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
Jill SBN # 266016
L. Ryther, Esq., ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Autc >)
Sarah A. Thompson, Esq. SBN #306692 >RNIA
ggiii'eglggXE-gggNingfi o
RYTHER LAW GROUP’ LLP 2/1 3/2024 12:00 AM
40477 Murrleta Hot Sprlngs Rd
STE D1, #157
Murrieta, CA 92563
Phone: 3 10-75 1 -4404
Fax: 3 10-773-9192
KOOOQONUI-PUJNH
Attorneysfor Plaintifls,
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 N0. CIV DS 2002744
BARLUND HARDY, an individual; ) Dept S28
TOPLINE K9 SERVICES,
Plaintiffs,
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO
VS. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT
GRACE RIOS, D.V.M., an Individual;
ANIMAL EMERGENCY CLINIC; and
DOES 1— 50, 1nc1u81ve, vvvvvvvvvvvv
Date: February 16’ 2024
Defendants. Time: 9:00 am
NNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH
Ul-PUJNHOKOOOQQUI-PUJNHO
Plaintiffs ILLYA HARDY, JOHANNA BARLUND HARDY; and TOPLINE K9
SERVICES, and each of them, submit the following reply t0 Defendants’ Motion in Opposition
to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.
1
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’OPPOSITION
TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT
I. Contrary t0 Defendants’ Argument in Opposition, the Conditions D0
Exist for the Court t0 Grant a Motion for Entry 0f Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict,
ie N0 Other Reasonable Conclusion is Legally Deducible from the Evidence 0n Negligence.
While Defendants argue that it is rare for a plaintiff” s case t0 be so completely unrefuted
KOOOQONUI-PUJNH
as to permit a directed verdict, Defendants, of course, d0 not argue that it never happens.
Whether rare 01' not, the case before this Court qualifies as one such opportunity t0 correct an
injustice that surprised even Defendants’ counsel.
As Defendants correctly state, Code of Civil Procedure §629 authorizes the Court, in
appropriate circumstances, t0 reject a jury’s verdict and t0 enter a more correct judgment
notwithstanding that verdict. Plaintiffs further agree with Defendants’ recitation 0f Herrera v.
Southern Pacific C0. (1957) 155 Ca1.App.2d 781, 783.) for Which Defendants state the standard,
“The granting of a directed verdict may be sustained only When it can be said as a matter of law
that no other reasonable conclusion is legally deducible from the evidence, and that any other
holding would be s0 lacking in evidentiary support that a reviewing court would be impelled t0
reverse it or the trial court to set it aside as a matter of law.”
Defendants then build their argument t0 refute that “no other reasonable conclusion is
NNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH
Ul-PUJNHOKOOOQQUI-PUJNHO
legally deducible from the evidence” by beginning With their own qualified (rather than
definitive) statement: “. . .Virtually every element of every cause of action was in dispute.” (see
Defendants’ Opposition; pg 5. lines 12-13). Further, Defendants go on t0 make broad, sweeping
statements concerning the conflicting evidence, which are simply an attempt t0 sweep the actual
facts in evidence under the rug. T0 Wit:
Defendants argue there was “conflicting evidence on the sequence 0f events that led t0
the death 0f plaintiffs’ dog.” (see Defendants’ Opposition; pg 5. lines 13-14). But Plaintiffs’
2
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’OPPOSITION
TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT
Document Filed Date
February 13, 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
Jill SBN # 266016 L. Ryther, Esq., ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Autc >) Sarah A. Thompson, Esq. SBN #306692 >RNIA ggiii'eglggXE-gggNingfi o RYTHER LAW GROUP’ LLP 2/1 3/2024 12:00 AM 40477 Murrleta Hot Sprlngs Rd STE D1, #157 Murrieta, CA 92563 Phone: 3 10-75 1 -4404 Fax: 3 10-773-9192 KOOOQONUI-PUJNH Attorneysfor Plaintifls, 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 N0. CIV DS 2002744 BARLUND HARDY, an individual; ) Dept S28 TOPLINE K9 SERVICES, Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO VS. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT GRACE RIOS, D.V.M., an Individual; ANIMAL EMERGENCY CLINIC; and DOES 1— 50, 1nc1u81ve, vvvvvvvvvvvv Date: February 16’ 2024 Defendants. Time: 9:00 am NNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH Ul-PUJNHOKOOOQQUI-PUJNHO Plaintiffs ILLYA HARDY, JOHANNA BARLUND HARDY; and TOPLINE K9 SERVICES, and each of them, submit the following reply t0 Defendants’ Motion in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. 1 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT I. Contrary t0 Defendants’ Argument in Opposition, the Conditions D0 Exist for the Court t0 Grant a Motion for Entry 0f Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, ie N0 Other Reasonable Conclusion is Legally Deducible from the Evidence 0n Negligence. While Defendants argue that it is rare for a plaintiff” s case t0 be so completely unrefuted KOOOQONUI-PUJNH as to permit a directed verdict, Defendants, of course, d0 not argue that it never happens. Whether rare 01' not, the case before this Court qualifies as one such opportunity t0 correct an injustice that surprised even Defendants’ counsel. As Defendants correctly state, Code of Civil Procedure §629 authorizes the Court, in appropriate circumstances, t0 reject a jury’s verdict and t0 enter a more correct judgment notwithstanding that verdict. Plaintiffs further agree with Defendants’ recitation 0f Herrera v. Southern Pacific C0. (1957) 155 Ca1.App.2d 781, 783.) for Which Defendants state the standard, “The granting of a directed verdict may be sustained only When it can be said as a matter of law that no other reasonable conclusion is legally deducible from the evidence, and that any other holding would be s0 lacking in evidentiary support that a reviewing court would be impelled t0 reverse it or the trial court to set it aside as a matter of law.” Defendants then build their argument t0 refute that “no other reasonable conclusion is NNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH Ul-PUJNHOKOOOQQUI-PUJNHO legally deducible from the evidence” by beginning With their own qualified (rather than definitive) statement: “. . .Virtually every element of every cause of action was in dispute.” (see Defendants’ Opposition; pg 5. lines 12-13). Further, Defendants go on t0 make broad, sweeping statements concerning the conflicting evidence, which are simply an attempt t0 sweep the actual facts in evidence under the rug. T0 Wit: Defendants argue there was “conflicting evidence on the sequence 0f events that led t0 the death 0f plaintiffs’ dog.” (see Defendants’ Opposition; pg 5. lines 13-14). But Plaintiffs’ 2 PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT