Preview
OR'GINAL
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
Palm Desert, California 92260
Telephone (760) 636-5256
Fax (760) 299—4220
Robert Stempler, State Bar No. 160299
Email: SoCa1ConsumerLawyer@Gmail.com
CONSUMER LAW OFFICE OF
\OOOQQUI-P
ROBERT STEMPLER, APC
8200 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
FAX Beverly Hills, CA 9021 1-2331
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 CIVDS 1 822222
16 Plaintiff, Assigned for all purposes to Dept. 825
vvvvvv
Judge Hon. Khymberli S. Apaloo
17 VS.
PLAINTIFF’SWRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO
l8 SUNRISE FORD, INC.; FORD) EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT
MOTOR COMPANY, FORD) SUNRISE FORD, INC. WITH ITS REPLY
19 MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY; and )
BRIEF RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY
DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, JUDGMENT OR, TN THE ALTERNATIVE,
20 SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Defendants.
Vvvvvv
21
22
23
24
25 Pursuant to Rule 3.1354 of the California Rules of Court, Plaintiff submits the following
26 written objections to evidence submitted by SUNRISE FORD, INC. (“Defendant” or “Dealer”) with
27 its reply brief re Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication.
28
-1-
WRITTEN OBJECTIONS T0 EVIDENCE IN DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MSJ
OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT G TO DECLARATION OF JIWON MICHAEL SHIN
EXCERPTS FROM DEPOSITION OF LISA ARANDA
Material objected to: Grounds for objection:
1. Q: So it says, “Similarly, Sunrise is not Inadmissible hearsay (Evid. Code, § 1200);
aware ofany criminal charges or complaints lack of foundation, preliminary fact (Evid.
alleged against Rodney, Dannie, Higor, or Code, §§ 402, 403); lack of personal
Jose from before they were employed by knowledge and competence (Evid. Code, §§
Sunrise or while they were employed by 403(3), 702(a); Code Civ. Proc., § 437C, subd.
Sunrise.” That’s what it says, correct? A: (d)); immaterial fact (Cal. Rules Crt., Rule
10 Correct. (Jiwon Michael Shin Decl., Ex. G, 3.1350, subd. (d)(2)).
11 at p. 136:5-10.)
12 Q: Any you knew that ofyour only personal Inadmissible hearsay (Evid. Code, § 1200);
13 knowledge why? How did you know that lack 0f foundation, preliminary fact (Evid.
14 when you signed this? A. I have a vague Code, §§ 402, 403); lack of personal
15 recollection of having employee’s file knowledge and competence (Evid. Code, §§
16 because some of them worked for us, I 403(a), 702(a); Code Civ. Proc., § 437C, subd.
17 think, longer than others. And I remember (d)); immaterial fact (Cal. Rules Crt., Rule
18 this a little bit. I don’t believe we did. There 3.1350, subd. (d)(2)).
19 was nothing in their files, there was nothing
20 from before. (Jiwon Michael Shin Dec1., Ex.
21 G, at p. 136:12-19.).
22 Q. By Mr. Hoddick: Would you have also Inadmissible hearsay (Evid. Code, § 1200);
23 asked for the correct First Extended Service lack of foundation, preliminary fact (Evid.
24 corporation contract for $2,000 to be Code, §§ 402, 403); lack of personal
25 attached as an exhibit? Or would you have knowledge and competence (Evid. Code, §§
26 asked that the description in the paragraph 403(a), 702(a); Code Civ. Proc., § 437C, subd.
27 actually match the exhibit. Mr. Shin: (d)); improper opinion of non-expert (Evid.
28 Objection, compound, vague and
-2-
WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE IN DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MSJ
Preview
OR'GINAL 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 Palm Desert, California 92260 Telephone (760) 636-5256 Fax (760) 299—4220 Robert Stempler, State Bar No. 160299 Email: SoCa1ConsumerLawyer@Gmail.com CONSUMER LAW OFFICE OF \OOOQQUI-P ROBERT STEMPLER, APC 8200 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200 FAX Beverly Hills, CA 9021 1-2331 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 CIVDS 1 822222 16 Plaintiff, Assigned for all purposes to Dept. 825 vvvvvv Judge Hon. Khymberli S. Apaloo 17 VS. PLAINTIFF’SWRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO l8 SUNRISE FORD, INC.; FORD) EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT MOTOR COMPANY, FORD) SUNRISE FORD, INC. WITH ITS REPLY 19 MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY; and ) BRIEF RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, JUDGMENT OR, TN THE ALTERNATIVE, 20 SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Defendants. Vvvvvv 21 22 23 24 25 Pursuant to Rule 3.1354 of the California Rules of Court, Plaintiff submits the following 26 written objections to evidence submitted by SUNRISE FORD, INC. (“Defendant” or “Dealer”) with 27 its reply brief re Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication. 28 -1- WRITTEN OBJECTIONS T0 EVIDENCE IN DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MSJ OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT G TO DECLARATION OF JIWON MICHAEL SHIN EXCERPTS FROM DEPOSITION OF LISA ARANDA Material objected to: Grounds for objection: 1. Q: So it says, “Similarly, Sunrise is not Inadmissible hearsay (Evid. Code, § 1200); aware ofany criminal charges or complaints lack of foundation, preliminary fact (Evid. alleged against Rodney, Dannie, Higor, or Code, §§ 402, 403); lack of personal Jose from before they were employed by knowledge and competence (Evid. Code, §§ Sunrise or while they were employed by 403(3), 702(a); Code Civ. Proc., § 437C, subd. Sunrise.” That’s what it says, correct? A: (d)); immaterial fact (Cal. Rules Crt., Rule 10 Correct. (Jiwon Michael Shin Decl., Ex. G, 3.1350, subd. (d)(2)). 11 at p. 136:5-10.) 12 Q: Any you knew that ofyour only personal Inadmissible hearsay (Evid. Code, § 1200); 13 knowledge why? How did you know that lack 0f foundation, preliminary fact (Evid. 14 when you signed this? A. I have a vague Code, §§ 402, 403); lack of personal 15 recollection of having employee’s file knowledge and competence (Evid. Code, §§ 16 because some of them worked for us, I 403(a), 702(a); Code Civ. Proc., § 437C, subd. 17 think, longer than others. And I remember (d)); immaterial fact (Cal. Rules Crt., Rule 18 this a little bit. I don’t believe we did. There 3.1350, subd. (d)(2)). 19 was nothing in their files, there was nothing 20 from before. (Jiwon Michael Shin Dec1., Ex. 21 G, at p. 136:12-19.). 22 Q. By Mr. Hoddick: Would you have also Inadmissible hearsay (Evid. Code, § 1200); 23 asked for the correct First Extended Service lack of foundation, preliminary fact (Evid. 24 corporation contract for $2,000 to be Code, §§ 402, 403); lack of personal 25 attached as an exhibit? Or would you have knowledge and competence (Evid. Code, §§ 26 asked that the description in the paragraph 403(a), 702(a); Code Civ. Proc., § 437C, subd. 27 actually match the exhibit. Mr. Shin: (d)); improper opinion of non-expert (Evid. 28 Objection, compound, vague and -2- WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE IN DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MSJ