On October 08, 2019 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Acosta, Sandy,
Jetcruzer International, Llc.,
and
Acosta, Sandy,
Does 3 Through 50,
Guzman, Marvin J.,
Zepeda, Ulises A.,
for Fraud
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
From Law Office 1.310.822.8529 Fr‘i Mar' 11 19:05:13 2022 PST Page 11 of 14
David M. Shaby II, Esq. (97871)
dshab @shabyandassociates.com
R. Chnstopher Harshman, Esq. (248214)
3M“ 14 2022
charshman@shabyandassociates.com
DAVID M. SHABY ASSOCIATES, APC
II 8:
11949 Jefferson Boulevard, Suite 104
Culver City, California 90230
Tekephone: 310 827—7171
my_w
“MW“ ’2‘}!
'X
A
x»
GARZA, Demise“
Facsunile: 310 822—8529
Attomglsfor Dq‘endant and Cross-Com lainam‘ SandyAcosta
and Defendants Marvin J. Guzman an Ulises A. Zepeda
\OM\10\
SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA
COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO
10 Jetcruzer International, LLC, Case no. CIVDSI930132
11 Plaintiff
Assigned to the Hon. Tom Garza, Dept. 827
7
OBJECTION To PLAINTIFF’ s REQUEST FOR
12 VS'
JUDICIAL NOTICE
13 Sandy Acosta, 6t a1, Date: March, 16, 2022
Time: 9:00 a.m.
14 Defendants'
Department: 327
15 And Rdated CTOSS’ComPIaim Complaint filed: October 8, 2019
Trial date: March 23, 2023
16
17 Defendants Sandy Acosta, Marvin J. Guzman, and Ulises A. Zepeda (together, “Defendants”)
18 object t0 the improper request of plaintiff and cross-defendant Jetcruzer International, LLC
19 (“Jetcruzer”) to take judicial notice ofdiscovery responses made by Jetcruzer in this action.
20 1. The Request was Not Made Separately, as Required
21 The California Rules of Court require: “Any request for judicial notice must be made in a
”
22 separate document listing the specific items for which notice is requested. Rule 3.1113((1) (emphasis
23 added). Here, the request was buried as Paragraph 6 of document titled “Declaration of Angelica A.
24 Samaniego and Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition to Demurrer t0 Second Amended
25 Complaint.” For this reason alone the request should be denied.
26 2. The Request is Uncertain and Does not Contain Matters Appropriate forJudicial Notice
27 The request states it is made “pursuant to Evidence Code §§ 451, 452, and 4S3,” Without
28 providing any explanation as to which provisions 0f those statute sections apply, or why.
1
OBJECTION To PLAINTIFF ’s REQUEST FORJUDICIAL NOTICE
’Zféfiéwéfi
Mi
1!
2022
SMW/om‘omrmwz/roe
MIMEM/wa/Vocoazw/
M
/
Document Filed Date
March 14, 2022
Case Filing Date
October 08, 2019
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
From Law Office 1.310.822.8529 Fr‘i Mar' 11 19:05:13 2022 PST Page 11 of 14 David M. Shaby II, Esq. (97871) dshab @shabyandassociates.com R. Chnstopher Harshman, Esq. (248214) 3M“ 14 2022 charshman@shabyandassociates.com DAVID M. SHABY ASSOCIATES, APC II 8: 11949 Jefferson Boulevard, Suite 104 Culver City, California 90230 Tekephone: 310 827—7171 my_w “MW“ ’2‘}! 'X A x» GARZA, Demise“ Facsunile: 310 822—8529 Attomglsfor Dq‘endant and Cross-Com lainam‘ SandyAcosta and Defendants Marvin J. Guzman an Ulises A. Zepeda \OM\10\ SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO 10 Jetcruzer International, LLC, Case no. CIVDSI930132 11 Plaintiff Assigned to the Hon. Tom Garza, Dept. 827 7 OBJECTION To PLAINTIFF’ s REQUEST FOR 12 VS' JUDICIAL NOTICE 13 Sandy Acosta, 6t a1, Date: March, 16, 2022 Time: 9:00 a.m. 14 Defendants' Department: 327 15 And Rdated CTOSS’ComPIaim Complaint filed: October 8, 2019 Trial date: March 23, 2023 16 17 Defendants Sandy Acosta, Marvin J. Guzman, and Ulises A. Zepeda (together, “Defendants”) 18 object t0 the improper request of plaintiff and cross-defendant Jetcruzer International, LLC 19 (“Jetcruzer”) to take judicial notice ofdiscovery responses made by Jetcruzer in this action. 20 1. The Request was Not Made Separately, as Required 21 The California Rules of Court require: “Any request for judicial notice must be made in a ” 22 separate document listing the specific items for which notice is requested. Rule 3.1113((1) (emphasis 23 added). Here, the request was buried as Paragraph 6 of document titled “Declaration of Angelica A. 24 Samaniego and Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition to Demurrer t0 Second Amended 25 Complaint.” For this reason alone the request should be denied. 26 2. The Request is Uncertain and Does not Contain Matters Appropriate forJudicial Notice 27 The request states it is made “pursuant to Evidence Code §§ 451, 452, and 4S3,” Without 28 providing any explanation as to which provisions 0f those statute sections apply, or why. 1 OBJECTION To PLAINTIFF ’s REQUEST FORJUDICIAL NOTICE ’Zféfiéwéfi Mi 1! 2022 SMW/om‘omrmwz/roe MIMEM/wa/Vocoazw/ M /