Preview
JUSTIN PENN (SBN CA
jpenn@hinshawlaw.com
SARA E. FRANKS (SBN 345940)
sfranks@hinshawlaw.com
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3402
Telephone: 213-680-2800
Facsimile: 213-614-7399
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Velocity
Investments, LLC and Cross-Defendant Velocity Portfolio
Group, Inc.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC Case No. 16CV300096
Plaintiff Assigned to: Dept. 19, The Honorable
Theodore C. Zayner
vs.
CROSS DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY
MARIA CANUL, OBJECTIONS SUPPORT OF
CROSS DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN
Defendant SUPPORT OF CROSS DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AS TO CROSS COMPLAINANT MARIA
CANUL’S FIRST AMENDED CLASS
ACTION CROSS COMPLAINT
MARIA CANUL
ReplyBrief , Declaration of Justin M. Penn,
Cross-Complainant, and Request for Judicial Notice filed
concurrently herewith)
vs.
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, a New
Jersey limited liability company; VELOCITY Date: October 25, 2023
PORTFOLIO GROUP, INC., a Delaware Time: 1:30 p.m.
corporation; and ROES 2 through 10, inclusive, Dept.: 19
Cross Defendants.
Complaint Filed: September 20, 2016
Cross-Complaint Filed: February 19, 2019
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
350 South Grand Ave., Suite CROSS DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
Los Angeles, CA 90071
2800 1045141 314975744.v1
Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1354, Cross Defendants Velocity Investments, LLC
and Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. (collectively, the “Cross Defendants”) hereby submit the
following Written Objections to Evidence in support of Cross Defendants’ Reply in Support of
Cross Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Cross Complainant Maria Canul’s
(“Canul” or “Cross Complainant”) First Amended Class Action Cross Complaint:
Objections to Declaration of Maria Antonia Canul
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on the Objection:
1. Declaration of Maria Antonia Canul has repeatedly refused to Sustained: ______
Canul (“Canul Decl.”), ¶ 13: “In provide any evidence of actual Overruled: ______
fact, I have paid my attorneys at damages including an explicit
Consumer Law Center, Inc., refusal to produce her retainer
$1,737.47 todefend me from the agreement pursuant to written
Complaint for Money filed discovery. Canul’s counsel,
against me by VELOCITY.” while invoking attorney client
privilege, even directed her not
to answerquestions at
deposition regarding whether
she has incurred attorneys’ fees.
See Cross Defendants’
Compendium of Documentary
Evidence in Support of Cross
Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment, Exhibits
D, E & F; Declaration of Justin
M. Penn, ¶¶ 4 5, Exhibits A &
B.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 CROSS DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
Los Angeles, CA 90071
2800 1045141 314975744.v1
Cross Defendants object to the
inclusion of this evidence now
for the first time in opposition
when Canul had the information
throughout the pendency of the
litigation and refused to produce
it or permit any discovery into
the matter. This evidence should
not be permitted when Cross
Defendants have not had the
opportunity to investigate,
explore, or cross examine Canul
concerning this evidence. See
Deeter v. Angus, 179 Cal. App.
55 (1986) (not
permitting the use of a tape as
evidence when the party
intending to use the tape failed
to produce the evidence in the
initially requested production of
documents, continued to
conceal its existence and thus
willfully withheld the
evidence).
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 CROSS DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
Los Angeles, CA 90071
2800 1045141 314975744.v1
Date:
Hon. Theodore C. Zayner
2. Canul Decl., Exhibit A. Canul has repeatedly refused to Sustained: ______
provide any evidence of actual Overruled: ______
damages including an explicit
refusal to produce her retainer
agreement pursuant to written
discovery. Canul’s counsel,
while invoking attorney-client
privilege, even directed her not
to answer questions at
deposition regarding whether
she has incurred attorneys’ fees.
See Cross Defendants’
Compendium of Documentary
Evidence in Support of Cross-
Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment, Exhibits
D, E & F; Declaration of Justin
M. Penn, ¶¶ 4-5, Exhibits A &
B.
Cross Defendants object to the
inclusion of this evidence now
for the first time in opposition
when Canul had the information
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 CROSS DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
Los Angeles, CA 90071
2800 1045141 314975744.v1
throughout the pendency of the
litigation and refused to produce
it or permit any discovery into
the matter. This evidence should
not be permitted when Cross-
Defendants have not had the
opportunity to investigate,
explore, or cross-examine Canul
concerning this evidence. See
Deeter v. Angus, 179 Cal. App.
3d 241, 254-55 (1986) (not
permitting the use of a tape as
evidence when the party
intending to use the tape failed
to produce the evidence in the
initially requested production of
documents, continued to
conceal its existence and thus
willfully withheld the
evidence).
Date:
Hon. Theodore C. Zayner
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 CROSS DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
Los Angeles, CA 90071
2800 1045141 314975744.v1
DATED: October 11, 2023 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
By: /s/ Justin M. Penn
Justin M. Penn
Sara E. Franks
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross Defendant
Velocity Investments, LLC and Cross
Defendant Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc.
CROSS DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON 1045141 314975744.v1
350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
2800
Preview
JUSTIN PENN (SBN CA jpenn@hinshawlaw.com SARA E. FRANKS (SBN 345940) sfranks@hinshawlaw.com HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3402 Telephone: 213-680-2800 Facsimile: 213-614-7399 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Velocity Investments, LLC and Cross-Defendant Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC Case No. 16CV300096 Plaintiff Assigned to: Dept. 19, The Honorable Theodore C. Zayner vs. CROSS DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY MARIA CANUL, OBJECTIONS SUPPORT OF CROSS DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN Defendant SUPPORT OF CROSS DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO CROSS COMPLAINANT MARIA CANUL’S FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION CROSS COMPLAINT MARIA CANUL ReplyBrief , Declaration of Justin M. Penn, Cross-Complainant, and Request for Judicial Notice filed concurrently herewith) vs. VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company; VELOCITY Date: October 25, 2023 PORTFOLIO GROUP, INC., a Delaware Time: 1:30 p.m. corporation; and ROES 2 through 10, inclusive, Dept.: 19 Cross Defendants. Complaint Filed: September 20, 2016 Cross-Complaint Filed: February 19, 2019 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON 350 South Grand Ave., Suite CROSS DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS Los Angeles, CA 90071 2800 1045141 314975744.v1 Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1354, Cross Defendants Velocity Investments, LLC and Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. (collectively, the “Cross Defendants”) hereby submit the following Written Objections to Evidence in support of Cross Defendants’ Reply in Support of Cross Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Cross Complainant Maria Canul’s (“Canul” or “Cross Complainant”) First Amended Class Action Cross Complaint: Objections to Declaration of Maria Antonia Canul Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on the Objection: 1. Declaration of Maria Antonia Canul has repeatedly refused to Sustained: ______ Canul (“Canul Decl.”), ¶ 13: “In provide any evidence of actual Overruled: ______ fact, I have paid my attorneys at damages including an explicit Consumer Law Center, Inc., refusal to produce her retainer $1,737.47 todefend me from the agreement pursuant to written Complaint for Money filed discovery. Canul’s counsel, against me by VELOCITY.” while invoking attorney client privilege, even directed her not to answerquestions at deposition regarding whether she has incurred attorneys’ fees. See Cross Defendants’ Compendium of Documentary Evidence in Support of Cross Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibits D, E & F; Declaration of Justin M. Penn, ¶¶ 4 5, Exhibits A & B. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON 350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 CROSS DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS Los Angeles, CA 90071 2800 1045141 314975744.v1 Cross Defendants object to the inclusion of this evidence now for the first time in opposition when Canul had the information throughout the pendency of the litigation and refused to produce it or permit any discovery into the matter. This evidence should not be permitted when Cross Defendants have not had the opportunity to investigate, explore, or cross examine Canul concerning this evidence. See Deeter v. Angus, 179 Cal. App. 55 (1986) (not permitting the use of a tape as evidence when the party intending to use the tape failed to produce the evidence in the initially requested production of documents, continued to conceal its existence and thus willfully withheld the evidence). HINSHAW & CULBERTSON 350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 CROSS DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS Los Angeles, CA 90071 2800 1045141 314975744.v1 Date: Hon. Theodore C. Zayner 2. Canul Decl., Exhibit A. Canul has repeatedly refused to Sustained: ______ provide any evidence of actual Overruled: ______ damages including an explicit refusal to produce her retainer agreement pursuant to written discovery. Canul’s counsel, while invoking attorney-client privilege, even directed her not to answer questions at deposition regarding whether she has incurred attorneys’ fees. See Cross Defendants’ Compendium of Documentary Evidence in Support of Cross- Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibits D, E & F; Declaration of Justin M. Penn, ¶¶ 4-5, Exhibits A & B. Cross Defendants object to the inclusion of this evidence now for the first time in opposition when Canul had the information HINSHAW & CULBERTSON 350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 CROSS DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS Los Angeles, CA 90071 2800 1045141 314975744.v1 throughout the pendency of the litigation and refused to produce it or permit any discovery into the matter. This evidence should not be permitted when Cross- Defendants have not had the opportunity to investigate, explore, or cross-examine Canul concerning this evidence. See Deeter v. Angus, 179 Cal. App. 3d 241, 254-55 (1986) (not permitting the use of a tape as evidence when the party intending to use the tape failed to produce the evidence in the initially requested production of documents, continued to conceal its existence and thus willfully withheld the evidence). Date: Hon. Theodore C. Zayner HINSHAW & CULBERTSON 350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 CROSS DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS Los Angeles, CA 90071 2800 1045141 314975744.v1 DATED: October 11, 2023 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP By: /s/ Justin M. Penn Justin M. Penn Sara E. Franks Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Velocity Investments, LLC and Cross Defendant Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. CROSS DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS HINSHAW & CULBERTSON 1045141 314975744.v1 350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 2800