On November 29, 2017 a
Hearing
was filed
involving a dispute between
Conrado, Diego,
and
Cls Landscaping Management, Inc,
Espinoza Gonzalez, Jose Juan,
for Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
Ur r
if f ih tA
Sandra Brislin Esc State Bar Na I05221 s
s
i
t
G
r
LAW C FFICES QF 11fIC7HAR GARBER AV AND DUNCAN t T
2 790 The City Drive Suite 400 1A R
Orange CA 92868
3 Teiephone 714 939 4180 Facsimile 866 547 5409 4
Emai S c ra Bris in@I bertyMutual carn r ri n
W
4 p ta
w j Y
5
Attarney for Defendants CLS LANDSCAPING MANAGEMENT IT FC and J4SE JUAN
ESPIlVQZA GONZALEZ
6
7
8
SUP ER OR COURT 3F CALIFC7RNTA
couu oF s zr B x nva SAN BERNARDINp BRAI ICH
1a
1I
DIEG4 C41 TRADQ Case No IVDS 1723453
12 Judge Hanorable Brian S McCarville Dept
Plaintif S30
13
VS
I FFENDANTS OPPOSITIC N TC
14 PLAiNTIFF S MOTIt3N IN LIMINE NO 10
FELONY CONVICTTONS
CLS I ANDSCAPING MAI IAGEMEI TT INC
15
JOSE JUAN ESPIlV4ZA GGNZALEZ and
1 DqES 1 thraugh 50 Inclusive
17 Defendants
18 TO THE CQURT AND ALL PARTIES AND THEIIt ATTORNEYS UF R CURD H REIN
19 Defendants CLS LANDSCAPIlVG MANAGEMENT 11 iC and JOSE JLTAN ESPINUZA
20 GONZALEZ hereinai DEFENDANTS
er
hereby oppose Pla irrtiff DIEGO GQNRADO s
21
hereinaf er PlaintifP Motion in Limine No 10 to Preclud e Evidence ofFelony Conviction
22 MEMORAIYAUM OF PQINTS Alr7D AUTHQRITIES
23 This matter arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on January 4 2016 an Central
24 Ave the State Route 60 East Baund
ramp in China California Plainti
tear aff
was a passenger in
25
the 1998 Honda Civic driven by nan party unlicensed driver Andrew Mora who allegedly collided
2b with DEFENDANTS motor vehicle Plaintiff filed his camplaint on NQvember 29 241
27 Plaintif s credibility is at issue here The central issues in this case are Iiability and the
28
1
DEFENDANTS OFPQSTFIC N TO PLAIt TTIFF S Mt7TIpN IN LII NO 10
1 causation nature and extent afthe Plaintif s alieged injuries and damages Plaintiffs versian af the
2 subjact accident is inconsistent with the Defendants versian ofthe acciden Plaintiffis also alleging
that hehas suf ered numerous injuries which are di cult to objectively quantify and is seeking a
4 large amount of lost earnings as a result af these alleged injuries Whether ar not Plaintiff is believed
5 in his testimony by the jury may deternnine the autcame of this case The jury will hear varic us
witnesses testify to the facts surrounding the collision As such the issue of Flaintiff s credibility is
important and Defendant has tutory right pursuant
a sta to California Evidence Code 788 ta
g introduce by way af examination or record that Plaintiffhas been conuicte in he p st of felany
crimir al contiuct
9
California Evidence Code sect on 786 states that Evidence of traits ofhis character other
1
than
honesty or veracit ar their opposites is inadmissible to attack ar support the credibility of a
12 Emphasis Added Because the issue here will come downta whcrm thejury fuxi s to be
most credible Defendant must be allowed to introduced Plaintiff5 past felony convictions
DEFENDANT HAS A STATUTORY RIGHT TU ATTACK THE CREDIBILITY OF THE
4
PLAINTIFF
IS
16 California Evidence Code section 788 reads in its entirety as follows
17 788 For the putpose af attacking the credibility of a witness it may be shown by the
examination of the witness ar by the record of the judgment that he has been cc nvicted af a
1
felony uniess
l a A pardon based an his innocence has been granted to the witness by thejurisdiction
in which hewas convicted
p b A certificate ofrehabilitation and pardon has been granted to the witness under the
provisions of Chapter 3 S commencing with Section 4852 01 of Title 6 af Part 3 of the Penal
21 Code
c The accusatory pleading against the witness has been disrnissed under the
provisions ofPenal Cdde Section 1203 4 but this exceptian does not apply to any crimiuial
2 trial where the witness is beingprosecuted for a subsequent offense
d The convicrian was under the Iaws ofanother jurisdiction and the witness has been
24 relieved of the penalties and disabilities arising from the conviction pzusuant to a proe iure
substantially equivaient to that referced ta in subdivision b or c
25
None ofthe exceptions set forth in 788 apply to the Plaintiffin the present matter He did
26
not receive any pardon and the charges were not dismissed
27
28
2
DEFENDANTS t3PPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S MQ FTt 1 F IN LIlVIINE NO 10
Document Filed Date
March 04, 2020
Case Filing Date
November 29, 2017
Category
Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Ur r if f ih tA Sandra Brislin Esc State Bar Na I05221 s s i t G r LAW C FFICES QF 11fIC7HAR GARBER AV AND DUNCAN t T 2 790 The City Drive Suite 400 1A R Orange CA 92868 3 Teiephone 714 939 4180 Facsimile 866 547 5409 4 Emai S c ra Bris in@I bertyMutual carn r ri n W 4 p ta w j Y 5 Attarney for Defendants CLS LANDSCAPING MANAGEMENT IT FC and J4SE JUAN ESPIlVQZA GONZALEZ 6 7 8 SUP ER OR COURT 3F CALIFC7RNTA couu oF s zr B x nva SAN BERNARDINp BRAI ICH 1a 1I DIEG4 C41 TRADQ Case No IVDS 1723453 12 Judge Hanorable Brian S McCarville Dept Plaintif S30 13 VS I FFENDANTS OPPOSITIC N TC 14 PLAiNTIFF S MOTIt3N IN LIMINE NO 10 FELONY CONVICTTONS CLS I ANDSCAPING MAI IAGEMEI TT INC 15 JOSE JUAN ESPIlV4ZA GGNZALEZ and 1 DqES 1 thraugh 50 Inclusive 17 Defendants 18 TO THE CQURT AND ALL PARTIES AND THEIIt ATTORNEYS UF R CURD H REIN 19 Defendants CLS LANDSCAPIlVG MANAGEMENT 11 iC and JOSE JLTAN ESPINUZA 20 GONZALEZ hereinai DEFENDANTS er hereby oppose Pla irrtiff DIEGO GQNRADO s 21 hereinaf er PlaintifP Motion in Limine No 10 to Preclud e Evidence ofFelony Conviction 22 MEMORAIYAUM OF PQINTS Alr7D AUTHQRITIES 23 This matter arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on January 4 2016 an Central 24 Ave the State Route 60 East Baund ramp in China California Plainti tear aff was a passenger in 25 the 1998 Honda Civic driven by nan party unlicensed driver Andrew Mora who allegedly collided 2b with DEFENDANTS motor vehicle Plaintiff filed his camplaint on NQvember 29 241 27 Plaintif s credibility is at issue here The central issues in this case are Iiability and the 28 1 DEFENDANTS OFPQSTFIC N TO PLAIt TTIFF S Mt7TIpN IN LII NO 10 1 causation nature and extent afthe Plaintif s alieged injuries and damages Plaintiffs versian af the 2 subjact accident is inconsistent with the Defendants versian ofthe acciden Plaintiffis also alleging that hehas suf ered numerous injuries which are di cult to objectively quantify and is seeking a 4 large amount of lost earnings as a result af these alleged injuries Whether ar not Plaintiff is believed 5 in his testimony by the jury may deternnine the autcame of this case The jury will hear varic us witnesses testify to the facts surrounding the collision As such the issue of Flaintiff s credibility is important and Defendant has tutory right pursuant a sta to California Evidence Code 788 ta g introduce by way af examination or record that Plaintiffhas been conuicte in he p st of felany crimir al contiuct 9 California Evidence Code sect on 786 states that Evidence of traits ofhis character other 1 than honesty or veracit ar their opposites is inadmissible to attack ar support the credibility of a 12 Emphasis Added Because the issue here will come downta whcrm thejury fuxi s to be most credible Defendant must be allowed to introduced Plaintiff5 past felony convictions DEFENDANT HAS A STATUTORY RIGHT TU ATTACK THE CREDIBILITY OF THE 4 PLAINTIFF IS 16 California Evidence Code section 788 reads in its entirety as follows 17 788 For the putpose af attacking the credibility of a witness it may be shown by the examination of the witness ar by the record of the judgment that he has been cc nvicted af a 1 felony uniess l a A pardon based an his innocence has been granted to the witness by thejurisdiction in which hewas convicted p b A certificate ofrehabilitation and pardon has been granted to the witness under the provisions of Chapter 3 S commencing with Section 4852 01 of Title 6 af Part 3 of the Penal 21 Code c The accusatory pleading against the witness has been disrnissed under the provisions ofPenal Cdde Section 1203 4 but this exceptian does not apply to any crimiuial 2 trial where the witness is beingprosecuted for a subsequent offense d The convicrian was under the Iaws ofanother jurisdiction and the witness has been 24 relieved of the penalties and disabilities arising from the conviction pzusuant to a proe iure substantially equivaient to that referced ta in subdivision b or c 25 None ofthe exceptions set forth in 788 apply to the Plaintiffin the present matter He did 26 not receive any pardon and the charges were not dismissed 27 28 2 DEFENDANTS t3PPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S MQ FTt 1 F IN LIlVIINE NO 10