Justice Noonab Tom Tater vs Los Santos Sheriff's Department

IAmTheValeyard

Justice Fudge
Staff Team
Judge
Department of Justice
Donator
Whitelisted
Joined
Sep 1, 2020
Messages
1,991
Your Honors @skinner @Captain 10-50

James Hellraiser-Costello, State Attorney for the District Attorneys Office of San Andreas will be re-joining this case on behalf of the Los Santos Sheriffs Department and the District Attorneys Office. Given the length of time this case has taken, it is in everyones best interests to schedule this case for as soon as possible, availability dependant obviously, and I would imagine that the plaintiff feels the same.

In the case of Tom Tater vs Los Santos Sheriffs Department the entire process has been lengthy with many ups and downs (some of them being at my hand which I will humbly apologise for).

Given that it has now been quite some time since this case has been touched and to allow for some time to be reacquainted with the case, I would like to motion for a very short extension to the discovery period, perhaps 48-72 hours would be amicable.

There is a lot of text to get through on this docket and I do feel that it would benefit both parties if this were to be permitted by your honors to allow for a fair and just trial to take place.

James Hellraiser-Costello
 

Krystalrayne

Godlike Citizen
Judge
Bar Certified Attorney
Department of Justice
Whitelisted
Joined
Nov 8, 2020
Messages
673
Good day Mr. Hellraiser-Costello,

I had a verbal conversation with District Attorney Noonan regarding their interest in settling this case, then on July 3rd I received an email from the then Assistant District Attorney Shoeman regarding the same settlement deal. From my understanding we are still in the negotiation phase with the District Attorney's for a settlement deal.


Best Regards,

Syn Castillo
 

IAmTheValeyard

Justice Fudge
Staff Team
Judge
Department of Justice
Donator
Whitelisted
Joined
Sep 1, 2020
Messages
1,991
Miss Castillo,

At this time the District Attorneys office is now looking to proceed to trial. Given that a settlement agreement was never signed it has been withdrawn.

This case is a very important case not only for all those involved but also the State of San Andreas and so it would be flippant to attempt to settle out of court.

I am however open to discussions however cannot guarantee that any settlement will be reached. In the interests of all parties it may be reasonable to have a discussion surrounding this matter.

-James Hellraiser-Costello
 

Krystalrayne

Godlike Citizen
Judge
Bar Certified Attorney
Department of Justice
Whitelisted
Joined
Nov 8, 2020
Messages
673
Your Honor, @Captain 10-50

Our client also agrees that there is importance with having this case heard in court.

We see no need to reopen the discovery phase, as both parties have already been provided adequate time to produce their evidence during the initial discovery phase.

We request to proceed with the Motions Hearing as we were in the middle of scheduling one before the esteemed Mr. Hellraiser-Costello declined to further represent LSSD, with no additional counsel available the case has lingered an intolerable amount of time on the docket. As long as there are no legal ramifications with his return to the case, we welcome Mr. Hellraiser-Costello back and look forward to continuing this case.

Best Regards,


Syn Castillo
 

skinner

Administrator
Management
Judge
Bar Certified Attorney
Department of Justice
Los Santos Police Department
Los Santos Police Department Command
Donator
Whitelisted
Joined
Aug 31, 2020
Messages
1,242

IAmTheValeyard

Justice Fudge
Staff Team
Judge
Department of Justice
Donator
Whitelisted
Joined
Sep 1, 2020
Messages
1,991
Your Honor,

Doth thou recall when I saved your life? As such may I request a small favor of moving it 24 hours to Sunday at the same time if possible.
 

skinner

Administrator
Management
Judge
Bar Certified Attorney
Department of Justice
Los Santos Police Department
Los Santos Police Department Command
Donator
Whitelisted
Joined
Aug 31, 2020
Messages
1,242
Your Honor,

Doth thou recall when I saved your life? As such may I request a small favor of moving it 24 hours to Sunday at the same time if possible.
Does sunday 8/1 at 2pm EST work for you Ms Castillo? @Krystalrayne
 

IAmTheValeyard

Justice Fudge
Staff Team
Judge
Department of Justice
Donator
Whitelisted
Joined
Sep 1, 2020
Messages
1,991
Your honor, in preparation for tomorrows motion hearing I would like to submit the following motions.

Motion In limine


Exlusionary Motion for Exhibit Item C - Sworn Affidavit from Ringo Holliday
Exlusionary Motion for Witness - Mr Ringo Holliday

In accordance with Rules 607, 608, 609 and 616. of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

-This motion seeks to remedy the inadmissible evidence entered by Miss Syn Castillo in entering a witness whose testimony is considered inadmissible. We respectfully asks the Court to exclude testimony from Mr Ringo Holliday who was unilaterally added to the evidence list in violation of Mr Ringo Holliday is a known convicted violent felon in the State of San Andreas and as such his testimony is inadmissible in the court. Given his felony charges the State moves for an order excluding the testimony. Additionally the State moves for an order that Miss Castillo may not call Mr Holliday to testify at trial,

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should exclude Mr. Holliday, from testifying and the Court should order that Mr. Holliday’s testimony will be barred.



Motion to Strike

Motion to Strike - Exhibit Item F3

-The state respectfully moves this Honorable Court to suppress the use of Exhibit F3 as evidence. The cost of the vehicle has no relevance to the case in hand. We ask that the court issues an order which prevents the plaintiffs from introducing irrelevant evidence.



Motion to Strike

In accordance with Rule 103 of the Federal Rules of Evidence
Motion to Strike - Exhibit Item A - LT Storm Sworn Affidavit

-The state respectfully moves this Honorable Court to suppress the use of Exhibit A based on missing evidence from the testimony given by LT Storm. The testimony does not state any date or time and as such the court must take notice of a plain error affecting a substantial right, even if the claim of error was not properly preserved. The only date on the affidavit is from 12 days after this alleged incident occured.


Your honor the rights of the accused are: the right to a fair trial; due process; to seek redress or a legal remedy; the right to petition and the right of self-defense. With such an important piece of evidence excluding such an important piece of information We ask that the court issues an order which prevents the plaintiffs from introducing evidence which excludes vital information.

Motion to Strike

In accordance with Rule 103 of the Federal Rules of Evidence
Motion to Strike - Exhibit Item B - Cronin Sworn Affidavit

-The state respectfully moves this Honorable Court to suppress the use of Exhibit B based on missing evidence from the testimony given by LT Storm. The testimony does not state any date or time and as such the court must take notice of a plain error affecting a substantial right, even if the claim of error was not properly preserved. The only date on the affidavit is from 13 days after this alleged incident occured.


Your honor the rights of the accused are: the right to a fair trial; due process; to seek redress or a legal remedy; the right to petition and the right of self-defense. With such an important piece of evidence excluding such an important piece of information We ask that the court issues an order which prevents the plaintiffs from introducing evidence which excludes vital information.

Motion to Strike

In accordance with Rule 103 of the Federal Rules of Evidence
Motion to Strike - Exhibit Item D - Ezekiel Cabot Sworn Affidavit

-The state respectfully moves this Honorable Court to suppress the use of Exhibit B based on missing evidence from the testimony given by LT Storm. The testimony does not state any date or time and as such the court must take notice of a plain error affecting a substantial right, even if the claim of error was not properly preserved. The date on the affidavit is from when the individual signed the statement however without any actual indication of the date of this repair any reasonable individual would not know when this incident occured.


Your honor the rights of the accused are: the right to a fair trial; due process; to seek redress or a legal remedy; the right to petition and the right of self-defense. With such an important piece of evidence excluding such an important piece of information We ask that the court issues an order which prevents the plaintiffs from introducing evidence which excludes vital information.

Motion to Dismiss - Failure to State Claim upon Which Relief can be Granted


COME NOW James Hellraiser-Costello, who moves to dismiss the Plaintiff’s First, Second and Third Claims for Relief in the Complaint for failure to state a claim.

The Complaint alleges three causes of action:

  1. Damages for Pain & Suffering
  2. Damages for Vehicle Repair
  3. Damages for Hospital Bills
The Plaintiff has the burden of production to come forward with facts demonstrating a prima facie case. The Plaintiff must allege that Mr Tater did indeed suffer pain and suffering. The Defendants do not concede that the Plaintiff has plead sufficient facts to establish the first, second and third elements in the claim.

The Complaint does not allege that the Plaintiff suffered any pain and suffering. In fact in Exhibits E1 through E8 which have been photographed less that 2.5 hours after the alleged incident, Mr Tater can clearly be seen up and on his feet with no signs of any physical pain. In fact, if we look at Exhibit E2 it seems very apparent to any reasonable person that Mr Tater is indeed Mid-swagger.

The Complaint does not allege any facts that show any damages for vehicle repair. As stated in the states Motion to Strike - Exhibit Item D - Ezekiel Cabot Sworn Affidavit there is no date on the sworn affidavit which alleges to any damages to the vehicle on that specific date. The plaintiff has entered no invoices, no receipts and no solid evidence which shows any damages to the vehicles on that date.

The Complaint does not allege any facts that any medical bills were paid in connection with this incident. The Complaint does not state that the Plaintiff was issued with a medical invoice, does not provide any proof any payment being made to the medical services at any hospital in San Andreas.

For the foregoing reasons the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted and the First, Second and Second Claims for Relief should be dismissed.

To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must “support the viability of its claims by pleading sufficient nonconclusory factual matter to set forth a claim that is plausible on its face.”


While we accept that the Court must “accept all allegations in the complaint as true and draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party’s favor,” but need not accord “legal conclusions, deductions or opinions couched as factual allegations or a presumption of truthfulness.”. However Under any legal standard, a court cannot look beyond the face of the pleadings. Nonetheless, pleadings must show specific, well-pleaded facts, not mere conclusory allegations.

We also must make it clear that the plain language of the stated in the complaint establishes that the provisions on which Plaintiff relies do not apply here. In short, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted as it fails to plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible.”
 

IAmTheValeyard

Justice Fudge
Staff Team
Judge
Department of Justice
Donator
Whitelisted
Joined
Sep 1, 2020
Messages
1,991
Your honor,

I believe we have reached a Settlement Agreement which should now be in your email inbox for you to view.
 

skinner

Administrator
Management
Judge
Bar Certified Attorney
Department of Justice
Los Santos Police Department
Los Santos Police Department Command
Donator
Whitelisted
Joined
Aug 31, 2020
Messages
1,242
A settlement has been reached privately between the parties. An NDA was signed.

Case is dismissed.
 
Top