Preview
I Mark E. Ellis-127159
Richard H. Hart, Jr. - 058793
2 Omid Shabani - 267447
ELLIS LAW GROUP, LLP FILED r&HBORSEB"
3 1425 River Park Drive, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95815
4 Tel: (916) 283-8820 3 2023
Fax:(916)283-8821
5
Attomeys for Defendant Dr. James Longoria By A. O'Donnell, Deputy Clerk
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
II
CHARLES SOMERS, individually and as Case No.: 34-2018-00229212
12 trustee for the CHARLES SOMERS LIVING
TRUST, DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S
13 OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S
Plaintiff, EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO
14 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION;
15 AND [PROPOSED ORDER]
DR. JAMES LONGORIA, an individual and
16 DOES l-IO, DATE: April 7,2023
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
17 Defendant. DEPT: 39
18
Date Complaint Filed: March 16, 2018
19 Trial Date: Trial set for October 16, 2023
20
Pursuant to Califomia Rules of Court Rule 3.1354, Defendant DR. JAMES LONGORIA
21
22 submits the following written objections to the evidence provided by Plaintiff CHARLES SOMERS,
23 individually and as trustee for the CHARLES SOMERS LIVING TRUST in support of its motion for
24 summary judgment, or in the altemative, summary adjudication.
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORJA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION(S) T O E V I D E N C E
2 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1 - DECLARATION OF WILLIAM R. WARNE IN
3 SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARU JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
4 ADJUDICATION
5
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection(s):
6
1. Exhibit C attached to the Declaration Lack of Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
7 of William R. Wame.
Lack of Personal Knowledge. Evid. Code § 403;
8 Declaration of William Wame ("Wame Sierra Managed Asset Plan, LLC v. Hale (Cal.
Decl."), Exhibit ("Exh.") C. Super. Ct. 2015) 240 Cal.App.4th Supp. I , 9; see
9 also, Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d
440, 446.
10
Secondary Evidence Rule. Evid. Code §§ 1521,
II 1523.
12
Inadmissible Hearsay. Evid. Code §§ 170, 210,
13 400-403, 405, 702, 1200,1271,1400-1401, 1520-
1521.
14 Insufficient Evidence That Records Were Made
15 In Regular Course Of Business As Part Of The
Particular Business. Occupation.. or Calling.
16 Evid. Code § 1271(a); Prato-Morrison v. Doe
(2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 222, 229.
17 Insufficient Authentication. Evid. Code § 1400-
18 1401; Hayman v. Block { m S ) 176 Cal. App. 3d
629,638-639 ("Personal knowledge and
19 competency must be shown in the supporting and
opposing affidavits and declarations. The
20 affidavits must cite evidentiary facts, not legal
conclusions or 'ultimate' facts.") (intemal
21 citations omitted).
22 Insufficient Explanation of Mode of
Preparation. Evid. Code § 1271(c).
23
Insufficient Explanation as to Reliability of
24 Data. Evid. Code § 1271(d).
25
26
27
28
-2
DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
I II. PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 2 - DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF CHARLES SOMERS
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
2 SUMMARU JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
3 ADJUDICATION
4
5 2. "the Affordable Care Act's passage Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block
in 2010 essentially made illegal the (1986) 176 Cal.App.3rd 629, 638-639 "affidavits
6 creation of physician-owned must cite evidentiary facts, not legal conclusions
hospitals." or 'ultimate' facts").
7
Declaration of Charles Somers in Support Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
8 of Opposition to Defendant's MSJ / MSA
("Somers Decl.") ^ 3, p. 2:13-14. Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400,403,
9 410; See also, Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212
Cal.App.2d 440, 446 ("Affidavits which set forth
10 only conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are
insufficient.").
II
12
3. "At some point in our friendship (I Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
13 cannot remember the exact
timeframe) Longoria told me that Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
14 he was involved with patenting Exception. Evid. Code § 1200,1271,1400-1401,
certain medical devices and surgery 1520-1521.
15 processes that he claimed would
revolutionize certain hear Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400, 403,
16 surgeries." 410.
17 Somers Decl. 14, p. 2:15-17. Irrelevant evidence. Evid. Code § 350.
18
19 4. "In July or August of 2013, Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
Longoria and his business partner,
20 Roy Chin ('Chin'), came to SBM to Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400,403,
pitch me on investing in their 410.
21 medical device company, then
known as Intrepid Medical and later Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
22 renamed to LC Therapeutics Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400-
('LCT')." 1401,1520-1521.
23
Somers Decl. f 4, p. 2:17-20. Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block
24 (1986) 176 CaI.App.3rd 629, 638-639 ("affidavits
must cite evidentiary facts, not legal conclusions
25 or 'ultimate' facts").
26
27
28
DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1
5. " I seriously considered their request Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code S 702.
2 for funding."
Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
3 Exception. Evid. Code 170.210,400-403.
Somers Decl. ^ 5, p. 2:21. 405, 702,1200,1271,1400-1401,1520-1521.
4
Improper Speculation. Evid. Code. 400.403,
5 410.
6
7 6. "Initially, I preferred the idea of Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
8 loaning money to LCT on
Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
conventional terms, including Exception. Evid. Code 170.210.400-403,
9 repayment according to a specified 405, 702,1200,1271,1400-1401,1520-1521.
schedule with interest in accordance
10 with a note."
11 Somers Decl. f 6, p. 2:23-24.
12
13 7. "In fact, Longoria told me that if the Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
company needed additional funding,
14 Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
I could then purchase additional Exception. Evid. Code SS 1271, 1400-1401.
equity to whatever extent I was 1520-1521.
15 interested."
16 Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, SS 400,403,
Somers Decl. ^ 6, p. 2:27 - 3:2. 410.
17
Probative Value Is Substantially Outweighed
18 by the Probability That Admission of Evidence
Will Create Substantial Danger of Undue
19 Prejudice or of Confusing the Issues. Evid.
Code, § 352. The testimony is based on an
20 incomplete hypothetical.
21
8. "If not for Longoria's various Contradicted by Prior Deposition Testimony.
22 representations to me, I would not D'Amico V. Board of Medical Examiners (1974)
11 Cal.3d 1,21. See, Deposition of Charles
have invested in LCT." Somers ("Somers Depo."), p. 64:7-23.
23
24 Somers Decl. f 7, p. 3:3-4. Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code S 702.
25 Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
Exception. Evid. Code SS 1200.1271.1400-
26 1401,1520-1521.
27 Improper Speculation. Evid. Code. §§ 400.403.
410.
28
DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 Probative Value Is Substantially Outweighed
bv the Probability That Admission of Evidence
2 Will Create Substantial Danger of Confusing
the Issues. Evid. Code, S 352. The testimony is
3 based on an incomplete hypothetical. The witness
does not identify which representations are being
4 referenced, while the operative Second Amended
Complaint ("SAC"), inter alia, contains three
5 causes of action for negligent misrepresentation.
6
7 9. "Ultimately, my CFO, Ken Silva Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code S 702.
("Silva"), and I agreed that it would
8 Inadmissible Double Hearsay Not Falling
be fine for LCT to stay a subchapter Within an Exception. Evid. Code SS 1200.
9 S corporation to start with because 1271,1400-1401,1520-1521.
Longoria claimed to me that LCT
10 would be profitable within 12 Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, SS 400,403,
months of its start." 410.
11
Somers Decl. f 7, p. 3:6-8. Improper Legal Conclusion. Havman v. Block
12 (1986) 176 CaI.App.3rd 629, 638-639.
13
10. " I never agreed that the company Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code S 702.
14 should remain a subchapter S
corporation forever and always Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
15 expected that Longoria would Exception. Evid. Code SS 1200.1271.1400-
follow through with his repeated 1401,1520-1521. Hayman v. Block {19S6) 176
16 promises to convert LCT to an CaI.App.3d 629, 638-639.
LLC."
17
Somers Decl. f 7, p. 3:9-11.
18
19 11. "I explained to Longoria that I had Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code S 702.
already invested $2 million, that
20 LCT was failine, and that / would Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
onlv agree to more funding if I had Exception. Evid. Code SS 1200.1271,1400-
21 a full seat at the table." 1401,1520-1521.
22 Somers Decl. f 9, p. 3:22-23 (emphasis Improper Legal Conclusion. Havman v. Block
added). (1986) 176 CaI.App.3rd 629, 638-639.
23
24
25
26
27-
28
DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
I
12. "Longoria agreed, telling me that if Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
2 I agreed to provide additional
equityfinancing,I would replace Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
3 Chin on the board and have equal Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400-
control over all company decisions; 1401,1520-1521.
4 he said we would immediately be
partners, with equal control of Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400,403,
5 LCT." 410.
6 Somers Decl. f 10, p. 3:24-26. Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block
(1986) 176 Cal.App.3rd 629, 638-639.
7
8
9
10
11
12 13. "Longoria also promised me that if Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
I agreed to provide additional
13 fiinding, LCT would pay me back Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
first, a concept we repeatedly Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400-
14 confirmed while in Hawaii and 1401, 1520-1521.
afterwards, using the phrase, 'First
15 money in, first money out.'" Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400,403,
410.
16 Somers Decl. f 11, p. 4:1-3.
Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block
17 (1986) 176 Cal.App.3rd 629, 638-639.
18
14. "We also agreed that I could decide Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
19 to buy additional equity or to make
loans if the company needed Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
20 additional fiinding, and that if I was Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400-
not so inclined, the company would 1401,1520-1521. Hayman v. Block {19S6) 176
21 seek outside fiuiding." Cal.App.3d 629, 638-639.
22 Somers Decl. % 11, p. 4:3-5. Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400,403,
410.
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1
15. "In light of Longoria's Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
2 representations to me in Hawaii, I
was interested, and we continued to Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
3 discuss the matter through Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400-
December 2014 and into January 1401,1520-1521.
4 2015."
Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400,403,
5 Somers Decl. f 12, p. 4:6-7 (emphasis 410.
added).
6
7 16. "Longoria also repeatedly Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
confirmed he would give me co-
8 equal control, authority, and Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
ownership in exchange for funding Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400-
9 the company." 1401,1520-1521.
10 Somers Decl. f 12, p. 4:8-10. Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400, 403,
410.
11
Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block
12 (1986) 176 Cal.App.3rd 629, 638-639.
13
14
15
16
17 17. "I commenced this lawsuit by filing Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
a complaint in early 2018 and, later
18 that year, I learned that I had been Inadmissible Double Hearsay Not Falling
cc'd on an email on December 15, Within an Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,
19 2014, which attached an unsigned 1271,1400-1401,1520-1521.
'Action by Consent of the Sole
20 Director' of LCT." Secondary Evidence Rule. Evid. Code §§ 1521,
21 1523.
Somers Decl. f 13, p. 4:11-I4 (emphasis
added).
22
23 18. "In reviewing this email after the Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
fact, I understand it to have been an
24 effort by Longoria to ensure that the Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
business of LCT could continue to Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400-
25 function after its CEO, Chin, 1401,1520-1521. Hayman v. Block{\n6) 176
resigned." Cal.App.3d 629, 638-639.
26
Somers Decl. f 14, p. 4:16-18. Secondary Evidence Rule. Evid. Code §§ 1521,
27 1523.
28 Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400, 403,
DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
I 410.
2 Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block
(1986) 176 Cal.App.3rd 629, 638-639.
3
4
5
6
7 19. "The company needed to be able to Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code S 702.
pay vendors and work with its
8 bank." Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
Exception. Evid. Code SS 1200.1271.1400-
9 Somers Decl. f 14, p. 4:18. 1401, 1520-1521.
10 Improper Speculation. Evid. Code. SS 400. 403.
410.
11
12 20. "Thus, someone needed to be Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code S 702.
appointed to the officer positions
13 immediately." Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
Exception. Evid. Code SS 1200.1271.1400-
14 Somers Decl. f 14, p. 4:18-19. 1401,1520-1521.
15 Secondary Evidence Rule. Evid. Code SS 1521.
1523.
16
17 Improper Speculation. Evid. Code. SS 400. 403.
410.
18
Improper Legal Conclusion. Havman v. Block
19 (1986) 176 Cal.App.3rd 629, 638-639.
20 21. "Although this unsigned resolution Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code S 702.
identified Longoria as the sole
21 director and officer of LCT, I would Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
not have been surprised or worried Exception. Evid. Code SS 1200.1271.1400-
22 had I seen this resolution in 1401,1520-1521.
December 2014."
23 Secondary Evidence Rule. Evid. Code SS 1521.
Somers Decl. ^ 14, p. 4:19-21 (emphasis in 1523.
24 original).
Improper Speculation. Evid. Code. SS 400,403.
25 410.
26
27
28
8
DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
I
22. "At the point, I had not yet invested Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
2 additional funds into LCT and thus
would not have expected Longoria Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
3 to have already fulfilled his promise Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400-
to appoint me to Chin's board 1401,1520-1521.
4 spot"
Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400,403,
5 Somers Decl. f 14, p. 4:21-23 (emphasis 410.
added).
6
7 23. "That Longoria later grasped at this Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
resolution as proof that I had no
8 role in LCT, other than as only a Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
shareholder, demonstrates to me Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400-
9 that Longoria would say or do 1401,1520-1521.
anything to get me to fund LCT,
10 and that he never intended to make Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400, 403,
me a board director or truly share 410.
11 equal control of the company."
12 Secondary Evidence Rule. Evid. Code §§ 1521,
Somers Decl. f 14, p. 4:23-26. 1523.
13
Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block
14 (1986) 176 CaI.App.3rd 629, 638-639.
15
24. " I now believe that Longoria Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
16 intentionally refrained from
amending the December 2014 Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
17 resolution so that he could keep Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400-
exclusive control over LCT." 1401,1520-1521.
18
Somers Decl. f 14, p. 4:23-26. Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400,403,
19 410; Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d
440, 446 ("Affidavits which set forth only
20 conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are
insufficient.").
21
Secondary Evidence Rule. Evid. Code §§ 1521,
22
1523.
23
Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block
24 (1986) 176 CaI.App.3rd 629, 638-639.
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1
25. "In January 2015, and only because Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
2 of Longoria's repeated
representations and assurances, I Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
3 instmcted Silva to proceed with the Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400-
paperwork to fund LCT with 1401,1520-1521. Hayman v. Block{\9%6) 176
4 another $1,335 million investment CaI.App.3d 629, 638-639.
fi-om my living tmst."
5
Somers Decl. ^ 15, p. 5:1-3 (emphasis
6 added).
7
26. "Taking over Chin's role and Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
8 moving from shareholder to what
Longoria referred to as his fiill Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
9 'partner' would finally give me the Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400-
type of directional control I 1401,1520-1521.
10 required before investing even more
money in a company that had no Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400,403,
11 demonstrated history of success and 410; Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d
that was failing to meet the key 440, 446 ("Affidavits which set forth only
12 milestones of its own business conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are
plan." insufficient.").
13
Somers Decl. f 15, p. 5:3-6. Improper Legal Conclusion; Hayman v. Block
14 (1986) 176 CaI.App.3rd 629, 638-639.
15
27. "From my viewpoint, Longoria was Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
16 distracted by his medical practice
^ and failing to tend to his duties as Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
17 CEO and secretary of the Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400-
company." 1401,1520-1521.
18
19 Somers Decl. f 16, p. 5:8-9. Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400,403,
410; Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d
20 440, 446 ("Affidavits which set forth only
conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are
21 insufficient.").
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10-
DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
I
28. "At the end of 2015, even though I, Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
2 through my living tmst, had already
invested $3,335 million in less than Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
3 two years' time, LCT was not close Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400-
to making a profit and still in dire 1401,1520-1521.
4 need of additional cash."
Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400, 403,
5 Somers Decl. f 16, p. 5:9-11. 410; Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d
440, 446 ("Affidavits which set forth only
6 conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are
insufficient.").
7
Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block
8 (1986) 176 Cal.App.3rd 629, 638-639.
9 Improper Expert Opinion. Evid. Code § 801.
10
29. "In late 2015, When [sic\ Longoria Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
II approached me for even more
funding, he abandoned his earlier Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
12 promise to allow me to ftmd the Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200, 1271,1400-
company through the purchase of 1401,1520-1521.
13 additional equity."
Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400,403,
14 Somers Decl. 117, p. 5:12-13. 410; Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 CaI.App.2d
440, 446 ("Affidavits which set forth only
15 conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are
insufficient.").
16
17 30. "Instead, he now told me that he Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
wanted to remain a 50% owner of
18 the company so that the two of us Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
would remain co-equals of Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400-
19 company control." 1401,1520-1521.
20 Somers Decl. f 17, p. 5:14-15. Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400,403,
21 410; Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 CaI.App.2d
440,446 ("Affidavits which set forth only
22 conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are
insufficient.").
23
Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block
24 (1986) 176 Cal.App.3rd 629, 638-639.
25 Improper Expert Opinion. Evid. Code § 801.
26
27
28
-II
DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1
31. "Longoria said that he did not want Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code S 702.
2 to "work for" me, he did not want
to lose his 50% interest in LCT, and Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
3 he wanted us to remain equals." Exception. Evid. Code SS 1200.1271.1400-
1401,1520-1521.
4 Somers Decl. f 17, p. 5:15-16.
Improper Speculation. Evid. Code. SS 400. 403.
5 410; Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 CaI.App.2d
440,446 ("Affidavits which set forth only
6 conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are
insufficient.").
7
Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block
8 (1986) 176 Cal.App.3rd 629, 638-639.
9
32. "Longoria thus urged me to agree to Contradicted by Prior Deposition Testimony.
10 provide any additional money in the D 'Amico V. Board ofMedical Examiners (1974)
form of loans." 11 Cal.3d 1, 21. See, e.g., Somers Depo., pp.
11 127:6 -130:7.
Somers Decl. f 17, p. 5:16-17.
12 Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code S 702.
13 Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
Exception. Evid. Code SS 1200.1271.1400-
14 1401,1520-1521.
15 Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block
(1986) 176 Cal.App.3rd 629, 638-639.
16
17 33. "At that time, Longoria repeated his Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code S 702.
promise that he and I would share
18 control and participate equally in all Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
decisions." Exception. Evid. Code 85 1200.1271. 1400-
19 1401,1520-1521.
Somers Decl. % 17, p. 5:17-19.
20 Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block
(1986) 176 CaI.App.3rd 629, 638-639.
21
22
23 34. "In reliance on Longoria's Contradicted by Prior Deposition Testimony.
assurances, and because Longoria's D'Amico V. Board of Medical Examiners (1974)
24 prior promises had already caused 11 Cal.3d 1,21. See, e.g., Somers Depo., pp.
me to invest $3,355 million, I 127:6 -130:7.
25 agreed to loan LCT significant
sums of money." Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code S 702.
26
Somers Decl. f 18, p. 5:20-21. Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
27 Exception. Evid. Code SS 1200.1271.1400-
1401,1520-1521.
28
12-
DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION •
I
35. "By the end of 2017, my living tmst Contradicted by Prior Deposition Testimony.
2 had loaned at least $3.5 million D 'Amico V. Board of Medical Examiners (1974)
more in funds to LCT." 11 Cal.3d 1,21. See, e.g., Somers Depo., pp.
3 127:6 -130:7.
Somers Decl. f 18, p. 5:21-22.
4 Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
5 Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400-
6 1401,1520-1521.
7 Secondary Evidence Rule. Evid. Code §§ 1521,
1523. No valid loan documents are attached,
8
incorporated, or referenced.
9
Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block
10 (1986) 176 Cal.App.3rd 629, 638-639.
11
36. "Thus, in total, by the end of 2017, Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
12 I had contributed nearly $7 million
to LCT." Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
13 Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400-
Somers Decl. f 18, p. 5:22-23. 1401,1520-1521.
14
Secondary Evidence Rule. Evid. Code §§ 1521,
15 1523. No valid loan documents are attached,
incorporated, or referenced.
16
17
37. "To keep the money flowing, Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
18 Longoria would say whatever was
necessary to make sure I believed I Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
19 had equal control over LCT, Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400-
including representing to third-party 1401,1520-1521.
20 individuals and entities like the
FDA and Wells Fargo that I was Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400,403,
21 Longoria's 'partner' in LCT and 410.
was an owner with equal control
22 over the entity." Secondary Evidence Rule. Evid. Code §§ 1521,
1523.
23 Somers Decl. f 19, p. 5:25-28.
Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block
24 (1986) 176 Cal.App.3rd 629, 638-639.
25
Probative Value Is Substantially Outweighed by
26 the Probability That Admission of Evidence Will
Create Substantial Danger of Undue Prejudice
27 or of Confusing the Issues. Evid. Code, § 352.
28
13-
DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1
38. "For example, in April 2016, Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
2 Longoria cc'd me on an email and
introduced me to an FDA Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
3 consultant as his 'partner' in LCT.' Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200, 1271,1400-
1401,1520-1521.
4 Somers Decl. f 20, p. 6:1-3.
Lacks Proper Custodian of Records. Evid.
5 Code § 1271(c).
6 Secondary Evidence Rule. Evid. Code §§ 1521,
1523.
7
8 Irrelevant Evidence. Evid. Code § 350.
9 Probative Value Is Substantially Outweighed by
the Probability That Admission of Evidence Will
10 Create Substantial Danger of Undue Prejudice
or of Confusing the Issues. Evid. Code, § 352.
II
12
39. "As another example, in July 2016, Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. Among
13 Longoria sent me an email vsdth a other things, the witness does not state who
PowerPoint presentation that was prepared the referenced PowerPoint
14 going to be given to the FDA for representation, or mode of preparation.
what was known as a ' 51 OK
15 Presubmission.'" Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400-
16 Somers Decl. f 21, p. 6:4-6. 1401,1520-1521.
17 Insufficient Explanation of Mode of
Preparation; Lacks Proper Custodian of
18 Records. Evid. Code § 1271(c).
19 Insufficient Explanation as to Reliability of
Data. Evid. Code § 1271(d).
20
Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400,403,
21 410.
22 Irrelevant Evidence. Evid. Code § 350.
23 Probative Value Is Substantially Outweighed
by the Probability That Admission of Evidence
24 Will Create Substantial Danger of Undue
Prejudice or of Confusing the Issues. Evid.
25 Code, § 352. Incomplete hypothetical, as the
witness does not state whetiier the referenced
26 PowerPoint was in fact given to the FDA or not.
27
28
14-
DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1
40. "In that PowerPoint presentation, I Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
2 was identified as Longoria's
'partner' in LCT. A tme and correct Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
3 copy of Longoria's July 15, 2016, Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400-
email to me with the PowerPoint 1401,1520-1521.
4 presentation attached it attached
hereto as Exhibit F." Insufficient Explanation of Mode of
5 Preparation; Lacks Proper Custodian of
Somers Decl. % 21, p. 6:6-8 (emphasis in Records. Evid. Code § 1271(c).
6 original).
Insufficient Explanation as to Reliability of
7 Data. Evid. Code § 1271(d).
8 Secondary Evidence Rule. Evid. Code §§ 1521,
1523.
9
10 Irrelevant Evidence. Evid. Code § 350.
II Probative Value Is Substantially Outweighed by
the Probability That Admission of Evidence Will
12 Create Substantial Danger of Undue Prejudice
or of Confusing the Issues. Evid. Code, § 352.
13
14
41. "Furthermore, in [sic] September Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. Among
15 27, 2016,1 and Longoria both other things, the witness does not state who
signed a Business Account prepared the referenced document.
16 Application for LCT with Wells
Fargo." Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
17 Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400-
Somers Decl. % 22, p. 6:9-10. 1401,1520-1521.
18
Insufficient Explanation of Mode of
19 Preparation; Lacks Proper Custodian of
Records. Evid. Code § 1271(c).
20
Insufficient Explanation as to Reliability of
21 Data. Evid. Code § 1271(d).
22 Secondary Evidence Rule. Evid. Code §§ 1521,
1523.
23
Irrelevant Evidence. Evid. Code § 350.
24
25 Probative Value Is Substantially Outweighed by
the Probability That Admission of Evidence Will
26 Create Substantial Danger of Undue Prejudice
or of Confusing the Issues. Evid. Code, § 352.
27
28
15-
DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1
42. "In that application, we were each Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. Among
2 identified as an 'Owner with other things, the witness does not identify who
Control of the Entity.' A tme and prepared the referenced application.
3 correct copy of the business
application is attached hereto as Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
4 Exhibit G." Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400-
1401,1520-1521.
5 Somers Decl. f 22, p. 6:10-12 (emphasis in
original). Insufficient Explanation of Mode of
6 Preparation; Lacks Proper Custodian of
Records. Evid. Code § 1271(c).
7
Insufficient Explanation as to Reliability of
8 Data. Evid. Code § 1271(d).
9 Secondary Evidence Rule. Evid. Code §§ 1521,
1523.
10
Irrelevant Evidence. Evid. Code § 350.
11
Probative Value Is Substantially Outweighed
12 by the Probability That Admission of Evidence
Will Create Substantial Danger of Undue
13 Prejudice or of Confusing the Issues. Evid.
Code, § 352.
14
15 43. "Longoria also acted towards me in Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
a manner that confirmed to me that
16 I was in fact a board member with Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
shared control over the company." Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400-
17 1401, 1520-1521.
Somers Decl. f 23, p. 6:13-14.
18 Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400, 403,
410.
19
Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block
20 (1986) 176 CaI.App.3rd 629,638-639.
21
44. "For instance, in the fall of 2016, Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
22 Longoria and I discussed
Longoria's busy schedule and the Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
23 difficulty he was having driving Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400-
back and forth to the Bay Area in 1401,1520-1521.
24 order to consult with the
manufacturing entities with whom Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400, 403,
25 LCT had contracted." 410.
26
Somers Decl. f 23, p. 6:14-17 (emphasis Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block
27 added). (1986) 176 CaI.App.3rd 629, 638-639.
28
-16
DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1
45. "We jointly discussed altematives Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
2 and mutually decided on creating
LCT's own manufacturing facility Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
3 in Sacramento." Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400-
1401,1520-1521.
4 Somers Decl. 123, p. 6:17-18.
5
46. "Both Longoria and I identified Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702.
6 potential locations, ultimately and
mutually agreeing that McClellan Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an
7 Park was the most economical and Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400-
advantageous location." 1401,1520-1521.
8
Somers Decl. f 23, p. 6:18-20. Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400, 403,
9
Preview
I Mark E. Ellis-127159 Richard H. Hart, Jr. - 058793 2 Omid Shabani - 267447 ELLIS LAW GROUP, LLP FILED r&HBORSEB" 3 1425 River Park Drive, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95815 4 Tel: (916) 283-8820 3 2023 Fax:(916)283-8821 5 Attomeys for Defendant Dr. James Longoria By A. O'Donnell, Deputy Clerk 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 10 II CHARLES SOMERS, individually and as Case No.: 34-2018-00229212 12 trustee for the CHARLES SOMERS LIVING TRUST, DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S 13 OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S Plaintiff, EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO 14 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; 15 AND [PROPOSED ORDER] DR. JAMES LONGORIA, an individual and 16 DOES l-IO, DATE: April 7,2023 TIME: 9:00 a.m. 17 Defendant. DEPT: 39 18 Date Complaint Filed: March 16, 2018 19 Trial Date: Trial set for October 16, 2023 20 Pursuant to Califomia Rules of Court Rule 3.1354, Defendant DR. JAMES LONGORIA 21 22 submits the following written objections to the evidence provided by Plaintiff CHARLES SOMERS, 23 individually and as trustee for the CHARLES SOMERS LIVING TRUST in support of its motion for 24 summary judgment, or in the altemative, summary adjudication. 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORJA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION(S) T O E V I D E N C E 2 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1 - DECLARATION OF WILLIAM R. WARNE IN 3 SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARU JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY 4 ADJUDICATION 5 Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection(s): 6 1. Exhibit C attached to the Declaration Lack of Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. 7 of William R. Wame. Lack of Personal Knowledge. Evid. Code § 403; 8 Declaration of William Wame ("Wame Sierra Managed Asset Plan, LLC v. Hale (Cal. Decl."), Exhibit ("Exh.") C. Super. Ct. 2015) 240 Cal.App.4th Supp. I , 9; see 9 also, Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 440, 446. 10 Secondary Evidence Rule. Evid. Code §§ 1521, II 1523. 12 Inadmissible Hearsay. Evid. Code §§ 170, 210, 13 400-403, 405, 702, 1200,1271,1400-1401, 1520- 1521. 14 Insufficient Evidence That Records Were Made 15 In Regular Course Of Business As Part Of The Particular Business. Occupation.. or Calling. 16 Evid. Code § 1271(a); Prato-Morrison v. Doe (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 222, 229. 17 Insufficient Authentication. Evid. Code § 1400- 18 1401; Hayman v. Block { m S ) 176 Cal. App. 3d 629,638-639 ("Personal knowledge and 19 competency must be shown in the supporting and opposing affidavits and declarations. The 20 affidavits must cite evidentiary facts, not legal conclusions or 'ultimate' facts.") (intemal 21 citations omitted). 22 Insufficient Explanation of Mode of Preparation. Evid. Code § 1271(c). 23 Insufficient Explanation as to Reliability of 24 Data. Evid. Code § 1271(d). 25 26 27 28 -2 DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION I II. PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 2 - DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF CHARLES SOMERS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR 2 SUMMARU JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY 3 ADJUDICATION 4 5 2. "the Affordable Care Act's passage Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block in 2010 essentially made illegal the (1986) 176 Cal.App.3rd 629, 638-639 "affidavits 6 creation of physician-owned must cite evidentiary facts, not legal conclusions hospitals." or 'ultimate' facts"). 7 Declaration of Charles Somers in Support Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. 8 of Opposition to Defendant's MSJ / MSA ("Somers Decl.") ^ 3, p. 2:13-14. Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400,403, 9 410; See also, Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 440, 446 ("Affidavits which set forth 10 only conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are insufficient."). II 12 3. "At some point in our friendship (I Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. 13 cannot remember the exact timeframe) Longoria told me that Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an 14 he was involved with patenting Exception. Evid. Code § 1200,1271,1400-1401, certain medical devices and surgery 1520-1521. 15 processes that he claimed would revolutionize certain hear Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400, 403, 16 surgeries." 410. 17 Somers Decl. 14, p. 2:15-17. Irrelevant evidence. Evid. Code § 350. 18 19 4. "In July or August of 2013, Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. Longoria and his business partner, 20 Roy Chin ('Chin'), came to SBM to Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400,403, pitch me on investing in their 410. 21 medical device company, then known as Intrepid Medical and later Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an 22 renamed to LC Therapeutics Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400- ('LCT')." 1401,1520-1521. 23 Somers Decl. f 4, p. 2:17-20. Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block 24 (1986) 176 CaI.App.3rd 629, 638-639 ("affidavits must cite evidentiary facts, not legal conclusions 25 or 'ultimate' facts"). 26 27 28 DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 5. " I seriously considered their request Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code S 702. 2 for funding." Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an 3 Exception. Evid. Code 170.210,400-403. Somers Decl. ^ 5, p. 2:21. 405, 702,1200,1271,1400-1401,1520-1521. 4 Improper Speculation. Evid. Code. 400.403, 5 410. 6 7 6. "Initially, I preferred the idea of Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. 8 loaning money to LCT on Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an conventional terms, including Exception. Evid. Code 170.210.400-403, 9 repayment according to a specified 405, 702,1200,1271,1400-1401,1520-1521. schedule with interest in accordance 10 with a note." 11 Somers Decl. f 6, p. 2:23-24. 12 13 7. "In fact, Longoria told me that if the Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. company needed additional funding, 14 Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an I could then purchase additional Exception. Evid. Code SS 1271, 1400-1401. equity to whatever extent I was 1520-1521. 15 interested." 16 Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, SS 400,403, Somers Decl. ^ 6, p. 2:27 - 3:2. 410. 17 Probative Value Is Substantially Outweighed 18 by the Probability That Admission of Evidence Will Create Substantial Danger of Undue 19 Prejudice or of Confusing the Issues. Evid. Code, § 352. The testimony is based on an 20 incomplete hypothetical. 21 8. "If not for Longoria's various Contradicted by Prior Deposition Testimony. 22 representations to me, I would not D'Amico V. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1,21. See, Deposition of Charles have invested in LCT." Somers ("Somers Depo."), p. 64:7-23. 23 24 Somers Decl. f 7, p. 3:3-4. Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code S 702. 25 Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an Exception. Evid. Code SS 1200.1271.1400- 26 1401,1520-1521. 27 Improper Speculation. Evid. Code. §§ 400.403. 410. 28 DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 Probative Value Is Substantially Outweighed bv the Probability That Admission of Evidence 2 Will Create Substantial Danger of Confusing the Issues. Evid. Code, S 352. The testimony is 3 based on an incomplete hypothetical. The witness does not identify which representations are being 4 referenced, while the operative Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), inter alia, contains three 5 causes of action for negligent misrepresentation. 6 7 9. "Ultimately, my CFO, Ken Silva Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code S 702. ("Silva"), and I agreed that it would 8 Inadmissible Double Hearsay Not Falling be fine for LCT to stay a subchapter Within an Exception. Evid. Code SS 1200. 9 S corporation to start with because 1271,1400-1401,1520-1521. Longoria claimed to me that LCT 10 would be profitable within 12 Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, SS 400,403, months of its start." 410. 11 Somers Decl. f 7, p. 3:6-8. Improper Legal Conclusion. Havman v. Block 12 (1986) 176 CaI.App.3rd 629, 638-639. 13 10. " I never agreed that the company Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code S 702. 14 should remain a subchapter S corporation forever and always Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an 15 expected that Longoria would Exception. Evid. Code SS 1200.1271.1400- follow through with his repeated 1401,1520-1521. Hayman v. Block {19S6) 176 16 promises to convert LCT to an CaI.App.3d 629, 638-639. LLC." 17 Somers Decl. f 7, p. 3:9-11. 18 19 11. "I explained to Longoria that I had Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code S 702. already invested $2 million, that 20 LCT was failine, and that / would Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an onlv agree to more funding if I had Exception. Evid. Code SS 1200.1271,1400- 21 a full seat at the table." 1401,1520-1521. 22 Somers Decl. f 9, p. 3:22-23 (emphasis Improper Legal Conclusion. Havman v. Block added). (1986) 176 CaI.App.3rd 629, 638-639. 23 24 25 26 27- 28 DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION I 12. "Longoria agreed, telling me that if Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. 2 I agreed to provide additional equityfinancing,I would replace Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an 3 Chin on the board and have equal Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400- control over all company decisions; 1401,1520-1521. 4 he said we would immediately be partners, with equal control of Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400,403, 5 LCT." 410. 6 Somers Decl. f 10, p. 3:24-26. Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3rd 629, 638-639. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. "Longoria also promised me that if Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. I agreed to provide additional 13 fiinding, LCT would pay me back Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an first, a concept we repeatedly Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400- 14 confirmed while in Hawaii and 1401, 1520-1521. afterwards, using the phrase, 'First 15 money in, first money out.'" Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400,403, 410. 16 Somers Decl. f 11, p. 4:1-3. Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block 17 (1986) 176 Cal.App.3rd 629, 638-639. 18 14. "We also agreed that I could decide Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. 19 to buy additional equity or to make loans if the company needed Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an 20 additional fiinding, and that if I was Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400- not so inclined, the company would 1401,1520-1521. Hayman v. Block {19S6) 176 21 seek outside fiuiding." Cal.App.3d 629, 638-639. 22 Somers Decl. % 11, p. 4:3-5. Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400,403, 410. 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 15. "In light of Longoria's Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. 2 representations to me in Hawaii, I was interested, and we continued to Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an 3 discuss the matter through Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400- December 2014 and into January 1401,1520-1521. 4 2015." Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400,403, 5 Somers Decl. f 12, p. 4:6-7 (emphasis 410. added). 6 7 16. "Longoria also repeatedly Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. confirmed he would give me co- 8 equal control, authority, and Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an ownership in exchange for funding Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400- 9 the company." 1401,1520-1521. 10 Somers Decl. f 12, p. 4:8-10. Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400, 403, 410. 11 Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block 12 (1986) 176 Cal.App.3rd 629, 638-639. 13 14 15 16 17 17. "I commenced this lawsuit by filing Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. a complaint in early 2018 and, later 18 that year, I learned that I had been Inadmissible Double Hearsay Not Falling cc'd on an email on December 15, Within an Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200, 19 2014, which attached an unsigned 1271,1400-1401,1520-1521. 'Action by Consent of the Sole 20 Director' of LCT." Secondary Evidence Rule. Evid. Code §§ 1521, 21 1523. Somers Decl. f 13, p. 4:11-I4 (emphasis added). 22 23 18. "In reviewing this email after the Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. fact, I understand it to have been an 24 effort by Longoria to ensure that the Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an business of LCT could continue to Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400- 25 function after its CEO, Chin, 1401,1520-1521. Hayman v. Block{\n6) 176 resigned." Cal.App.3d 629, 638-639. 26 Somers Decl. f 14, p. 4:16-18. Secondary Evidence Rule. Evid. Code §§ 1521, 27 1523. 28 Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400, 403, DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION I 410. 2 Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3rd 629, 638-639. 3 4 5 6 7 19. "The company needed to be able to Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code S 702. pay vendors and work with its 8 bank." Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an Exception. Evid. Code SS 1200.1271.1400- 9 Somers Decl. f 14, p. 4:18. 1401, 1520-1521. 10 Improper Speculation. Evid. Code. SS 400. 403. 410. 11 12 20. "Thus, someone needed to be Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code S 702. appointed to the officer positions 13 immediately." Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an Exception. Evid. Code SS 1200.1271.1400- 14 Somers Decl. f 14, p. 4:18-19. 1401,1520-1521. 15 Secondary Evidence Rule. Evid. Code SS 1521. 1523. 16 17 Improper Speculation. Evid. Code. SS 400. 403. 410. 18 Improper Legal Conclusion. Havman v. Block 19 (1986) 176 Cal.App.3rd 629, 638-639. 20 21. "Although this unsigned resolution Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code S 702. identified Longoria as the sole 21 director and officer of LCT, I would Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an not have been surprised or worried Exception. Evid. Code SS 1200.1271.1400- 22 had I seen this resolution in 1401,1520-1521. December 2014." 23 Secondary Evidence Rule. Evid. Code SS 1521. Somers Decl. ^ 14, p. 4:19-21 (emphasis in 1523. 24 original). Improper Speculation. Evid. Code. SS 400,403. 25 410. 26 27 28 8 DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION I 22. "At the point, I had not yet invested Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. 2 additional funds into LCT and thus would not have expected Longoria Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an 3 to have already fulfilled his promise Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400- to appoint me to Chin's board 1401,1520-1521. 4 spot" Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400,403, 5 Somers Decl. f 14, p. 4:21-23 (emphasis 410. added). 6 7 23. "That Longoria later grasped at this Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. resolution as proof that I had no 8 role in LCT, other than as only a Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an shareholder, demonstrates to me Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400- 9 that Longoria would say or do 1401,1520-1521. anything to get me to fund LCT, 10 and that he never intended to make Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400, 403, me a board director or truly share 410. 11 equal control of the company." 12 Secondary Evidence Rule. Evid. Code §§ 1521, Somers Decl. f 14, p. 4:23-26. 1523. 13 Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block 14 (1986) 176 CaI.App.3rd 629, 638-639. 15 24. " I now believe that Longoria Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. 16 intentionally refrained from amending the December 2014 Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an 17 resolution so that he could keep Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400- exclusive control over LCT." 1401,1520-1521. 18 Somers Decl. f 14, p. 4:23-26. Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400,403, 19 410; Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 440, 446 ("Affidavits which set forth only 20 conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are insufficient."). 21 Secondary Evidence Rule. Evid. Code §§ 1521, 22 1523. 23 Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block 24 (1986) 176 CaI.App.3rd 629, 638-639. 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 25. "In January 2015, and only because Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. 2 of Longoria's repeated representations and assurances, I Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an 3 instmcted Silva to proceed with the Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400- paperwork to fund LCT with 1401,1520-1521. Hayman v. Block{\9%6) 176 4 another $1,335 million investment CaI.App.3d 629, 638-639. fi-om my living tmst." 5 Somers Decl. ^ 15, p. 5:1-3 (emphasis 6 added). 7 26. "Taking over Chin's role and Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. 8 moving from shareholder to what Longoria referred to as his fiill Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an 9 'partner' would finally give me the Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400- type of directional control I 1401,1520-1521. 10 required before investing even more money in a company that had no Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400,403, 11 demonstrated history of success and 410; Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d that was failing to meet the key 440, 446 ("Affidavits which set forth only 12 milestones of its own business conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are plan." insufficient."). 13 Somers Decl. f 15, p. 5:3-6. Improper Legal Conclusion; Hayman v. Block 14 (1986) 176 CaI.App.3rd 629, 638-639. 15 27. "From my viewpoint, Longoria was Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. 16 distracted by his medical practice ^ and failing to tend to his duties as Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an 17 CEO and secretary of the Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400- company." 1401,1520-1521. 18 19 Somers Decl. f 16, p. 5:8-9. Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400,403, 410; Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 20 440, 446 ("Affidavits which set forth only conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are 21 insufficient."). 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10- DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION I 28. "At the end of 2015, even though I, Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. 2 through my living tmst, had already invested $3,335 million in less than Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an 3 two years' time, LCT was not close Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400- to making a profit and still in dire 1401,1520-1521. 4 need of additional cash." Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400, 403, 5 Somers Decl. f 16, p. 5:9-11. 410; Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 440, 446 ("Affidavits which set forth only 6 conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are insufficient."). 7 Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block 8 (1986) 176 Cal.App.3rd 629, 638-639. 9 Improper Expert Opinion. Evid. Code § 801. 10 29. "In late 2015, When [sic\ Longoria Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. II approached me for even more funding, he abandoned his earlier Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an 12 promise to allow me to ftmd the Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200, 1271,1400- company through the purchase of 1401,1520-1521. 13 additional equity." Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400,403, 14 Somers Decl. 117, p. 5:12-13. 410; Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 CaI.App.2d 440, 446 ("Affidavits which set forth only 15 conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are insufficient."). 16 17 30. "Instead, he now told me that he Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. wanted to remain a 50% owner of 18 the company so that the two of us Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an would remain co-equals of Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400- 19 company control." 1401,1520-1521. 20 Somers Decl. f 17, p. 5:14-15. Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400,403, 21 410; Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 CaI.App.2d 440,446 ("Affidavits which set forth only 22 conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are insufficient."). 23 Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block 24 (1986) 176 Cal.App.3rd 629, 638-639. 25 Improper Expert Opinion. Evid. Code § 801. 26 27 28 -II DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 31. "Longoria said that he did not want Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code S 702. 2 to "work for" me, he did not want to lose his 50% interest in LCT, and Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an 3 he wanted us to remain equals." Exception. Evid. Code SS 1200.1271.1400- 1401,1520-1521. 4 Somers Decl. f 17, p. 5:15-16. Improper Speculation. Evid. Code. SS 400. 403. 5 410; Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 CaI.App.2d 440,446 ("Affidavits which set forth only 6 conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are insufficient."). 7 Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block 8 (1986) 176 Cal.App.3rd 629, 638-639. 9 32. "Longoria thus urged me to agree to Contradicted by Prior Deposition Testimony. 10 provide any additional money in the D 'Amico V. Board ofMedical Examiners (1974) form of loans." 11 Cal.3d 1, 21. See, e.g., Somers Depo., pp. 11 127:6 -130:7. Somers Decl. f 17, p. 5:16-17. 12 Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code S 702. 13 Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an Exception. Evid. Code SS 1200.1271.1400- 14 1401,1520-1521. 15 Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3rd 629, 638-639. 16 17 33. "At that time, Longoria repeated his Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code S 702. promise that he and I would share 18 control and participate equally in all Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an decisions." Exception. Evid. Code 85 1200.1271. 1400- 19 1401,1520-1521. Somers Decl. % 17, p. 5:17-19. 20 Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 CaI.App.3rd 629, 638-639. 21 22 23 34. "In reliance on Longoria's Contradicted by Prior Deposition Testimony. assurances, and because Longoria's D'Amico V. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 24 prior promises had already caused 11 Cal.3d 1,21. See, e.g., Somers Depo., pp. me to invest $3,355 million, I 127:6 -130:7. 25 agreed to loan LCT significant sums of money." Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code S 702. 26 Somers Decl. f 18, p. 5:20-21. Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an 27 Exception. Evid. Code SS 1200.1271.1400- 1401,1520-1521. 28 12- DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION • I 35. "By the end of 2017, my living tmst Contradicted by Prior Deposition Testimony. 2 had loaned at least $3.5 million D 'Amico V. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) more in funds to LCT." 11 Cal.3d 1,21. See, e.g., Somers Depo., pp. 3 127:6 -130:7. Somers Decl. f 18, p. 5:21-22. 4 Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. 5 Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400- 6 1401,1520-1521. 7 Secondary Evidence Rule. Evid. Code §§ 1521, 1523. No valid loan documents are attached, 8 incorporated, or referenced. 9 Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block 10 (1986) 176 Cal.App.3rd 629, 638-639. 11 36. "Thus, in total, by the end of 2017, Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. 12 I had contributed nearly $7 million to LCT." Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an 13 Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400- Somers Decl. f 18, p. 5:22-23. 1401,1520-1521. 14 Secondary Evidence Rule. Evid. Code §§ 1521, 15 1523. No valid loan documents are attached, incorporated, or referenced. 16 17 37. "To keep the money flowing, Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. 18 Longoria would say whatever was necessary to make sure I believed I Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an 19 had equal control over LCT, Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400- including representing to third-party 1401,1520-1521. 20 individuals and entities like the FDA and Wells Fargo that I was Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400,403, 21 Longoria's 'partner' in LCT and 410. was an owner with equal control 22 over the entity." Secondary Evidence Rule. Evid. Code §§ 1521, 1523. 23 Somers Decl. f 19, p. 5:25-28. Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block 24 (1986) 176 Cal.App.3rd 629, 638-639. 25 Probative Value Is Substantially Outweighed by 26 the Probability That Admission of Evidence Will Create Substantial Danger of Undue Prejudice 27 or of Confusing the Issues. Evid. Code, § 352. 28 13- DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 38. "For example, in April 2016, Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. 2 Longoria cc'd me on an email and introduced me to an FDA Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an 3 consultant as his 'partner' in LCT.' Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200, 1271,1400- 1401,1520-1521. 4 Somers Decl. f 20, p. 6:1-3. Lacks Proper Custodian of Records. Evid. 5 Code § 1271(c). 6 Secondary Evidence Rule. Evid. Code §§ 1521, 1523. 7 8 Irrelevant Evidence. Evid. Code § 350. 9 Probative Value Is Substantially Outweighed by the Probability That Admission of Evidence Will 10 Create Substantial Danger of Undue Prejudice or of Confusing the Issues. Evid. Code, § 352. II 12 39. "As another example, in July 2016, Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. Among 13 Longoria sent me an email vsdth a other things, the witness does not state who PowerPoint presentation that was prepared the referenced PowerPoint 14 going to be given to the FDA for representation, or mode of preparation. what was known as a ' 51 OK 15 Presubmission.'" Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400- 16 Somers Decl. f 21, p. 6:4-6. 1401,1520-1521. 17 Insufficient Explanation of Mode of Preparation; Lacks Proper Custodian of 18 Records. Evid. Code § 1271(c). 19 Insufficient Explanation as to Reliability of Data. Evid. Code § 1271(d). 20 Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400,403, 21 410. 22 Irrelevant Evidence. Evid. Code § 350. 23 Probative Value Is Substantially Outweighed by the Probability That Admission of Evidence 24 Will Create Substantial Danger of Undue Prejudice or of Confusing the Issues. Evid. 25 Code, § 352. Incomplete hypothetical, as the witness does not state whetiier the referenced 26 PowerPoint was in fact given to the FDA or not. 27 28 14- DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 40. "In that PowerPoint presentation, I Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. 2 was identified as Longoria's 'partner' in LCT. A tme and correct Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an 3 copy of Longoria's July 15, 2016, Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400- email to me with the PowerPoint 1401,1520-1521. 4 presentation attached it attached hereto as Exhibit F." Insufficient Explanation of Mode of 5 Preparation; Lacks Proper Custodian of Somers Decl. % 21, p. 6:6-8 (emphasis in Records. Evid. Code § 1271(c). 6 original). Insufficient Explanation as to Reliability of 7 Data. Evid. Code § 1271(d). 8 Secondary Evidence Rule. Evid. Code §§ 1521, 1523. 9 10 Irrelevant Evidence. Evid. Code § 350. II Probative Value Is Substantially Outweighed by the Probability That Admission of Evidence Will 12 Create Substantial Danger of Undue Prejudice or of Confusing the Issues. Evid. Code, § 352. 13 14 41. "Furthermore, in [sic] September Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. Among 15 27, 2016,1 and Longoria both other things, the witness does not state who signed a Business Account prepared the referenced document. 16 Application for LCT with Wells Fargo." Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an 17 Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400- Somers Decl. % 22, p. 6:9-10. 1401,1520-1521. 18 Insufficient Explanation of Mode of 19 Preparation; Lacks Proper Custodian of Records. Evid. Code § 1271(c). 20 Insufficient Explanation as to Reliability of 21 Data. Evid. Code § 1271(d). 22 Secondary Evidence Rule. Evid. Code §§ 1521, 1523. 23 Irrelevant Evidence. Evid. Code § 350. 24 25 Probative Value Is Substantially Outweighed by the Probability That Admission of Evidence Will 26 Create Substantial Danger of Undue Prejudice or of Confusing the Issues. Evid. Code, § 352. 27 28 15- DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 42. "In that application, we were each Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. Among 2 identified as an 'Owner with other things, the witness does not identify who Control of the Entity.' A tme and prepared the referenced application. 3 correct copy of the business application is attached hereto as Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an 4 Exhibit G." Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400- 1401,1520-1521. 5 Somers Decl. f 22, p. 6:10-12 (emphasis in original). Insufficient Explanation of Mode of 6 Preparation; Lacks Proper Custodian of Records. Evid. Code § 1271(c). 7 Insufficient Explanation as to Reliability of 8 Data. Evid. Code § 1271(d). 9 Secondary Evidence Rule. Evid. Code §§ 1521, 1523. 10 Irrelevant Evidence. Evid. Code § 350. 11 Probative Value Is Substantially Outweighed 12 by the Probability That Admission of Evidence Will Create Substantial Danger of Undue 13 Prejudice or of Confusing the Issues. Evid. Code, § 352. 14 15 43. "Longoria also acted towards me in Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. a manner that confirmed to me that 16 I was in fact a board member with Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an shared control over the company." Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400- 17 1401, 1520-1521. Somers Decl. f 23, p. 6:13-14. 18 Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400, 403, 410. 19 Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block 20 (1986) 176 CaI.App.3rd 629,638-639. 21 44. "For instance, in the fall of 2016, Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. 22 Longoria and I discussed Longoria's busy schedule and the Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an 23 difficulty he was having driving Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400- back and forth to the Bay Area in 1401,1520-1521. 24 order to consult with the manufacturing entities with whom Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400, 403, 25 LCT had contracted." 410. 26 Somers Decl. f 23, p. 6:14-17 (emphasis Improper Legal Conclusion. Hayman v. Block 27 added). (1986) 176 CaI.App.3rd 629, 638-639. 28 -16 DEFENDANT DR. JAMES LONGORIA'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 45. "We jointly discussed altematives Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. 2 and mutually decided on creating LCT's own manufacturing facility Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an 3 in Sacramento." Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400- 1401,1520-1521. 4 Somers Decl. 123, p. 6:17-18. 5 46. "Both Longoria and I identified Lacks Foundation. Evid. Code § 702. 6 potential locations, ultimately and mutually agreeing that McClellan Inadmissible Hearsay Not Falling Within an 7 Park was the most economical and Exception. Evid. Code §§ 1200,1271,1400- advantageous location." 1401,1520-1521. 8 Somers Decl. f 23, p. 6:18-20. Improper Speculation. Evid. Code, §§ 400, 403, 9