On March 02, 2015 a
Motion,Ex Parte
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
Barry Clifford Snyder SB 62 44
2 Ashley Ann Dorris SB 229361
Jessica Farley SB 280123
3 5383 Hollister Avenue Suite 240
Santa Barbara California 93111
4 Telephone No 845 692 2800 SUPER ORGouRT OF CALIFORNIA
Facsimile No
COUNTY pF SAN BERNARDfNO
805 692 2801 SAN E3ERNARpINO DISTRICT
5 bsnyder@snyderlaw com
adorris@snyderlaw com APR 0 6 2018
d jfarley@snyderlaw com
BY J Reado
7 Attorneys for Defendants C R ENGLAND INC
7pPUTY
ENGL AND G LOB AL LOG IST IC S U SA IN C
8 and LORENA TORRES
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
11 BRIANNE RIGOLI Case No CIVDS 1502545
12 Plaintiff Hon Janet M Frangie Department S29
v
13 MOTION INLI11fINE 7 TO EXCLUDE
C R ENGLAND INC a Utah Corporation
ALL EVIDENCE OF PRIOR LAWSUITS
14 ENGLAND GLOBAL LOGISTICS USA FILED AGAINST C R ENGLAND
INC a Utah Corporation LORENA
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE
15 TORRES an individual and DOES 1
HILL MEZA AND TURNER CASES
through 10 inclusive PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE 210
16
350 352 403 DECLARATION OF
JESSICA FARLEY
1 Defendants
lg TO PLAINTIFF AND HER COUNSEL OF RECORD
19
Defendants C R England Inc England Global Logistics USA Inc and Lorena Torres
2 Defendants
move the Court in limine for an order excluding from trial all evidence of prior
21
lawsuits filed against C R England unless and until the appropriate foundation is laid for same
22 1 Introduction
23
All evidence of prior lawsuits filed against C R England must be excluded because the
24
evidence is irrelevant to the case at bar lacks foundation and is potentially hearsay evidence
25
Even ifthe proffered evidence is shown to be relevant its probative value is easily and
26
substantially outweighed by its tendency to cause undue prejudice against defendants and to
27
detract from the jury s examination of evidence that is actually relevant to the events surrounding
2g
plaintiff s termination and the people involved in those events
SNYDER LAW LLP 1
5383 HollisterAvenue
Suite 240 MOTION 1N LIMINE 7 TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE OF PRIOR LAWSUITS FILED AGAINST C R
Sama Barbare CA93111 ENGLAND INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE HILL
MEZA AIVD TURNER CASES PURSUANT TO
1 2 Relevant Facts
2 In written discovery plaintiff asked for all documents related to the Nick or Matt Meza
3 case Declaration ofJessica Farley para 3 Defendants objected on grounds of relevancy
4 overbreadth attorney client privilege and attorney work product and did not produce any
5 documents Id No further discovery was propounded on the issue Declaration ofJessica
6 Farley para 4 It is not clear whether plaintiff plans to introduce evidence of the Meza case at
7
trial and if so what evidence is intended to be proffered by plaintiffto the court Id
8 Plaintiff s counsel has represented that she plans to introduce evidence of Turner v C R
9 England at trial Declaration ofJessica Fartey para 5 Turner was a wage and hour class
10 action Id J There is no wage and hour claim in this action Declar ation of Iessica Farley para
11 6 There the issue Id Plaintiff s counsel has stipulated to
was also no
discovery conducted on
12
excluding any evidence regarding Hill v C R England Declaration ofJessica Fai ley para 7
13 3 This Evidence Is Inadmissible Because It Is Not Relevant to the Issues at Bar
14 Only relevant evidence that evidence tending to prove or disprove any disputed fact
15 that is to the determination the action is
of consequence of admissible Evidence Code 210
16 350 Pursuant to Evidence Code 403 there must also be proper foundation laid before evidence
17
is put before the jury
18
Evidence of prior lawsuits filed against C R England has no bearing whatsoever on the
19
issues at bar and there has been no foundation for such evidence Plaintiff is not alleging a wage
20
and hour claim here and there is no showing that the complaints in the prior lawsuits were
21 otherwise similar to plaintiff s complaints Unless and until there is a foundation laid with a
22
showing that the proffered evidence tends to prove or disprove a disputed fact the evidence must
23 be excluded
24 4
The Probative Value of This Evidence Is SubstantialIv Outwei hed Bv Its Tendencv
25 to Mislead the Jurv Confuse the Issues and Undulv Preiudice C R England
26 Evidence Code Section 352 allows the court to exclude relevant evidence if its probative
27 value is the its
substantially outweighed by probability that admission will create substantial
28
danger of undue prejudice of confusing the issues or of misleading the jury
SNYDER W V LLP
5383 HollisterAvenue
Suite 240 MOTION IN LIMINE 7 TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE OF PRIOR LAWSUITS FILED AGAINST C R
SantaBerbara CA93111 ENGLAND INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE HILL MEZA AND TURNER CASES
PURSUANT TO
Document Filed Date
April 06, 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 Barry Clifford Snyder SB 62 44 2 Ashley Ann Dorris SB 229361 Jessica Farley SB 280123 3 5383 Hollister Avenue Suite 240 Santa Barbara California 93111 4 Telephone No 845 692 2800 SUPER ORGouRT OF CALIFORNIA Facsimile No COUNTY pF SAN BERNARDfNO 805 692 2801 SAN E3ERNARpINO DISTRICT 5 bsnyder@snyderlaw com adorris@snyderlaw com APR 0 6 2018 d jfarley@snyderlaw com BY J Reado 7 Attorneys for Defendants C R ENGLAND INC 7pPUTY ENGL AND G LOB AL LOG IST IC S U SA IN C 8 and LORENA TORRES 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 11 BRIANNE RIGOLI Case No CIVDS 1502545 12 Plaintiff Hon Janet M Frangie Department S29 v 13 MOTION INLI11fINE 7 TO EXCLUDE C R ENGLAND INC a Utah Corporation ALL EVIDENCE OF PRIOR LAWSUITS 14 ENGLAND GLOBAL LOGISTICS USA FILED AGAINST C R ENGLAND INC a Utah Corporation LORENA INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE 15 TORRES an individual and DOES 1 HILL MEZA AND TURNER CASES through 10 inclusive PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE 210 16 350 352 403 DECLARATION OF JESSICA FARLEY 1 Defendants lg TO PLAINTIFF AND HER COUNSEL OF RECORD 19 Defendants C R England Inc England Global Logistics USA Inc and Lorena Torres 2 Defendants move the Court in limine for an order excluding from trial all evidence of prior 21 lawsuits filed against C R England unless and until the appropriate foundation is laid for same 22 1 Introduction 23 All evidence of prior lawsuits filed against C R England must be excluded because the 24 evidence is irrelevant to the case at bar lacks foundation and is potentially hearsay evidence 25 Even ifthe proffered evidence is shown to be relevant its probative value is easily and 26 substantially outweighed by its tendency to cause undue prejudice against defendants and to 27 detract from the jury s examination of evidence that is actually relevant to the events surrounding 2g plaintiff s termination and the people involved in those events SNYDER LAW LLP 1 5383 HollisterAvenue Suite 240 MOTION 1N LIMINE 7 TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE OF PRIOR LAWSUITS FILED AGAINST C R Sama Barbare CA93111 ENGLAND INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE HILL MEZA AIVD TURNER CASES PURSUANT TO 1 2 Relevant Facts 2 In written discovery plaintiff asked for all documents related to the Nick or Matt Meza 3 case Declaration ofJessica Farley para 3 Defendants objected on grounds of relevancy 4 overbreadth attorney client privilege and attorney work product and did not produce any 5 documents Id No further discovery was propounded on the issue Declaration ofJessica 6 Farley para 4 It is not clear whether plaintiff plans to introduce evidence of the Meza case at 7 trial and if so what evidence is intended to be proffered by plaintiffto the court Id 8 Plaintiff s counsel has represented that she plans to introduce evidence of Turner v C R 9 England at trial Declaration ofJessica Fartey para 5 Turner was a wage and hour class 10 action Id J There is no wage and hour claim in this action Declar ation of Iessica Farley para 11 6 There the issue Id Plaintiff s counsel has stipulated to was also no discovery conducted on 12 excluding any evidence regarding Hill v C R England Declaration ofJessica Fai ley para 7 13 3 This Evidence Is Inadmissible Because It Is Not Relevant to the Issues at Bar 14 Only relevant evidence that evidence tending to prove or disprove any disputed fact 15 that is to the determination the action is of consequence of admissible Evidence Code 210 16 350 Pursuant to Evidence Code 403 there must also be proper foundation laid before evidence 17 is put before the jury 18 Evidence of prior lawsuits filed against C R England has no bearing whatsoever on the 19 issues at bar and there has been no foundation for such evidence Plaintiff is not alleging a wage 20 and hour claim here and there is no showing that the complaints in the prior lawsuits were 21 otherwise similar to plaintiff s complaints Unless and until there is a foundation laid with a 22 showing that the proffered evidence tends to prove or disprove a disputed fact the evidence must 23 be excluded 24 4 The Probative Value of This Evidence Is SubstantialIv Outwei hed Bv Its Tendencv 25 to Mislead the Jurv Confuse the Issues and Undulv Preiudice C R England 26 Evidence Code Section 352 allows the court to exclude relevant evidence if its probative 27 value is the its substantially outweighed by probability that admission will create substantial 28 danger of undue prejudice of confusing the issues or of misleading the jury SNYDER W V LLP 5383 HollisterAvenue Suite 240 MOTION IN LIMINE 7 TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE OF PRIOR LAWSUITS FILED AGAINST C R SantaBerbara CA93111 ENGLAND INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE HILL MEZA AND TURNER CASES PURSUANT TO