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
F
SUPERIOR COURT D
CCU OF CALIFO
—t
Esq, SBN # 266016
Jiu L. Ryther, saflEEJAEAQRBCEgg/‘Tgtgfiy
‘ ‘ T
Sarah A. Thompson, Esq. SBN #306692 n'
RYTHER LAW GROUP, LLP JAN Z 3 102$
40477 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd 9y
STE Dl. #1 57
“'
Murrieta, CA 92563 -
,
Phone: 3 I 0-75 l —4404
Fax: 3 1 0-773-9] 92
OOWVONUIAUJN
Attorneysfor Plaintifik,
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
BARLUND HARDY, an individual; ) Dept. $28
TOPLINE K9 SERVICES,
)
plaintifi‘s, ) Notice of Entry of Judgment: December 1 1,
) 2023
vs.
)
DECLARATION OF SAMANTHA
GRACE RIOS, D.V.M., an Individual; )
HENDERSON IN SUPPORT OF
ANIMAL EMERGENCY CLINIC; and )
DOES 1- 50, inclusive,
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR NEW
)
TRIAL AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
Defendants_
)
NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT
)
)
Hearing Date: February 16, 2024
)
Time: 9a.m.
SAMANTHA HENDERSON declares:
l. I am a paralegal working for Ryther Law Group, LLP, attorneys of record for
plaintiffs ILLYA HARDY, JOHANNA BARLUND HARDY and TOPLINE K9 SERVICES. I
make this declaration in support of the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial and plaintiffs’ motion for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the judgment entered on December l 1, 2023.
l
DECLARATION ()F SAMANTHA HENDERSON IN SUPPORT ()F
PLAIN'I‘IFFS' MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND JNOV
fl 2. The facts contained in this declaration axe personally known to me unless
otherwise stated. If called upon to testify under oath, I could and would competently testify to the
following facts:
3. I appeared as paralegal for trial counsel for the Plaintiffs in this case, and I
personally attended every day except for one of the trial on this matter.
OOOOQONUIADJN
4. After the verdict, I personally witnessed Jill L. Ryther speak with eight to ten
members of the jury.
5. Defense counsel was present for those conversations other than the first couple
minutes.
6. Elizabeth Porco was the jury foreperson, and she also was present and
participated in the entirety 0f Ms. Ryther’s conversations with the jury while 1 was present.
7. In those conversations I remember being informed of the followingz.
a. Elizabeth Porco and another female juror informed Ms. Ryther that one of the
main reasons they did not find the Defendants to be negligent was because of
Plaintist’ own “owner negligence.” When asked what that meant, Elizabeth
Porco stated to Ms. Ryther that because of how valuable Chaya was, Plaintiffs
should not have taken her to Defendants veterinarian facility. She stated they
should have had a special after hours arrangement with a veterinarian for a
dog of her value.
b. When Ms. Ryther inquired about the credibility of Grace Rios, one male juror
said that he did not find her credible.
c. He was interrupted by Elizabeth Porco. She said that she herself does not like
to question authority, and judging by how Grace Rios appeared in court, she
could see why she wouldn’t have corrected herself when being questioned by
an attorney. She compared herself to Grace Rios saying she was similar.
2
DECLARATION ()F SAMANTHA HENDERSON IN SUPPORT OF
PLAIN'I‘IFFS’ MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND JNOV
Document Filed Date
January 23, 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
F SUPERIOR COURT D CCU OF CALIFO —t Esq, SBN # 266016 Jiu L. Ryther, saflEEJAEAQRBCEgg/‘Tgtgfiy ‘ ‘ T Sarah A. Thompson, Esq. SBN #306692 n' RYTHER LAW GROUP, LLP JAN Z 3 102$ 40477 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd 9y STE Dl. #1 57 “' Murrieta, CA 92563 - , Phone: 3 I 0-75 l —4404 Fax: 3 1 0-773-9] 92 OOWVONUIAUJN Attorneysfor Plaintifik, 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 BARLUND HARDY, an individual; ) Dept. $28 TOPLINE K9 SERVICES, ) plaintifi‘s, ) Notice of Entry of Judgment: December 1 1, ) 2023 vs. ) DECLARATION OF SAMANTHA GRACE RIOS, D.V.M., an Individual; ) HENDERSON IN SUPPORT OF ANIMAL EMERGENCY CLINIC; and ) DOES 1- 50, inclusive, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR NEW ) TRIAL AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT Defendants_ ) NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT ) ) Hearing Date: February 16, 2024 ) Time: 9a.m. SAMANTHA HENDERSON declares: l. I am a paralegal working for Ryther Law Group, LLP, attorneys of record for plaintiffs ILLYA HARDY, JOHANNA BARLUND HARDY and TOPLINE K9 SERVICES. I make this declaration in support of the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial and plaintiffs’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the judgment entered on December l 1, 2023. l DECLARATION ()F SAMANTHA HENDERSON IN SUPPORT ()F PLAIN'I‘IFFS' MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND JNOV fl 2. The facts contained in this declaration axe personally known to me unless otherwise stated. If called upon to testify under oath, I could and would competently testify to the following facts: 3. I appeared as paralegal for trial counsel for the Plaintiffs in this case, and I personally attended every day except for one of the trial on this matter. OOOOQONUIADJN 4. After the verdict, I personally witnessed Jill L. Ryther speak with eight to ten members of the jury. 5. Defense counsel was present for those conversations other than the first couple minutes. 6. Elizabeth Porco was the jury foreperson, and she also was present and participated in the entirety 0f Ms. Ryther’s conversations with the jury while 1 was present. 7. In those conversations I remember being informed of the followingz. a. Elizabeth Porco and another female juror informed Ms. Ryther that one of the main reasons they did not find the Defendants to be negligent was because of Plaintist’ own “owner negligence.” When asked what that meant, Elizabeth Porco stated to Ms. Ryther that because of how valuable Chaya was, Plaintiffs should not have taken her to Defendants veterinarian facility. She stated they should have had a special after hours arrangement with a veterinarian for a dog of her value. b. When Ms. Ryther inquired about the credibility of Grace Rios, one male juror said that he did not find her credible. c. He was interrupted by Elizabeth Porco. She said that she herself does not like to question authority, and judging by how Grace Rios appeared in court, she could see why she wouldn’t have corrected herself when being questioned by an attorney. She compared herself to Grace Rios saying she was similar. 2 DECLARATION ()F SAMANTHA HENDERSON IN SUPPORT OF PLAIN'I‘IFFS’ MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND JNOV