On August 23, 2018 a
Hearing
was filed
involving a dispute between
Henry, Billy C,
Sunrise Ford Inc A California Corporation,
and
Bruncati, Daniel,
Bruncati, James,
Bruncati, Robert,
Does 2 Through 50,
Ford Motor Company,
Ford Motor Credit Company,
Sunrise Ford, Inc.,
for Business Tort
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
ORIGINAL
Larry Hoddick, Bar No. 237527
Email: LHoddick@dc.rr.com
LAW OFFICES OF LARRY R. HODDICK, P.C.
74-000 Country Club Drive, Suite C5 A F a
I
i
oq‘F-EmQR r::>u%?‘§r
Palm 92260
Desert, California ug’um {1:55
gum?
SAN ewmmrvlwgm
5AM m;;mmm:~m
Telephone (760) 636-5256 mnfi'R-Véi
Fax (760) 299-4220
FEB 0 a 202?.
\lONUI-hWN
Robert Stempler, State Bar No. 160299
Email: SoCalConsumerLawyer@Gmail.com
By
7
i
~
h
J
CONSUMER LAW OFFICE OF
CHRISTINE LOCKMAN, Deputy
ROBERT STEMPLER, APC
8200 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
FAX CA 9021 1-2331
Beverly Hills,
Telephone (323) 486-0102
BY Fax: (323) 488-6895
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff
11
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
13 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CIVIL DISTRICT
14
15 BILLY C. HENRY, Case Number CIV DSI822222
16 Plaintiff, Assigned for all purposes to Dept. $25
vvvvvv
Judge Hon. Khymberli S. Apaloo
17 VS.
PLAINTIFF’SWRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO
18 SUNRISE FORD, 1NC.; FORD) EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT
MOTOR COMPANY, FORD) SUNRISE FORD, INC. TN SUPPORT OF ITS
19 MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY; and ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR,
DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
20 ADJUDICATION
Defendants.
vvvvvv
21
(?z/JJ/JJ
22
q :OOAW‘
23
543/
24
25 Pursuant t0 Rule 3.1354 of the California Rules 0f Court, Plaintiff submits the following
26 written objections to evidence submitted by SUNRISE FORD, INC. (“Defendant” or “Dealer”) in
27 suppon 0f its Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication.
28
-1-
WRITTEN OBJECTIONS T0 EVIDENCE USED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF ITS MSJ
OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF ANTHONY S. ORTIZ
Material objected to: Grounds for objection:
Attached hereto as Exhibit
“E” is a Inadmissible hearsay (Evid. Code, § 1200);
1.
true and correct copy 0fthe settlement lack of foundation, preliminary fact (Evid.
agreement between Plaintiff, Ford Code, §§ 402, 403); lack 0f personal
Motor Company, and Ford Motor knowledge and competence (Evid. Code, §§
Credit Company. (Anthony S. Ortiz 403(a), 702(a); Code Civ. Proc., § 437C, subd.
Decl., 6, at p. 2:10-11.) (d)); improper opinion 0f non-expert (Evid.
1]
Code, § 800); improper opinion based on
10 statement of another (Evid. Code, § 804);
11 immaterial fact (Cal. Rules Crt., Rule 3.1350,
12 subd. (d)(2)); settlement privileged (Evid.
13 Code, §§ 1152, 1154).
14
15 OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT A T0 DECLARATION OF ANTHONY S. ORTIZ
16 EXCERPTS FROM DEPOSITION OF BILLY C. HENRY
17 Material objected to: Grounds for objection:
18 2. Q: Did they charge you additional
- - Irrelevant (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350-35 1);
19 anything additional for the repairs of those immaterial fact (Cal. Rules Crt., Rule 3. 1 350,
20 electronic components? A: N0. (Anthony S. subd. (d)(2)).
21 Oniz Dec1., Ex. A, at p. 64:11-14.)
22 Q: Okay. Were there any other cars on the Irrelevant (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350-35 1);
23 lot that day that you observed that would immaterial fact (Cal. Rules Crt., Rule 3. 1 350,
24 have been acceptable to you? A: No. I went subd. (d)(2)); lack of personal knowledge and
25 in there to try t0 buy that Ford F 1 50 that had competence (Evid. Code, §§ 403(a), 702(a);
26 the pearl paint job and all the extras that you Code Civ. Proc., § 437C, subd. (d)).
27 could want in one. Q. Okay. A. It cost a lot
28 more. But they had already sold it. At least
_ 2-
WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE USED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF ITS MSJ
Preview
ORIGINAL Larry Hoddick, Bar No. 237527 Email: LHoddick@dc.rr.com LAW OFFICES OF LARRY R. HODDICK, P.C. 74-000 Country Club Drive, Suite C5 A F a I i oq‘F-EmQR r::>u%?‘§r Palm 92260 Desert, California ug’um {1:55 gum? SAN ewmmrvlwgm 5AM m;;mmm:~m Telephone (760) 636-5256 mnfi'R-Véi Fax (760) 299-4220 FEB 0 a 202?. \lONUI-hWN Robert Stempler, State Bar No. 160299 Email: SoCalConsumerLawyer@Gmail.com By 7 i ~ h J CONSUMER LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTINE LOCKMAN, Deputy ROBERT STEMPLER, APC 8200 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200 FAX CA 9021 1-2331 Beverly Hills, Telephone (323) 486-0102 BY Fax: (323) 488-6895 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff 11 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 13 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CIVIL DISTRICT 14 15 BILLY C. HENRY, Case Number CIV DSI822222 16 Plaintiff, Assigned for all purposes to Dept. $25 vvvvvv Judge Hon. Khymberli S. Apaloo 17 VS. PLAINTIFF’SWRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO 18 SUNRISE FORD, 1NC.; FORD) EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT MOTOR COMPANY, FORD) SUNRISE FORD, INC. TN SUPPORT OF ITS 19 MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY; and ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY 20 ADJUDICATION Defendants. vvvvvv 21 (?z/JJ/JJ 22 q :OOAW‘ 23 543/ 24 25 Pursuant t0 Rule 3.1354 of the California Rules 0f Court, Plaintiff submits the following 26 written objections to evidence submitted by SUNRISE FORD, INC. (“Defendant” or “Dealer”) in 27 suppon 0f its Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication. 28 -1- WRITTEN OBJECTIONS T0 EVIDENCE USED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF ITS MSJ OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF ANTHONY S. ORTIZ Material objected to: Grounds for objection: Attached hereto as Exhibit “E” is a Inadmissible hearsay (Evid. Code, § 1200); 1. true and correct copy 0fthe settlement lack of foundation, preliminary fact (Evid. agreement between Plaintiff, Ford Code, §§ 402, 403); lack 0f personal Motor Company, and Ford Motor knowledge and competence (Evid. Code, §§ Credit Company. (Anthony S. Ortiz 403(a), 702(a); Code Civ. Proc., § 437C, subd. Decl., 6, at p. 2:10-11.) (d)); improper opinion 0f non-expert (Evid. 1] Code, § 800); improper opinion based on 10 statement of another (Evid. Code, § 804); 11 immaterial fact (Cal. Rules Crt., Rule 3.1350, 12 subd. (d)(2)); settlement privileged (Evid. 13 Code, §§ 1152, 1154). 14 15 OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT A T0 DECLARATION OF ANTHONY S. ORTIZ 16 EXCERPTS FROM DEPOSITION OF BILLY C. HENRY 17 Material objected to: Grounds for objection: 18 2. Q: Did they charge you additional - - Irrelevant (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350-35 1); 19 anything additional for the repairs of those immaterial fact (Cal. Rules Crt., Rule 3. 1 350, 20 electronic components? A: N0. (Anthony S. subd. (d)(2)). 21 Oniz Dec1., Ex. A, at p. 64:11-14.) 22 Q: Okay. Were there any other cars on the Irrelevant (Evid. Code, §§ 210, 350-35 1); 23 lot that day that you observed that would immaterial fact (Cal. Rules Crt., Rule 3. 1 350, 24 have been acceptable to you? A: No. I went subd. (d)(2)); lack of personal knowledge and 25 in there to try t0 buy that Ford F 1 50 that had competence (Evid. Code, §§ 403(a), 702(a); 26 the pearl paint job and all the extras that you Code Civ. Proc., § 437C, subd. (d)). 27 could want in one. Q. Okay. A. It cost a lot 28 more. But they had already sold it. At least _ 2- WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE USED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF ITS MSJ