(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this dog bite/personal injury case and its proceedings.)
Plaintiff, Sandy White, by and through her attorney of record hereby submits this opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant. This opposition will be based upon this motion, the attached declarations, the court file, and evidence and oral argument to be presented at the hearing.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
FACTS OF THE CASE
On or about April 13, 2006, plaintiff, Sandy White was walking past the defendant’s residence, located on Maddox Avenue in Sacramento, CA, when a vicious Pit Bull charged from the defendant’s residence and attacked and maimed Ms. White. The plaintiff sustained significant and permanent injuries both physically and emotionally.
The defendant’s are claiming that the dog who caused the injury to plaintiff wasn’t their dog and had never been to defendant’s property before the date of the incident and therefore, they are not responsible for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. Further, the defendants have submitted the declaration of Maria Cantor in support of their motion for summary judgment. Ms. Cantor (the alleged owner of the dog) has suddenly reappeared solely in support of defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Ms. Cantor’s whereabouts were perpetually unknown to defendant even in the deposition of Diana Topp, she testified she had no idea of the whereabouts of Ms. Cantor. Then miraculously Cantor reappears and submits a vague declaration in support of defendant’s MSJ.
Notwithstanding, there remains a triable issue of fact regarding ownership of the dog because two of the defendant’s neighbor’s (including a neighbor who shares an adjoining chain link fence with the defendant) have come forward in declaration and deposition and unequivocally testified that the dog in question was seen at, and lived at, the defendant’s residence (See depositions of Jack Rose and Tory Brown.
The declarations of both of defendant’s neighbors declarations are attached hereto as Exhibits 1 & 2 respectively, and they both indicate the same thing; there was a brown Pit Bull type of dog with spots that lived at the defendant’s residence, and that it was the same dog that attacked plaintiff. Those critical facts call into question the testimony of both defendant Topp as well as Ms. Maria Cantor. (See Part 2 of 4.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.