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
SUPrF a r f QRNIA
iu oirao
Sandra E State B No 105221
rislin Esq ar
Ji trod C h i i t J i fC T
LAW OFFICES OF MUHAR GARBER 1 V AND DUNCAN
790 The MAR 0 4 2020
2 City Drive Suite 400
Orange GA 92868
3 Telephone 714 939 0180 Facsimile 866 47 5409
S r l Li J f
Ernail Sandra Brislin@LibertyMutual com
4
5 Attorney fflr Defendants CLS LANDSC ING MANAGEMENT INC arrd JOSE IU N
ESPIlVOZA G NZALEZ
6
7
8
SUPERIO COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUIVTY gF SAN BERN INO SAN BERNARDINO BRANCH
10
11
DIEGO CONRADO Case No CIVDS 1723453
Judge Honorable Brian S IvlcCarville
12 Dept S30
Plaintiff
13 DEFENDANTS OPP4SITION TO y
v5
PLAINTIFF S 11 IOTIQN IN LINiINE NO
14
RE MOTIVATIUNS
CLS LANDSCAPING iV T 1GEMENT INC D
15
JOSE JUAlti1 ESPII O A GONZALEZ an
DOES 1 through 50 Inclusive
16
0
17 Defendants
1 TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES AND THEIR TTORNE OF REC RD HEREIN
19 Defendants CLS LANDSCAPING MANAGEMENT INC and I4SE NAN ESPINOZA
20 GONZALEZ hereinafter DEFENDANTS hereby vppose Plaintif DIEGO CONRADO s
21 hereinafter Plaintiff Motion in Limine No 6 to Preclude Testirnony or Opinion about Alleged
Lying Faking SYmptom
22 Malingering Secondary Gain Falsification Exagg ration
23 Misrepres ntation ar Other Claims about Plaintif s Alleged Motivations or Veracity
24 MEMORANDUM QF P4IlVTS AN AUTH RIT S
25 This matter arises from a motor vehiele accident that occune on January 4 2016 on Central
26 Ave near the Stafe Route 60 East Bound off ramp in Chino California Plaintiff was a passenger in
27 the 199 IHonda Civic driven by nonwgarty unlicensed dri er Andrew Mor who allegedly sollided
28
DEFENI3ANTS OPPf35ITI4N T FLAII TIFF S MOTION 1L E NO 6
vv tfi DEFENDANTS motor vehicle Plaintiff filed his complaint on 1 Tovember 29 2017
2 The central issues in this case axe liability az d the causation n ture and extent of the
3 Plaintif s a1leg l injuries and damages Plaintif s versian af the subject accident is inconsistent with
4 the I3efendants version of the accident Flaintiff is also alleging that he has suffered numerous
5 injwies which are difficult to objectively quantify and is seeking a large amount oflost eunings as a
result ofthese alleged injuries
6
7
8 T
I DETERMINING CREDIBILTY IS THE R LE QF THE JURY AND PLAINTIFF
9
10 CANN T INVADE THE JURY S ROLE AND PRECLUDE THEM FROM
11 HAVING THE EVIDENCE TO DO SO
12 A witness s credibility is a question of fact to be rescalved solely by the jurors California
denee Code
13 312 b People v Jacksvn 2U05 129 Cal App 4th 129 167 In detennining a
l witn s s credibility the judge or jurors ma consid r axsy matt r t ndutg to prove or disprove the
15 ness ofth witness s testamony ir cluding the follawing the witness s demean r while
testifying Peaple v Merriman 2014 60 Ca1 4th 1 85 the manner in which the witness testi the
16
1 eharaeter of the witness s testiman3 the extent ofthe witness s capacity to perceive recalleet or
1g communicate any matter about vvhich he or she t stifies the extent ofthe witness s opportunity to
19 perceive any matter about which he or she testifies the witr ess s character for honesty or veraaity or
20 for l ck thereof the existence or non xistence ofbias interes or another motiiveforgduing the
Skm ny levple v Cornejo 2016 3 Ca1 App Sth 36 2 People vAnderson 2U18 S Ca1 5th 372
21
413 14
22 a staternent previously made by the witness that is consistent with the witness s testimony a
23 statement previously made by the witn ss that is inconsistent with the witness s testimony People v
2 Artderson supra 5 Cal Sth at 403 404 he witness s attitude about the a ctian in whichhe or she
testifies ar about vin testiman the witness s admission of untruthfulness and the existence ar
25
26 nonexistence of any fact testified to by the witness California Eviden e Code 780
27
28
2
DEFENDANTS OPPOSTTIQN TO PLAINTIFF S 11IOTION IN LIMINE NO 6
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
SUPrF a r f QRNIA iu oirao Sandra E State B No 105221 rislin Esq ar Ji trod C h i i t J i fC T LAW OFFICES OF MUHAR GARBER 1 V AND DUNCAN 790 The MAR 0 4 2020 2 City Drive Suite 400 Orange GA 92868 3 Telephone 714 939 0180 Facsimile 866 47 5409 S r l Li J f Ernail Sandra Brislin@LibertyMutual com 4 5 Attorney fflr Defendants CLS LANDSC ING MANAGEMENT INC arrd JOSE IU N ESPIlVOZA G NZALEZ 6 7 8 SUPERIO COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUIVTY gF SAN BERN INO SAN BERNARDINO BRANCH 10 11 DIEGO CONRADO Case No CIVDS 1723453 Judge Honorable Brian S IvlcCarville 12 Dept S30 Plaintiff 13 DEFENDANTS OPP4SITION TO y v5 PLAINTIFF S 11 IOTIQN IN LINiINE NO 14 RE MOTIVATIUNS CLS LANDSCAPING iV T 1GEMENT INC D 15 JOSE JUAlti1 ESPII O A GONZALEZ an DOES 1 through 50 Inclusive 16 0 17 Defendants 1 TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES AND THEIR TTORNE OF REC RD HEREIN 19 Defendants CLS LANDSCAPING MANAGEMENT INC and I4SE NAN ESPINOZA 20 GONZALEZ hereinafter DEFENDANTS hereby vppose Plaintif DIEGO CONRADO s 21 hereinafter Plaintiff Motion in Limine No 6 to Preclude Testirnony or Opinion about Alleged Lying Faking SYmptom 22 Malingering Secondary Gain Falsification Exagg ration 23 Misrepres ntation ar Other Claims about Plaintif s Alleged Motivations or Veracity 24 MEMORANDUM QF P4IlVTS AN AUTH RIT S 25 This matter arises from a motor vehiele accident that occune on January 4 2016 on Central 26 Ave near the Stafe Route 60 East Bound off ramp in Chino California Plaintiff was a passenger in 27 the 199 IHonda Civic driven by nonwgarty unlicensed dri er Andrew Mor who allegedly sollided 28 DEFENI3ANTS OPPf35ITI4N T FLAII TIFF S MOTION 1L E NO 6 vv tfi DEFENDANTS motor vehicle Plaintiff filed his complaint on 1 Tovember 29 2017 2 The central issues in this case axe liability az d the causation n ture and extent of the 3 Plaintif s a1leg l injuries and damages Plaintif s versian af the subject accident is inconsistent with 4 the I3efendants version of the accident Flaintiff is also alleging that he has suffered numerous 5 injwies which are difficult to objectively quantify and is seeking a large amount oflost eunings as a result ofthese alleged injuries 6 7 8 T I DETERMINING CREDIBILTY IS THE R LE QF THE JURY AND PLAINTIFF 9 10 CANN T INVADE THE JURY S ROLE AND PRECLUDE THEM FROM 11 HAVING THE EVIDENCE TO DO SO 12 A witness s credibility is a question of fact to be rescalved solely by the jurors California denee Code 13 312 b People v Jacksvn 2U05 129 Cal App 4th 129 167 In detennining a l witn s s credibility the judge or jurors ma consid r axsy matt r t ndutg to prove or disprove the 15 ness ofth witness s testamony ir cluding the follawing the witness s demean r while testifying Peaple v Merriman 2014 60 Ca1 4th 1 85 the manner in which the witness testi the 16 1 eharaeter of the witness s testiman3 the extent ofthe witness s capacity to perceive recalleet or 1g communicate any matter about vvhich he or she t stifies the extent ofthe witness s opportunity to 19 perceive any matter about which he or she testifies the witr ess s character for honesty or veraaity or 20 for l ck thereof the existence or non xistence ofbias interes or another motiiveforgduing the Skm ny levple v Cornejo 2016 3 Ca1 App Sth 36 2 People vAnderson 2U18 S Ca1 5th 372 21 413 14 22 a staternent previously made by the witness that is consistent with the witness s testimony a 23 statement previously made by the witn ss that is inconsistent with the witness s testimony People v 2 Artderson supra 5 Cal Sth at 403 404 he witness s attitude about the a ctian in whichhe or she testifies ar about vin testiman the witness s admission of untruthfulness and the existence ar 25 26 nonexistence of any fact testified to by the witness California Eviden e Code 780 27 28 2 DEFENDANTS OPPOSTTIQN TO PLAINTIFF S 11IOTION IN LIMINE NO 6