Preview
1 DAMON M. OTT, Bar No. 215392
dott@littler.com
2 PHILIP B. BALDWIN, Bar No. 307920
pbaldwin@littler.com
3 ROBERT GEIGER, Bar No. 322914
rgeiger@littler.com
4 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
5 San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: 415.433.1940
6 Fax No.: 415.399.8490
7 Attorneys for Defendant 6/10/2022
VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS, INC.
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
11
12 ALIDA MAZARIEGOS, PAULA GONZALEZ, Case No. 20-CIV-04267
and JAIME AMAYA,
13 COMPLEX ACTION
Plaintiffs,
14 ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO
v. HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN,
15 DEPT 4
VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS, INC.;
16 RR FRANCHISING, INC., D/B/A [PROPOSED] ORDER RE
VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS OF DEFENDANT VANGUARD
17 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND D/B/A CLEANING SYSTEM, INC.’S
VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS OF OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
18 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; BUDDHA DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF
CAPITAL CORPORATION, D/B/A THEIR MOTION FOR CLASS
19 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS OF CERTIFICATION
SACRAMENTO, D/B/A VANGUARD
20 CLEANING SYSTEMS OF THECENTRAL Date: July 26, 2022
VALLEY, AND D/B/AVANGUARD Time: 2:00 p.m.
21 CLEANING SYSTEMS OF THE CENTRAL Dept.: 4; Ctrm. G
COAST; AND WINE COUNTRY
22 VENTURES, INC. D/B/A VANGUARD
CLEANING SYSTEMS OF THE NORTH
23 BAY, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10,
INCLUSIVE,
24
Defendants.
25
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
333 Bush Street
34th Floor
1
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.433.1940
[PROPOSED] ORDER
1 I. RULINGS RE OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF ALIDA MAZARIEGOS
2
No. Inadmissible Evidence Basis for Objection Court’s Ruling
3 1. Declaration of Alida Mazariegos Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained
(“Mazariegos Decl.”), page 1, line 4: Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
4 “I worked as a Vanguard cleaner in 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing,
California from approximately 2011 Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled
5 to 2017.” (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff
failed to establish who she refers
6 to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a
Master Franchise, or some
7 combination.
8 2. Mazariegos Decl., page 1, lines 22- Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained
23: “I contacted Vanguard to learn Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
9 what was entailed in working for 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing,
Vanguard.” Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled
10 (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff
failed to establish who she refers
11 to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a
Master Franchise, or some
12 combination.
13 Inadmissible Hearsay (Evid. Code
§ 1200). The content of Plaintiff’s
14 contact to “Vanguard” is
improper hearsay.
15
3. Mazariegos Decl., page 1, lines 25- Inadmissible opinion, speculation, Sustained
16 26: “I was not able to negotiate any and/or conclusion (Evid. Code §§
of the terms of the contract—I signed 800-805): Plaintiff concludes
17 what they offered me.” without basis that Plaintiff was Overruled
unable to negotiate the contract.
18
“I was not able to negotiate any
19 of the terms of the contract” is
pure argument, and its probative
20 value is substantially outweighed
by the probability that its
21 admission will confuse and
mislead. (Evid. Code § 352.)
22
4. Mazariegos Decl., page 2, lines 15- Best (Secondary) Evidence (Evid. Sustained
23 16: “My pay was based on what Code §§1520-1523): This is
Vanguard charged the account—I had improper testimony regarding the
24 to pay Vanguard a portion of the fees contents of separate writing, Overruled
for each account, and then Vanguard namely Plaintiff’s Franchise
25 paid me the rest. Agreement.
26 Lack of Foundation/No Personal
Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
27 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing,
Likely to Mislead, Argumentative
28 (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
333 Bush Street
34th Floor
2
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.433.1940
[PROPOSED] ORDER
1 No. Inadmissible Evidence Basis for Objection Court’s Ruling
failed to establish who she refers
2 to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a
5Master Franchise, or some
3 combination.
4 “My pay was based on what
Vanguard charged the account” is
5 pure argument, and its probative
value is substantially outweighed
6 by the probability that its
admission will confuse and
7 mislead. (Evid. Code § 352.)
8 5. Mazariegos Decl., page 2, line 18: Inadmissible Hearsay (Evid. Code Sustained
“one of my cleaning accounts had § 1200). This is inadmissible
9 complained . . .” hearsay from a non-party.
Overruled
10
11
6. Mazariegos Decl., page 2, line 19: Inadmissible Hearsay (Evid. Code Sustained
12 “but the client specifically told me § 1200). This is inadmissible
that they had not complained.” hearsay from a non-party.
13 Overruled
“[T]hat they had not complained”
14 is deliberately vague and
unreliable, and its probative value
15 is substantially outweighed by the
probability that its admission will
16 confuse and mislead. (Evid. Code
§ 352.)
17
7. Mazariegos Decl., page 2, line 20: “If Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained
18 any of my accounts had complaints, Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
they contacted Vanguard . . .” 702(a), 800): Plaintiff speculates
19 whether or not the account had a Overruled
complaint and has no personal
20 knowledge.
21 Inadmissible Hearsay (Evid. Code
§ 1200). This is inadmissible
22 hearsay from a non-party.
23 Lack of Foundation/No Personal
Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
24 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing,
Likely to Mislead, Argumentative
25 (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff
failed to establish who she refers
26 to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a
Master Franchise, or some
27 combination.
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
333 Bush Street
34th Floor
3
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.433.1940
[PROPOSED] ORDER
1 No. Inadmissible Evidence Basis for Objection Court’s Ruling
8. Mazariegos Decl., page 2, lines 21- Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained
2 22: Vanguard then handled follow up Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
communication with the clients. 702(a), 800): Plaintiff failed to
3 establish personal knowledge that Overruled
“Vanguard” handled any follow-
4 up with her clients.
5 Lack of Foundation/No Personal
Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
6 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing,
Likely to Mislead, Argumentative
7 (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff
failed to establish who she refers
8 to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a
Master Franchise, or some
9 combination.
10 9. Mazariegos Decl., page 2, line 23: Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained
“Because Vanguard controlled my Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
11 accounts, they also controlled my 702(a), 800): Plaintiff did not
work hours.” establish that “Vanguard” Overruled
12 controlled her accounts.
13 Lack of Foundation/No Personal
Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
14 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing,
Likely to Mislead, Argumentative
15 (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff
failed to establish who she refers
16 to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a
Master Franchise, or some
17 combination.
18 The terms “controlled” are
deliberately argumentative,
19 vague, and unreliable, and the
probative value is substantially
20 outweighed by the probability
that its admission will confuse
21 and mislead. (Evid. Code § 352.)
22 The terms “controlled” are
improper legal conclusions.
23 (Evid. Code §§ 702; 352; 403.
Evinger v. MacDougall (1938) 28
24 Cal.App.2d 175.)
25 10. Mazariegos Decl., page 3, line 1: Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained
“Vanguard required me to pay all Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
26 work-related expenses . . .” 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing,
Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled
27 (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff
failed to establish who she refers
28 to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
333 Bush Street
34th Floor
4
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.433.1940
[PROPOSED] ORDER
1 No. Inadmissible Evidence Basis for Objection Court’s Ruling
Master Franchise, or some
2 combination.
3 11. Mazariegos Decl., page 3, line 3: Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained
“Vanguard had specific Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
4 requirements . . .” 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing,
Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled
5 (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff
failed to establish who she refers
6 to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a
Master Franchise, or some
7 combination.
8 12. Mazariegos Decl., page 3, lines 5-8: Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained
“When I stopped working for Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
9 Vanguard, I did not receive payment 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing,
for my overtime work or any refund Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled
10 of the amounts I had paid to (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff
Vanguard. Vanguard did eventually failed to establish who she refers
11 agree to make an additional payment to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a
to me. It is my understanding that this Master Franchise, or some
12 payment was for work I performed as combination.
a Vanguard cleaner”
13
II. RULINGS RE OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF PAULA GONZALEZ
14
15 No. Inadmissible Evidence Basis for Objection Court’s Ruling
13. Declaration of Paula Gonzalez Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained
16 (“Gonzalez Decl.”), page 1, line 4: “I Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
have been a Vanguard cleaner in 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing,
17 California since approximately Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled
2011.” (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff
18 failed to establish who she refers
to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a
19 Master Franchise, or some
combination.
20
14. Gonzalez Decl., page 1, line 22: Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained
21 “Before working for Vanguard . . .” Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing,
22 Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled
(Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff
23 failed to establish who she refers
to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a
24 Master Franchise, or some
combination.
25
15. Gonzalez Decl., page 1, lines 24-28: Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained
26 “I . . . learned about the opportunity Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
to work for Vanguard . . . so I 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing,
27 contacted Vanguard to learn what Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled
was entailed in working for (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff
28 Vanguard. After that discussion, I failed to establish who she refers
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
333 Bush Street
34th Floor
5
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.433.1940
[PROPOSED] ORDER
1 No. Inadmissible Evidence Basis for Objection Court’s Ruling
met with Robert from Vanguard to to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a
2 sign my contracts. I was required to Master Franchise, or some
sign a franchise agreement with combination.
3 Vanguard to start working.”
16. Gonzalez Decl., page 1, line 28 to Inadmissible opinion, speculation,
4 page 2, line 1: “I was not able to and/or conclusion (Evid. Code §§
negotiate any of the terms of the 800-805): Plaintiff concludes
5 contract—I just signed what they without basis that Plaintiff was
offered me.” unable to negotiate the contract.
6
“I was not able to negotiate any
7 of the terms of the contract” is
pure argument, and its probative
8 value is substantially outweighed
by the probability that its
9 admission will confuse and
mislead. (Evid. Code § 352.)
10
17. Gonzalez Decl., page 2, lines 2-4: “I Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained
11 recall paying approximately $3,000 Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
or $4,000 to begin working at 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing,
12 Vanguard, although I understood the Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled
total fee would be about $11,000 and (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff
13 the remainder would be deducted as I failed to establish who she refers
continued to work for Vanguard.” to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a
14 Master Franchise, or some
combination.
15
18. Gonzalez Decl., page 2, lines 5-9: Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained
16 “Before I started working for Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
Vanguard, someone from 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing,
17 Vanguard . . . [.] After that initial Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled
training, I also had to visit any new (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff
18 office . . . with someone from failed to establish who she refers
Vanguard[.] . . . The contract that to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a
19 Vanguard gave me for each new site Master Franchise, or some
also told me how and what to clean.” combination.
20
19. Gonzalez Decl., page 2, line 10: “I Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained
21 worked cleaning commercial Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
businesses for Vanguard.” 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing,
22 Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled
(Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff
23 failed to establish who she refers
to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a
24 Master Franchise, or some
combination.
25
26
20. Gonzalez Decl., page 2, lines 12-13: Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained
27 “As a cleaner at Vanguard, I never Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
marketed or advertised my cleaning 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing,
28 Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
333 Bush Street
34th Floor
6
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.433.1940
[PROPOSED] ORDER
1 No. Inadmissible Evidence Basis for Objection Court’s Ruling
services. Instead, I received new (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff
2 accounts directly from Vanguard.” failed to establish who she refers
to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a
3 Master Franchise, or some
combination.
4
21. Gonzalez Decl., page 2, line 10: “I Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained
5 had to sign a contract for each new Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
account, and the terms of the contract 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing,
6 were set by Vanguard.” Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled
(Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff
7 failed to establish who she refers
to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a
8 Master Franchise, or some
combination.
9
Lack of Foundation/No Personal
10 Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
702(a), 800): Plaintiff lacks
11 personal knowledge as to whether
the terms of the contract were set
12 by “Vanguard,” and the statement
lacks foundation as to why she
13 “had to sign a contract for each
new account.”
14
Best (Secondary) Evidence (Evid.
15 Code §§1520-1523): This is
improper testimony regarding the
16 contents of separate writing,
namely the contract Plaintiff
17 claims she had to sign.
18 22. Gonzalez Decl., page 2, line 23: Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained
“Because Vanguard controlled my Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
19 accounts, they also controlled my 702(a), 800): Plaintiff did not
work hours.” establish that “Vanguard” Overruled
20 controlled her accounts.
21 Lack of Foundation/No Personal
Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
22 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing,
Likely to Mislead, Argumentative
23 (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff
failed to establish who she refers
24 to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a
Master Franchise, or some
25 combination.
26 The terms “controlled” are
deliberately argumentative,
27 vague, and unreliable, and the
probative value is substantially
28 outweighed by the probability
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
333 Bush Street
34th Floor
7
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.433.1940
[PROPOSED] ORDER
1 No. Inadmissible Evidence Basis for Objection Court’s Ruling
that its admission will confuse
2 and mislead. (Evid. Code § 352.)
3 The terms “controlled” are
improper legal conclusions.
4 (Evid. Code §§ 702; 352; 403.
Evinger v. MacDougall (1938) 28
5 Cal.App.2d 175.)
6 23. Gonzalez Decl., page 2, line 25: Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained
“Vanguard had no meal or rest break Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
7 policy for its cleaners. 702(a), 800): Plaintiff failed to
establish she has personal Overruled
8 knowledge of meal and rest break
policies.
9
Lack of Foundation/No Personal
10 Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing,
11 Likely to Mislead, Argumentative
(Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff
12 failed to establish who she refers
to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a
13 Master Franchise, or some
combination.
14
24. Gonzalez Decl., page 2, line 28: Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained
15 “Vanguard never paid me premium Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
pay . . .” 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing,
16 Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled
(Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff
17 failed to establish who she refers
to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a
18 Master Franchise, or some
combination.
19
25. Gonzalez Decl., page 3, lines 2-4: Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained
20 “Vanguard required me . . . [.] Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
Vanguard required specific cleaning 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing,
21 products and equipment but never Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled
reimbursed me for those expenses.” (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff
22 failed to establish who she refers
to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a
23 Master Franchise, or some
combination.
24
Lack of Foundation/No Personal
25 Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
702(a), 800): Plaintiff failed to
26 establish she has personal
knowledge of specific cleaning
27 products
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
333 Bush Street
34th Floor
8
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.433.1940
[PROPOSED] ORDER
1 III. RULINGS RE OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF JAIME AMAYA
2
No. Inadmissible Evidence Basis for Objection Court’s Ruling
3 26. Declaration of Jaime Amaya Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained
(“Amaya Decl.”), page 1, line 4: “I Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
4 have worked as a Vanguard cleaner 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing,
in California since approximately Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled
5 2003.” (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff
failed to establish who he refers
6 to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a
Master Franchise, or some
7 combination.
8 27. Amaya Decl., page 1, lines 22-23: Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained
“When I first became interested in Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
9 working for Vanguard, I contacted 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing,
Vanguard to learn what was entailed Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled
10 in working for Vanguard.” (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff
failed to establish who he refers
11 to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a
Master Franchise, or some
12 combination.
13 28. Amaya Decl., page 1, lines 25-26: “I Inadmissible opinion, speculation, Sustained
was not able to negotiate any of the and/or conclusion (Evid. Code §§
14 terms of the contract—I signed what 800-805): Plaintiff concludes
they offered me.” without basis that Plaintiff was Overruled
15 unable to negotiate the contract.
16 “I was not able to negotiate any
of the terms of the contract” is
17 pure argument, and its probative
value is substantially outweighed
18 by the probability that its
admission will confuse and
19 mislead. (Evid. Code § 352.)
20 29. Amaya Decl., page 1, line 25 to page Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained
2, line 1: “I recall that my total cost Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
21 to begin working at Vanguard was 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing,
around $16,000.” Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled
22 (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff
failed to establish who he refers
23 to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a
Master Franchise, or some
24 combination.
30. Amaya Decl., page 2, lines 2-7: Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained
25 “Before I started working with Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
Vanguard, I had to attend training 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing,
26 about Vanguard’s cleaning Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled
techniques . . . I also had to visit any (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff
27 new office . . . with someone from failed to establish who he refers
Vanguard.” to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
333 Bush Street
34th Floor
9
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.433.1940
[PROPOSED] ORDER
1 No. Inadmissible Evidence Basis for Objection Court’s Ruling
Master Franchise, or some
2 combination.
3 31. Amaya Decl., page 2, line 8: “I Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained
worked cleaning commercial Knowledge (Evid. Code §§
4 businesses for Vanguard.” 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing,
Likely to Mislead, Argumen
Preview
1 DAMON M. OTT, Bar No. 215392 dott@littler.com 2 PHILIP B. BALDWIN, Bar No. 307920 pbaldwin@littler.com 3 ROBERT GEIGER, Bar No. 322914 rgeiger@littler.com 4 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor 5 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: 415.433.1940 6 Fax No.: 415.399.8490 7 Attorneys for Defendant 6/10/2022 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS, INC. 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 11 12 ALIDA MAZARIEGOS, PAULA GONZALEZ, Case No. 20-CIV-04267 and JAIME AMAYA, 13 COMPLEX ACTION Plaintiffs, 14 ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO v. HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, 15 DEPT 4 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS, INC.; 16 RR FRANCHISING, INC., D/B/A [PROPOSED] ORDER RE VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS OF DEFENDANT VANGUARD 17 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND D/B/A CLEANING SYSTEM, INC.’S VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS OF OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ 18 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; BUDDHA DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF CAPITAL CORPORATION, D/B/A THEIR MOTION FOR CLASS 19 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS OF CERTIFICATION SACRAMENTO, D/B/A VANGUARD 20 CLEANING SYSTEMS OF THECENTRAL Date: July 26, 2022 VALLEY, AND D/B/AVANGUARD Time: 2:00 p.m. 21 CLEANING SYSTEMS OF THE CENTRAL Dept.: 4; Ctrm. G COAST; AND WINE COUNTRY 22 VENTURES, INC. D/B/A VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS OF THE NORTH 23 BAY, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, 24 Defendants. 25 26 27 28 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street 34th Floor 1 San Francisco, CA 94104 415.433.1940 [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 I. RULINGS RE OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF ALIDA MAZARIEGOS 2 No. Inadmissible Evidence Basis for Objection Court’s Ruling 3 1. Declaration of Alida Mazariegos Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained (“Mazariegos Decl.”), page 1, line 4: Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ 4 “I worked as a Vanguard cleaner in 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing, California from approximately 2011 Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled 5 to 2017.” (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff failed to establish who she refers 6 to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a Master Franchise, or some 7 combination. 8 2. Mazariegos Decl., page 1, lines 22- Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained 23: “I contacted Vanguard to learn Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ 9 what was entailed in working for 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing, Vanguard.” Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled 10 (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff failed to establish who she refers 11 to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a Master Franchise, or some 12 combination. 13 Inadmissible Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200). The content of Plaintiff’s 14 contact to “Vanguard” is improper hearsay. 15 3. Mazariegos Decl., page 1, lines 25- Inadmissible opinion, speculation, Sustained 16 26: “I was not able to negotiate any and/or conclusion (Evid. Code §§ of the terms of the contract—I signed 800-805): Plaintiff concludes 17 what they offered me.” without basis that Plaintiff was Overruled unable to negotiate the contract. 18 “I was not able to negotiate any 19 of the terms of the contract” is pure argument, and its probative 20 value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its 21 admission will confuse and mislead. (Evid. Code § 352.) 22 4. Mazariegos Decl., page 2, lines 15- Best (Secondary) Evidence (Evid. Sustained 23 16: “My pay was based on what Code §§1520-1523): This is Vanguard charged the account—I had improper testimony regarding the 24 to pay Vanguard a portion of the fees contents of separate writing, Overruled for each account, and then Vanguard namely Plaintiff’s Franchise 25 paid me the rest. Agreement. 26 Lack of Foundation/No Personal Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ 27 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing, Likely to Mislead, Argumentative 28 (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street 34th Floor 2 San Francisco, CA 94104 415.433.1940 [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 No. Inadmissible Evidence Basis for Objection Court’s Ruling failed to establish who she refers 2 to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a 5Master Franchise, or some 3 combination. 4 “My pay was based on what Vanguard charged the account” is 5 pure argument, and its probative value is substantially outweighed 6 by the probability that its admission will confuse and 7 mislead. (Evid. Code § 352.) 8 5. Mazariegos Decl., page 2, line 18: Inadmissible Hearsay (Evid. Code Sustained “one of my cleaning accounts had § 1200). This is inadmissible 9 complained . . .” hearsay from a non-party. Overruled 10 11 6. Mazariegos Decl., page 2, line 19: Inadmissible Hearsay (Evid. Code Sustained 12 “but the client specifically told me § 1200). This is inadmissible that they had not complained.” hearsay from a non-party. 13 Overruled “[T]hat they had not complained” 14 is deliberately vague and unreliable, and its probative value 15 is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will 16 confuse and mislead. (Evid. Code § 352.) 17 7. Mazariegos Decl., page 2, line 20: “If Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained 18 any of my accounts had complaints, Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ they contacted Vanguard . . .” 702(a), 800): Plaintiff speculates 19 whether or not the account had a Overruled complaint and has no personal 20 knowledge. 21 Inadmissible Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200). This is inadmissible 22 hearsay from a non-party. 23 Lack of Foundation/No Personal Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ 24 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing, Likely to Mislead, Argumentative 25 (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff failed to establish who she refers 26 to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a Master Franchise, or some 27 combination. 28 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street 34th Floor 3 San Francisco, CA 94104 415.433.1940 [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 No. Inadmissible Evidence Basis for Objection Court’s Ruling 8. Mazariegos Decl., page 2, lines 21- Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained 2 22: Vanguard then handled follow up Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ communication with the clients. 702(a), 800): Plaintiff failed to 3 establish personal knowledge that Overruled “Vanguard” handled any follow- 4 up with her clients. 5 Lack of Foundation/No Personal Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ 6 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing, Likely to Mislead, Argumentative 7 (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff failed to establish who she refers 8 to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a Master Franchise, or some 9 combination. 10 9. Mazariegos Decl., page 2, line 23: Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained “Because Vanguard controlled my Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ 11 accounts, they also controlled my 702(a), 800): Plaintiff did not work hours.” establish that “Vanguard” Overruled 12 controlled her accounts. 13 Lack of Foundation/No Personal Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ 14 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing, Likely to Mislead, Argumentative 15 (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff failed to establish who she refers 16 to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a Master Franchise, or some 17 combination. 18 The terms “controlled” are deliberately argumentative, 19 vague, and unreliable, and the probative value is substantially 20 outweighed by the probability that its admission will confuse 21 and mislead. (Evid. Code § 352.) 22 The terms “controlled” are improper legal conclusions. 23 (Evid. Code §§ 702; 352; 403. Evinger v. MacDougall (1938) 28 24 Cal.App.2d 175.) 25 10. Mazariegos Decl., page 3, line 1: Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained “Vanguard required me to pay all Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ 26 work-related expenses . . .” 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing, Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled 27 (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff failed to establish who she refers 28 to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street 34th Floor 4 San Francisco, CA 94104 415.433.1940 [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 No. Inadmissible Evidence Basis for Objection Court’s Ruling Master Franchise, or some 2 combination. 3 11. Mazariegos Decl., page 3, line 3: Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained “Vanguard had specific Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ 4 requirements . . .” 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing, Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled 5 (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff failed to establish who she refers 6 to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a Master Franchise, or some 7 combination. 8 12. Mazariegos Decl., page 3, lines 5-8: Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained “When I stopped working for Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ 9 Vanguard, I did not receive payment 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing, for my overtime work or any refund Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled 10 of the amounts I had paid to (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff Vanguard. Vanguard did eventually failed to establish who she refers 11 agree to make an additional payment to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a to me. It is my understanding that this Master Franchise, or some 12 payment was for work I performed as combination. a Vanguard cleaner” 13 II. RULINGS RE OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF PAULA GONZALEZ 14 15 No. Inadmissible Evidence Basis for Objection Court’s Ruling 13. Declaration of Paula Gonzalez Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained 16 (“Gonzalez Decl.”), page 1, line 4: “I Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ have been a Vanguard cleaner in 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing, 17 California since approximately Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled 2011.” (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff 18 failed to establish who she refers to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a 19 Master Franchise, or some combination. 20 14. Gonzalez Decl., page 1, line 22: Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained 21 “Before working for Vanguard . . .” Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing, 22 Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff 23 failed to establish who she refers to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a 24 Master Franchise, or some combination. 25 15. Gonzalez Decl., page 1, lines 24-28: Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained 26 “I . . . learned about the opportunity Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ to work for Vanguard . . . so I 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing, 27 contacted Vanguard to learn what Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled was entailed in working for (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff 28 Vanguard. After that discussion, I failed to establish who she refers LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street 34th Floor 5 San Francisco, CA 94104 415.433.1940 [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 No. Inadmissible Evidence Basis for Objection Court’s Ruling met with Robert from Vanguard to to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a 2 sign my contracts. I was required to Master Franchise, or some sign a franchise agreement with combination. 3 Vanguard to start working.” 16. Gonzalez Decl., page 1, line 28 to Inadmissible opinion, speculation, 4 page 2, line 1: “I was not able to and/or conclusion (Evid. Code §§ negotiate any of the terms of the 800-805): Plaintiff concludes 5 contract—I just signed what they without basis that Plaintiff was offered me.” unable to negotiate the contract. 6 “I was not able to negotiate any 7 of the terms of the contract” is pure argument, and its probative 8 value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its 9 admission will confuse and mislead. (Evid. Code § 352.) 10 17. Gonzalez Decl., page 2, lines 2-4: “I Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained 11 recall paying approximately $3,000 Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ or $4,000 to begin working at 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing, 12 Vanguard, although I understood the Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled total fee would be about $11,000 and (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff 13 the remainder would be deducted as I failed to establish who she refers continued to work for Vanguard.” to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a 14 Master Franchise, or some combination. 15 18. Gonzalez Decl., page 2, lines 5-9: Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained 16 “Before I started working for Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ Vanguard, someone from 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing, 17 Vanguard . . . [.] After that initial Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled training, I also had to visit any new (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff 18 office . . . with someone from failed to establish who she refers Vanguard[.] . . . The contract that to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a 19 Vanguard gave me for each new site Master Franchise, or some also told me how and what to clean.” combination. 20 19. Gonzalez Decl., page 2, line 10: “I Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained 21 worked cleaning commercial Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ businesses for Vanguard.” 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing, 22 Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff 23 failed to establish who she refers to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a 24 Master Franchise, or some combination. 25 26 20. Gonzalez Decl., page 2, lines 12-13: Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained 27 “As a cleaner at Vanguard, I never Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ marketed or advertised my cleaning 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing, 28 Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street 34th Floor 6 San Francisco, CA 94104 415.433.1940 [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 No. Inadmissible Evidence Basis for Objection Court’s Ruling services. Instead, I received new (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff 2 accounts directly from Vanguard.” failed to establish who she refers to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a 3 Master Franchise, or some combination. 4 21. Gonzalez Decl., page 2, line 10: “I Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained 5 had to sign a contract for each new Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ account, and the terms of the contract 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing, 6 were set by Vanguard.” Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff 7 failed to establish who she refers to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a 8 Master Franchise, or some combination. 9 Lack of Foundation/No Personal 10 Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ 702(a), 800): Plaintiff lacks 11 personal knowledge as to whether the terms of the contract were set 12 by “Vanguard,” and the statement lacks foundation as to why she 13 “had to sign a contract for each new account.” 14 Best (Secondary) Evidence (Evid. 15 Code §§1520-1523): This is improper testimony regarding the 16 contents of separate writing, namely the contract Plaintiff 17 claims she had to sign. 18 22. Gonzalez Decl., page 2, line 23: Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained “Because Vanguard controlled my Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ 19 accounts, they also controlled my 702(a), 800): Plaintiff did not work hours.” establish that “Vanguard” Overruled 20 controlled her accounts. 21 Lack of Foundation/No Personal Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ 22 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing, Likely to Mislead, Argumentative 23 (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff failed to establish who she refers 24 to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a Master Franchise, or some 25 combination. 26 The terms “controlled” are deliberately argumentative, 27 vague, and unreliable, and the probative value is substantially 28 outweighed by the probability LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street 34th Floor 7 San Francisco, CA 94104 415.433.1940 [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 No. Inadmissible Evidence Basis for Objection Court’s Ruling that its admission will confuse 2 and mislead. (Evid. Code § 352.) 3 The terms “controlled” are improper legal conclusions. 4 (Evid. Code §§ 702; 352; 403. Evinger v. MacDougall (1938) 28 5 Cal.App.2d 175.) 6 23. Gonzalez Decl., page 2, line 25: Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained “Vanguard had no meal or rest break Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ 7 policy for its cleaners. 702(a), 800): Plaintiff failed to establish she has personal Overruled 8 knowledge of meal and rest break policies. 9 Lack of Foundation/No Personal 10 Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing, 11 Likely to Mislead, Argumentative (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff 12 failed to establish who she refers to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a 13 Master Franchise, or some combination. 14 24. Gonzalez Decl., page 2, line 28: Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained 15 “Vanguard never paid me premium Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ pay . . .” 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing, 16 Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff 17 failed to establish who she refers to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a 18 Master Franchise, or some combination. 19 25. Gonzalez Decl., page 3, lines 2-4: Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained 20 “Vanguard required me . . . [.] Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ Vanguard required specific cleaning 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing, 21 products and equipment but never Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled reimbursed me for those expenses.” (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff 22 failed to establish who she refers to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a 23 Master Franchise, or some combination. 24 Lack of Foundation/No Personal 25 Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ 702(a), 800): Plaintiff failed to 26 establish she has personal knowledge of specific cleaning 27 products 28 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street 34th Floor 8 San Francisco, CA 94104 415.433.1940 [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 III. RULINGS RE OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF JAIME AMAYA 2 No. Inadmissible Evidence Basis for Objection Court’s Ruling 3 26. Declaration of Jaime Amaya Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained (“Amaya Decl.”), page 1, line 4: “I Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ 4 have worked as a Vanguard cleaner 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing, in California since approximately Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled 5 2003.” (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff failed to establish who he refers 6 to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a Master Franchise, or some 7 combination. 8 27. Amaya Decl., page 1, lines 22-23: Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained “When I first became interested in Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ 9 working for Vanguard, I contacted 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing, Vanguard to learn what was entailed Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled 10 in working for Vanguard.” (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff failed to establish who he refers 11 to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a Master Franchise, or some 12 combination. 13 28. Amaya Decl., page 1, lines 25-26: “I Inadmissible opinion, speculation, Sustained was not able to negotiate any of the and/or conclusion (Evid. Code §§ 14 terms of the contract—I signed what 800-805): Plaintiff concludes they offered me.” without basis that Plaintiff was Overruled 15 unable to negotiate the contract. 16 “I was not able to negotiate any of the terms of the contract” is 17 pure argument, and its probative value is substantially outweighed 18 by the probability that its admission will confuse and 19 mislead. (Evid. Code § 352.) 20 29. Amaya Decl., page 1, line 25 to page Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained 2, line 1: “I recall that my total cost Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ 21 to begin working at Vanguard was 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing, around $16,000.” Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled 22 (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff failed to establish who he refers 23 to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a Master Franchise, or some 24 combination. 30. Amaya Decl., page 2, lines 2-7: Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained 25 “Before I started working with Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ Vanguard, I had to attend training 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing, 26 about Vanguard’s cleaning Likely to Mislead, Argumentative Overruled techniques . . . I also had to visit any (Evid. Code § 352.): Plaintiff 27 new office . . . with someone from failed to establish who he refers Vanguard.” to by “Vanguard,” i.e., VCS, a 28 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street 34th Floor 9 San Francisco, CA 94104 415.433.1940 [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 No. Inadmissible Evidence Basis for Objection Court’s Ruling Master Franchise, or some 2 combination. 3 31. Amaya Decl., page 2, line 8: “I Lack of Foundation/No Personal Sustained worked cleaning commercial Knowledge (Evid. Code §§ 4 businesses for Vanguard.” 702(a), 800); Vague, Confusing, Likely to Mislead, Argumen