Preview
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
|
SUFFOLK COUNTY, SS: SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT |
OF THE TRIAL COURT '
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1784CV03942E |
CHARLES CULLEN JONES, |
Plaintiff, |
v. S |
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and YASSINE A. = |
KERNIS, we !
|
wn
Defendants. Se v aA
22 w 2
aS oo RE
YASSINE A. KERNIS’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIALS
|
|
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SIT TWO JURIES AND REQUEST FOR HEARING |
Pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 42 (b) this Court should bifurcate the two very separate issues
in this matter. The first threshold issue is whether the Defendant, Yassine A. Kernis (“Mr. Kernis”),
was negligent in the operation of his automobile on the night of April 4, 2016 and whether his
negligence (if any) caused injury to the Plaintiff. If it is determined that Mr. Kernis was not
negligent, or that Mr. Kernis’s negligence did not cause injury to the Plaintiff (“the Negligence
Case”), then the Plaintiffs claim for negligent supervision and hiring and respondeat superiot
against the co-defendant, Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), whom the Plaintiff alleges employed
Mr. Kernis (the “Negligent Supervision Case”) on the night of the accident is moot.
Bifurcation is in the interest of judicial economy and prevents prejudice and confusion of
the jury. Most significantly bifurcation is appropriate in this case because it prevents prejudice
toward Mr. Kemis by eliminating the potential for jurors to improperly hear and consider evidencl
of Mr. Kemis’s prior driving history which is far lengthier (and completely subjective) due to his :
work with Uber than that of a typical defendant in a motor vehicle accident case.
The testimony regarding Uber’s hiring and supervision of Mr. Kernis, while relevant in
the Negligent Supervision Case, is (1) completely irrelevant to the Negligence Case and ()
Page 1 of 3|
encompasses prejudicial and inadmissible propensity evidence regarding Mr. Kernis’s work |
performance, rider reviews, emails about Mr. Kernis’s driving, and driving history. This evidence, |
from arbitrarily disgruntled customers regarding their rides with Mr. Kernis, is undoubtably |
irrelevant to the question of whether Mr. Kernis was negligent on the night of the accident and |
whether Mr. Kernis’s negligence (if any) caused injury to the Plaintiff but, has the dangerously |
high probability of distracting and confusing the jury in the Negligence Case if they are permitted |
to hear it. Upon hearing evidence of Mr. Kernis’s prior and unrelated rides, even a well instructed |
jury will struggle to separate and ignore the information regarding Mr. Kernis’s driving history (as |
they would be required to do) when determining his negligence (if any) visa a vis the Plaintiff. |
Judicial economy also favors bifurcation because Mr. Kemis has strong liability defenses,
and a trial on the Negligence Case first may completely eliminate the need for a trial on the!
Negligent Supervision Case. Additionally, the trial on the Negligent Supervision Case will take!
place over several days and include entirely separate witnesses, who will testify regarding whether
or not Mr. Kernis was an employee of Uber, the hiring procedures and protocol of Uber, and Mr,
Kernis’s ride history, which all lack any relevance to the Negligence Case. \
Accordingly, in order to prevent this prejudicial propensity evidence from reaching and
confusing a jury, Mr. Kernis respectfully requests. that the Court bifurcate the trial on these very
separate claims, or sit two juries — one for the Negligence case who will not hear the prejudicial
propensity evidence relevant only to the Negligent Supervision Case, and one who will hear all
evidence relevant to both cases. In further support of his motion, Mr. Kemis submits a :
accompanying memorandum of law. \
1
REQUEST FOR HEARING
Pursuant to Superior Court Rule 9A(c)(2), the Defendant, Yassine A. Kernis, respectfully
request a hearing on his Motion to Bifurcate or In the Alternative, Sit Two Juries.
Page 2 of 3%
a
CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SUPERIOR COURT RULE 9C '
I, Alyssa A. Aquino, counsel for Defendant, Yassine A. Kernis, in the above-captioned
matter, hereby certify that on December 20, 2019 counsel for the Parties convened a Superior
Court Rule 9C conference in a good faith effort to narrow areas of disagreement. Despite the efforts!
of counsel a resolution without Court intervention could not be rAached. |
|
Respectfully submitted, i
YASSINE KERNIS.,
By his attorneys,
53 State Street, 27" Floor |
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: (617) 213-7000 ,
Fax: (617) 213-7001 '
aaquino@hinshawlaw.com 1
rfinley@hinshawlaw.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE |
I, Alyssa A. Aquino, hereby certify that on this 2"4 day of January 2020, I served a true and
accurate copy of the foregoing document to counsel of record by email and First Class Mail as
follows:
Chris Flanagan, Esq. Donald R. Grady, Jr., Esq. |
Heidi Wolmuth, Esq. Kelsey R. Raycroft, Esq.
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Sheff Law Offices, P.C.
Edelman & Dicker LLP
260 Franklin Street, 14th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
heidi. wolmuth@wilsonelser.com
Page 3 of 3 1
Preview
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS | SUFFOLK COUNTY, SS: SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT | OF THE TRIAL COURT ' CIVIL ACTION NO. 1784CV03942E | CHARLES CULLEN JONES, | Plaintiff, | v. S | UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and YASSINE A. = | KERNIS, we ! | wn Defendants. Se v aA 22 w 2 aS oo RE YASSINE A. KERNIS’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIALS | | OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SIT TWO JURIES AND REQUEST FOR HEARING | Pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 42 (b) this Court should bifurcate the two very separate issues in this matter. The first threshold issue is whether the Defendant, Yassine A. Kernis (“Mr. Kernis”), was negligent in the operation of his automobile on the night of April 4, 2016 and whether his negligence (if any) caused injury to the Plaintiff. If it is determined that Mr. Kernis was not negligent, or that Mr. Kernis’s negligence did not cause injury to the Plaintiff (“the Negligence Case”), then the Plaintiffs claim for negligent supervision and hiring and respondeat superiot against the co-defendant, Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), whom the Plaintiff alleges employed Mr. Kernis (the “Negligent Supervision Case”) on the night of the accident is moot. Bifurcation is in the interest of judicial economy and prevents prejudice and confusion of the jury. Most significantly bifurcation is appropriate in this case because it prevents prejudice toward Mr. Kemis by eliminating the potential for jurors to improperly hear and consider evidencl of Mr. Kemis’s prior driving history which is far lengthier (and completely subjective) due to his : work with Uber than that of a typical defendant in a motor vehicle accident case. The testimony regarding Uber’s hiring and supervision of Mr. Kernis, while relevant in the Negligent Supervision Case, is (1) completely irrelevant to the Negligence Case and () Page 1 of 3| encompasses prejudicial and inadmissible propensity evidence regarding Mr. Kernis’s work | performance, rider reviews, emails about Mr. Kernis’s driving, and driving history. This evidence, | from arbitrarily disgruntled customers regarding their rides with Mr. Kernis, is undoubtably | irrelevant to the question of whether Mr. Kernis was negligent on the night of the accident and | whether Mr. Kernis’s negligence (if any) caused injury to the Plaintiff but, has the dangerously | high probability of distracting and confusing the jury in the Negligence Case if they are permitted | to hear it. Upon hearing evidence of Mr. Kernis’s prior and unrelated rides, even a well instructed | jury will struggle to separate and ignore the information regarding Mr. Kernis’s driving history (as | they would be required to do) when determining his negligence (if any) visa a vis the Plaintiff. | Judicial economy also favors bifurcation because Mr. Kemis has strong liability defenses, and a trial on the Negligence Case first may completely eliminate the need for a trial on the! Negligent Supervision Case. Additionally, the trial on the Negligent Supervision Case will take! place over several days and include entirely separate witnesses, who will testify regarding whether or not Mr. Kernis was an employee of Uber, the hiring procedures and protocol of Uber, and Mr, Kernis’s ride history, which all lack any relevance to the Negligence Case. \ Accordingly, in order to prevent this prejudicial propensity evidence from reaching and confusing a jury, Mr. Kernis respectfully requests. that the Court bifurcate the trial on these very separate claims, or sit two juries — one for the Negligence case who will not hear the prejudicial propensity evidence relevant only to the Negligent Supervision Case, and one who will hear all evidence relevant to both cases. In further support of his motion, Mr. Kemis submits a : accompanying memorandum of law. \ 1 REQUEST FOR HEARING Pursuant to Superior Court Rule 9A(c)(2), the Defendant, Yassine A. Kernis, respectfully request a hearing on his Motion to Bifurcate or In the Alternative, Sit Two Juries. Page 2 of 3% a CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SUPERIOR COURT RULE 9C ' I, Alyssa A. Aquino, counsel for Defendant, Yassine A. Kernis, in the above-captioned matter, hereby certify that on December 20, 2019 counsel for the Parties convened a Superior Court Rule 9C conference in a good faith effort to narrow areas of disagreement. Despite the efforts! of counsel a resolution without Court intervention could not be rAached. | | Respectfully submitted, i YASSINE KERNIS., By his attorneys, 53 State Street, 27" Floor | Boston, MA 02109 Phone: (617) 213-7000 , Fax: (617) 213-7001 ' aaquino@hinshawlaw.com 1 rfinley@hinshawlaw.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | I, Alyssa A. Aquino, hereby certify that on this 2"4 day of January 2020, I served a true and accurate copy of the foregoing document to counsel of record by email and First Class Mail as follows: Chris Flanagan, Esq. Donald R. Grady, Jr., Esq. | Heidi Wolmuth, Esq. Kelsey R. Raycroft, Esq. Wilson Elser Moskowitz Sheff Law Offices, P.C. Edelman & Dicker LLP 260 Franklin Street, 14th Floor Boston, MA 02110 heidi. wolmuth@wilsonelser.com Page 3 of 3 1