On November 29, 2017 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Conrado, Diego,
and
Cls Landscaping Management, Inc,
Espinoza Gonzalez, Jose Juan,
for Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
Christopher B Dolan Esq SBN 165358
1 Aimee E Kirby Esq SBN 216909
Simona Danesh Esq SBN 304117
2 DOLAlY LAW FIRM PC
suPFF r zc c r c cE F RNIA
1438 Market Street C L ra rY r f k ir o
San Francisco California 94102 sAv af oiho c s icr
Te1 41s 421 2goo
4 2 5 2019
Fax 415 421 2830
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff r
Y i f y r 1
DIEGO CONRADO ST i I 1 1viE 3 C Y
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
9 Case No CIVDS 1723453
DIEGO CONRADO
10
PLAINTIFF S RESPONSE TO
Plaintiff
11 DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFF S EVIDENCE SUPPURTING HIS
12 MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
CLS LANDSCAPING MANAGEMENT
13 C JOSE JUAN ESPINOZA
GONZALEZ and DOES 1 50
Date August 1 2019
14
Time 8 30 a m
Defendants
15 Dept S30
Judge Honorable Brian S McCarville
16
Complaint Filed November 29 2017
1
18
19
DIEGO CONRADO Plaintiff submits the following response to Defendants objections
20
21 to Evidence Submitted by Plaintiff
OBJECTION 1
22
OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF LUIS ALFONSO VALENCIA
23
On January 4 2Q16 I held legal title to the 1998 Honda Civic with the vehicle
24
identification number 1HGEJ8248WL081565 The Vehicle Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a
25
26
true and correct
copy of the Vehicle s Certificate of Title Valencia Declaration lines 9 11
27
28
PLAINTIFF S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
1 Defendants Grounds for Objection 1 Hearsay as to the document and both statements Evid
2 Code 1200 statements based on incomplete writing as to Exhibit 1 attached to Mr Valencia s
3 Declaration in Evid Code 356
violation of
Plaintiff only shows one side of the writing Defendants
4 did not have chance to cross examine Mr Valencia as seen in F hibit C attached to Declaration ofCameron
5 L Holmes
6
Plaintift s Response to Defendants Grounds for Objection 1
7
Defendants evidentiary objections to the Valencia Decl are baseless Contrary to
8
Defendants contention the Court may consider supporting declarations when ruling on a motion
9
for summary adjudication Code Civ Proc 437c b The motion shall be supported by
10
affidavits declarations admissions answers to interrogatories depositions and matters of which
11
judicial notice shall or
may be taken Furthermore the front page of the Certificate of Title is
12
judicially noticeable as a public record and is therefore not hearsay Lastly Mr Valencia s
13
declaration and the Court s ability to consider it when ruling on a motion for summary adjudication
14
does not depend on whether the Defendants have had a chance to cross examine Mr Valencia
15
The Defendants hearsay objections to these declarations should therefore be summarily
16
overruled
17
g Grounds for Objection 2 Luis Valencia has not appeared far an oral deposition despite multiple
19 attempt to locate and serve him a suUpoena Exhibit C is the report concerning the attempts made to serve
20 Luis Valencia with a deposition subpoena Defendants did not have chance to cross exa une Mr Valencia as
21 seen in F hibit C nor confirm his identity in any capacity
22
There is no supporting evidence that the Valencia Declaration he purportedly signed May 13 2019
23
was in fact signed by the same Luis Valencia that purportedly signed the Certificate of Title as the two
24
signatures are markedly different in appearance This daclaration is lacking in even the most basic and
25
fundamental foundational elements necessary to constitute evidence Further there is zero mention of a hue
26
and cotrect copy of the Valencia Declaration mentioned anywhere in the document entitled Declaration of
27
Counsel and signed by attomey for Plaintif Arsen Sarapinian in support of Plaintifi s Motion The Valencia
28
2
PLAINTIFF S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS EVIDENTiARY OB7ECTIONS
Document Filed Date
July 25, 2019
Case Filing Date
November 29, 2017
Category
Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Christopher B Dolan Esq SBN 165358 1 Aimee E Kirby Esq SBN 216909 Simona Danesh Esq SBN 304117 2 DOLAlY LAW FIRM PC suPFF r zc c r c cE F RNIA 1438 Market Street C L ra rY r f k ir o San Francisco California 94102 sAv af oiho c s icr Te1 41s 421 2goo 4 2 5 2019 Fax 415 421 2830 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff r Y i f y r 1 DIEGO CONRADO ST i I 1 1viE 3 C Y 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 9 Case No CIVDS 1723453 DIEGO CONRADO 10 PLAINTIFF S RESPONSE TO Plaintiff 11 DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF S EVIDENCE SUPPURTING HIS 12 MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION CLS LANDSCAPING MANAGEMENT 13 C JOSE JUAN ESPINOZA GONZALEZ and DOES 1 50 Date August 1 2019 14 Time 8 30 a m Defendants 15 Dept S30 Judge Honorable Brian S McCarville 16 Complaint Filed November 29 2017 1 18 19 DIEGO CONRADO Plaintiff submits the following response to Defendants objections 20 21 to Evidence Submitted by Plaintiff OBJECTION 1 22 OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF LUIS ALFONSO VALENCIA 23 On January 4 2Q16 I held legal title to the 1998 Honda Civic with the vehicle 24 identification number 1HGEJ8248WL081565 The Vehicle Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a 25 26 true and correct copy of the Vehicle s Certificate of Title Valencia Declaration lines 9 11 27 28 PLAINTIFF S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS 1 Defendants Grounds for Objection 1 Hearsay as to the document and both statements Evid 2 Code 1200 statements based on incomplete writing as to Exhibit 1 attached to Mr Valencia s 3 Declaration in Evid Code 356 violation of Plaintiff only shows one side of the writing Defendants 4 did not have chance to cross examine Mr Valencia as seen in F hibit C attached to Declaration ofCameron 5 L Holmes 6 Plaintift s Response to Defendants Grounds for Objection 1 7 Defendants evidentiary objections to the Valencia Decl are baseless Contrary to 8 Defendants contention the Court may consider supporting declarations when ruling on a motion 9 for summary adjudication Code Civ Proc 437c b The motion shall be supported by 10 affidavits declarations admissions answers to interrogatories depositions and matters of which 11 judicial notice shall or may be taken Furthermore the front page of the Certificate of Title is 12 judicially noticeable as a public record and is therefore not hearsay Lastly Mr Valencia s 13 declaration and the Court s ability to consider it when ruling on a motion for summary adjudication 14 does not depend on whether the Defendants have had a chance to cross examine Mr Valencia 15 The Defendants hearsay objections to these declarations should therefore be summarily 16 overruled 17 g Grounds for Objection 2 Luis Valencia has not appeared far an oral deposition despite multiple 19 attempt to locate and serve him a suUpoena Exhibit C is the report concerning the attempts made to serve 20 Luis Valencia with a deposition subpoena Defendants did not have chance to cross exa une Mr Valencia as 21 seen in F hibit C nor confirm his identity in any capacity 22 There is no supporting evidence that the Valencia Declaration he purportedly signed May 13 2019 23 was in fact signed by the same Luis Valencia that purportedly signed the Certificate of Title as the two 24 signatures are markedly different in appearance This daclaration is lacking in even the most basic and 25 fundamental foundational elements necessary to constitute evidence Further there is zero mention of a hue 26 and cotrect copy of the Valencia Declaration mentioned anywhere in the document entitled Declaration of 27 Counsel and signed by attomey for Plaintif Arsen Sarapinian in support of Plaintifi s Motion The Valencia 28 2 PLAINTIFF S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS EVIDENTiARY OB7ECTIONS