On March 06, 2019 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Hyle, John,
and
Aguilar, Elia M,
Rodriguez, Arianna Athena,
Rodriguez, Arianne Athena,
Rodriguez, David J,
for PI Motor Vehicle
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
p OWGHNML V
A Tracy W. Goldberg, State Bar No. 128681 F L ED I
Bradley R. Blamires, State Bar No. 146106 SupsmomoumOFCAUFORNM
KEITH L. SHOJI & ASSOCIATES CgprEESJAiAé‘BERNARD'NO
W0 D‘STR'CT
Employees of the Law Department
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ;-
1600 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200 FEB 00 2024
Riverside, California 92507
Telephone: (951) 328- 2000 / Fax: (855) 811 3889
QNO’UI#OON
Email Address. Shoji@StateFarm com
CesarR Leo ~- Deput
7
Attorneys for Defendant(s A)rignne
Athena Rodriguez David J. Rodrig
and Elia M. Aguilar
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Oaxvi
11 JOHN HYLE, No.: CIVDS 1907037
K
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
NEW TRIAL; MEMORANDUM
14 ARIANNA ATHENA RODRIGUEZ, OF POINTS AND
DAVID J. RODRIGUEZ, ELIA M. AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION
15 AGUILAR, OF TRACY GOLDBERG IN
SUPPORT THEREOF
16 Defendants.
Date: February 26, 2024
17 Time: 8:30 A.M.
Dept $27
18
Complaint Filed: 03/06/19
19 Trial Date: 10/23/23
20 Defendants Arianne Athena Rodriguez, David J. Rodriguez, and
21 Elia M. Aguilar respectfully submit the following OPPOSITION to
22 Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial.
23 ///
24
25
26
27
28
- 1 -
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
\a \
\a
-L
MEMORANQUM OF POINTS ANQ AUTHORITIES
|.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND SUMMARY
At the trial of this matter plaintiff was required to prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, not only that defendant was negligent but
that defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's
injuries. Plaintiff had his full day in court but is unsatisfied with the
verdict and now brings this motion for new trial. Plaintiff’s motion fails on
several fronts, most notably the lack of admissible evidence to support
his claims of juror misconduct and his incorrect version of events
allegedly supporting his allegations of attorney misconduct.
A. The Lack of Admissible Evidence Supportinq Plaintiff’s Motion
for New Trial; No Juror Affidavits Have Been Provided
Plaintiff’s contention that he is entitled to a new trial due to an
QNthQMAO©QNGW§uN400mN¢thN
irregularity in the proceedings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 657 (1) and juror misconduct pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 657 (2) fails for the simple reason that plaintiff has not provided a
single juror affidavit or other admissible evidence to support it as
NMNNNMNNN—L—L—xa—LAAAAA
required by Code of Civil Procedure Section 658. As will be shown below,
plaintiff's purported evidence consists solely of the declaration of counsel
who lacks personal knowledge of what her declaration purports to state,
heaps hearsay upon hearsay, and does not remotely meet the standards
governing admissibility. No new trial based on jury misconduct is
justified.
B. Plaintiff's Uniustified Allegations of Attorney Misconduct
1. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 3
Plaintiff argues that the defense violated the Court's ruling on
plaintiff's motion in limine no. 3 regarding plaintiff’s smoking and alcohol
_ 2 _
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Document Filed Date
February 05, 2024
Case Filing Date
March 06, 2019
Category
PI Motor Vehicle
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
p OWGHNML V A Tracy W. Goldberg, State Bar No. 128681 F L ED I Bradley R. Blamires, State Bar No. 146106 SupsmomoumOFCAUFORNM KEITH L. SHOJI & ASSOCIATES CgprEESJAiAé‘BERNARD'NO W0 D‘STR'CT Employees of the Law Department State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ;- 1600 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200 FEB 00 2024 Riverside, California 92507 Telephone: (951) 328- 2000 / Fax: (855) 811 3889 QNO’UI#OON Email Address. Shoji@StateFarm com CesarR Leo ~- Deput 7 Attorneys for Defendant(s A)rignne Athena Rodriguez David J. Rodrig and Elia M. Aguilar SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Oaxvi 11 JOHN HYLE, No.: CIVDS 1907037 K 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL; MEMORANDUM 14 ARIANNA ATHENA RODRIGUEZ, OF POINTS AND DAVID J. RODRIGUEZ, ELIA M. AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION 15 AGUILAR, OF TRACY GOLDBERG IN SUPPORT THEREOF 16 Defendants. Date: February 26, 2024 17 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept $27 18 Complaint Filed: 03/06/19 19 Trial Date: 10/23/23 20 Defendants Arianne Athena Rodriguez, David J. Rodriguez, and 21 Elia M. Aguilar respectfully submit the following OPPOSITION to 22 Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial. 23 /// 24 25 26 27 28 - 1 - OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL \a \ \a -L MEMORANQUM OF POINTS ANQ AUTHORITIES |. FACTUAL BACKGROUND SUMMARY At the trial of this matter plaintiff was required to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, not only that defendant was negligent but that defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff had his full day in court but is unsatisfied with the verdict and now brings this motion for new trial. Plaintiff’s motion fails on several fronts, most notably the lack of admissible evidence to support his claims of juror misconduct and his incorrect version of events allegedly supporting his allegations of attorney misconduct. A. The Lack of Admissible Evidence Supportinq Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial; No Juror Affidavits Have Been Provided Plaintiff’s contention that he is entitled to a new trial due to an QNthQMAO©QNGW§uN400mN¢thN irregularity in the proceedings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 657 (1) and juror misconduct pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 657 (2) fails for the simple reason that plaintiff has not provided a single juror affidavit or other admissible evidence to support it as NMNNNMNNN—L—L—xa—LAAAAA required by Code of Civil Procedure Section 658. As will be shown below, plaintiff's purported evidence consists solely of the declaration of counsel who lacks personal knowledge of what her declaration purports to state, heaps hearsay upon hearsay, and does not remotely meet the standards governing admissibility. No new trial based on jury misconduct is justified. B. Plaintiff's Uniustified Allegations of Attorney Misconduct 1. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 3 Plaintiff argues that the defense violated the Court's ruling on plaintiff's motion in limine no. 3 regarding plaintiff’s smoking and alcohol _ 2 _ OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL