Preview
1 LAW OFFICES OF SALVATORE C. TIMPANO
Salvatore C. Timpano, Esq. (SBN 203799)
2
One Sansome St., #3500 ELECTRONICALLY
3 San Francisco, CA 94104 F I L E D
Tel.: (415) 992-5170. Fax: (415) 992-5171 Superior Court of California,
4 County of San Francisco
Email: stimpan1@yahoo.com
03/26/2021
5 Clerk of the Court
Attorneys for BY: RONNIE OTERO
6 Cliff Jason M. Enriquez Deputy Clerk
7
8
1 Sansome St., #3500, SF, CA 94104. Tel: (415) 992-5170. Email: stmpan1@yahoo.com
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
Cliff Jason M. Enriquez, Case No.: CGC-19-576838
11
Plaintiffs
Salvatore C. Timpano, Esq. (SBN 203799).
12 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES
13
Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., USA, INC.’S MOTION IN LIMINE
14 Fitzgerald Bridges, et al., NUMBER 3
15 OPPOSITION BY PLAINTIFF CLIFF
Defendants.
JASON M. ENRIQUEZ
16
Trial date: March 29, 2021, 9:30 a.m.
17
Judge: TBD
18 Dept.: 206
19
20
21
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.’S
22 MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER 3 OBJECTIONS BY PLAINTIFF CLIFF JASON M.
ENRIQUEZ
23
24 TO PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
25 Plaintiff Cliff Jason M. Enriquez (“Plaintiff”) hereby object to Defendant Securitas
26 Security Services USA, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Motion in Limine Three for the following reasons:
27 (1) Defendant has served it late, thereby unfairly prejudicing Plaintiff; and (2) Defendant’s
28
-1-
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.’S MOTION IN LIMINE
NUMBER 3 BY PLAINTIFF CLIFF JASON M. ENRIQUEZ. CCP § 1013(b) E-SERVED FROM SF, CA ON
3/26/2021 PER CCP § 1010.6.
TRIAL: 3/29/2021. ENRIQUEZ V. SECURITAS ET AL. CGC-19-576838.
1 request is so vague, subjective and overbroad as to be unfairly enforced; and (3) Defendant
2 outright lies to this Court by stating Plaintiff has contradicted himself but only quotes allegations
3
that are consistent in an attempt to unfairly prejudice Plaintiff.
4
1. MIL3, violated Local Rule 6.2, Late Service, thereby Unfairly Prejudicing Plaintiff
5
Local Rule of Court 6.2 states in pertinent part, “[a]ll motions in limine at trial (except for
6
unlawful detainer cases) must be in writing and served by mail on all parties at least ten (10)
7
days before the date set for trial or personally served at least five (5) days before the date set for
8
1 Sansome St., #3500, SF, CA 94104. Tel: (415) 992-5170. Email: stmpan1@yahoo.com
trial.” LR 6.2.
9
Defendant served electronically its Motions in Limine at 6:19 pm March 25, 2021,
10
thereby constituting service on March 26, 2021. Counting of days is done in accordance with
11
Code of Civil Procedure sections 12 and 12a. In absence of specification of days, the days
Salvatore C. Timpano, Esq. (SBN 203799).
12
counted are calendar days, so the days at issue here are calendar days. Id. The first task in
13
14
counting days is to determine whether the days are forward counting or backward counting. Id.
15 Here, Local Rule 6.2 specifies “…at least five (5) days before the date set for trial.” Hence, the
16 counting is backwards counting from the date of trial. Next, the “trigger” date must be
17 identified, but is not counted. Code of Civ. Proc. § § 12 and 12a. So, the first date of trial,
18 March 29, 2021 is the trigger date and is not counted. Then, each calendar day is counted
19 backwards. Id. March 28, 2021 is day 1; March 27, 2021 is day two; March 26, 2021 is day
20 three; March 25, 2021 is day four; March 24, 2021 is day five. Indeed, the Motions in Limine 3
21 WAS served on March 26, 2021 by email.
22
Interpreting Local Rule 6.2, because of silence on electronic service, the most consistent
23
reading is that the explicit ten days stated in the rule is arrived at by taking the five days
24
explicitly stated in Local Rule for personal service and adding the five (5) day extender under
25
Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 for service by first class mail. In general, the time
26
extension for electronic service is two (2) court days. Code of Civ. Proc. § § 1013(b) and
27
1010.6(a)(4)(B). “Any period of notice, or any right or duty to do any act or make any response
28
-2-
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.’S MOTION IN LIMINE
NUMBER 3 BY PLAINTIFF CLIFF JASON M. ENRIQUEZ. CCP § 1013(b) E-SERVED FROM SF, CA ON
3/26/2021 PER CCP § 1010.6.
TRIAL: 3/29/2021. ENRIQUEZ V. SECURITAS ET AL. CGC-19-576838.
1 within any period or on a date certain after the service of the document, which time period or
2 date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended after service by electronic means
3
by two court days.” Code of Civ. Proc. § 1010.6(a)(4)(B).
4
So, because two court days are required to be added when service is electronic, March 23,
5
2021 is five days plus one court day extender, and March 22, 2021 is five days plus one court
6
day extender.
7
So, if served electronically, the deadline for Defendant to serve its Motions in Limine
8
1 Sansome St., #3500, SF, CA 94104. Tel: (415) 992-5170. Email: stmpan1@yahoo.com
electronically was March 22, 2021. This is under Local Rule 6.2, as reasonably interpreted
9
through Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6.
10
Defendant served its Motion in Limine on March 26, 2021, and therefore Defendant
11
failed to meet its deadline for filing. Defendant’s late filing unfairly prejudices Plaintiff. Hence,
Salvatore C. Timpano, Esq. (SBN 203799).
12
Plaintiff’s respectfully request that this Court refuse Defendant’s Motions in Limine 3.
13
14 2. Defendant [or Defendant’s Counsel, Robert Scott] Outright Lied Attempting to
15 Unfairly Prejudice Plaintiff
16
“A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact…to a tribunal or fail to
17
correct a false statement of material fact…” California Rules of Professional Conduct.
18
19
Defendant or Defendant Counsel outright lied with the assertion “…Plaintiff submitted a
20 declaration that contradicted the allegations of his complaint…” MIL3, Memorandum of Point
21 and Authorities, page 3, lines 17-18.
22
Defendant purports to factually justify its lie by presenting the following statements that
23
Defendant attributes to Plaintiff:
24
“…defendant Bridges was the employee of Securitas, wearing the defendant Securitas
25
uniform and appeared to be within the course and scope of his employment immediately prior to
26
the time of the Incident.”
27
28 “Fitzgerald Bridges appeared to be on duty and demonstrated an appearance of
-3-
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.’S MOTION IN LIMINE
NUMBER 3 BY PLAINTIFF CLIFF JASON M. ENRIQUEZ. CCP § 1013(b) E-SERVED FROM SF, CA ON
3/26/2021 PER CCP § 1010.6.
TRIAL: 3/29/2021. ENRIQUEZ V. SECURITAS ET AL. CGC-19-576838.
1 seriousness and authority as he (Fitzgerald Bridges) and other SECURITAS security officers at
2 the 875 HOWARD GARAGE have demonstrated while on duty in the 875 HOWARD
3
GARAGE in the past.”
4
“…immediately prior to the ensuing attack, Fitzgerald Bridges orally identified himself to
5
me as a security officer and ordered me to move a car.”
6
7 No reasonable person could interpret these three assertions as contradicting one another.
8
1 Sansome St., #3500, SF, CA 94104. Tel: (415) 992-5170. Email: stmpan1@yahoo.com
Defendant’s false and conclusory assertion is so blatantly absurd and preposterous that
9
Defendant doesn’t even both to provide any analysis as to why Defendant purports that the
10
assertion that the statements contradict each other.
11
Defendant Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.’s liability turns on whether Defendant
Salvatore C. Timpano, Esq. (SBN 203799).
12
Fitzgerald Bridges was within the course and scope of duty when Defendant Fitzgerald Bridges
13
14
attacked Plaintiff.
15 Therefore, ostensibly, Defendant outright lied stating that Plaintiff’s assertions contradict
16 when those assertions are consistent with each other, and with the empirically true facts.
17
While Defendant Fitzgerald Bridges was “…wearing the defendant Securitas
18
uniform…[he]…appeared to be within the course and scope of his employment immediately
19
prior to the time of the Incident.” That allegation is supported by the fact that “…immediately
20
prior to the ensuing attack, Fitzgerald Bridges orally identified himself to…[Plaintiff]….as a
21
security officer and ordered….[Plaintiff]….to move a car.” Based thereon, “Fitzgerald Bridges
22
23
appeared to be on duty and demonstrated an appearance of seriousness and authority as he
24
(Fitzgerald Bridges) and other SECURITAS security officers at the 875 HOWARD GARAGE
25 have demonstrated while on duty in the 875 HOWARD GARAGE in the past.”
26 These are the consistent and empirically true allegations that comprise some of the many
27
facts that Plaintiff will adduce to prove at trial that Defendant Securitas Security Services USA,
28
-4-
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.’S MOTION IN LIMINE
NUMBER 3 BY PLAINTIFF CLIFF JASON M. ENRIQUEZ. CCP § 1013(b) E-SERVED FROM SF, CA ON
3/26/2021 PER CCP § 1010.6.
TRIAL: 3/29/2021. ENRIQUEZ V. SECURITAS ET AL. CGC-19-576838.
1 Inc. is vicariously liable as respondeat superior for Defendant Fitzgerald Bridges’ conduct.
2
Defendant’s false assertion that Plaintiff’s factual allegations that Defendant Fitzgerald
3
Bridges “…appeared to be within the course and scope of his employment,” “…appeared to be
4
on duty,” and “…orally identified himself to…[Plaintiff]….as a security officer and
5
ordered….[Plaintiff]….to move a car…” are inconsistent is not just a lie, but it contradicts
6
Defendant’s own sworn statements that are judicially established. In the Honorable Ethan P.
7
Schulman’s order denying Defendant’s motion for summary judgment for failure to even meet
8
1 Sansome St., #3500, SF, CA 94104. Tel: (415) 992-5170. Email: stmpan1@yahoo.com
9
the burden of production, Judge Schulman wrote, “Defendant's motion demonstrates that
10 Bridges was in uniform and being paid at the time of the incident. (Securitas' UMF 6-7, 11.)”
11 Emphasis added, Order Denying Defendant Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.’s Motion for
Salvatore C. Timpano, Esq. (SBN 203799).
12 Summary Judgment signed February 22, 2021, page 2 lines 19-20.
13
This order not only serves as dispositive evidence that Defendant has lied, but that,
14
ironically, granting this motion would result in the exact violation of law that Defendant uses to
15
argue its point.
16
The following is copied straight from Defendant’s motion:
17
18 “The facts alleged in a judicial admission “‘must be assumed to exist. Any finding
19 adverse to the admitted facts drops from the record, and any legal conclusion which is not upheld
20 by the admitted facts is erroneous.’” Valerio v. Andrew Youngquist Construction (2002) 103
21 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1271.
22
Hence, according to Defendant’s own reasoning, the fact that Defendant “… Bridges was
23
in uniform at the time of the incident ….” must be deemed to exist. According to Defendant’s
24
own reasoning, the fact that Defendant “….Bridges was…being paid at the time of the
25
incident…” must be deemed to exist. Defendant is well aware that Plaintiff has significant
26
additional and consistent documentary and testimonial factual support for the allegation that
27
28
Bridges appeared to be in the course and scope of duty immediately prior to the incident.
-5-
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.’S MOTION IN LIMINE
NUMBER 3 BY PLAINTIFF CLIFF JASON M. ENRIQUEZ. CCP § 1013(b) E-SERVED FROM SF, CA ON
3/26/2021 PER CCP § 1010.6.
TRIAL: 3/29/2021. ENRIQUEZ V. SECURITAS ET AL. CGC-19-576838.
1 Ostensibly, Defendant Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. has no facts to defend itself,
2 and thereby resorts to lying to this Court as the basis for asking this Court to deny Plaintiff from
3
admitting into evidence all facts that could prove its case consistent with Plaintiff’s allegations.
4
Based on the same authority and analysis that Defendant made, granting Defendant’s
5
motion based on Defendant’s outright lies would unfairly prejudice Plaintiff, and serve as an
6
unequivocal basis for appeal.
7
8 3. Opposition to MIL1 Overbroad and Unfairly Prejudices Plaintiff, Creates Risk of
1 Sansome St., #3500, SF, CA 94104. Tel: (415) 992-5170. Email: stmpan1@yahoo.com
9 Mistrial and Forms Basis of Appeal
10 Defendant’s Motion in Limine 3 requests the following: “issue an order barring
11 introduction of any evidence that defendant Fitzgerald Bridges “appeared to be on duty” in
Salvatore C. Timpano, Esq. (SBN 203799).
12 contradiction of the judicial admission in the complaint.” MIL3 Memorandum of Points and
13
Authorities, page 5, lines 17-18.
14
Whether Defendant Fitzgerald Bridges was in the course and scope of duty is one of the
15
central questions of this case, and one of the few facts still in controversy.
16
Denying evidence to support that allegation is so overbroad, as it could have the practical
17
effect of denying Plaintiff’s seventh amendment right. Defendant is essentially attempting to get
18
a second chance at its misguided and failed attempt for a motion for summary judgment. That
19
motion for summary judgment was denied, on the basis that Defendant had failed to even meet
20
its burden of production.
21
So, Defendant now attempts to achieve the same practical result with a different
22
23
procedure. With its MIL3, Defendant asks this Court to exclude from evidence “…introduction
24
of any evidence that defendant Fitzgerald Bridges “appeared to be on duty”….”
25 Plaintiff’s case turns on proving vicarious liability under respondeat superior, which
26 requires proving that Defendant Fitzgerald Bridges was acting in the course and scope of duty
27 for Defendant Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.
28 Defendant’s order is so broad that granting it would have the practical effect of
-6-
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.’S MOTION IN LIMINE
NUMBER 3 BY PLAINTIFF CLIFF JASON M. ENRIQUEZ. CCP § 1013(b) E-SERVED FROM SF, CA ON
3/26/2021 PER CCP § 1010.6.
TRIAL: 3/29/2021. ENRIQUEZ V. SECURITAS ET AL. CGC-19-576838.
1 preventing Plaintiff from admitting into evidence every fact and document to prove vicarious
2 liability. This would have the same practical effect that Defendant’s failed motion for summary
3
judgment sought, dispose of the case with a finding of no vicarious liability. Defendant’s motion
4
for summary judgment was denied as failing to even meet its burden of production.
5
Because Defendant’s request is so overbroad as to practically dispose of the case, and
6
particularly where this Court has already determined that Defendant didn’t even meet the burden
7
of production to dispose of this case, granting Defendant’s request would unfairly prejudice
8
1 Sansome St., #3500, SF, CA 94104. Tel: (415) 992-5170. Email: stmpan1@yahoo.com
Plaintiff, and serve as an unequivocal grounds for appeal.
9
10
Conclusion
11
Plaintiff bases this opposition on this moving paper, any supporting memorandum, the
Salvatore C. Timpano, Esq. (SBN 203799).
12
pleadings and papers on file in this action, and upon such evidence and argument as may be
13
14
presented before or at the hearing of this matter.
15 Respectfully submitted, Plaintiff requests that this Court deny Defendant’s MIL#3.
16
17 Dated: 3/26/2021
18
19
20
21
Salvatore C. Timpano
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7-
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.’S MOTION IN LIMINE
NUMBER 3 BY PLAINTIFF CLIFF JASON M. ENRIQUEZ. CCP § 1013(b) E-SERVED FROM SF, CA ON
3/26/2021 PER CCP § 1010.6.
TRIAL: 3/29/2021. ENRIQUEZ V. SECURITAS ET AL. CGC-19-576838.
Preview
1 LAW OFFICES OF SALVATORE C. TIMPANO Salvatore C. Timpano, Esq. (SBN 203799) 2 One Sansome St., #3500 ELECTRONICALLY 3 San Francisco, CA 94104 F I L E D Tel.: (415) 992-5170. Fax: (415) 992-5171 Superior Court of California, 4 County of San Francisco Email: stimpan1@yahoo.com 03/26/2021 5 Clerk of the Court Attorneys for BY: RONNIE OTERO 6 Cliff Jason M. Enriquez Deputy Clerk 7 8 1 Sansome St., #3500, SF, CA 94104. Tel: (415) 992-5170. Email: stmpan1@yahoo.com SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 Cliff Jason M. Enriquez, Case No.: CGC-19-576838 11 Plaintiffs Salvatore C. Timpano, Esq. (SBN 203799). 12 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES 13 Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., USA, INC.’S MOTION IN LIMINE 14 Fitzgerald Bridges, et al., NUMBER 3 15 OPPOSITION BY PLAINTIFF CLIFF Defendants. JASON M. ENRIQUEZ 16 Trial date: March 29, 2021, 9:30 a.m. 17 Judge: TBD 18 Dept.: 206 19 20 21 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.’S 22 MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER 3 OBJECTIONS BY PLAINTIFF CLIFF JASON M. ENRIQUEZ 23 24 TO PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 25 Plaintiff Cliff Jason M. Enriquez (“Plaintiff”) hereby object to Defendant Securitas 26 Security Services USA, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Motion in Limine Three for the following reasons: 27 (1) Defendant has served it late, thereby unfairly prejudicing Plaintiff; and (2) Defendant’s 28 -1- OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.’S MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER 3 BY PLAINTIFF CLIFF JASON M. ENRIQUEZ. CCP § 1013(b) E-SERVED FROM SF, CA ON 3/26/2021 PER CCP § 1010.6. TRIAL: 3/29/2021. ENRIQUEZ V. SECURITAS ET AL. CGC-19-576838. 1 request is so vague, subjective and overbroad as to be unfairly enforced; and (3) Defendant 2 outright lies to this Court by stating Plaintiff has contradicted himself but only quotes allegations 3 that are consistent in an attempt to unfairly prejudice Plaintiff. 4 1. MIL3, violated Local Rule 6.2, Late Service, thereby Unfairly Prejudicing Plaintiff 5 Local Rule of Court 6.2 states in pertinent part, “[a]ll motions in limine at trial (except for 6 unlawful detainer cases) must be in writing and served by mail on all parties at least ten (10) 7 days before the date set for trial or personally served at least five (5) days before the date set for 8 1 Sansome St., #3500, SF, CA 94104. Tel: (415) 992-5170. Email: stmpan1@yahoo.com trial.” LR 6.2. 9 Defendant served electronically its Motions in Limine at 6:19 pm March 25, 2021, 10 thereby constituting service on March 26, 2021. Counting of days is done in accordance with 11 Code of Civil Procedure sections 12 and 12a. In absence of specification of days, the days Salvatore C. Timpano, Esq. (SBN 203799). 12 counted are calendar days, so the days at issue here are calendar days. Id. The first task in 13 14 counting days is to determine whether the days are forward counting or backward counting. Id. 15 Here, Local Rule 6.2 specifies “…at least five (5) days before the date set for trial.” Hence, the 16 counting is backwards counting from the date of trial. Next, the “trigger” date must be 17 identified, but is not counted. Code of Civ. Proc. § § 12 and 12a. So, the first date of trial, 18 March 29, 2021 is the trigger date and is not counted. Then, each calendar day is counted 19 backwards. Id. March 28, 2021 is day 1; March 27, 2021 is day two; March 26, 2021 is day 20 three; March 25, 2021 is day four; March 24, 2021 is day five. Indeed, the Motions in Limine 3 21 WAS served on March 26, 2021 by email. 22 Interpreting Local Rule 6.2, because of silence on electronic service, the most consistent 23 reading is that the explicit ten days stated in the rule is arrived at by taking the five days 24 explicitly stated in Local Rule for personal service and adding the five (5) day extender under 25 Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 for service by first class mail. In general, the time 26 extension for electronic service is two (2) court days. Code of Civ. Proc. § § 1013(b) and 27 1010.6(a)(4)(B). “Any period of notice, or any right or duty to do any act or make any response 28 -2- OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.’S MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER 3 BY PLAINTIFF CLIFF JASON M. ENRIQUEZ. CCP § 1013(b) E-SERVED FROM SF, CA ON 3/26/2021 PER CCP § 1010.6. TRIAL: 3/29/2021. ENRIQUEZ V. SECURITAS ET AL. CGC-19-576838. 1 within any period or on a date certain after the service of the document, which time period or 2 date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended after service by electronic means 3 by two court days.” Code of Civ. Proc. § 1010.6(a)(4)(B). 4 So, because two court days are required to be added when service is electronic, March 23, 5 2021 is five days plus one court day extender, and March 22, 2021 is five days plus one court 6 day extender. 7 So, if served electronically, the deadline for Defendant to serve its Motions in Limine 8 1 Sansome St., #3500, SF, CA 94104. Tel: (415) 992-5170. Email: stmpan1@yahoo.com electronically was March 22, 2021. This is under Local Rule 6.2, as reasonably interpreted 9 through Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6. 10 Defendant served its Motion in Limine on March 26, 2021, and therefore Defendant 11 failed to meet its deadline for filing. Defendant’s late filing unfairly prejudices Plaintiff. Hence, Salvatore C. Timpano, Esq. (SBN 203799). 12 Plaintiff’s respectfully request that this Court refuse Defendant’s Motions in Limine 3. 13 14 2. Defendant [or Defendant’s Counsel, Robert Scott] Outright Lied Attempting to 15 Unfairly Prejudice Plaintiff 16 “A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact…to a tribunal or fail to 17 correct a false statement of material fact…” California Rules of Professional Conduct. 18 19 Defendant or Defendant Counsel outright lied with the assertion “…Plaintiff submitted a 20 declaration that contradicted the allegations of his complaint…” MIL3, Memorandum of Point 21 and Authorities, page 3, lines 17-18. 22 Defendant purports to factually justify its lie by presenting the following statements that 23 Defendant attributes to Plaintiff: 24 “…defendant Bridges was the employee of Securitas, wearing the defendant Securitas 25 uniform and appeared to be within the course and scope of his employment immediately prior to 26 the time of the Incident.” 27 28 “Fitzgerald Bridges appeared to be on duty and demonstrated an appearance of -3- OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.’S MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER 3 BY PLAINTIFF CLIFF JASON M. ENRIQUEZ. CCP § 1013(b) E-SERVED FROM SF, CA ON 3/26/2021 PER CCP § 1010.6. TRIAL: 3/29/2021. ENRIQUEZ V. SECURITAS ET AL. CGC-19-576838. 1 seriousness and authority as he (Fitzgerald Bridges) and other SECURITAS security officers at 2 the 875 HOWARD GARAGE have demonstrated while on duty in the 875 HOWARD 3 GARAGE in the past.” 4 “…immediately prior to the ensuing attack, Fitzgerald Bridges orally identified himself to 5 me as a security officer and ordered me to move a car.” 6 7 No reasonable person could interpret these three assertions as contradicting one another. 8 1 Sansome St., #3500, SF, CA 94104. Tel: (415) 992-5170. Email: stmpan1@yahoo.com Defendant’s false and conclusory assertion is so blatantly absurd and preposterous that 9 Defendant doesn’t even both to provide any analysis as to why Defendant purports that the 10 assertion that the statements contradict each other. 11 Defendant Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.’s liability turns on whether Defendant Salvatore C. Timpano, Esq. (SBN 203799). 12 Fitzgerald Bridges was within the course and scope of duty when Defendant Fitzgerald Bridges 13 14 attacked Plaintiff. 15 Therefore, ostensibly, Defendant outright lied stating that Plaintiff’s assertions contradict 16 when those assertions are consistent with each other, and with the empirically true facts. 17 While Defendant Fitzgerald Bridges was “…wearing the defendant Securitas 18 uniform…[he]…appeared to be within the course and scope of his employment immediately 19 prior to the time of the Incident.” That allegation is supported by the fact that “…immediately 20 prior to the ensuing attack, Fitzgerald Bridges orally identified himself to…[Plaintiff]….as a 21 security officer and ordered….[Plaintiff]….to move a car.” Based thereon, “Fitzgerald Bridges 22 23 appeared to be on duty and demonstrated an appearance of seriousness and authority as he 24 (Fitzgerald Bridges) and other SECURITAS security officers at the 875 HOWARD GARAGE 25 have demonstrated while on duty in the 875 HOWARD GARAGE in the past.” 26 These are the consistent and empirically true allegations that comprise some of the many 27 facts that Plaintiff will adduce to prove at trial that Defendant Securitas Security Services USA, 28 -4- OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.’S MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER 3 BY PLAINTIFF CLIFF JASON M. ENRIQUEZ. CCP § 1013(b) E-SERVED FROM SF, CA ON 3/26/2021 PER CCP § 1010.6. TRIAL: 3/29/2021. ENRIQUEZ V. SECURITAS ET AL. CGC-19-576838. 1 Inc. is vicariously liable as respondeat superior for Defendant Fitzgerald Bridges’ conduct. 2 Defendant’s false assertion that Plaintiff’s factual allegations that Defendant Fitzgerald 3 Bridges “…appeared to be within the course and scope of his employment,” “…appeared to be 4 on duty,” and “…orally identified himself to…[Plaintiff]….as a security officer and 5 ordered….[Plaintiff]….to move a car…” are inconsistent is not just a lie, but it contradicts 6 Defendant’s own sworn statements that are judicially established. In the Honorable Ethan P. 7 Schulman’s order denying Defendant’s motion for summary judgment for failure to even meet 8 1 Sansome St., #3500, SF, CA 94104. Tel: (415) 992-5170. Email: stmpan1@yahoo.com 9 the burden of production, Judge Schulman wrote, “Defendant's motion demonstrates that 10 Bridges was in uniform and being paid at the time of the incident. (Securitas' UMF 6-7, 11.)” 11 Emphasis added, Order Denying Defendant Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.’s Motion for Salvatore C. Timpano, Esq. (SBN 203799). 12 Summary Judgment signed February 22, 2021, page 2 lines 19-20. 13 This order not only serves as dispositive evidence that Defendant has lied, but that, 14 ironically, granting this motion would result in the exact violation of law that Defendant uses to 15 argue its point. 16 The following is copied straight from Defendant’s motion: 17 18 “The facts alleged in a judicial admission “‘must be assumed to exist. Any finding 19 adverse to the admitted facts drops from the record, and any legal conclusion which is not upheld 20 by the admitted facts is erroneous.’” Valerio v. Andrew Youngquist Construction (2002) 103 21 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1271. 22 Hence, according to Defendant’s own reasoning, the fact that Defendant “… Bridges was 23 in uniform at the time of the incident ….” must be deemed to exist. According to Defendant’s 24 own reasoning, the fact that Defendant “….Bridges was…being paid at the time of the 25 incident…” must be deemed to exist. Defendant is well aware that Plaintiff has significant 26 additional and consistent documentary and testimonial factual support for the allegation that 27 28 Bridges appeared to be in the course and scope of duty immediately prior to the incident. -5- OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.’S MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER 3 BY PLAINTIFF CLIFF JASON M. ENRIQUEZ. CCP § 1013(b) E-SERVED FROM SF, CA ON 3/26/2021 PER CCP § 1010.6. TRIAL: 3/29/2021. ENRIQUEZ V. SECURITAS ET AL. CGC-19-576838. 1 Ostensibly, Defendant Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. has no facts to defend itself, 2 and thereby resorts to lying to this Court as the basis for asking this Court to deny Plaintiff from 3 admitting into evidence all facts that could prove its case consistent with Plaintiff’s allegations. 4 Based on the same authority and analysis that Defendant made, granting Defendant’s 5 motion based on Defendant’s outright lies would unfairly prejudice Plaintiff, and serve as an 6 unequivocal basis for appeal. 7 8 3. Opposition to MIL1 Overbroad and Unfairly Prejudices Plaintiff, Creates Risk of 1 Sansome St., #3500, SF, CA 94104. Tel: (415) 992-5170. Email: stmpan1@yahoo.com 9 Mistrial and Forms Basis of Appeal 10 Defendant’s Motion in Limine 3 requests the following: “issue an order barring 11 introduction of any evidence that defendant Fitzgerald Bridges “appeared to be on duty” in Salvatore C. Timpano, Esq. (SBN 203799). 12 contradiction of the judicial admission in the complaint.” MIL3 Memorandum of Points and 13 Authorities, page 5, lines 17-18. 14 Whether Defendant Fitzgerald Bridges was in the course and scope of duty is one of the 15 central questions of this case, and one of the few facts still in controversy. 16 Denying evidence to support that allegation is so overbroad, as it could have the practical 17 effect of denying Plaintiff’s seventh amendment right. Defendant is essentially attempting to get 18 a second chance at its misguided and failed attempt for a motion for summary judgment. That 19 motion for summary judgment was denied, on the basis that Defendant had failed to even meet 20 its burden of production. 21 So, Defendant now attempts to achieve the same practical result with a different 22 23 procedure. With its MIL3, Defendant asks this Court to exclude from evidence “…introduction 24 of any evidence that defendant Fitzgerald Bridges “appeared to be on duty”….” 25 Plaintiff’s case turns on proving vicarious liability under respondeat superior, which 26 requires proving that Defendant Fitzgerald Bridges was acting in the course and scope of duty 27 for Defendant Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. 28 Defendant’s order is so broad that granting it would have the practical effect of -6- OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.’S MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER 3 BY PLAINTIFF CLIFF JASON M. ENRIQUEZ. CCP § 1013(b) E-SERVED FROM SF, CA ON 3/26/2021 PER CCP § 1010.6. TRIAL: 3/29/2021. ENRIQUEZ V. SECURITAS ET AL. CGC-19-576838. 1 preventing Plaintiff from admitting into evidence every fact and document to prove vicarious 2 liability. This would have the same practical effect that Defendant’s failed motion for summary 3 judgment sought, dispose of the case with a finding of no vicarious liability. Defendant’s motion 4 for summary judgment was denied as failing to even meet its burden of production. 5 Because Defendant’s request is so overbroad as to practically dispose of the case, and 6 particularly where this Court has already determined that Defendant didn’t even meet the burden 7 of production to dispose of this case, granting Defendant’s request would unfairly prejudice 8 1 Sansome St., #3500, SF, CA 94104. Tel: (415) 992-5170. Email: stmpan1@yahoo.com Plaintiff, and serve as an unequivocal grounds for appeal. 9 10 Conclusion 11 Plaintiff bases this opposition on this moving paper, any supporting memorandum, the Salvatore C. Timpano, Esq. (SBN 203799). 12 pleadings and papers on file in this action, and upon such evidence and argument as may be 13 14 presented before or at the hearing of this matter. 15 Respectfully submitted, Plaintiff requests that this Court deny Defendant’s MIL#3. 16 17 Dated: 3/26/2021 18 19 20 21 Salvatore C. Timpano 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -7- OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.’S MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER 3 BY PLAINTIFF CLIFF JASON M. ENRIQUEZ. CCP § 1013(b) E-SERVED FROM SF, CA ON 3/26/2021 PER CCP § 1010.6. TRIAL: 3/29/2021. ENRIQUEZ V. SECURITAS ET AL. CGC-19-576838.