Preview
\r V F | L D
SUPERIOR COURT EF CAUFORNIA
‘
COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO
'
SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
1 ROBERT w. THOMPSON, Esq. (SBN 10641 1) FEB 2 2 2022
JIWON MICHAEL SHIN, Esq. (SBN 320504)
CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN ,
.
2
& CAUDILL, LLP BY ,4#~——:m 7
3 2601 Main Street, Suite 800 ROBERWaéTZMHER. DEPUTY
92614
Irvine, California cE|
4 co T
Tel: (949)261-2872 SUP .
D N3“
Fax: (949)261-6060 c gFA g g T
5 Email: rthompson@ctsclaw.com
mshin@ctsclaw.com F Z
6
Attorneys for Defendant,
7 SUNRISE FORD, INC.
8
HXV
9 SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA GE:
10 COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO
:3: 11
B 3%
12 BILLY C. HENRY, Case No.: CIVD31822222
CU g
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 13 JUDGE: Hon. Khymberli S. Apaloo
g
g
Plaintiff, DEPARTMENT: $25
14 COMPLAINT DATE: August 23, 2018
2
95'
VS.
:5:
15 REPLY T0 PLAINTIFF’S WRITTEN
g: SUNRISE FORD, INC; FORD MOTOR OBJECTIONS To EVIDENCE
g
16 COMPANY; FORD MOTOR CREDIT SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT 1N
":27 COMPANY; and DOES through 50, SUPPORT 0F ITS MOTION FOR
1
g
17 inclusive, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, 0R, IN THE
v ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
18 ADJUDICATION; AND DECLARATION
Defendants. OF JIWON MICHAEL SHIN IN
19 SUPPORT THEREOF
20 Date: February 22, 2022
Time: 9:00 a.m.
21 Location: Dept. $25
22 SUNRISE FORD, INC. (“Defendant”) submits the following reply to Plaintiff BILLY C.
23 HENRY’S (“Plaintiff”) written objections to evidence submitted by Defendant in support of its
24 Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication.
25 OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF ANTHONY S. ORTIZ
26 Objection N0. 1
27 Material objected t0:
28 Attached hereto as Exhibit
“E” is a true and correct copy 0f the settlement agreement between Plaintiff,
REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF ITS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR, 1N THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
v
I
S. Ortiz Decl., 6, at p. 2: 0-1
Ford Motor Company, and Ford Motor Credit Company. (Anthony fl 1 1.).
Grounds for Objection:
Inadmissible hearsay (Evid. Code, § 1200); lack of foundation, preliminary fact (Evid. Code, §§
402, 403); lack of personal knowledge and competence (Evid. Code, §§ 403(a), 702(a); Code Civ.
Proc., § 437C, subd. (d)); improper opinion of non-expert (Evid. Code, § 800); improper opinion
based on statement of another (Evid. Code, § 804); immaterial fact (Cal. Rules Crt., Rule 3.1350,
subd. (d)(2)); settlement privileged (Evid. Code, §§ 1152, 1154).
Defendant’s Response:
The evidence is not privileged under Evid. Code §§ 1152 and 1154. The evidence is not
10 offered to show validity of Plaintiff’s claims, but rather as proof of other issues. (see Evid.Code, §
UJ’
11 1152). Here, the evidence is admissible t0 show Plaintiff’s acceptance of the offer, (Bryon v.
MacDonald (App. 1952) 12 Cal.App.2d 57); and that Plaintiffhas already been compensated from
&(.‘AL§1.)1U..
12 l
13 co-defendants 0n the same claims alleged against this moving Defendant, and that the $53,200
SHERMAN
14 received by Plaintiff should offset any award against this moving Defendant, if any. Accordingly,
CISCélaW
Pilia‘in'tiftv’s
15 the evidence constitutes an admissible admission against interest, because Plaintiff
'11‘K.3MIH:N
16 contends he has not been fully compensated for his alleged injuries. (Coronet'Coln'st. C0. v. Palmer
;
CAUAHAN
17 (App. 2 Dist. 1961) 15 Cal.Rptr. 601).
18 This evidence is not inadmissible hearsay. As explained above, the evidence constitutes an
19 admission against interest (Evid. Code § 1230). Furthermore, the Court is entitled to take judicial
20 notice of the evidence which is part of document filed with the Court in this action. (Evid. Code §
21 452(d). The settlement agreement is part of this Court’s official records, because it is attached to
22 Application for Good Faith Settlement filed by Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC on May 28, 2019,
23 approved by this Court on June 27, 2019, which was attached as an Exhibit to the Notice of Entry
24 of Good Faith Settlement filed by Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC 0n July 3, 2019.
25 Despite Plaintiff’s objections, he does not dispute the authenticity of the document that is
co-
26 introduced, nor does he dispute accepting the settlement or receiving $53,200 from the
27 defendants.
28 //
_ 2 _
REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF ITS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Preview
\r V F | L D SUPERIOR COURT EF CAUFORNIA ‘ COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO ' SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT 1 ROBERT w. THOMPSON, Esq. (SBN 10641 1) FEB 2 2 2022 JIWON MICHAEL SHIN, Esq. (SBN 320504) CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN , . 2 & CAUDILL, LLP BY ,4#~——:m 7 3 2601 Main Street, Suite 800 ROBERWaéTZMHER. DEPUTY 92614 Irvine, California cE| 4 co T Tel: (949)261-2872 SUP . D N3“ Fax: (949)261-6060 c gFA g g T 5 Email: rthompson@ctsclaw.com mshin@ctsclaw.com F Z 6 Attorneys for Defendant, 7 SUNRISE FORD, INC. 8 HXV 9 SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA GE: 10 COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO :3: 11 B 3% 12 BILLY C. HENRY, Case No.: CIVD31822222 CU g ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 13 JUDGE: Hon. Khymberli S. Apaloo g g Plaintiff, DEPARTMENT: $25 14 COMPLAINT DATE: August 23, 2018 2 95' VS. :5: 15 REPLY T0 PLAINTIFF’S WRITTEN g: SUNRISE FORD, INC; FORD MOTOR OBJECTIONS To EVIDENCE g 16 COMPANY; FORD MOTOR CREDIT SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT 1N ":27 COMPANY; and DOES through 50, SUPPORT 0F ITS MOTION FOR 1 g 17 inclusive, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, 0R, IN THE v ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY 18 ADJUDICATION; AND DECLARATION Defendants. OF JIWON MICHAEL SHIN IN 19 SUPPORT THEREOF 20 Date: February 22, 2022 Time: 9:00 a.m. 21 Location: Dept. $25 22 SUNRISE FORD, INC. (“Defendant”) submits the following reply to Plaintiff BILLY C. 23 HENRY’S (“Plaintiff”) written objections to evidence submitted by Defendant in support of its 24 Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication. 25 OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF ANTHONY S. ORTIZ 26 Objection N0. 1 27 Material objected t0: 28 Attached hereto as Exhibit “E” is a true and correct copy 0f the settlement agreement between Plaintiff, REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR, 1N THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION v I S. Ortiz Decl., 6, at p. 2: 0-1 Ford Motor Company, and Ford Motor Credit Company. (Anthony fl 1 1.). Grounds for Objection: Inadmissible hearsay (Evid. Code, § 1200); lack of foundation, preliminary fact (Evid. Code, §§ 402, 403); lack of personal knowledge and competence (Evid. Code, §§ 403(a), 702(a); Code Civ. Proc., § 437C, subd. (d)); improper opinion of non-expert (Evid. Code, § 800); improper opinion based on statement of another (Evid. Code, § 804); immaterial fact (Cal. Rules Crt., Rule 3.1350, subd. (d)(2)); settlement privileged (Evid. Code, §§ 1152, 1154). Defendant’s Response: The evidence is not privileged under Evid. Code §§ 1152 and 1154. The evidence is not 10 offered to show validity of Plaintiff’s claims, but rather as proof of other issues. (see Evid.Code, § UJ’ 11 1152). Here, the evidence is admissible t0 show Plaintiff’s acceptance of the offer, (Bryon v. MacDonald (App. 1952) 12 Cal.App.2d 57); and that Plaintiffhas already been compensated from &(.‘AL§1.)1U.. 12 l 13 co-defendants 0n the same claims alleged against this moving Defendant, and that the $53,200 SHERMAN 14 received by Plaintiff should offset any award against this moving Defendant, if any. Accordingly, CISCélaW Pilia‘in'tiftv’s 15 the evidence constitutes an admissible admission against interest, because Plaintiff '11‘K.3MIH:N 16 contends he has not been fully compensated for his alleged injuries. (Coronet'Coln'st. C0. v. Palmer ; CAUAHAN 17 (App. 2 Dist. 1961) 15 Cal.Rptr. 601). 18 This evidence is not inadmissible hearsay. As explained above, the evidence constitutes an 19 admission against interest (Evid. Code § 1230). Furthermore, the Court is entitled to take judicial 20 notice of the evidence which is part of document filed with the Court in this action. (Evid. Code § 21 452(d). The settlement agreement is part of this Court’s official records, because it is attached to 22 Application for Good Faith Settlement filed by Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC on May 28, 2019, 23 approved by this Court on June 27, 2019, which was attached as an Exhibit to the Notice of Entry 24 of Good Faith Settlement filed by Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC 0n July 3, 2019. 25 Despite Plaintiff’s objections, he does not dispute the authenticity of the document that is co- 26 introduced, nor does he dispute accepting the settlement or receiving $53,200 from the 27 defendants. 28 // _ 2 _ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION