On March 18, 2019 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
M.D.L.F.,
and
Arrowood, Cindy,
Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive,
Fisher, Diana,
Morongo Unified School District, A Government Entity,
for Personal Injury Non-Motor Vehicle Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
V ORxoLNAL SUPEF‘JOF‘ {‘0 "ET OF CAL|FORNIA
ttrenfitirffizws
1 MARTIN & MARTIN, LLP “
Janet A. Ariza, Esq. (SBN: 144629 1: 3;: W21
)
jafiza@mafiin-martin.com
David S. Miller, Esq. (SBN: 195634)
dmillerQDmartin-martinsom BY
3530 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1650
FILING FEE EXEMPT PURSUANT
Los Angeles, California 90010
Telephone:
TO GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103
(213) 388-4747
Facsimile: (213) 388-6655
Attorney for Defendants
\OOONQUIAUJN
MORONGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
CINDY ARROWOOD, and DIANA FISHER
FAX
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BY COUNTY OF SAV BERNARDINO
M.D.L.F. (a minor) by and through his
CASE N0: CIVDSl908236
Guardian ad Litem, MELINDA FIELDS,
[Hon. Lynn Poncin, Dept. S28]
Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS CINDY ARROWOOD
VS.
AND DIANA FISHER’S REPLY T0
PLAINTIFF M.D.L.FRS OPPOSITION
MORONGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, T0 MOTION T0 STRIKE PORTIONS
a government entity; OF THE FOURTH AMENDED
CINDY ARROWOOD, an individual; COMPLAINT 0F M-D-L-F-;
DIANA FISHER, an individual; MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND
NNNNNNNNNH—‘H—iHHHH—Au—du—t
and DOES through 10, inclusive,
1 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
THEREOF
Defendants'
[Hon. Lynn Poncin]
Dept. $28
OO\IO'\UI#UJNv—-O\OOOQO\UI-bb-)NHO
DATE: December 30, 2021
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
DEPT: 828
Complaint Filed: March 18, 2019
Trial Date: October 3, 2022
COMES NOW Defendants CINDY ARROWOOD and DIANA FISHER in Reply to
the Opposition by Plaintiff M.D.L.F., a minor by and through his Guardian MELINDA
FIELDS, to Defendant’s Motion to Strike Portions of the
Fourth Amended Complaint (4AC),
as follows:
Page l of3
DEFS‘ REPLY TO PL‘S OPP. TO DEFS’ MOT. TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE 4AC
I. INTRODUCTION
This Motion t0 Strike seeks t0 remove
just one Paragraph from the 4AC, but it is an
critical misstatement of fact. In the 4AC, Plaintiff
added the sentence, “The two incidents
occuned with two different people, but the incidents were within the same school year only a
few months apart.” 4AC, 1124. This may not seem
\oooucxmgwm.‘
very important, but it is a false statement
that could mislead the Court 0n the severance issue. Defendants theref
ore respectfully request
that the Court strike Paragraph 24 from the 4AC.
II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. The statement that Defendants seek to strike is false and misleads the
Court.
Plaintiff does not deny that the statement in the 4AC that “the incidents were within the
same school year” is untrue. He says that it is just a “simple error.” Opp., 2:14. It appears,
however, that Plaintiff added “simple error” to the
this 4AC in order to contradict one 0f the
reasons that the Court had given for previo
usly proposing to grant Defendants’ Motion for
Severance. In the Court’s tentative ruling, which
became the Order of the Court, one of the
reasons that the Court presented for granting the
Severance Motion was that the two incidents
“happened in two separate academic years With two
NNNNNNNNNr—‘r—Ab—tr—b—dr—dwr—dr—tw
different participants.” Tentative Ruling
(9/29/21), at 12.
WNOUI-RWNP—OOOONQM-bWNP-‘o
Defendants are raising the issue 0f severance in their
Demurrer to the 4AC. Cal. CiV.
Proc. Code § 430. 10(d). “A demurrer admits all material and issuable facts properly pleaded.”
Daar V. Yellow Cab C0., 67 Cal. 2d 695, 713 (1967). The purpose of this Demurrer, therefore,
is to remove the obligation of the Court to take thc statem
ent that “the incidents were Within
the same school year” as true when ruling on the severance portion 0f the Demurrer that
Defendants filed concurrently herein. The Court’s
statement that the incidents happened in
separate academic years is the accurate one.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants CINDY ARROWOOD and DIANA FISHER
respectfully request that the Court grant this Motion to Strike in its entirety.
DEFS’ REPLY TO PL’S OPP. TO DEFS’ MOT.
TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE 4AC
Document Filed Date
December 22, 2021
Case Filing Date
March 18, 2019
Category
Personal Injury Non-Motor Vehicle Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
V ORxoLNAL SUPEF‘JOF‘ {‘0 "ET OF CAL|FORNIA ttrenfitirffizws 1 MARTIN & MARTIN, LLP “ Janet A. Ariza, Esq. (SBN: 144629 1: 3;: W21 ) jafiza@mafiin-martin.com David S. Miller, Esq. (SBN: 195634) dmillerQDmartin-martinsom BY 3530 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1650 FILING FEE EXEMPT PURSUANT Los Angeles, California 90010 Telephone: TO GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103 (213) 388-4747 Facsimile: (213) 388-6655 Attorney for Defendants \OOONQUIAUJN MORONGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, CINDY ARROWOOD, and DIANA FISHER FAX SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY COUNTY OF SAV BERNARDINO M.D.L.F. (a minor) by and through his CASE N0: CIVDSl908236 Guardian ad Litem, MELINDA FIELDS, [Hon. Lynn Poncin, Dept. S28] Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS CINDY ARROWOOD VS. AND DIANA FISHER’S REPLY T0 PLAINTIFF M.D.L.FRS OPPOSITION MORONGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, T0 MOTION T0 STRIKE PORTIONS a government entity; OF THE FOURTH AMENDED CINDY ARROWOOD, an individual; COMPLAINT 0F M-D-L-F-; DIANA FISHER, an individual; MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND NNNNNNNNNH—‘H—iHHHH—Au—du—t and DOES through 10, inclusive, 1 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF Defendants' [Hon. Lynn Poncin] Dept. $28 OO\IO'\UI#UJNv—-O\OOOQO\UI-bb-)NHO DATE: December 30, 2021 TIME: 9:00 a.m. DEPT: 828 Complaint Filed: March 18, 2019 Trial Date: October 3, 2022 COMES NOW Defendants CINDY ARROWOOD and DIANA FISHER in Reply to the Opposition by Plaintiff M.D.L.F., a minor by and through his Guardian MELINDA FIELDS, to Defendant’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Fourth Amended Complaint (4AC), as follows: Page l of3 DEFS‘ REPLY TO PL‘S OPP. TO DEFS’ MOT. TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE 4AC I. INTRODUCTION This Motion t0 Strike seeks t0 remove just one Paragraph from the 4AC, but it is an critical misstatement of fact. In the 4AC, Plaintiff added the sentence, “The two incidents occuned with two different people, but the incidents were within the same school year only a few months apart.” 4AC, 1124. This may not seem \oooucxmgwm.‘ very important, but it is a false statement that could mislead the Court 0n the severance issue. Defendants theref ore respectfully request that the Court strike Paragraph 24 from the 4AC. II. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. The statement that Defendants seek to strike is false and misleads the Court. Plaintiff does not deny that the statement in the 4AC that “the incidents were within the same school year” is untrue. He says that it is just a “simple error.” Opp., 2:14. It appears, however, that Plaintiff added “simple error” to the this 4AC in order to contradict one 0f the reasons that the Court had given for previo usly proposing to grant Defendants’ Motion for Severance. In the Court’s tentative ruling, which became the Order of the Court, one of the reasons that the Court presented for granting the Severance Motion was that the two incidents “happened in two separate academic years With two NNNNNNNNNr—‘r—Ab—tr—b—dr—dwr—dr—tw different participants.” Tentative Ruling (9/29/21), at 12. WNOUI-RWNP—OOOONQM-bWNP-‘o Defendants are raising the issue 0f severance in their Demurrer to the 4AC. Cal. CiV. Proc. Code § 430. 10(d). “A demurrer admits all material and issuable facts properly pleaded.” Daar V. Yellow Cab C0., 67 Cal. 2d 695, 713 (1967). The purpose of this Demurrer, therefore, is to remove the obligation of the Court to take thc statem ent that “the incidents were Within the same school year” as true when ruling on the severance portion 0f the Demurrer that Defendants filed concurrently herein. The Court’s statement that the incidents happened in separate academic years is the accurate one. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendants CINDY ARROWOOD and DIANA FISHER respectfully request that the Court grant this Motion to Strike in its entirety. DEFS’ REPLY TO PL’S OPP. TO DEFS’ MOT. TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE 4AC