On May 31, 2019 a
Complaint,Petition
was filed
involving a dispute between
Juarez Alvarez, Yolanda,
and
Bessemer Trust Company, N.A.,
City Of Fontana,
Does 1 Through 100,
Does 5 Through 100, Inclusive,
Hunt Enterprises, Inc.,
Hunt, Priscilla,
Hunt Priscilla Living Trust,
for Complaint for Damages Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
SUPERIOR .fzr
Cguhyggor sAN
DANIEL s. ALDERMAN RNARDINO c'sr lcr
\OOOVONM-bWNr—t
State Bar No. 124133
ALLISON R. HILGERS, ESQ.
State BarNo: 228862
ALDERMAN & HILGERS, LLP
1150 S. Olive Street, Suite 1800
Los Angeles, CA 90015
Telephone: (2 1 3) 992-8206
Facsimile: (213) 992-3272
w”.
" ’
sgsgggga
~
W_
(7Q
a-
APR 00.45
Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant, CITY OF FONTANA
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
CASE N0.: CIVDS 1916334
YOLANDA JUAREZ ALVAREZ, an )
individual, )
) DEFENDANT CITY OF FONTANA’S
Plaintiff, ) EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO
)
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO NOTICE
)
0F MOTION AND MOTION FOR
v. ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT 0N PLAINTIFF’S
) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
HUNT PRISCILLA LIVING TRUST; CITY OF)
FONTANA, et al., )
[Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition
) and Proposed Order on Evidentiary
Defendants, ) objections filed concurrently herewith]
)
Hrg. Date: April 5, 2022
Time: 9:00 am.
ooqmm-pwmwoxoooxlmmAwwh-o
Dept: 827
NNNNNNNNNH—‘HHwHH—‘HH
Complaint filed: 5/31/19
TrialDate: 6/13/22
TO ALL PARTIES AND T0 THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
In accordance with CRC Rule 3. 1354, Defendant
CITY OF FONTANA (“Defendant”
to the evidence submitted by Plaintiff
and/or “City”) hereby submits the following objections
YOLANDA JUAREZ ALVAREZ (“Plaintiff”) in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion
for
Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint of herein.
///
///
1
TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION—g
DEFENDANT CITY OF FONTANA’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONSMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
TO NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMM ARY JUDG
AMENDED COMPLAINT
I.
OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF SHAKIR SHATNAWI AND EXHIBITS
THERETO
Lh-AUJN
Shatnawi Decl., 12, 4:7-8: Vague and amblguous (see Aguilar v.
fil
“The location of the driveway in the Atlantic Richfield C0. (2001) 25 Cal.4th
\OOO\JO\
intersection constituted a dangerous 826, 862); conclusory (see Snider v.
condition and created safety risks for road Snider (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 741, 751);
users.” speculative (see Doe v. Salesz'an Soc.
10
(2008) 159 Ca1.App.4th 474, 481); lacks
11
foundation (Evid. Code, §§ 400, 403,
12
702); improper expert opinion (Evid.
13 Code, § 801 et seq.; Taylor v. Trimble
14 (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 934, 945, fn. 15);
improper legal opinion (sec Benavidez v.
15
San Jose Police Dept. (1999) 71
16
Cal.App.4th 853, 865).
17
Shatnawi Decl., l3, 4:9: Vague and ambiguous (see Aguilar v.
11
18
“The sight distance requirements at the Atlantic Richfield C0. (2001) 25 Cal.4th
19 826, 862); conclusory (see Snider v.
intersection were not adequate.”
20 Snider (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 741, 751);
21 speculative (see Doe v. Salesian Soc.
(2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 474, 481); lacks
22
foundation (Evid. Code, §§ 400, 403,
23
702); improper expert opinion (Evid.
24 Trimble
Code, § 801 et seq.; Taylor v.
25 (2017) 13 Ca1.App.5th 934, 945, fn. 15);
26 improper legal opinion (see Benavidez v.
27
2
28
OPPOSITION.—
DEFENDANT CITY OF FONTANA’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S
TO NOTICE 0F MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Document Filed Date
April 05, 2022
Case Filing Date
May 31, 2019
Category
Complaint for Damages Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
SUPERIOR .fzr Cguhyggor sAN DANIEL s. ALDERMAN RNARDINO c'sr lcr \OOOVONM-bWNr—t State Bar No. 124133 ALLISON R. HILGERS, ESQ. State BarNo: 228862 ALDERMAN & HILGERS, LLP 1150 S. Olive Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90015 Telephone: (2 1 3) 992-8206 Facsimile: (213) 992-3272 w”. " ’ sgsgggga ~ W_ (7Q a- APR 00.45 Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant, CITY OF FONTANA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CASE N0.: CIVDS 1916334 YOLANDA JUAREZ ALVAREZ, an ) individual, ) ) DEFENDANT CITY OF FONTANA’S Plaintiff, ) EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO ) PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO NOTICE ) 0F MOTION AND MOTION FOR v. ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT 0N PLAINTIFF’S ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT HUNT PRISCILLA LIVING TRUST; CITY OF) FONTANA, et al., ) [Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition ) and Proposed Order on Evidentiary Defendants, ) objections filed concurrently herewith] ) Hrg. Date: April 5, 2022 Time: 9:00 am. ooqmm-pwmwoxoooxlmmAwwh-o Dept: 827 NNNNNNNNNH—‘HHwHH—‘HH Complaint filed: 5/31/19 TrialDate: 6/13/22 TO ALL PARTIES AND T0 THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: In accordance with CRC Rule 3. 1354, Defendant CITY OF FONTANA (“Defendant” to the evidence submitted by Plaintiff and/or “City”) hereby submits the following objections YOLANDA JUAREZ ALVAREZ (“Plaintiff”) in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint of herein. /// /// 1 TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION—g DEFENDANT CITY OF FONTANA’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONSMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S FIRST TO NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMM ARY JUDG AMENDED COMPLAINT I. OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF SHAKIR SHATNAWI AND EXHIBITS THERETO Lh-AUJN Shatnawi Decl., 12, 4:7-8: Vague and amblguous (see Aguilar v. fil “The location of the driveway in the Atlantic Richfield C0. (2001) 25 Cal.4th \OOO\JO\ intersection constituted a dangerous 826, 862); conclusory (see Snider v. condition and created safety risks for road Snider (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 741, 751); users.” speculative (see Doe v. Salesz'an Soc. 10 (2008) 159 Ca1.App.4th 474, 481); lacks 11 foundation (Evid. Code, §§ 400, 403, 12 702); improper expert opinion (Evid. 13 Code, § 801 et seq.; Taylor v. Trimble 14 (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 934, 945, fn. 15); improper legal opinion (sec Benavidez v. 15 San Jose Police Dept. (1999) 71 16 Cal.App.4th 853, 865). 17 Shatnawi Decl., l3, 4:9: Vague and ambiguous (see Aguilar v. 11 18 “The sight distance requirements at the Atlantic Richfield C0. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 19 826, 862); conclusory (see Snider v. intersection were not adequate.” 20 Snider (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 741, 751); 21 speculative (see Doe v. Salesian Soc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 474, 481); lacks 22 foundation (Evid. Code, §§ 400, 403, 23 702); improper expert opinion (Evid. 24 Trimble Code, § 801 et seq.; Taylor v. 25 (2017) 13 Ca1.App.5th 934, 945, fn. 15); 26 improper legal opinion (see Benavidez v. 27 2 28 OPPOSITION.— DEFENDANT CITY OF FONTANA’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S TO NOTICE 0F MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT