on Court s Motion Refused W ithdrawn J udge Instruction No 1 To satisfy her burden of proof on her claims for wrongful termination Brianne IZigoli must do so with admissible evidence not assumptions conclusions or speculation h Authoritv State 63 Cal 4 1108 1119 1998 Guthrey v App conclusory assertions that employees had been discriminated against with no specific facts to support them were properly excluded from evidence Steckl v Motorola Inc 703 F 2d 392 393 9 h Cir 1983 plaintiff s mere assertions that defendant had discriminatory motive did not prove pretext People Louie 158 CaL 3d 28 47 1984 Evidence is irrelevant if it has a v App Supp tendency to prove or disprove a disputed fact of consequence only by reason of drawing speculative or conjectural inference from such evidence citation and internal quotation marks omitted