Motion for Summary Judgment in Pacific Union International, Inc. vs. Ludwick, Erik et al| Trellis.Law

On November 07, 2018 a Party Discovery was filed involving a dispute between Pacific Union International, Inc., and Booth, Paul D., Trustee Of The Anything Trust, Erik Ludwick, The Anything Trust Dated Oct. 12, 2007, for Civil-Roseville in the District Court of Placer County.

Preview
1 SHANNON B. JONES LAW GROUP, INC. 07/30/2020
SHANNON B. JONES (Bar No. 149222)
2 sbj@sbj-law.com

3 LINDSEY A. MORGAN (Bar No. 274214)
lam@sbj-law.com
4 208 W. El Pintado Road
Danville, California 94526
5 Telephone: (925) 837-2317
Facsimile: (925) 837-4831
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff
7 PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.

9 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER

11 PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC., ) Case No. SCV0042080
)
12 Plaintiff, ) PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL,
)
13 v. ) INC.’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO
) DOCUMENTS AND OPINION
14 ERIK LUDWICK, an individual and ) TESTIMONY PRESENTED IN SUPPORT
beneficiary of The Anything Trust Dated ) OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
15 October 12, 2007; THE ANYTHING TRUST ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT
DATED OCTOBER 12, 2007; PAUL D. )
16 BOOTH, in his capacity as trustee of The )
Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007; and )
17 DOES 1-50, ) Date: August 13, 2020
) Time: 8:30 a.m.
18 Defendants. ) Dept: 42
)
19 )
) Complaint Filed: November 7, 2018
20
Trial Date: September 21, 2020
21
Pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 3.1354 et seq., plaintiff PACIFIC UNION
22
INTERNATIONAL, INC. (“Pacific Union”) submits the following objections to evidence presented
23
by Defendants ERIK LUDWICK, THE ANYTHING TRUST DATED OCTOBER 12, 2007 and
24
PAUL D. BOOTH (collectively, “Defendants”) in support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary
25
Judgment.
26
///
27
///
28
///
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENTS AND
OPINION TESTIMONY PRESENTED ISO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 I. OBJECTIONS TO THE REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
2 No. Material Objected To: Grounds For Objection:
3
1. Request for Judicial Notice, page 2, The document attached as Exhibit 1 to
4 paragraph 1, lines 12-17, and Exhibit 1: Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice
(“RJFN”) is a private trust instrument and is
5 “Defendant the Trust was the owner of not judicially noticeable. Exhibit 1 does not
record of the parcel of residential real estate meet the requirements of Evidence Code
6 located in the County of Los Angeles at 200 section 452 and is not included in any of
Toyopa Drive, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 Section 452’s permissible categories of
7
(hereinafter simply the “L.A. County documents appropriate for judicial notice,
8 Property”) which was placed in the Trust by which are:
the “Acknowledgment” executed by
9 Ludwick and notarized on October 15, 2007 (a) The decisional, constitutional, and
of which a true and correct copy is attached statutory law of any state of the United
10 hereto as Exhibit “1” (and which was States and the resolutions and private acts
recorded with the County of Los Angeles of the Congress of the United States and of
11
on or about January 3, 2008 in the Grant the Legislature of this state.
12 Deed as document No. 08-001117.)” (b) Regulations and legislative enactments
issued by or under the authority of the
13 United States or any public entity in the
United States.
14 (c) Official acts of the legislative,
15 executive, and judicial departments of the
United States and of any state of the United
16 States.
(d) Records of (1) any court of this state or
17 (2) any court of record of the United States
or of any state of the United States.
18 (e) Rules of court of (1) any court of this
19 state or (2) any court of record of the United
States or of any state of the United States.
20 (f) The law of an organization of nations
and of foreign nations and public entities in
21 foreign nations.
(g) Facts and propositions that are of such
22 common knowledge within the territorial
23 jurisdiction of the court that they cannot
reasonably be the subject of dispute.
24 (h) Facts and propositions that are not
reasonably subject to dispute and are
25 capable of immediate and accurate
determination by resort to sources of
26
reasonably indisputable accuracy.
27
(Evid. Code § 452.)
28

2
PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENTS AND
OPINION TESTIMONY PRESENTED ISO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 No. Material Objected To: Grounds For Objection:
2
Additionally, this document lacks
3 foundation (Evid. Code § 403), constitutes
hearsay because it is offered to prove the
4 truth of the matter assumed (Evid. Code §
1200); assumes facts not in evidence (Evid.
5 Code §§ 210, 765(a)); is presented with a
lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code §
6
702); and is not properly authenticated
7 (Evid. Code §§ 1400, 1401).

8 2. Request for Judicial Notice, page 2, The document attached as Exhibit 2 to
paragraph 2, lines 18-21, and Exhibit 2: Plaintiffs’ RJFN is a private trust instrument
9 and is not judicially noticeable. Exhibit 2
10 “On or about March 25, 2019, Ludwick as does not meet the requirements of Evidence
Settlor and Trustor of the Trust amended Code section 452 and is not included in any
11 the Trust, making himself the Trustee of the of Section 452’s permissible categories of
Trust in place and instead of Defendant documents appropriate for judicial notice.
12 Booth. Attached hereto as Exhibit “2” is a (Evid. Code § 452.) The statute’s
true and correct copy of the “Second categories are set forth in the Grounds for
13 Amendment to the Anything Trust” Objection at Paragraph 1 and are not
14 executed on or about March 25, 2019.” repeated here to save paper and to be
respectful of the Court’s time.
15
Additionally, this document lacks
16 foundation (Evid. Code § 403), constitutes
hearsay because it is offered to prove the
17 truth of the matter assumed (Evid. Code §
18 1200); assumes facts not in evidence (Evid.
Code §§ 210, 765(a)); is presented with a
19 lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code §
702); and is not properly authenticated
20 (Evid. Code §§ 1400, 1401).
21
3. Request for Judicial Notice, page 2, The document attached as Exhibit 3 to
22 paragraph 3, lines 22-26, and Exhibit 3: Plaintiffs’ RJFN is a contract and is not
judicially noticeable. Exhibit 3 does not
23 “On or about August 29, 2016, Defendants meet the requirements of Evidence Code
entered into a real estate brokerage “Listing section 452 and is not included in any of
24 Agreement” with “Partners Trust,” a real Section 452’s permissible categories of
estate agency which had its principle (SIC) documents appropriate for judicial notice.
25
place of business at 23410 Civic Way, (Evid. Code § 452.) The statute’s
26 Malibu, CA 90265 in the County of Los categories are set forth in the Grounds for
Angeles – hereinafter simply “the Listing Objection at Paragraph 1 and are not
27 Agreement” – a true and correct copy of repeated here to save paper and to be
which (including both the CAR Standard respectful of the Court’s time.
28 form and a Representative Capacity
3
PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENTS AND
OPINION TESTIMONY PRESENTED ISO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 No. Material Objected To: Grounds For Objection:
2
Signature disclosure) is attached hereto as Additionally, this document lacks
3 “Exhibit 3.” foundation (Evid. Code § 403), constitutes
hearsay because it is offered to prove the
4 truth of the matter assumed (Evid. Code §
1200); assumes facts not in evidence (Evid.
5 Code §§ 210, 765(a)); is presented with a
lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code §
6
702); and is not properly authenticated
7 (Evid. Code §§ 1400, 1401).

8 4. Request for Judicial Notice, page 3, Pacific Union objects to this statement
paragraph 4, lines 1-7, and Exhibit 4: because it is flatly not true. There is one
9 corporation license for Pacific Union
10 “The California Dept. of Real Estate International, Inc. (the printout for which is
website lists four (4) affiliated corporate not even attached to Defendants’ Exhibit 4).
11 licenses for PLAINTIFF (each in the name The characterization that Pacific Union
of the “designated officer” for the particular International, Inc. has four affiliated
12 location), true and correct copies of which corporate licenses is demonstrably wrong
are attached hereto as collective “Exhibit and completely irrelevant.
13 4”:
14 License No. 01842987 – licensed in The documents attached as Exhibit 4 to
the name of Scott Lee Gibson (Los Plaintiffs’ RJFN are website printouts and
15 Angeles); are not judicially noticeable. Exhibit 4 does
License No. 01866771 – licensed in not meet the requirements of Evidence
16 the name of Samuel H. Kramer (San Code section 452 and is not included in any
Francisco); of Section 452’s permissible categories of
17 License No. 01869607 – licensed in documents appropriate for judicial notice.
18 the name of Mark A. McLaughlin (Evid. Code § 452.) The statute’s
(San Francisco); and categories are set forth in the Grounds for
19 License No. 01914356 – licensed in Objection at Paragraph 1 and are not
the name of David J. Buurma repeated here to save paper and to be
20 (Napa). respectful of the Court’s time.
21
Additionally, these documents lack
22 foundation (Evid. Code § 403), constitute
hearsay because they are offered to prove
23 the truth of the matter assumed (Evid. Code
§ 1200); assume facts not in evidence (Evid.
24 Code §§ 210, 765(a)); are presented with a
lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code §
25
702); and are not properly authenticated
26 (Evid. Code §§ 1400, 1401).

27 5. Request for Judicial Notice, page 3, The discovery requests and responses
paragraph 5, lines 8-20, and Exhibit 5: attached as Exhibit 5 to Plaintiffs’ RJFN are
28 not judicially noticeable. Exhibit 5 does not
4
PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENTS AND
OPINION TESTIMONY PRESENTED ISO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 No. Material Objected To: Grounds For Objection:
2
Plaintiff’s “Responses to Requests for meet the requirements of Evidence Code
3 Admissions, Set One” with respect to: section 452 and is not included in any of
Section 452’s permissible categories of
4 a. DEFENDANTS’ Request for documents appropriate for judicial notice.
Admission No. 90 (Responded to by (Evid. Code § 452.) The statute’s
5 PUI as “Mis-labeled No. 78”), and categories are set forth in the Grounds for
DEFENDANTS Form Interrogatory Objection at Paragraph 1 and are not
6
17.1 with respect to said Request for repeated here to save paper and to be
7 Admission; respectful of the Court’s time.

8 b. DEFENDANTS’ Request for Additionally, these documents lack
Admission No. 91 (Responded to by foundation (Evid. Code § 403), constitute
9 PUI as “Mis-labeled No. 79”), and hearsay because they are offered to prove
DEFENDANTS Form Interrogatory the truth of the matter assumed (Evid. Code
10
17.1 with respect to said Request for § 1200); assume facts not in evidence (Evid.
11 Admission; and Code §§ 210, 765(a)); are presented with a
lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code §
12 c. DEFENDANTS’ Request for 702); and are not properly authenticated
Admission No. 92 (Responded to by (Evid. Code §§ 1400, 1401).
13 PUI as “Mis-labeled No. 80”), and
14 DEFENDANTS Form Interrogatory
17.1 with respect to said Request for
15 Admission.

16 True and correct copies of these three (3)
Requests for Admission and PLAINTIFF’s
17 responses thereto, as well as the three (3)
18 Form Interrogatories 17.1 with respect to
each of said Requests for Admission, are
19 attached hereto as collective Exhibit “5”.

20 6. Request for Judicial Notice, page 3, The document attached as Exhibit 7 to
paragraph 7, lines 24-26, and Exhibit 7: Plaintiffs’ RJFN is a contract and is not
21
judicially noticeable. Exhibit 7 does not
22 “On or about September 13, 2017, the Trust meet the requirements of Evidence Code
entered into a “Residential Purchase section 452 and is not included in any of
23 Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions” Section 452’s permissible categories of
(C.A.R. Form RPA-CA) with Behdad documents appropriate for judicial notice.
24 Eghbali, a true and correct copy of which is (Evid. Code § 452.) The statute’s
attached hereto as Exhibit “7”. categories are set forth in the Grounds for
25
Objection at Paragraph 1 and are not
26 repeated here to save paper and to be
respectful of the Court’s time.
27
Additionally, this document lacks
28 foundation (Evid. Code § 403), constitutes
5
PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENTS AND
OPINION TESTIMONY PRESENTED ISO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 No. Material Objected To: Grounds For Objection:
2
hearsay because it is offered to prove the
3 truth of the matter assumed (Evid. Code §
1200); assumes facts not in evidence (Evid.
4 Code §§ 210, 765(a)); is presented with a
lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code §
5 702); and is not properly authenticated
(Evid. Code §§ 1400, 1401).
6

7 7. Request for Judicial Notice, page 4, Pacific Union objects to the characterization
paragraph 8, lines 1-3, and Exhibit 8: of this document as proving any
8 commission was ever paid by Defendants to
“On or about November 9, 2017, Terra Partners Trust or Pacific Union. The
9 Coastal Escrow, Inc. issued the “Seller’s document is a transaction document from
10 Final Settlement Statement” for the sale of the escrow company which has not been
the L.A. County Property, a true and correct authenticated and which is hearsay.
11 copy of which is attached hereto as “Exhibit
8”. The document attached as Exhibit 8 to
12 Plaintiffs’ RJFN is not judicially noticeable.
Exhibit 8 does not meet the requirements of
13 Evidence Code section 452 and is not
14 included in any of Section 452’s
permissible categories of documents
15 appropriate for judicial notice. (Evid. Code
§ 452.) The statute’s categories are set
16 forth in the Grounds for Objection at
Paragraph 1 and are not repeated here to
17 save paper and to be respectful of the
18 Court’s time.

19 Additionally, this document lacks
foundation (Evid. Code § 403), constitutes
20 hearsay because it is offered to prove the
truth of the matter assumed (Evid. Code §
21
1200); assumes facts not in evidence (Evid.
22 Code §§ 210, 765(a)); is presented with a
lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code §
23 702); and is not properly authenticated
(Evid. Code §§ 1400, 1401).
24

25
II. OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF ERIK LUDWICK
26
No. Material Objected To: Grounds For Objection:
27
8. Declaration of Erik Ludwick (“Ludwick The Acknowledgement and Second
28 Declaration”), page 2, paragraph 1, lines 1- Amendment to the Anything Trust Dated
14: October 12, 2007 and attached as Exhibits 1
6
PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENTS AND
OPINION TESTIMONY PRESENTED ISO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 No. Material Objected To: Grounds For Objection:
and 2 to Defendants’ Request for Judicial
2
I am a named defendant in this action, and I Notice are statements made out-of-court,
3 am an individual, and I am the current offered by Mr. Ludwick to prove the truth
Trustee, as well as, the Trustor, Settlor of the matter set forth therein, and, along
4 and/or primary beneficiary of THE with Mr. Ludwick’s recitation of its
ANYTHING TRUST DATED OCTOBER contents, are inadmissible hearsay. Mr.
5 12, 2007 in the State of California, and in Ludwick does not identify the source of the
the within matter referred to as Defendant document, how he obtained it, how he
6
"The Anything Trust Dated October 12, knows its contents to be true and reliable, or
7 2007" (hereinafter "the Trust") (attached to any other facts required to properly
Defendants' "Request For Judicial Notice" authenticate the document. Accordingly,
8 as Exhibit" 1", is a true and correct copy of the document lacks foundation of personal
the "Acknowledgment" signed by me and knowledge and has not been properly
9 notarized on October 16, 2007 in Los authenticated. Mr. Ludwick’s opinion of
Angeles County creating the Trust; also the contents therein constitutes an improper
10
attached as Exhibit "2", is the "Second legal conclusion or lay opinion on an
11 Amendment" dated March 25, 2019 making ultimate fact, and assumes facts not in
me the Trustee which was the owner of evidence. Mr. Ludwick’s opinion of the
12 record of the Los Angeles County Property contents of the documents, and the
located at 200 Toyopa Drive, Pacific documents themselves, are also conclusory,
13 Palisades, CA 90272 in the County of Los argumentative, and irrelevant. Further, Mr.
14 Angeles, CA (hereinafter "the L. A. County Ludwick is not qualified to make legal
Property") (the Trust does not now nor ever determinations regarding the validity or
15 has done business in and/or own any enforceability of alleged trust instruments,
property in Placer County). I am resident of rendering his opinions and legal
16 Los Angeles County, and have been at all conclusions on such issues lay, improper,
times relevant to this matter; and, I make and unsupported by any foundation of
17 this declaration on my own personal personal knowledge. For these same
18 knowledge, and if called to testify could reasons, Mr. Ludwick’s statement assumes
competently testify thereto. facts not in evidence, and is conclusory,
19 argumentative, irrelevant, and speculative.

20 Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200); assumes facts
not in evidence (Evid. Code §§ 210,
21 765(a)); lacks foundation (Evid. Code §
22 403); improper lay opinion (Evid. Code §
800); improper legal conclusion or lay
23 opinion on ultimate fact (Towns v.
Davidson (2007)147 Cal.App.4th 461, 473);
24 lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code §
702); lack of proper authentication (Evid.
25
Code §§ 1400, 1401); conclusory and
26 argumentative (Evid. Code § 765(a));
Burton v. Security Pacific Nat. Bank (1988)
27 197 Cal.App.3d 972, 978); irrelevant (Evid.
Code § 350); speculative (Evid. Code §
28

7
PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENTS AND
OPINION TESTIMONY PRESENTED ISO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 No. Material Objected To: Grounds For Objection:
702; Visueta v. General Motors Corp.
2
(1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1609, 1615).
3
9. Declaration of Erik Ludwick (“Ludwick Mr. Ludwick’s statements about the actions
4 Declaration”), page 2, paragraph 2, lines of Paul Booth are inadmissible hearsay.
15-18: Mr. Ludwick’s opinion of what Mr. Booth
5 did or whether he followed instructions are
The previous trustee and named Defendant improper legal conclusions or lay opinions
6
Paul Booth ("Booth") was replaced by me, on an ultimate fact, and assumes facts not in
7 on or about April 5, 2019, however, even evidence. Mr. Ludwick’s opinion of the
when Booth held his position as Trustee, he actions of Paul Booth are conclusory,
8 served at my direction and preformed (SIC) argumentative, and irrelevant opinions of a
as a signatory on behalf of the Trust again lay witness, and he lacks personal
9 at my direction and/or supervision. Booth as knowledge regarding the actions of Mr.
10 trustee carried out my instructions. Booth. For these same reasons, Mr.
Ludwick’s statement assumes facts not in
11 evidence, and is conclusory, argumentative,
irrelevant, and speculative.
12
Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200); assumes facts
13 not in evidence (Evid. Code §§ 210,
14 765(a)); lacks foundation (Evid. Code §
403); improper lay opinion (Evid. Code §
15 800); improper legal conclusion or lay
opinion on ultimate fact (Towns v.
16 Davidson (2007)147 Cal.App.4th 461, 473);
lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code §
17 702); lack of proper authentication (Evid.
18 Code §§ 1400, 1401); conclusory and
argumentative (Evid. Code § 765(a));
19 Burton v. Security Pacific Nat. Bank (1988)
197 Cal.App.3d 972, 978); irrelevant (Evid.
20 Code § 350); speculative (Evid. Code §
702; Visueta v. General Motors Corp.
21
(1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1609, 1615).
22
10. Declaration of Erik Ludwick (“Ludwick The Residential Listing Agreement attached
23 Declaration”), page 2, paragraph 3, lines as Exhibit 3 to Defendants’ Request for
19-22: Judicial Notice is a contract that Mr.
24 Ludwick is not a party to. His signature
The contract in this matter consists of a does not appear on the Residential Listing
25
California Association of Realtors ("CAR") Agreement. Mr. Booth signed that
26 form "Residential Listing Agreement" agreement, and every other document at
("Toyopa Listing Agreement") consisting of issue in this transaction. Mr. Ludwick has
27 5-pages was an agreement between Partners no basis to offer this document. He cannot
Trust, Inc. and the Trust and myself. A true authenticate it. Further, Mr. Ludwick’s
28 and correct copy of the Toyopa Listing recitation of the contents of the Residential
8
PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENTS AND
OPINION TESTIMONY PRESENTED ISO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 No. Material Objected To: Grounds For Objection:
Agreement is attached to Defendants' Listing Agreement is inadmissible hearsay.
2
"Request for Judicial Notice" as Exhibit Mr. Ludwick does not identify the source of
3 "3". the document, how he obtained it, how he
knows its contents to be true and reliable, or
4 any other facts required to properly
authenticate the document. As a non-
5 signatory, he lacks foundation or personal
knowledge, and the document has not been
6
properly authenticated. Mr. Ludwick’s
7 opinion of the contents therein constitutes
an improper legal conclusion or lay opinion
8 on an ultimate fact, and assumes facts not in
evidence. Mr. Ludwick’s opinion of the
9 contents of the document, and the document
themselves, is also conclusory,
10
argumentative, and irrelevant. Further, Mr.
11 Ludwick is not qualified to make legal
determinations regarding the validity or
12 enforceability of contractual documents,
rendering his opinions and legal
13 conclusions on such issues lay, improper,
14 and unsupported by any foundation of
personal knowledge. For these same
15 reasons, Mr. Ludwick’s statement assumes
facts not in evidence, and is conclusory,
16 argumentative, irrelevant, and speculative.
17 Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200); assumes facts
18 not in evidence (Evid. Code §§ 210,
765(a)); lacks foundation (Evid. Code §
19 403); improper lay opinion (Evid. Code §
800); improper legal conclusion or lay
20 opinion on ultimate fact (Towns v.
Davidson (2007)147 Cal.App.4th 461, 473);
21 lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code §
22 702); lack of proper authentication (Evid.
Code §§ 1400, 1401); conclusory and
23 argumentative (Evid. Code § 765(a));
Burton v. Security Pacific Nat. Bank (1988)
24 197 Cal.App.3d 972, 978); irrelevant (Evid.
Code § 350); speculative (Evid. Code §
25
702; Visueta v. General Motors Corp.
26 (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1609, 1615).

27 11. Declaration of Erik Ludwick (“Ludwick The Representative Capacity Signature
Declaration”), page 2, paragraph 4, lines Disclosure attached as Exhibit 3 to
28 23-27: Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is a
9
PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENTS AND
OPINION TESTIMONY PRESENTED ISO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 No. Material Objected To: Grounds For Objection:
document that Mr. Ludwick is not a party
2
On Page-5 of the Toyopa Listing to. His signature does not appear on it. Mr.
3 Agreement under the paragraph entitled Booth signed that agreement, and every
"Representative Capacity" appearing just other document at issue in this transaction.
4 above the parties' signatures, the paragraph Mr. Ludwick has no basis to offer this
refers to an additional 1-Page CAR form document. He cannot authenticate it.
5 entitled "Representative Capacity Signature Further, Mr. Ludwick’s recitation of the
Disclosure (For Seller Representatives)." A contents of the document is inadmissible
6
true and correct copy of this "Page-6" to the hearsay. Mr. Ludwick does not identify the
7 Toyopa Listing Agreement which is part of source of the document, how he obtained it,
Exhibit "3" to the "Request for Judicial how he knows its contents to be true and
8 Notice". reliable, or any other facts required to
properly authenticate the document. As a
9 non-signatory, he lacks foundation or
personal knowledge, and the document has
10
not been properly authenticated. Mr.
11 Ludwick’s opinion of the contents therein
constitutes an improper legal conclusion or
12 lay opinion on an ultimate fact, and assumes
facts not in evidence. Mr. Ludwick’s
13 opinion of the contents of the document,
14 and the document themselves, is also
conclusory, argumentative, and irrelevant.
15 Further, Mr. Ludwick is not qualified to
make legal determinations regarding the
16 validity or enforceability of transactional
documents, rendering his opinions and legal
17 conclusions on such issues lay, improper,
18 and unsupported by any foundation of
personal knowledge. For these same
19 reasons, Mr. Ludwick’s statement assumes
facts not in evidence, and is conclusory,
20 argumentative, irrelevant, and speculative.
21 Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200); assumes facts
22 not in evidence (Evid. Code §§ 210,
765(a)); lacks foundation (Evid. Code §
23 403); improper lay opinion (Evid. Code §
800); improper legal conclusion or lay
24 opinion on ultimate fact (Towns v.
Davidson (2007)147 Cal.App.4th 461, 473);
25
lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code §
26 702); lack of proper authentication (Evid.
Code §§ 1400, 1401); conclusory and
27 argumentative (Evid. Code § 765(a));
Burton v. Security Pacific Nat. Bank (1988)
28 197 Cal.App.3d 972, 978); irrelevant (Evid.
10
PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENTS AND
OPINION TESTIMONY PRESENTED ISO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 No. Material Objected To: Grounds For Objection:
Code § 350); speculative (Evid. Code §
2
702; Visueta v. General Motors Corp.
3 (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1609, 1615).

4 12. Declaration of Erik Ludwick (“Ludwick This paragraph is inadmissible hearsay and
Declaration”), page 3, paragraph 5, lines 1- improper opinion testimony from a lay
5 6: witness. The Representative Capacity
Signature Disclosure attached as Exhibit 3
6
The paragraph entitled "Representative to Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice
7 Capacity" of Exhibit "3" and accompanying is a document that Mr. Ludwick is not a
1-Page CAR form (Exhibit "3") recognize party to. His signature does not appear on
8 that the L. A. County Property was "held in it. Mr. Booth signed that agreement, and
trust" for the named defendant and legal every other document at issue in this
9 Settlor of the Trust and current Trustee, transaction. Mr. Ludwick has no basis to
10 ERIK LUDWICK. This signed and offer this document. He cannot authenticate
executed 1 -Page document was and/or is it. Further, Mr. Ludwick’s recitation of the
11 part of the Toyopa Listing Agreement but contents of the document is inadmissible
Plaintiff failed to include it in Plaintiff hearsay. Mr. Ludwick does not identify the
12 Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Complaint. Again, a source of the document, how he obtained it,
true and correct copy of this "Page-6" to the how he knows its contents to be true and
13 Toyopa Listing Agreement is attached as reliable, or any other facts required to
14 Page-6 to Exhibit "3". properly authenticate the document. As a
non-signatory, he lacks foundation or
15 personal knowledge, and the document has
not been properly authenticated. Mr.
16 Ludwick’s opinion of the contents therein
constitutes an improper legal conclusion or
17 lay opinion on an ultimate fact, and assumes
18 facts not in evidence. Mr. Ludwick’s
opinion of the contents of the document,
19 and the document themselves, is also
conclusory, argumentative, and irrelevant.
20 Further, Mr. Ludwick is not qualified to
make legal determinations regarding the
21
validity or enforceability of transactional
22 documents, rendering his opinions and legal
conclusions on such issues lay, improper,
23 and unsupported by any foundation of
personal knowledge. For these same
24 reasons, Mr. Ludwick’s statement assumes
facts not in evidence, and is conclusory,
25
argumentative, irrelevant, and speculative.
26
Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200); assumes facts
27 not in evidence (Evid. Code §§ 210,
765(a)); lacks foundation (Evid. Code §
28 403); improper lay opinion (Evid. Code §
11
PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENTS AND
OPINION TESTIMONY PRESENTED ISO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 No. Material Objected To: Grounds For Objection:
800); improper legal conclusion or lay
2
opinion on ultimate fact (Towns v.
3 Davidson (2007)147 Cal.App.4th 461, 473);
lack of personal knowledge (Evid. Code §
4 702); lack of proper authentication (Evid.
Code §§ 1400, 1401); conclusory and
5 argumentative (Evid. Code § 765(a));
Burton v. Security Pacific Nat. Bank (1988)
6
197 Cal.App.3d 972, 978); irrelevant (Evid.
7 Code § 350); speculative (Evid. Code §
702; Visueta v. General Motors Corp.
8 (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1609, 1615).
9 13. Declaration of Erik Ludwick (“Ludwick This paragraph is inadmissible hearsay and
10 Declaration”), page 3, paragraph 6, lines 7- improper opinion testimony from a lay
16: witness. Mr. Ludwick was not a party to
11 the

Case Info

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

July 30, 2020

Case Filing Date

November 07, 2018

County

Parties

Booth, Paul D., Trustee of The Anything Trust Defendant
Erik Ludwick Defendant
Jones, Shannon Ball Rossi Domingue LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Nangano, Michael Anthony John Michael AJ Nangano, A Law Corporation Attorney for the Defendant
Nangano, Michael Anthony John Michael AJ Nangano & Associates Attorney
Pacific Union International, Inc. Plaintiff
Skidmore, Lawrence E. Aronowitz & Skidmore Inc Attorney
Skidmore, Lawrence E. Aronowitz & Skidmore Inc Attorney for the Defendant
The Anything Trust Dated Oct. 12, 2007 Defendant
Lindsey Morgan Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Alan Jacobus Attorney
Franklin Bigelow Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Shannon Ball Attorney
Bruce Tackowiak Attorneys for Defendants
Susan Daley Attorney
Michael Agoglia Attorneys for Defendants
Amberly Morgan Attorney
Shannon Dillon Attorneys for Defendants
Dean Rossi Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Michael Antoncich Attorneys for Defendants
Michael Alfred Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Party Discovery: Pacific Union International, Inc. vs. Ludwick, Erik et al

Preview

Case Info

Parties