On February 19, 2019 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Ycaza Richard,
and
Target Corporation,
Zamora An Individual Priscilla,
for Premise Liability (e.g., dangerous conditions of property, slip/trip and fall, dog attack, etc.) (General Jurisdiction)
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 09/30/2021 10:10 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by L. Coreas,Deputy Clerk
1 Eugene J. Egan, Esq. (State Bar No. 130108)
eje@manningllp.com
2 Joshua K. Babataher (State Bar No. 311367)
jkb@manningllp.com
3 MANNING & KASS
ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
4 801 S. Figueroa St, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017-3012
5 Telephone: (213) 624-6900
Facsimile: (213) 624-6999
6
Attorneys for Defendant, TARGET
7 CORPORATION, PRISCILLA ZAMORA
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
10
11 RICHARD YCAZA, Case No. 19STCV05779
12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY
13 v. OBJECTIONS
14 TARGET CORPORATION; PRISCILLA
ZAMORA, an individual; and DOES 1 to 50,
15 inclusive,
16 Defendants.
17
18 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD HEREIN:
19 Defendants Target Corporation and Priscilla Zamora (“Defendants”) hereby submit the
20 following Response to Plaintiff Richard Ycaza’s (“Plaintiff”) Evidentiary Objections and
21 [Proposed] Order in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary
22 Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication.
23 Plaintiff’s Objection No. 1:
24 Material Objected To: Paragraph 7, Exhibit 5 (excerpt from deposition of Steven Yum,
25 Page 68, Lines 1-14.)
26 Grounds for Objection: Lack of Personal Knowledge (Evid. Code § 702); Speculation
27 (Evid. Code § 702); Lack of Foundation (Evid. Code § 403).
28 Defendants’ Response: Plaintiff’s objection is nonsensical. There is no dispute that Mr.
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
Document Filed Date
September 30, 2021
Case Filing Date
February 19, 2019
Category
Premise Liability (e.g., dangerous conditions of property, slip/trip and fall, dog attack, etc.) (General Jurisdiction)
Status
Request for Dismissal - Before Trial not following ADR or more than 60 days since ADR 10/04/2021
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 09/30/2021 10:10 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by L. Coreas,Deputy Clerk 1 Eugene J. Egan, Esq. (State Bar No. 130108) eje@manningllp.com 2 Joshua K. Babataher (State Bar No. 311367) jkb@manningllp.com 3 MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 4 801 S. Figueroa St, 15th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3012 5 Telephone: (213) 624-6900 Facsimile: (213) 624-6999 6 Attorneys for Defendant, TARGET 7 CORPORATION, PRISCILLA ZAMORA 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT 10 11 RICHARD YCAZA, Case No. 19STCV05779 12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY 13 v. OBJECTIONS 14 TARGET CORPORATION; PRISCILLA ZAMORA, an individual; and DOES 1 to 50, 15 inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 18 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD HEREIN: 19 Defendants Target Corporation and Priscilla Zamora (“Defendants”) hereby submit the 20 following Response to Plaintiff Richard Ycaza’s (“Plaintiff”) Evidentiary Objections and 21 [Proposed] Order in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary 22 Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication. 23 Plaintiff’s Objection No. 1: 24 Material Objected To: Paragraph 7, Exhibit 5 (excerpt from deposition of Steven Yum, 25 Page 68, Lines 1-14.) 26 Grounds for Objection: Lack of Personal Knowledge (Evid. Code § 702); Speculation 27 (Evid. Code § 702); Lack of Foundation (Evid. Code § 403). 28 Defendants’ Response: Plaintiff’s objection is nonsensical. There is no dispute that Mr. DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS