Motion-Secondary: HARDY et al -v- RIOS, DVM et al Print

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                SUPERIOR CQURT OF CALIFORNIA
                                                                    COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDING
     Jill L. Ryther, Esq., SBN 266016                                SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
     RYTHER LAW GROUP, LLP
     5777 W. Century Blvd. #1110-2076                                     DEC 08 2021
     Los Angeles, CA 90045
     Phone: 310-751-4404
     Fax: 310-773-9192

     Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
     JOHANNA BARLUND, ILLYA HARDY
     TOPLINE K9 SERVICES


                   SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                       FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO


     ILLYA HARDY, an individual; JOHANNA            )       Case No. CIV DS 2002744
10
     BARLUND HARDY, an individual;                  )          Honorable John Nguyen,
11   TOPLINE K9 SERVICES,                                     Dept. 828
                    Plaintiffs,
12                                                          Action Filing Date: January 27,2020
13           vs.                                            Trial Date: December 13, 2021

     GRACE RIOS, D.V.M., an Individual;
14                                                          PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
     ANIMAL EMERGENCY CLINIC; and
     DOES |I- 50, inclusive,                                MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
1S
                                                            TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE
                    Defendants.                             RELATING TO LOST FUTURE PROFITS
16
                                                            AND OTHER NON-COMPENSABLE
17                                                          DAMAGE CLAIMS
18
                                                            [OPPOSITION 2 OF 4]
19
20
             Plaintiffs ILLYA HARDY, JOHANNA BARLUND HARDY, and TOPLINE K9
21
      SERVICES hereby file this Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine to exclude all
22
      testimony and evidence related to lost future profits and other non-compensable damages by
23
      Plaintiffs in consequence of the negligent injury and death of CHAYA.
24
25



          PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE
           RELATING TO LOST FUTURE PROFITS AND OTHER NON-COMPENSABLE DAMAGE CLAIMS
                                                        1
Defendants’ Motion is simply another attempt to argue a position they already argued and|

     lost in their motion to bifurcate the liability and the damages. In addition, Defendants’ motion

     takes a biased, narrow view of property as it applies in the case under the law; and in any case,

     even cases cited by Defendants present authority for allowing Plaintiffs to make their case for

     actual and exemplary damages, including lost future profits.

                Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion will be made and heard based upon

     Defendants’ Notice, the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, the pleadings and

     records on file with the Court in this action, matters in which the Court may take Judicial Notice,

     and other oral and documentary matters as may be properly before the Court at the time of the

10   hearing.

11

12   DATED: December 8, 2021                           RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

13                                                     RYTHER LAW GROUP
                                                                               f
14

15
                                                                       =
                                                                       “


16                                                     JILLL. RYTHER
                                                       Attorney for Plaintiffs ILLYA HARDY,
17                                                     JOHANNA BARLUND HARDY,
                                                       TOPLINE K9 SERVICES
18

19
20
21
22
23
24
25



          PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE
           RELATING TO LOST FUTURE PROFITS AND OTHER NON-COMPENSABLE                 DAMAGE   CLAIMS
                                                          2