On January 27, 2020 a
Motion-Secondary
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
George M. Wallace — Cal. Bar N0. 101472 ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Auk >)
WALLACE, BROWN & SCHWARTZ SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFC >RNIA
2 1 5 North Marengo Avenue, Third Floor Elg/gggzggggw/IBERNARD'N o
'
Pasadena, California 91 10 1 - 1 504
(626) 844-6777; Fax (626) 795-0353
GRACE RIOS, D.V.M.,
Attorneys for Defendants
\OOOQONUI-hUJNr—t
and ANIMAL EMERGENCY CLINIC
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ILLYA HARDY, an individual; Case N0.: CIV DS 2002744
JOHANNA BARLUND HARDY, an
individual; TOPLINE K9 SERVICES, DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
Plaintiffs, NEW TRIAL
vs. [Obj ections t0 Evidence submitted
under separate cover]
GRACE RIOS, D.V.M., an Individual;
NNNNNNHr—kr—kr—kr—‘r—Ar—‘r—kr—‘r—A
ANIMAL EMERGENCY CLINIC;
and DOES 1- 50, inclusive, DATE: February 16, 2024
TIME: 9:00 am.
Defendants. DEPT.: 828
Ul-prNt—‘OKOOOQONUI-bUJNHO
Defendants GRACE RIOS, D.V.M., and ANIMAL EMERGENCY CLINIC,
submit the following points and authorities in opposition to the Motion 0f plaintiffs
for New Trial in this matter:
Opposition t0 Motion for New Trial - 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ...................................... 4
I. Although Plaintiffs Designated Multiple Grounds 0n Which
They Might Seek New Majority 0f Those Grounds
\OOOQONUI-hUJNr—t
Trial, the
’
Are Not Referred t0 in Plaintiffs Supporting Legal Memorandum,
and Should Be Deemed Withdrawn 0r Waived............................................. 4
II. Plaintiffs Have Submitted N0 Declarations 0r Other Evidence
From Any Member 0fthe Jury, and Therefore Cannot Obtain
New Trial 0n the Ground oflury Misconduct.............................................. 6
III. Even ifthe Evidence in the Supporting Declarations
Was Deemed Admissible, It Does Not Demonstrate Any
Impropriety 0n the Part ofAny Juror, Nor Any Resulting
Prejudice t0 Plaintiffs’ Right t0 a Fair Trial and Decision 0f
Their Case ....................................................................................................... 8
NNNNNNHr—kr—kr—kr—‘r—Ar—‘r—kr—‘r—A
Ul-prNt—‘OKOOOQONUI-bUJNHO
Opposition t0 Motion for New Trial - 2
Document Filed Date
February 05, 2024
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
George M. Wallace — Cal. Bar N0. 101472 ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Auk >) WALLACE, BROWN & SCHWARTZ SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFC >RNIA 2 1 5 North Marengo Avenue, Third Floor Elg/gggzggggw/IBERNARD'N o ' Pasadena, California 91 10 1 - 1 504 (626) 844-6777; Fax (626) 795-0353 GRACE RIOS, D.V.M., Attorneys for Defendants \OOOQONUI-hUJNr—t and ANIMAL EMERGENCY CLINIC SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ILLYA HARDY, an individual; Case N0.: CIV DS 2002744 JOHANNA BARLUND HARDY, an individual; TOPLINE K9 SERVICES, DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR Plaintiffs, NEW TRIAL vs. [Obj ections t0 Evidence submitted under separate cover] GRACE RIOS, D.V.M., an Individual; NNNNNNHr—kr—kr—kr—‘r—Ar—‘r—kr—‘r—A ANIMAL EMERGENCY CLINIC; and DOES 1- 50, inclusive, DATE: February 16, 2024 TIME: 9:00 am. Defendants. DEPT.: 828 Ul-prNt—‘OKOOOQONUI-bUJNHO Defendants GRACE RIOS, D.V.M., and ANIMAL EMERGENCY CLINIC, submit the following points and authorities in opposition to the Motion 0f plaintiffs for New Trial in this matter: Opposition t0 Motion for New Trial - 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ...................................... 4 I. Although Plaintiffs Designated Multiple Grounds 0n Which They Might Seek New Majority 0f Those Grounds \OOOQONUI-hUJNr—t Trial, the ’ Are Not Referred t0 in Plaintiffs Supporting Legal Memorandum, and Should Be Deemed Withdrawn 0r Waived............................................. 4 II. Plaintiffs Have Submitted N0 Declarations 0r Other Evidence From Any Member 0fthe Jury, and Therefore Cannot Obtain New Trial 0n the Ground oflury Misconduct.............................................. 6 III. Even ifthe Evidence in the Supporting Declarations Was Deemed Admissible, It Does Not Demonstrate Any Impropriety 0n the Part ofAny Juror, Nor Any Resulting Prejudice t0 Plaintiffs’ Right t0 a Fair Trial and Decision 0f Their Case ....................................................................................................... 8 NNNNNNHr—kr—kr—kr—‘r—Ar—‘r—kr—‘r—A Ul-prNt—‘OKOOOQONUI-bUJNHO Opposition t0 Motion for New Trial - 2