Motion-Secondary: HEATHER C STOTTS VS ARTT LEDESMA ET AL

• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 09/23/2020 04:46 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by M. Ismael,Deputy Clerk




                       JARED GROSS, ESQ. SBN 126588
                       GROSS LAW FIRM
                       800 South Beach Boulevard, Suite H
                       T: (562) 448-0128
                       F: (562) 697-7700
                 4     jared @erosslawtirm
                                         net
                       Attorney for Plaintiff
                       Heather C. Stotts

                                                  SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                 FOR THE COUNTY                      OF LOS ANGELES, SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE

                       HEATHER C. STOTTS,                                                           CASE NO. BC721898

                                              Plaintiff,                                            PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE.
               10                                                                                   SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS ARTT
                       vs.                                                                          LEDESMA AND RENEE LEDESMA IN
               1a
                                                                                                    SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
                       ARTT LEDESMA; RENEE LEDESMA,                                                 DISMISS FOR DELAY IN PROSECUTION
               12      COLDWELL BANKER OLYMPIC, WALTER                                              (EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 352)
               13
                       NALLY, JR. (SUED AS DOE 11); AND DOES
                       1-25,                                                                        HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 2020
               4                                                                                    TIME: 1:30 PM
                                              Defendants
                                                                                                    DEPT.       SSC 27
               as
                       PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT PLAINTIFF HEATHER C. STOTTS makes this objection to
                16
                       evidence submitted in support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as follows:
                v7
                       Evidence Code section 352 provides that the court may, in its discretion, exclude evidence if its
                18
                       probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a)
                19     necessitate undue consumption of time, or (b) create a substantial danger of undue prejudice, of
                20     confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury

               21                  In the instant motion, Defendants ARTT LEDESMA and RENEE LEDESMA fail to
                       establish a foundation for consideration of the submitted evidence. The Motion to Dismiss for
                22
                       Delay in Prosecution is based, as the Code of Civil Procedure requires for such Motion, on CCP
                23
                       section 583.410. There are two bases on which the court may exercise its discretionary power to
                24
                       dismiss for delay in prosecution, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410: (1)
                25     Service is not made within two years after the action is commenced the defendants, or the action

                26     is not brought to trial within the following times: (A) Three years after the action is commenced
                       against the defendant, unless otherwise proscribed by rule under subparagraph or (B) Two years
                27
                             PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS ARTT LEDESMA AND
                                RENEE LEDESMA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR DELAY IN
                                                              PROSECUTION