On January 27, 2020 a
Hearing
was filed
involving a dispute between
Hardy, Illya,
Hardy, Johanna Barlund,
Topline K9 Services,
and
Animal Emergency Clinic,
Rios, Dvm, Grace,
for Personal Injury Non-Motor Vehicle Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
H George M. Wallace -- Cal. Bar No. 101472
WALLACE, BROWN & SCHWARTZ
2 215 North Marengo Avenue
Third Floor
3 Pasadena, California 91 101—1504 3%353595 898% gégfikgfifigm
(626) 844-6777; Fax (626) 795-0353 SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
4
Attornes for Defendants GRACE RIOS, D V. M., DEC O 1 2021
5 and A IMAL EMERGENCY CLINIC _
.
6 BY
NTHIA BELLAMY, D TY
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
11 ILLYA HARDY, an individual; Case No.: CIV DS 2002744
JOHANNA BARLUND HARDY, an
12 individual; TOPLINE K9 SERVICES, Unlimited Jurisdiction - Claim
Exceeds $25,000
l3 Plaintiffs, [Assignedfor allpurposes t0 Dept. S28]
14 VS. Com laint Filed. January27, 2020
Tria Date: December 13, 2021
15 GRACE RIOS, D. V. M., an Individual;
ANIMAL EMERGENCY CLINIC;
16 and DOES l- 50, inclusive, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE
TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RE
17 Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ EMOTIONAL
DISTRESS
18
[Motion #1 of 4]
19
21 Defendants GRACE RIOS, D.V.M., and ANIMAL EMERGENCY CLINIC,
22 and each of them, hereby move the Court in limine at the time of Trial for the
23 following ruling and instructions to the plaintiffs:
24
25
Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence re Emotional
Distress Damages [Motion #1 of 4] - 1
V V
That all inquiries into and testimony concerning any “emotional
distress” sustained by plaintiffs in consequence of the alleged
negligent injury and eventual death of the subject dog be excluded.
This motion is made on the ground that emotional distress damages are not
\OOOQONU’IAUJNL—A
recoverable for negligent injury to an animal, as a matter of law; that any testimony
or evidence offered upon that subject is irrelevant, potentially misleading, and
potentially prejudicial; and that such evidence lacks any probative value in regard
t0 the events or circumstances complained of in this lawsuit.
The motion will be made and heard based upon this Notice, the
accompanying memorandum 0f points and authorities, the pleadings and records
on file with the Court in this action, matters of which the Court may take judicial
notice, and such other oral and documentary matter as may properly be before the
Court at the time of hearing.
DATE: November 30, 2021 WALLACE, BROWN & SCHWARTZ
NNNNNNr—AHHp—AHh—sfi—Ab—Ar—‘p—d
MAWNHOKOOOQQMAWNF-‘O
é/yGEORGE M. WALLACE
GRACE RIOS,
Attorneys for Defendants
D.V.M., and ANIMAL EMERGENCY
CLINIC
Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence re Emotional
Distress Damages [Motion #1 of 4] - 2
Document Filed Date
December 01, 2021
Case Filing Date
January 27, 2020
Category
Personal Injury Non-Motor Vehicle Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
H George M. Wallace -- Cal. Bar No. 101472 WALLACE, BROWN & SCHWARTZ 2 215 North Marengo Avenue Third Floor 3 Pasadena, California 91 101—1504 3%353595 898% gégfikgfifigm (626) 844-6777; Fax (626) 795-0353 SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT 4 Attornes for Defendants GRACE RIOS, D V. M., DEC O 1 2021 5 and A IMAL EMERGENCY CLINIC _ . 6 BY NTHIA BELLAMY, D TY 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 11 ILLYA HARDY, an individual; Case No.: CIV DS 2002744 JOHANNA BARLUND HARDY, an 12 individual; TOPLINE K9 SERVICES, Unlimited Jurisdiction - Claim Exceeds $25,000 l3 Plaintiffs, [Assignedfor allpurposes t0 Dept. S28] 14 VS. Com laint Filed. January27, 2020 Tria Date: December 13, 2021 15 GRACE RIOS, D. V. M., an Individual; ANIMAL EMERGENCY CLINIC; 16 and DOES l- 50, inclusive, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RE 17 Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 18 [Motion #1 of 4] 19 21 Defendants GRACE RIOS, D.V.M., and ANIMAL EMERGENCY CLINIC, 22 and each of them, hereby move the Court in limine at the time of Trial for the 23 following ruling and instructions to the plaintiffs: 24 25 Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence re Emotional Distress Damages [Motion #1 of 4] - 1 V V That all inquiries into and testimony concerning any “emotional distress” sustained by plaintiffs in consequence of the alleged negligent injury and eventual death of the subject dog be excluded. This motion is made on the ground that emotional distress damages are not \OOOQONU’IAUJNL—A recoverable for negligent injury to an animal, as a matter of law; that any testimony or evidence offered upon that subject is irrelevant, potentially misleading, and potentially prejudicial; and that such evidence lacks any probative value in regard t0 the events or circumstances complained of in this lawsuit. The motion will be made and heard based upon this Notice, the accompanying memorandum 0f points and authorities, the pleadings and records on file with the Court in this action, matters of which the Court may take judicial notice, and such other oral and documentary matter as may properly be before the Court at the time of hearing. DATE: November 30, 2021 WALLACE, BROWN & SCHWARTZ NNNNNNr—AHHp—AHh—sfi—Ab—Ar—‘p—d MAWNHOKOOOQQMAWNF-‘O é/yGEORGE M. WALLACE GRACE RIOS, Attorneys for Defendants D.V.M., and ANIMAL EMERGENCY CLINIC Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence re Emotional Distress Damages [Motion #1 of 4] - 2