Preview
Electronically Filed
11/3/2022 8:14 PM
Superior Court of California
County of Stanislaus
Clerk of the Court
1 JOHN L. SUPPLE (SBN 94582) By: Angela Mesa, Deputy
jsupple@jsupplelaw.com
2 ROBERT R. DEERING (SBN 258043)
rdeering@jsupplelaw.com
3 MATTHEW SCHROEDER (SBN 273361)
mschroeder@jsupplelaw.com
4 J SUPPLE LAW
A Professional Corporation
5 990 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
6
Telephone: (415) 366-5533
7 Facsimile: (415) 480-6301
8 Attorneys for Defendants
COVENANT CARE CALIFORNIA, LLC dba TURLOCK NURSING
9 AND REHABILITATION CENTER; COVENANT CARE, LLC
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
12
94901
J SUPPLE LAW, PC
LARRY B. DIGNES (Decedent) by and through Case No. CV-20-004057
990 Fifth Avenue
13 his Successors-In-Interest SHEILA M. LOWE,
San Rafael, CA
14 an individual; LORI M. KIRCHERT, an DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY
individual OBJECTIONS TO THE
15 DECLARATIONS OF VIRGINIA L.
Plaintiff, MARTUCCI, LORI KIRCHERT, AND
16 SHEILA LOWE IN SUPPORT OF
vs. MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND AN
17 ORDER ALLOCATING ARBITRATION
18 COVENANT CARE CALIFORNIA, LLC dba COSTS AND FEES TO DEFENDANTS
TURLOCK NURSING AND
19 REHABILITATION CENTER; COVENANT Accompanying Documents:
CARE, LLC, a Delaware Corporation; and 1) Opposition
20 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 2) Declaration of Matthew Schroeder
21 3) Proof of Service
Defendants.
22 Date: November 17, 2022
Time: 8:30 a.m.
23 Dept: 24
Judge: Sonny S. Sandhu
24
25
Complaint Filed: September 18, 2020
26
27
28
-1-
DEFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATIONS OF VIRGINIA L. MARTUCCI, LORI KIRCHERT, AND SHEILA LOWE
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND AN ORDER ALLOCATING ARBITRATION COSTS AND FEES TO DEFENDANTS
1 Pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.1352 and 3.1354, Defendants hereby object to
2 portions of the evidence filed in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift the Stay and an Order
3 Allocating Arbitration Costs and Fees to Defendants or Remand the Case to Superior Court
4 (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s Motion”). Defendants respectfully request that certain objectionable and
5 speculative portions of the evidence be stricken:
6 Declaration of Virginia L. Martucci in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion
7
Inadmissible Material Grounds for Objection Ruling
8
¶ 6, page 3, lines 4-9. “Based on these Relevance (Evid. Code §§ 350,
numbers, a two-week arbitration (10 403) Sustained.
9
days for 8 hours a day) without law and Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code §§
10 motion work included, the costs and 403, 802)
fees for this arbitration would be Inadmissible Speculation and Overruled.
11 $83,150. This cost will likely be much Conclusions (Evid. Code §§ 400,
higher given that, on average, elder 403, 410 [“‘direct evidence’ . . .
12
94901
J SUPPLE LAW, PC
neglect cases require anywhere from directly proves a fact, without an
990 Fifth Avenue
13 twenty to fifty motions in total from inference or presumption”], 803;
San Rafael, CA
both sides.” Los Angeles County Office of the
14 Dist. Attorney v. Civil Serv.
Comm’n of County of Los Angeles
15 (1997) 55 Cal. App. 4th 187, 201-
16 202 [“Rather than offer evidence
showing [the fact sought to be
17 proved, the party] merely
insinuated [motives for the fact.]
18 Such testimony is mere speculation
not supported by any evidence”];
19 Trujillo v. First Am. Registry, Inc.
20 (2008) 157 Cal. App. 4th 628, 635
[“opposition to summary judgment
21 will be deemed insufficient when it
is essentially conclusionary,
22 argumentative or based on
conjecture and speculation”]).
23
24 Ms. Martucci’s declaration does
not lay sufficient foundation for
25 her conclusion that this elder abuse
arbitration will last up to two
26 weeks or that each day of
arbitration will last up to eight
27
hours. The declaration also does
28 not lay sufficient foundation that
-2-
DEFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATIONS OF VIRGINIA L. MARTUCCI, LORI KIRCHERT, AND SHEILA LOWE
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND AN ORDER ALLOCATING ARBITRATION COSTS AND FEES TO DEFENDANTS
Inadmissible Material Grounds for Objection Ruling
1
the cost of arbitration will “likely
2 be much higher” than $83,150
“given that, on average, elder
3 neglect cases require anywhere
from twenty to fifty motions in
4 total from both sides.” As such,
her calculation of the amount it
5
“would” cost to arbitrate for two-
6 weeks is entirely speculative and
irrelevant to the issues presented in
7 Plaintiffs’ Motion.
8
¶ 7, page 3, lines 10-12. “Nearly a year Misstates Evidence/Testimony
9 after the Court’s order regarding (Evid. Code §§ 210 and 403) Sustained.
arbitration, arbitration has not started
10 because Defendants refuse to pay for As fully set forth in the
the costs and fees of arbitration, Declaration of Matthew Schroeder Overruled.
11
including discovery and law and in Support of Defendants’
12 motion leading up to the hearing.” Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to
94901
J SUPPLE LAW, PC
Lift the Stay, Defendants have
990 Fifth Avenue
13 actively met and conferred with
San Rafael, CA
Plaintiff’s counsel retarding the of
14 the agreed-upon mediation and the
15 selection of an arbitrator per the
express terms of the binding
16 arbitration agreement
(“Agreement”). The reason
17 arbitration has not started is
because Plaintiff will not
18 commence such without assurance
19 that Defendants will pay for the
entire cost of arbitration.
20 ¶ 11, page 4, lines 9-11 and lines 21-25. Relevance (Evid. Code §§ 350,
“I conservatively estimate that the 403) Sustained.
21 arbitration hearing in this matter will take Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code §§
at least two weeks (10 days) given the 403, 802)
22 fact that these cases involve a large Inadmissible Speculation and Overruled.
23 amount of testimony including . . . . I Conclusions (Evid. Code §§ 400,
further estimate that arbitration law and 403, 410 [“‘direct evidence’ . . .
24 motion work (motions to compel, directly proves a fact, without an
dispositive motions, costs, and attorney’s inference or presumption”], 803;
25 fees motions, etc.) will take at least Los Angeles County Office of the
another 10 days of arbitrator time for a Dist. Attorney v. Civil Serv.
26
bare minimum of twenty days of Comm’n of County of Los Angeles
27 arbitrator time.” (1997) 55 Cal. App. 4th 187, 201-
202 [“Rather than offer evidence
28 showing [the fact sought to be
-3-
DEFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATIONS OF VIRGINIA L. MARTUCCI, LORI KIRCHERT, AND SHEILA LOWE
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND AN ORDER ALLOCATING ARBITRATION COSTS AND FEES TO DEFENDANTS
Inadmissible Material Grounds for Objection Ruling
1
proved, the party] merely
2 insinuated [motives for the fact.]
Such testimony is mere speculation
3 not supported by any evidence”];
Trujillo v. First Am. Registry, Inc.
4 (2008) 157 Cal. App. 4th 628, 635
[“opposition to summary judgment
5
will be deemed insufficient when it
6 is essentially conclusionary,
argumentative or based on
7 conjecture and speculation”]).
8
9 Ms. Martucci’s declaration does
not lay sufficient foundation for
10 her conclusion that this elder abuse
arbitration will last two weeks and
11 take another 10 days of arbitrator
time for law and motion work. As
12
94901
such, her calculations are entirely
J SUPPLE LAW, PC
990 Fifth Avenue
13 speculative and irrelevant to the
issues presented in Plaintiffs’
San Rafael, CA
14 Motion.
¶ 15, page 6, lines 1-8. “If costs were Relevance (Evid. Code § 350,
15 split equally among the parties, Ms. 403) Sustained.
Lowe and Ms. Kirchert (two individuals Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code §
16
of average means) could be stuck 802)
17 paying $41,575, the same amount as the Inadmissible Speculation and Overruled.
Defendants, who are a chain enterprise Conclusions (Evid. Code §§ 400,
18 with over 40 facilities across multiple 403, 410)
states, which is funded by private equity
19 firms, and makes tens, if not hundreds Ms. Martucci’s declaration does
of millions of dollars per year not lay sufficient foundation for
20
through taxpayer-funded contracts with her conclusions about Defendants’
21 Medicare and Medi-Cal. Furthermore, finances or ability to pay for
the Defendants' Form Interrogatory arbitration, nor is Defendants’
22 responses state they are covered by finances or ability to pay relevant
$3,000,000 of professional liability to any aspect of Plaintiff’s Motion
23 insurance. Thus, they have ample to Lift the Stay. This paragraph
commercial insurance to fund this wholly speculative.
24
case.” (Emphasis in original).
25
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
-4-
DEFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATIONS OF VIRGINIA L. MARTUCCI, LORI KIRCHERT, AND SHEILA LOWE
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND AN ORDER ALLOCATING ARBITRATION COSTS AND FEES TO DEFENDANTS
Declaration of Lori Kirchert in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion
1
2 Inadmissible Material Grounds for Objection Ruling
3 ¶ 3, page 2, lines 3-5. “Following my Vague and Lacks Foundation
father’s death, his assets were (Evid. Code §§ 403, 802) Sustained.
4 distributed by me and my sister outside
of probate. We did not open a probate
5 case because my father did not have Ms. Kirchert’s statement in Overruled.
significant assets. We distributed his paragraph 3 is vague and
6 assets between our other family unsupported by any form of
7 members before the filing of this case.” evidence to corroborate such.
8
9
10
11 ///
12 ///
94901
J SUPPLE LAW, PC
990 Fifth Avenue
13 ///
San Rafael, CA
14 ///
15 ///
16 ///
17 ///
18 ///
19 ///
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
-5-
DEFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATIONS OF VIRGINIA L. MARTUCCI, LORI KIRCHERT, AND SHEILA LOWE
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND AN ORDER ALLOCATING ARBITRATION COSTS AND FEES TO DEFENDANTS
Declaration of Sheila Lowe in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion
1
2 Inadmissible Material Grounds for Objection Ruling
3 ¶ 3, page 2, lines 3-5. “Following my Vague and Lacks Foundation
father’s death, his assets were (Evid. Code §§ 403, 802) Sustained.
4 distributed by me and my sister outside
of probate. We did not go through
5 probate because my father did not have Ms. Lowe’s statement in paragraph Overruled.
significant assets. We distributed his 3 is vague and unsupported by any
6 assets between our other family form of evidence to corroborate
7 members. I have authority and such.
signature power over my father’s
8 former checking account. The rest of
my father’s assets were distributed to
9 family before the filing of this case.”
10
11 Dated: November 3, 2022 J SUPPLE LAW
A Professional Corporation
12
94901
J SUPPLE LAW, PC
990 Fifth Avenue
13
San Rafael, CA
14
15
By:
16 JOHN L. SUPPLE
ROBERT R. DEERING
17 MATTHEW SCHROEDER
18 Attorneys for Defendants
COVENANT CARE CALIFORNIA, LLC
19 dba TURLOCK NURSING AND
20 REHABILITATION CENTER; COVENANT
CARE, LLC
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-
DEFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATIONS OF VIRGINIA L. MARTUCCI, LORI KIRCHERT, AND SHEILA LOWE
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND AN ORDER ALLOCATING ARBITRATION COSTS AND FEES TO DEFENDANTS
Preview
Electronically Filed 11/3/2022 8:14 PM Superior Court of California County of Stanislaus Clerk of the Court 1 JOHN L. SUPPLE (SBN 94582) By: Angela Mesa, Deputy jsupple@jsupplelaw.com 2 ROBERT R. DEERING (SBN 258043) rdeering@jsupplelaw.com 3 MATTHEW SCHROEDER (SBN 273361) mschroeder@jsupplelaw.com 4 J SUPPLE LAW A Professional Corporation 5 990 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 6 Telephone: (415) 366-5533 7 Facsimile: (415) 480-6301 8 Attorneys for Defendants COVENANT CARE CALIFORNIA, LLC dba TURLOCK NURSING 9 AND REHABILITATION CENTER; COVENANT CARE, LLC 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS 12 94901 J SUPPLE LAW, PC LARRY B. DIGNES (Decedent) by and through Case No. CV-20-004057 990 Fifth Avenue 13 his Successors-In-Interest SHEILA M. LOWE, San Rafael, CA 14 an individual; LORI M. KIRCHERT, an DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY individual OBJECTIONS TO THE 15 DECLARATIONS OF VIRGINIA L. Plaintiff, MARTUCCI, LORI KIRCHERT, AND 16 SHEILA LOWE IN SUPPORT OF vs. MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND AN 17 ORDER ALLOCATING ARBITRATION 18 COVENANT CARE CALIFORNIA, LLC dba COSTS AND FEES TO DEFENDANTS TURLOCK NURSING AND 19 REHABILITATION CENTER; COVENANT Accompanying Documents: CARE, LLC, a Delaware Corporation; and 1) Opposition 20 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 2) Declaration of Matthew Schroeder 21 3) Proof of Service Defendants. 22 Date: November 17, 2022 Time: 8:30 a.m. 23 Dept: 24 Judge: Sonny S. Sandhu 24 25 Complaint Filed: September 18, 2020 26 27 28 -1- DEFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATIONS OF VIRGINIA L. MARTUCCI, LORI KIRCHERT, AND SHEILA LOWE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND AN ORDER ALLOCATING ARBITRATION COSTS AND FEES TO DEFENDANTS 1 Pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.1352 and 3.1354, Defendants hereby object to 2 portions of the evidence filed in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift the Stay and an Order 3 Allocating Arbitration Costs and Fees to Defendants or Remand the Case to Superior Court 4 (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s Motion”). Defendants respectfully request that certain objectionable and 5 speculative portions of the evidence be stricken: 6 Declaration of Virginia L. Martucci in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion 7 Inadmissible Material Grounds for Objection Ruling 8 ¶ 6, page 3, lines 4-9. “Based on these Relevance (Evid. Code §§ 350, numbers, a two-week arbitration (10 403) Sustained. 9 days for 8 hours a day) without law and Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code §§ 10 motion work included, the costs and 403, 802) fees for this arbitration would be Inadmissible Speculation and Overruled. 11 $83,150. This cost will likely be much Conclusions (Evid. Code §§ 400, higher given that, on average, elder 403, 410 [“‘direct evidence’ . . . 12 94901 J SUPPLE LAW, PC neglect cases require anywhere from directly proves a fact, without an 990 Fifth Avenue 13 twenty to fifty motions in total from inference or presumption”], 803; San Rafael, CA both sides.” Los Angeles County Office of the 14 Dist. Attorney v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of County of Los Angeles 15 (1997) 55 Cal. App. 4th 187, 201- 16 202 [“Rather than offer evidence showing [the fact sought to be 17 proved, the party] merely insinuated [motives for the fact.] 18 Such testimony is mere speculation not supported by any evidence”]; 19 Trujillo v. First Am. Registry, Inc. 20 (2008) 157 Cal. App. 4th 628, 635 [“opposition to summary judgment 21 will be deemed insufficient when it is essentially conclusionary, 22 argumentative or based on conjecture and speculation”]). 23 24 Ms. Martucci’s declaration does not lay sufficient foundation for 25 her conclusion that this elder abuse arbitration will last up to two 26 weeks or that each day of arbitration will last up to eight 27 hours. The declaration also does 28 not lay sufficient foundation that -2- DEFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATIONS OF VIRGINIA L. MARTUCCI, LORI KIRCHERT, AND SHEILA LOWE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND AN ORDER ALLOCATING ARBITRATION COSTS AND FEES TO DEFENDANTS Inadmissible Material Grounds for Objection Ruling 1 the cost of arbitration will “likely 2 be much higher” than $83,150 “given that, on average, elder 3 neglect cases require anywhere from twenty to fifty motions in 4 total from both sides.” As such, her calculation of the amount it 5 “would” cost to arbitrate for two- 6 weeks is entirely speculative and irrelevant to the issues presented in 7 Plaintiffs’ Motion. 8 ¶ 7, page 3, lines 10-12. “Nearly a year Misstates Evidence/Testimony 9 after the Court’s order regarding (Evid. Code §§ 210 and 403) Sustained. arbitration, arbitration has not started 10 because Defendants refuse to pay for As fully set forth in the the costs and fees of arbitration, Declaration of Matthew Schroeder Overruled. 11 including discovery and law and in Support of Defendants’ 12 motion leading up to the hearing.” Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to 94901 J SUPPLE LAW, PC Lift the Stay, Defendants have 990 Fifth Avenue 13 actively met and conferred with San Rafael, CA Plaintiff’s counsel retarding the of 14 the agreed-upon mediation and the 15 selection of an arbitrator per the express terms of the binding 16 arbitration agreement (“Agreement”). The reason 17 arbitration has not started is because Plaintiff will not 18 commence such without assurance 19 that Defendants will pay for the entire cost of arbitration. 20 ¶ 11, page 4, lines 9-11 and lines 21-25. Relevance (Evid. Code §§ 350, “I conservatively estimate that the 403) Sustained. 21 arbitration hearing in this matter will take Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code §§ at least two weeks (10 days) given the 403, 802) 22 fact that these cases involve a large Inadmissible Speculation and Overruled. 23 amount of testimony including . . . . I Conclusions (Evid. Code §§ 400, further estimate that arbitration law and 403, 410 [“‘direct evidence’ . . . 24 motion work (motions to compel, directly proves a fact, without an dispositive motions, costs, and attorney’s inference or presumption”], 803; 25 fees motions, etc.) will take at least Los Angeles County Office of the another 10 days of arbitrator time for a Dist. Attorney v. Civil Serv. 26 bare minimum of twenty days of Comm’n of County of Los Angeles 27 arbitrator time.” (1997) 55 Cal. App. 4th 187, 201- 202 [“Rather than offer evidence 28 showing [the fact sought to be -3- DEFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATIONS OF VIRGINIA L. MARTUCCI, LORI KIRCHERT, AND SHEILA LOWE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND AN ORDER ALLOCATING ARBITRATION COSTS AND FEES TO DEFENDANTS Inadmissible Material Grounds for Objection Ruling 1 proved, the party] merely 2 insinuated [motives for the fact.] Such testimony is mere speculation 3 not supported by any evidence”]; Trujillo v. First Am. Registry, Inc. 4 (2008) 157 Cal. App. 4th 628, 635 [“opposition to summary judgment 5 will be deemed insufficient when it 6 is essentially conclusionary, argumentative or based on 7 conjecture and speculation”]). 8 9 Ms. Martucci’s declaration does not lay sufficient foundation for 10 her conclusion that this elder abuse arbitration will last two weeks and 11 take another 10 days of arbitrator time for law and motion work. As 12 94901 such, her calculations are entirely J SUPPLE LAW, PC 990 Fifth Avenue 13 speculative and irrelevant to the issues presented in Plaintiffs’ San Rafael, CA 14 Motion. ¶ 15, page 6, lines 1-8. “If costs were Relevance (Evid. Code § 350, 15 split equally among the parties, Ms. 403) Sustained. Lowe and Ms. Kirchert (two individuals Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code § 16 of average means) could be stuck 802) 17 paying $41,575, the same amount as the Inadmissible Speculation and Overruled. Defendants, who are a chain enterprise Conclusions (Evid. Code §§ 400, 18 with over 40 facilities across multiple 403, 410) states, which is funded by private equity 19 firms, and makes tens, if not hundreds Ms. Martucci’s declaration does of millions of dollars per year not lay sufficient foundation for 20 through taxpayer-funded contracts with her conclusions about Defendants’ 21 Medicare and Medi-Cal. Furthermore, finances or ability to pay for the Defendants' Form Interrogatory arbitration, nor is Defendants’ 22 responses state they are covered by finances or ability to pay relevant $3,000,000 of professional liability to any aspect of Plaintiff’s Motion 23 insurance. Thus, they have ample to Lift the Stay. This paragraph commercial insurance to fund this wholly speculative. 24 case.” (Emphasis in original). 25 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// -4- DEFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATIONS OF VIRGINIA L. MARTUCCI, LORI KIRCHERT, AND SHEILA LOWE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND AN ORDER ALLOCATING ARBITRATION COSTS AND FEES TO DEFENDANTS Declaration of Lori Kirchert in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion 1 2 Inadmissible Material Grounds for Objection Ruling 3 ¶ 3, page 2, lines 3-5. “Following my Vague and Lacks Foundation father’s death, his assets were (Evid. Code §§ 403, 802) Sustained. 4 distributed by me and my sister outside of probate. We did not open a probate 5 case because my father did not have Ms. Kirchert’s statement in Overruled. significant assets. We distributed his paragraph 3 is vague and 6 assets between our other family unsupported by any form of 7 members before the filing of this case.” evidence to corroborate such. 8 9 10 11 /// 12 /// 94901 J SUPPLE LAW, PC 990 Fifth Avenue 13 /// San Rafael, CA 14 /// 15 /// 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// -5- DEFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATIONS OF VIRGINIA L. MARTUCCI, LORI KIRCHERT, AND SHEILA LOWE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND AN ORDER ALLOCATING ARBITRATION COSTS AND FEES TO DEFENDANTS Declaration of Sheila Lowe in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion 1 2 Inadmissible Material Grounds for Objection Ruling 3 ¶ 3, page 2, lines 3-5. “Following my Vague and Lacks Foundation father’s death, his assets were (Evid. Code §§ 403, 802) Sustained. 4 distributed by me and my sister outside of probate. We did not go through 5 probate because my father did not have Ms. Lowe’s statement in paragraph Overruled. significant assets. We distributed his 3 is vague and unsupported by any 6 assets between our other family form of evidence to corroborate 7 members. I have authority and such. signature power over my father’s 8 former checking account. The rest of my father’s assets were distributed to 9 family before the filing of this case.” 10 11 Dated: November 3, 2022 J SUPPLE LAW A Professional Corporation 12 94901 J SUPPLE LAW, PC 990 Fifth Avenue 13 San Rafael, CA 14 15 By: 16 JOHN L. SUPPLE ROBERT R. DEERING 17 MATTHEW SCHROEDER 18 Attorneys for Defendants COVENANT CARE CALIFORNIA, LLC 19 dba TURLOCK NURSING AND 20 REHABILITATION CENTER; COVENANT CARE, LLC 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6- DEFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATIONS OF VIRGINIA L. MARTUCCI, LORI KIRCHERT, AND SHEILA LOWE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND AN ORDER ALLOCATING ARBITRATION COSTS AND FEES TO DEFENDANTS