On December 03, 2013 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Karidis-Koepke, Nancy, Koepke, Harold, and A.B.C. Mobile Systems, A.B.C. Mobile Systems, Individually And As, American Honda Motor Co. Inc., Bell Industries, Inc., Bell Industries Inc., Individually And As, Belnortel Corporation, D.B.A. A.B.C. Mobile Brake, Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc., Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc., Individually And As, Burlingame Auto Supply, Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., Cooper Industries Llc, Cooper Industries, Llc, Individually And As, Don L. Morris, Inc., First Doe Through Four Hundredth Doe, Inclusive, Fmc Corporation-John Bean Automotive Equipment, Fmc Technologies, Inc., Individually And As, Folsom Auto Supply, Ford Motor Company, Foreland Parts, Inc.,, Genuine Parts Company, H.M. Royal, Inc., Honeywell International, Inc., Fka Allied Signal,, Kelsey-Hayes Company, Lear Siegler Diversified Holdings Corp.,, Les Vogel Chevrolet Company, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Morton International, Inc., A Rohm And Haas, Morton International, Llc, Formerly Known As, National Automotive Parts Association, Parker Hannifin Corporation, Parker Hannifin Corporation, Individually And As, Pneumo Abex Llc, Individually And As Successor In, Rox Automotive, Shell Oil Company, Specialty Foreign Auto Parts, Inc., Erroneously, The Budd Company, Thyssenkrupp Budd Company Sued As "The Budd, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., University Distributors, Inc., Erroneously Sued, Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc., W. Berry Hurley Corporation, D.B.A. Federal Auto, Karidis-Koepke, Nancy, Koepke, Harold, The Hertz Corporation, for civil in the District Court of San Francisco County.
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Jun-18-2014 3:16 pm Case Number: CGC-13-276217 Filing Date: Jun-17-2014 3:14 Filed by: DANA OKAZAKI Juke Box: 001 Image: 04523315 ORDER HAROLD KOEPKE et al VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al 001004523315 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood A Professional Law Corporation + 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 * Oakland, California 94607 Jack London Market * www.kazanlaw.com + Fax: (510) 835-4913 (510) 302-1000 Joseph D. Satterley, Esq. (C.S.B. #286890) Ted W. Pelletier, Esq. (C.S.B. #172938) Michael T. Stewart, Esq. (C.S.B. #253851) j mstewart@kazanlaw.com e J L KAZAN, McCLAIN, SATTERLEY & GREENWOOD San Franciseg A Professional Law Corporation : Jack London Market 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 Oakland, California 94607 Telephone: (510) 302-1000 Facsimile: (510) 835-4913 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO HAROLD KOEPKE and NANCY KARIDIS- | Case Ng, 13-276217 KOEPKE, : (PR ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ T Plaintiffs, OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE FIRST SUBMITTED IN REPLY TO v. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Defendants. JUN 1 7 2014 Date: -Fone4-264— Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept.: 503 (Hon. Teri L. Jackson) Case Filed: December 3, 2013 Trial Date: June 16, 2014 MATERIAL OBJECTED TO |_GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION RULING 1. All excerpts of James Bell’s | Improper New Evidence First Sustained: April 22, 2014 deposition Submitted with AHM’s Reply testimony. [Exh. A to Reply Papers: Overruled: Kestenbaum Decl.] A court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment/adjudication may not consider evidence that is first submitted with the moving defendant’s reply papers. To do so denies the opposing plaintiffs’ constitutional due process right to C fair notice of all issues and evidence they were required to meet to oppose the defendant’s motion. [Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal. App.4th 243..252- 1313799.1 —{PROPOSED) ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE FIRST SUBMITTED IN REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO AMERICAN HONDA’S MSAKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood A Professional Law Corporation * Oakland, California 94607 www.kazanlaw.com Street, Suite 400 8 3 g 3 8 Ss = & Jack London Market 36 mos 253 (citing San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 316).] 2. All excerpts of Neil Schmidt’s September 15, 2010 deposition testimony. [Exh. B to Reply Kestenbaum Decl.] Improper New Evidence First Submitted with AHM’s Reply Papers: A court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment/adjudication may not consider evidence that is first submitted with the moving defendant’s reply papers. To do so denies the opposing plaintiffs’ constitutional due process right to fair notice of all issues and evidence they were required to meet to oppose the defendant’s motion. [Nazir, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at 252-253.] Hearsay: This evidence is inadmissible hearsay. [Evid. Code § 1200.] AHM fails to establish the hearsay exception for former testimony because Schmidt is available to AHM as its corporate representative, and plaintiffs’ cross- examination interests were not satisfied by any party who attended the deposition. [Evid. Code § 1200.) Sustained: Overruled: Zw 3. All excerpts of Neil Schmidt’s December 13, 2012 deposition testimony. [Exh. C to Reply Kestenbaum Decl.] ee Improper New Evidence First Submitted with AHM’s Reply Papers: A court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment/adjudication may not consider evidence that is first submitted with the moving defendant’s reply papers. To do so denies the opposing plaintiffs’ constitutional due process right to fair notice of all issues and evidence they were required to meet to oppose the defendant’s motion. [Nazir, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at 252-253.] Hearsay: This evidence is inadmissible hearsay. [Evid. Code § 1200.] AHM fails to establish the hearsay exception for former testimony because Schmidt is available to AHM as its corporate representative, and plaintiffs’ cross- Sustained: Overruled: 2 x 1313799.1 2 -(PROPOSED) ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE FIRST SUBMITTED IN REPLY TO OPPOSITION TA AMERICAN HONT A7S MCAKazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood A Professional Law Corporation * Oakland, California 94607 www.kazanlaw.com + 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 Jack London Market + Bax: (510) 835-4913 + (510) 302-1000 examination interests were not satisfied by any party who attended the deposition. [Evid. Code § 1200.1 Hon. Teri L. JaékSon sone tft (etal Ju 1313799.1 dge, Superior Court 3 PROPOSED) ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE FIRST SUBMITTED IN REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO AMERICAN HONDA’S MSA