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
1 Christs pher B Dolan SBN 165358
Aimee E Kirby SBN 216909
2
Cristina Garcia SBN 348161
S U Ct iORCI I
DOLAN LAW FIRM PC i T
COU N7Y OF S Li 7 ti r1
3 3s
sAr a o
1438 Market Street NA
Tkic T
4 San Francisco California 94102
Telephone 415 421 2800 MAR U 2 2Q2
5 Facsimile 415 421 2830 y
r t
1i I i
s
6 N tv
Gerard Friend SBN 101718
7 The Law Office of Gerard Friend
1348 S Flower St
8
Los Angeles CA 90015
Telephone 213 689 8900
g
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff
DIEGO CONRADO
11
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
14
DIEGO CONRADO an individual Case No CNDS1723453
15
Plaintiff
PLAINTIFF S OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN
16
v LIMINE NUIVIBER 3 REGARDING REPTILE
17 THEORY
CLS LANDSCAPING MANAGEMENT u
8 INC JOSE JUAN ESPINOZA Trial Date March 9 2Q20
GONZALEZ and DOES 1 to 50 Time 10 00 am
9 r
Defendants Dept S30 5
20
f
21
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN
22
23
Plaintiff files the following Opposition to Defendants Motion in Limine Number 3 based on th
Reptile Theory
24
I COUNSEL FOR ALL PARTIES HAVE WIDE LATITUDE TO PERSUADE THE JURY TO
25
SEE EVIDENCE AND DRAW INFERENCES FAVORABLE TO THEIR CLIENTS
26
Banning arguments to a
jury is contrary to California Law Counsel has wide latitude t
27
28
persuade a jury about the righteousness ofthe parties positions
1
PLAINTIFF S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE 3
1 In conducting closing argument attorneys for both sides have wide latitude to discuss the
case The right of counsel to discuss the merits of a case both as to the law and facts is
2
very wide and he has the right to state fully his views as to what the evidence shows and
3 as to the conclusions to be fairly drawn therefrom The adverse party cannot complain if
the reasoning be faulty and the deductions illogical as such matters are ultimately for the
4 consideration of the
jury Counsel may vigorously argue his case and is not limited to
Chesterfieldian politeness An attorney is permitted to argue all reasonable
5 inferences from the evidence Only the most persuasive reasons justify handcuffing
attorneys in the exercise of their advocacy within the bounds of propriery Cassim v
6
Allstate Ins Co 33 Ca1 4th 780 795 2004 citations and internal quotations omitted
IL ADVOCATING FOR THE SAFEST CONDUCT AS REASONABLE CARE IS NOT A
8 REPTILE ARGUMENT
9
The genius of the jury is that it brings together people of diverse backgrounds and experiences
10 and together they determine whether a defendant s
or in many cases a plaintiff s conduct wa
11 reasonable
This determination has nothing to do with whether the conduct is so egregious that it mus
2
be punished it is merely a determination that the conduct was unreasonable by the standards expected o
13
members of the community and that the defendant should be accountable for the harm it caused
14
Over 140 years ago the United States Supreme Court recognized that the jury is the conscienc
15 of the community It adopted the philosophy that the jury is in the best position to determine wha
16 members of that community should expect from each other Railroad Co v Stout 84 U S 657 1873
7
affirming a judgment finding a railroad negligent in its maintenance of a turntable which injured
8
child reposed its trust in the jury to determine what safety it expects from the companies operating i
9
the community
20 Twelve men of the average of the community comprising men of education and men of
little education men of learning and men whose learning consists only in what they have
21 themselves seen and heard the merchant the mechanic the farmer the laborer these sit
together consult apply their separate experience of the affairs of life to the facts proven
22 and draw a unanimous conclusion This average judgment thus given it is the great effort
of the law to obtain It is assumed that twelve men know more of the common affairs of
23
life than does one man that they can draw wiser and safer conclusions from admitted
24 facts thus occurring than can a single judge Id at 663 664 emphasis added
25
Justice Mosk in his concurring opinion in Ballard v Uribe 1986 41 Ca1 3d 564 expressed th
26
same
philosophy and did characterize it with the now familiar shorthand the conscience of th
27
community
28
2
PLAINTIFF S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE 3
Document Filed Date
March 02, 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
1 Christs pher B Dolan SBN 165358 Aimee E Kirby SBN 216909 2 Cristina Garcia SBN 348161 S U Ct iORCI I DOLAN LAW FIRM PC i T COU N7Y OF S Li 7 ti r1 3 3s sAr a o 1438 Market Street NA Tkic T 4 San Francisco California 94102 Telephone 415 421 2800 MAR U 2 2Q2 5 Facsimile 415 421 2830 y r t 1i I i s 6 N tv Gerard Friend SBN 101718 7 The Law Office of Gerard Friend 1348 S Flower St 8 Los Angeles CA 90015 Telephone 213 689 8900 g 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff DIEGO CONRADO 11 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 14 DIEGO CONRADO an individual Case No CNDS1723453 15 Plaintiff PLAINTIFF S OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN 16 v LIMINE NUIVIBER 3 REGARDING REPTILE 17 THEORY CLS LANDSCAPING MANAGEMENT u 8 INC JOSE JUAN ESPINOZA Trial Date March 9 2Q20 GONZALEZ and DOES 1 to 50 Time 10 00 am 9 r Defendants Dept S30 5 20 f 21 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN 22 23 Plaintiff files the following Opposition to Defendants Motion in Limine Number 3 based on th Reptile Theory 24 I COUNSEL FOR ALL PARTIES HAVE WIDE LATITUDE TO PERSUADE THE JURY TO 25 SEE EVIDENCE AND DRAW INFERENCES FAVORABLE TO THEIR CLIENTS 26 Banning arguments to a jury is contrary to California Law Counsel has wide latitude t 27 28 persuade a jury about the righteousness ofthe parties positions 1 PLAINTIFF S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE 3 1 In conducting closing argument attorneys for both sides have wide latitude to discuss the case The right of counsel to discuss the merits of a case both as to the law and facts is 2 very wide and he has the right to state fully his views as to what the evidence shows and 3 as to the conclusions to be fairly drawn therefrom The adverse party cannot complain if the reasoning be faulty and the deductions illogical as such matters are ultimately for the 4 consideration of the jury Counsel may vigorously argue his case and is not limited to Chesterfieldian politeness An attorney is permitted to argue all reasonable 5 inferences from the evidence Only the most persuasive reasons justify handcuffing attorneys in the exercise of their advocacy within the bounds of propriery Cassim v 6 Allstate Ins Co 33 Ca1 4th 780 795 2004 citations and internal quotations omitted IL ADVOCATING FOR THE SAFEST CONDUCT AS REASONABLE CARE IS NOT A 8 REPTILE ARGUMENT 9 The genius of the jury is that it brings together people of diverse backgrounds and experiences 10 and together they determine whether a defendant s or in many cases a plaintiff s conduct wa 11 reasonable This determination has nothing to do with whether the conduct is so egregious that it mus 2 be punished it is merely a determination that the conduct was unreasonable by the standards expected o 13 members of the community and that the defendant should be accountable for the harm it caused 14 Over 140 years ago the United States Supreme Court recognized that the jury is the conscienc 15 of the community It adopted the philosophy that the jury is in the best position to determine wha 16 members of that community should expect from each other Railroad Co v Stout 84 U S 657 1873 7 affirming a judgment finding a railroad negligent in its maintenance of a turntable which injured 8 child reposed its trust in the jury to determine what safety it expects from the companies operating i 9 the community 20 Twelve men of the average of the community comprising men of education and men of little education men of learning and men whose learning consists only in what they have 21 themselves seen and heard the merchant the mechanic the farmer the laborer these sit together consult apply their separate experience of the affairs of life to the facts proven 22 and draw a unanimous conclusion This average judgment thus given it is the great effort of the law to obtain It is assumed that twelve men know more of the common affairs of 23 life than does one man that they can draw wiser and safer conclusions from admitted 24 facts thus occurring than can a single judge Id at 663 664 emphasis added 25 Justice Mosk in his concurring opinion in Ballard v Uribe 1986 41 Ca1 3d 564 expressed th 26 same philosophy and did characterize it with the now familiar shorthand the conscience of th 27 community 28 2 PLAINTIFF S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE 3