Preview
1 Stacy M. Tucker (SBN 218942)
smtucker@mtlawpc.com
2 MONAHAN TUCKER LAW, PC
14241 NE Woodinville-Duvall Road
3
Suite 382
4 Woodinville, WA 98072
T: (206) 486-3553
5 F: (206) 339-7155
6 Glenn R. Kantor (SBN 122643)
gkantor@kantorlaw.net
7
KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
8 19839 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, CA 91324
9 T: (818) 886-2525
F: (818) 350-6272
10
11 Attorneys for Plaintiff Gary Koop
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14241 NE Woodinville-Duvall Road, Suite 382
13 COUNTY OF SONOMA
MONAHAN TUCKER LAW, P.C.
Woodinville, WA 98072
14
(866) 823-8275
GARY KOOP, Case No.: SCV-266944
15 Plaintiff, [Honorable Oscar Pardo – Dept. 19]
16 v.
PLAINTIFF GARY KOOP’S
17 OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, dba
18 FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP; BRIAN SUBMITTED WITH SUPPLEMENTAL
HUNSAKER, STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO
19 DEFENDANT FIE’S MOTION FOR
Defendants.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR
20 ADJUDICATION
21
22
23 Action Filed: August 24, 2020
Trial Date: November 17, 2023
24
25
26
27
28
1
PLAINTIFF GARY KOOP’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF
FARMERS’ SUPPLEMENT STATEMENT
1 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 3.1352 and 3.1354, Plaintiff Gary Koop
2 (“Plaintiff”) hereby submit its objections to the evidence submitted by Defendant Fire Insurance
3 Exchange(“Farmers” or “Defendant”) in its Supplemental Statement of Disputed Facts in opposition
4 to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgement or, alternatively, summary adjudication:
5
6 I. DECLARATION OF JOHN MACHIN, JR.
7 A. STATEMENT:
8 The entire declaration is inadmissible.
9
OBJECTIONS:
10
(a) Defendant was served with an expert disclosure demand on December 14,
11 2022. (See August 25, 2023 Declaration of Stacy Monahan Tucker, Ex. 1.)
Defendant has never responded to that demand. (Id. ¶ 3.) Pursuant to California law,
12 no expert witness may provide testimony to support a motion for summary judgment
14241 NE Woodinville-Duvall Road, Suite 382
if not disclosed after receipt of a demand to disclose expert witnesses and testimony.
13
MONAHAN TUCKER LAW, P.C.
(C.C.P. § 2034(j)(1); Cal. Code Civ. Proc §437(c); Perry v. Bakewell Hawthorne,
Woodinville, WA 98072
14 LLC, 2 Cal. 5th 536, 541 (2017)
(866) 823-8275
15
16 COURTS RULING: SUSTAINED:
17 OVERRULED:
18
19 B. STATEMENT:
20
Paragraph 3: In the course of this litigation, I have visited the property that was built after
21 the fire and reviewed evidence concerning the pre-existing structure and property characteristics.
22
OBJECTIONS:
23
(a) The assertion lacks foundation. No such alleged “evidence” was cited or
24 attached to Mr. Machin’s declaration. (Evd. Code § 403.)
25
26
COURTS RULING: SUSTAINED:
27
OVERRULED:
28
2
PLAINTIFF GARY KOOP’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF
FARMERS’ SUPPLEMENT STATEMENT
1 C. STATEMENT:
2 Paragraph 3: It is my opinion that the alleged total amount of $3,378,568.10 that Plaintiff
claims is required to rebuild Plaintiff’s property after the subject fire is substantially in excess of
3 what would be required to rebuild a house of the same size, with same characteristics and in the
4 same location on Koop’s property. See Koop Decl.¶ 13, Exhibit A.
5
OBJECTIONS:
6
(a) Where Mr. Machin fails to cite any evidence whatsoever to support his
7 opinion, his statement constitutes improper opinion testimony. (Cal. Evid. Code §§
720, 800-803; Greshko v. County of Los Angeles, 194 Cal. App. 3d 822, 834 (1987)
8 ("Affidavits or declarations setting forth only conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts
9 are held insufficient; even an expert's opinion cannot rise to the dignity of substantial
evidence if it is unsubstantiated by facts"); Reida v. Lund, 18 Cal. App. 3d 698, 702
10 (1971) (finding diagnosis and conclusions arrived at from depositions, newspaper
reports, and a distrust for the other side's contrary declarations "lacks even a
11 modicum of evidentiary value, for it amounts to no more than the psychologist's
personal and unsupported expression of disbelief in the testimony of another").)
12
14241 NE Woodinville-Duvall Road, Suite 382
13 (b) Where Mr. Machin fails to cite any evidence whatsoever to support his
MONAHAN TUCKER LAW, P.C.
opinion, his statement constitutes inadmissible speculation and conclusions (Cal.
Woodinville, WA 98072
14 Evid. Code §§ 400, 403, 410; Los Angeles County Office of the Dist. Attorney v. Civil
(866) 823-8275
Serv. Comm'n of County of Los Angeles, 55 Cal. App. 4th 187, 201-202 (1997)
15 ("Rather than offer evidence showing [the fact sought to be proved, the party] merely
insinuated [motives for the fact.] Such testimony is mere speculation not supported
16 by any evidence"); Trujillo v. First Am. Registry, Inc., 157 Cal. App. 4th 628, 635
17 (2008) ("opposition to summary judgment will be deemed insufficient when it is
essentially conclusionary, argumentative or based on conjecture and speculation").)
18
COURTS RULING: SUSTAINED:
19
OVERRULED:
20
21
D. STATEMENT:
22
The changes to the location of the house on the lot, the changes to the size and design of the
23
house, and the changes to the attributes of the new home were very different from the previous
24 structure in place and necessitated additional construction expense.
25
OBJECTIONS:
26
(a) Mr. Machin’s statement lacks foundation (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 702(a), 800.)
27
(b)
Where Mr. Machin fails to cite any evidence whatsoever to support his
28
opinion, his statement constitutes improper opinion testimony. (Cal. Evid.
Code §§ 720, 800-803; Greshko v. County of Los Angeles, 194 Cal. App. 3d
3
PLAINTIFF GARY KOOP’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF
FARMERS’ SUPPLEMENT STATEMENT
1 822, 834 (1987) ("Affidavits or declarations setting forth only conclusions,
opinions or ultimate facts are held insufficient; even an expert's opinion
2 cannot rise to the dignity of substantial evidence if it is unsubstantiated by
facts"); Reida v. Lund, 18 Cal. App. 3d 698, 702 (1971) (finding
3
diagnosis and conclusions arrived at from depositions, newspaper reports,
4 and a distrust for the other side's contrary declarations "lacks even a modicum
of evidentiary value, for it amounts to no more than the psychologist's
5 personal and unsupported expression of disbelief in the testimony of
another").)
6
(c) Where Mr. Machin fails to cite any evidence whatsoever to support his
7 opinion, his statement constitutes inadmissible speculation and conclusions
8 (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 400, 403, 410; Los Angeles County Office of the Dist.
Attorney v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of County of Los Angeles, 55 Cal. App. 4th
9 187, 201-202 (1997) ("Rather than offer evidence showing [the fact sought
to be proved, the party] merely insinuated [motives for the fact.] Such
10 testimony is mere speculation not supported by any evidence"); Trujillo v.
First Am. Registry, Inc., 157 Cal. App. 4th 628, 635 (2008) ("opposition to
11
summary judgment will be deemed insufficient when it is essentially
12 conclusionary, argumentative or based on conjecture and speculation").)
14241 NE Woodinville-Duvall Road, Suite 382
13 (d) Mr. Machin testified in his declaration that he did not visit the site of the
MONAHAN TUCKER LAW, P.C.
property until after the fire, when the original home was destroyed. Therefore, this
Woodinville, WA 98072
14 statement, which provides no support for his claims of changes to the location and
(866) 823-8275
design of the home at issue, a home that was destroyed by fire before this lawsuit
15 began and before his visit to the site, constitutes inadmissible hearsay. (Cal. Evid.
16 Code §§1200.)
17
18 COURTS RULING: SUSTAINED:
19 OVERRULED:
20
21 E. STATEMENT:
22 Paragraph 3: Notably, the placement of the new construction on a slope on a different
23 location on the property increased the construction expense for the foundations, utilities,
infrastructure, landscaping, erosion control and other related expenses that would have otherwise
24 been avoided.
25 OBJECTIONS:
26 (a) Mr. Machin’s statement lacks foundation (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 702(a), 800.)
27
(b) Where Mr. Machin fails to cite any evidence whatsoever to support his
28 opinion, his statement constitutes improper opinion testimony. (Cal. Evid.
Code §§ 720, 800-803; Greshko v. County of Los Angeles, 194 Cal. App. 3d
4
PLAINTIFF GARY KOOP’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF
FARMERS’ SUPPLEMENT STATEMENT
1 822, 834 (1987) ("Affidavits or declarations setting forth only conclusions,
opinions or ultimate facts are held insufficient; even an expert's opinion
2 cannot rise to the dignity of substantial evidence if it is unsubstantiated by
facts"); Reida v. Lund, 18 Cal. App. 3d 698, 702 (1971) (finding
3
diagnosis and conclusions arrived at from depositions, newspaper reports,
4 and a distrust for the other side's contrary declarations "lacks even a modicum
of evidentiary value, for it amounts to no more than the psychologist's
5 personal and unsupported expression of disbelief in the testimony of
another").)
6
(c) Where Mr. Machin fails to cite any evidence whatsoever to support his
7 opinion, his statement constitutes inadmissible speculation and conclusions
8 (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 400, 403, 410; Los Angeles County Office of the Dist.
Attorney v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of County of Los Angeles, 55 Cal. App. 4th
9 187, 201-202 (1997) ("Rather than offer evidence showing [the fact sought
to be proved, the party] merely insinuated [motives for the fact.] Such
10 testimony is mere speculation not supported by any evidence"); Trujillo v.
First Am. Registry, Inc., 157 Cal. App. 4th 628, 635 (2008) ("opposition to
11
summary judgment will be deemed insufficient when it is essentially
12 conclusionary, argumentative or based on conjecture and speculation").)
14241 NE Woodinville-Duvall Road, Suite 382
13 (d) Mr. Machin testified in his declaration that he did not visit the site of the
MONAHAN TUCKER LAW, P.C.
property until after the fire, when the original home was destroyed. Therefore, this
Woodinville, WA 98072
14 statement, which provides no support for his claims of changes to the location and
(866) 823-8275
design of the home at issue, a home that was destroyed by fire before this lawsuit
15 began, constitutes inadmissible hearsay. (Cal. Evid. Code §§1200.)
16
COURTS RULING: SUSTAINED:
17
OVERRULED:
18
F. STATEMENT:
19
Paragraph 3: Accordingly, the amount of total construction costs Plaintiff contends as costs
20 to rebuild the home in his declaration is inaccurate as a reflection of what costs would have been
required to rebuild the Subject Property which Plaintiff lost in the wildfire.
21
22 OBJECTIONS:
23 (a) Mr. Machin’s statement lacks foundation (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 702(a), 800.)
24 (b) Where Mr. Machin fails to cite any evidence whatsoever to support his
opinion, his statement constitutes improper opinion testimony. (Cal. Evid.
25 Code §§ 720, 800-803; Greshko v. County of Los Angeles, 194 Cal. App. 3d
822, 834 (1987) ("Affidavits or declarations setting forth only conclusions,
26
opinions or ultimate facts are held insufficient; even an expert's opinion
27 cannot rise to the dignity of substantial evidence if it is unsubstantiated by
facts"); Reida v. Lund, 18 Cal. App. 3d 698, 702 (1971) (finding
28 diagnosis and conclusions arrived at from depositions, newspaper reports,
and a distrust for the other side's contrary declarations "lacks even a modicum
5
PLAINTIFF GARY KOOP’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF
FARMERS’ SUPPLEMENT STATEMENT
1 of evidentiary value, for it amounts to no more than the psychologist's
personal and unsupported expression of disbelief in the testimony of
2 another").)
3 (c) Where Mr. Machin fails to cite any evidence whatsoever to support his
4 opinion, his statement constitutes inadmissible speculation and conclusions
(Cal. Evid. Code §§ 400, 403, 410; Los Angeles County Office of the Dist.
5 Attorney v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of County of Los Angeles, 55 Cal. App. 4th
187, 201-202 (1997) ("Rather than offer evidence showing [the fact sought
6 to be proved, the party] merely insinuated [motives for the fact.] Such
testimony is mere speculation not supported by any evidence"); Trujillo v.
7 First Am. Registry, Inc., 157 Cal. App. 4th 628, 635 (2008) ("opposition to
8 summary judgment will be deemed insufficient when it is essentially
conclusionary, argumentative or based on conjecture and speculation").)
9
COURTS RULING: SUSTAINED:
10
OVERRULED:
11
12
14241 NE Woodinville-Duvall Road, Suite 382
II. SEPTEMBER 2023 DECLARATION OF BRIAN HUNSAKER
13
MONAHAN TUCKER LAW, P.C.
Woodinville, WA 98072
14 A. STATEMENT:
(866) 823-8275
15 Paragraph 4: I never made any misrepresentation to Mr. Koop regarding the Policy in
question.
16
OBJECTIONS:
17
(a) Contradicts prior sworn deposition that he failed to correctly insure Plaintiff’s
18 Property. D'Amico v. Board of Med. Examiners, 11 Cal. 3d 1, 21-22 (1974) bars
testimony that contradicts a prior sworn admission made during discovery. See also
19
Archdale v. American Internat. Specialty Ins. Co., 154 Cal.App.4th 449, 473
20 (2007)("Where a party's self-serving declarations contradict credible discovery
admissions and purport to impeach that party's own prior sworn testimony, they
21 should be disregarded"); Thompson v. Williams (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 566, 259
Cal.Rptr. 518. ( “... assertion of facts contrary to prior testimony does not constitute
22 ‘ “substantive evidence of the existence of a triable issue of fact.””); Collins v. Hertz
Corp., 144 Cal.App.4th 64, 75 n. 5, 79 (a declaration contradicting deposition
23
testimony is insufficient to defeat summary judgment when objection to evidence
24 raised); Chaknova v. Wilbur-Ellis Co., 69 Cal. App. 4th 962, 977, 81 Cal. Rptr. 2d
871, 881 (1999) (a inability to recall does not create a disputed fact sufficient for
25 summary judgment); Gabriel v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 188 Cal. App. 4th 547, 555,
115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 622, 628 (2010) (same); Daddario v. Snow Valley, Inc., 36 Cal.
26 App. 4th 1325, 1340, 43 Cal. Rptr. 2d 726, 734 (1995) (where plaintiff testified that
27 she could not recall and then submitted a declaration refuting that testimony, the
declaration was a sham and did not create a disputed material fact); Trovato v.
28 Beckman Coulter, Inc., 192 Cal. App. 4th 319, 324, 121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 330, 334 (2011)
(same.).
6
PLAINTIFF GARY KOOP’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF
FARMERS’ SUPPLEMENT STATEMENT
1 COURTS RULING: SUSTAINED:
2 OVERRULED:
3
4 B. STATEMENT:
5
Paragraph 12: In my opinion, the Subject Property is a nice quality home, but it is not a high-
6 end custom or premium home in the area.
7 OBJECTIONS:
8 (a) Opinion testimony without evidence is not admissible as factual evidence.
Wells Truckways v. Cebrian, 122 Cal. App. 2d 666, 673, 265 P.2d 557, 562 (1954).
9 (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720, 800-803; Greshko v. County of Los Angeles, 194 Cal. App.
3d 822, 834 (1987) ("Affidavits or declarations setting forth only conclusions,
10
opinions or ultimate facts are held insufficient; even an expert's opinion cannot rise
11 to the dignity of substantial evidence if it is unsubstantiated by facts"); Reida v. Lund,
18 Cal. App. 3d 698, 702 (1971) (finding diagnosis and conclusions arrived at from
12 depositions, newspaper reports, and a distrust for the other side's contrary
14241 NE Woodinville-Duvall Road, Suite 382
declarations "lacks even a modicum of evidentiary value, for it amounts to no more
13
MONAHAN TUCKER LAW, P.C.
than the psychologist's personal and unsupported expression of disbelief in the
Woodinville, WA 98072
14 testimony of another").)
(866) 823-8275
15 (b) Where Mr. Hunsaker fails to cite any evidence whatsoever to support his
opinion, his statement constitutes inadmissible speculation and conclusions (Cal.
16 Evid. Code §§ 400, 403, 410; Los Angeles County Office of the Dist. Attorney v. Civil
Serv. Comm'n of County of Los Angeles, 55 Cal. App. 4th 187, 201-202 (1997)
17 ("Rather than offer evidence showing [the fact sought to be proved, the party] merely
insinuated [motives for the fact.] Such testimony is mere speculation not supported
18
by any evidence"); Trujillo v. First Am. Registry, Inc., 157 Cal. App. 4th 628, 635
19 (2008) ("opposition to summary judgment will be deemed insufficient when it is
essentially conclusionary, argumentative or based on conjecture and speculation").)
20
(c) The statement lacks foundation. Hunsaker testified that he has never been
21 inside the Property and thus cannot know if it is a “high-end custom or premium home in
the area.” Cal. Evid. Code § 702(a) (["T]the testimony of a witness concerning a particular
22 matter is inadmissible unless he has personal knowledge of the matter.”
23
(d) Contradicts prior sworn deposition testimony that per Farmers policies and
24 procedures, Plaintiff’s Property should have been insured as at least “custom.” D'Amico v.
Board of Med. Examiners, 11 Cal. 3d 1, 21-22 (1974) bars testimony that contradicts a prior
25 sworn admission made during discovery. See also Archdale v. American Internat. Specialty
Ins. Co., 154 Cal.App.4th 449, 473 (2007)("Where a party's self-serving declarations
26 contradict credible discovery admissions and purport to impeach that party's own prior sworn
27 testimony, they should be disregarded"); Thompson v. Williams (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 566,
259 Cal.Rptr. 518. ( “... assertion of facts contrary to prior testimony does not constitute ‘
28 “substantive evidence of the existence of a triable issue of fact.””); Collins v. Hertz Corp.,
144 Cal.App.4th 64, 75 n. 5, 79 (a declaration contradicting deposition testimony is
7
PLAINTIFF GARY KOOP’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF
FARMERS’ SUPPLEMENT STATEMENT
1 insufficient to defeat summary judgment when objection to evidence raised); Chaknova v.
Wilbur-Ellis Co., 69 Cal. App. 4th 962, 977, 81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 871, 881 (1999) (an inability
2 to recall does not create a disputed fact sufficient for summary judgment); Gabriel v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., 188 Cal. App. 4th 547, 555, 115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 622, 628 (2010) (same);
3
Daddario v. Snow Valley, Inc., 36 Cal. App. 4th 1325, 1340, 43 Cal. Rptr. 2d 726, 734 (1995)
4 (where plaintiff testified that she could not recall and then submitted a declaration refuting
that testimony, the declaration was a sham and did not create a disputed material fact);
5 Trovato v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 192 Cal. App. 4th 319, 324, 121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 330, 334
(2011) (same.).
6
COURTS RULING: SUSTAINED:
7
OVERRULED:
8
9
10 C. STATEMENT:
11 Paragraph 16: Fire never required me to perform an interior inspection of the Property. Fire
did not instruct me to offer Mr. Koop a discount for agreeing to an interior inspection of the
12 Property. Fire only required an exterior visual inspection of the Property.
14241 NE Woodinville-Duvall Road, Suite 382
13
MONAHAN TUCKER LAW, P.C.
OBJECTIONS:
Woodinville, WA 98072
14
(866) 823-8275
(a) The statement violates the Best Evidence Rule by providing secondary oral
15 testimony regarding the contents of a writing. Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1520-23.
16 (b) To the extent the statement refers to instructions from Farmers, the statement
is hearsay. Cal. Evid. Code §1200(a).
17
(c) Contradicts prior sworn deposition testimony that per Farmers policies and
18 procedures, Plaintiff’s Property should have been insured as at least “custom.” D'Amico v.
Board of Med. Examiners, 11 Cal. 3d 1, 21-22 (1974) bars testimony that contradicts a prior
19
sworn admission made during discovery. See also Archdale v. American Internat. Specialty
20 Ins. Co., 154 Cal.App.4th 449, 473 (2007)("Where a party's self-serving declarations
contradict credible discovery admissions and purport to impeach that party's own prior sworn
21 testimony, they should be disregarded"); Thompson v. Williams (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 566,
259 Cal.Rptr. 518. ( “... assertion of facts contrary to prior testimony does not constitute ‘
22 “substantive evidence of the existence of a triable issue of fact.””); Collins v. Hertz Corp.,
144 Cal.App.4th 64, 75 n. 5, 79 (a declaration contradicting deposition testimony is
23
insufficient to defeat summary judgment when objection to evidence raised); Chaknova v.
24 Wilbur-Ellis Co., 69 Cal. App. 4th 962, 977, 81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 871, 881 (1999) (an inability
to recall does not create a disputed fact sufficient for summary judgment); Gabriel v. Wells
25 Fargo Bank, N.A., 188 Cal. App. 4th 547, 555, 115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 622, 628 (2010) (same);
Daddario v. Snow Valley, Inc., 36 Cal. App. 4th 1325, 1340, 43 Cal. Rptr. 2d 726, 734 (1995)
26 (where plaintiff testified that she could not recall and then submitted a declaration refuting
27 that testimony, the declaration was a sham and did not create a disputed material fact);
Trovato v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 192 Cal. App. 4th 319, 324, 121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 330, 334
28 (2011) (same.).
8
PLAINTIFF GARY KOOP’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF
FARMERS’ SUPPLEMENT STATEMENT
1 COURTS RULING: SUSTAINED:
2 OVERRULED:
3
4 D. STATEMENT:
5
Paragraph 17: It is the insured’s duty to select the appropriate amount of coverage and
6 determine whether his insurance policy meets his own needs at the time.
7 OBJECTIONS:
8 (a) The statement violates the Best Evidence Rule by providing secondary oral
testimony regarding the contents of a writing. Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1520-23.
9
(b) The statement lacks foundation. Hunsaker provides no basis for any personal
10 knowledge of this statement. Cal. Evid. Code § 702(a) (["T]the testimony of a witness
11 concerning a particular matter is inadmissible unless he has personal knowledge of the
matter.”)
12
14241 NE Woodinville-Duvall Road, Suite 382
(c) Opinion testimony without evidence is not admissible as factual evidence.
13
MONAHAN TUCKER LAW, P.C.
Wells Truckways v. Cebrian, 122 Cal. App. 2d 666, 673, 265 P.2d 557, 562 (1954).
Woodinville, WA 98072
(Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720, 800-803; Greshko v. County of Los Angeles, 194 Cal. App.
14
(866) 823-8275
3d 822, 834 (1987) ("Affidavits or declarations setting forth only conclusions,
15 opinions or ultimate facts are held insufficient; even an expert's opinion cannot rise
to the dignity of substantial evidence if it is unsubstantiated by facts"); Reida v. Lund,
16 18 Cal. App. 3d 698, 702 (1971) (finding diagnosis and conclusions arrived at from
depositions, newspaper reports, and a distrust for the other side's contrary
17 declarations "lacks even a modicum of evidentiary value, for it amounts to no more
than the psychologist's personal and unsupported expression of disbelief in the
18 testimony of another").)
19
(d) Where Mr. Hunsaker fails to cite any evidence whatsoever to support his
20 opinion, his statement constitutes inadmissible speculation and conclusions (Cal.
Evid. Code §§ 400, 403, 410; Los Angeles County Office of the Dist. Attorney v. Civil
21 Serv. Comm'n of County of Los Angeles, 55 Cal. App. 4th 187, 201-202 (1997)
("Rather than offer evidence showing [the fact sought to be proved, the party] merely
22 insinuated [motives for the fact.] Such testimony is mere speculation not supported
by any evidence"); Trujillo v. First Am. Registry, Inc., 157 Cal. App. 4th 628, 635
23
(2008) ("opposition to summary judgment will be deemed insufficient when it is
24 essentially conclusionary, argumentative or based on conjecture and speculation").)
Preview
1 Stacy M. Tucker (SBN 218942) smtucker@mtlawpc.com 2 MONAHAN TUCKER LAW, PC 14241 NE Woodinville-Duvall Road 3 Suite 382 4 Woodinville, WA 98072 T: (206) 486-3553 5 F: (206) 339-7155 6 Glenn R. Kantor (SBN 122643) gkantor@kantorlaw.net 7 KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP 8 19839 Nordhoff Street Northridge, CA 91324 9 T: (818) 886-2525 F: (818) 350-6272 10 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff Gary Koop 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14241 NE Woodinville-Duvall Road, Suite 382 13 COUNTY OF SONOMA MONAHAN TUCKER LAW, P.C. Woodinville, WA 98072 14 (866) 823-8275 GARY KOOP, Case No.: SCV-266944 15 Plaintiff, [Honorable Oscar Pardo – Dept. 19] 16 v. PLAINTIFF GARY KOOP’S 17 OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, dba 18 FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP; BRIAN SUBMITTED WITH SUPPLEMENTAL HUNSAKER, STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO 19 DEFENDANT FIE’S MOTION FOR Defendants. SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR 20 ADJUDICATION 21 22 23 Action Filed: August 24, 2020 Trial Date: November 17, 2023 24 25 26 27 28 1 PLAINTIFF GARY KOOP’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF FARMERS’ SUPPLEMENT STATEMENT 1 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 3.1352 and 3.1354, Plaintiff Gary Koop 2 (“Plaintiff”) hereby submit its objections to the evidence submitted by Defendant Fire Insurance 3 Exchange(“Farmers” or “Defendant”) in its Supplemental Statement of Disputed Facts in opposition 4 to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgement or, alternatively, summary adjudication: 5 6 I. DECLARATION OF JOHN MACHIN, JR. 7 A. STATEMENT: 8 The entire declaration is inadmissible. 9 OBJECTIONS: 10 (a) Defendant was served with an expert disclosure demand on December 14, 11 2022. (See August 25, 2023 Declaration of Stacy Monahan Tucker, Ex. 1.) Defendant has never responded to that demand. (Id. ¶ 3.) Pursuant to California law, 12 no expert witness may provide testimony to support a motion for summary judgment 14241 NE Woodinville-Duvall Road, Suite 382 if not disclosed after receipt of a demand to disclose expert witnesses and testimony. 13 MONAHAN TUCKER LAW, P.C. (C.C.P. § 2034(j)(1); Cal. Code Civ. Proc §437(c); Perry v. Bakewell Hawthorne, Woodinville, WA 98072 14 LLC, 2 Cal. 5th 536, 541 (2017) (866) 823-8275 15 16 COURTS RULING: SUSTAINED: 17 OVERRULED: 18 19 B. STATEMENT: 20 Paragraph 3: In the course of this litigation, I have visited the property that was built after 21 the fire and reviewed evidence concerning the pre-existing structure and property characteristics. 22 OBJECTIONS: 23 (a) The assertion lacks foundation. No such alleged “evidence” was cited or 24 attached to Mr. Machin’s declaration. (Evd. Code § 403.) 25 26 COURTS RULING: SUSTAINED: 27 OVERRULED: 28 2 PLAINTIFF GARY KOOP’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF FARMERS’ SUPPLEMENT STATEMENT 1 C. STATEMENT: 2 Paragraph 3: It is my opinion that the alleged total amount of $3,378,568.10 that Plaintiff claims is required to rebuild Plaintiff’s property after the subject fire is substantially in excess of 3 what would be required to rebuild a house of the same size, with same characteristics and in the 4 same location on Koop’s property. See Koop Decl.¶ 13, Exhibit A. 5 OBJECTIONS: 6 (a) Where Mr. Machin fails to cite any evidence whatsoever to support his 7 opinion, his statement constitutes improper opinion testimony. (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720, 800-803; Greshko v. County of Los Angeles, 194 Cal. App. 3d 822, 834 (1987) 8 ("Affidavits or declarations setting forth only conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts 9 are held insufficient; even an expert's opinion cannot rise to the dignity of substantial evidence if it is unsubstantiated by facts"); Reida v. Lund, 18 Cal. App. 3d 698, 702 10 (1971) (finding diagnosis and conclusions arrived at from depositions, newspaper reports, and a distrust for the other side's contrary declarations "lacks even a 11 modicum of evidentiary value, for it amounts to no more than the psychologist's personal and unsupported expression of disbelief in the testimony of another").) 12 14241 NE Woodinville-Duvall Road, Suite 382 13 (b) Where Mr. Machin fails to cite any evidence whatsoever to support his MONAHAN TUCKER LAW, P.C. opinion, his statement constitutes inadmissible speculation and conclusions (Cal. Woodinville, WA 98072 14 Evid. Code §§ 400, 403, 410; Los Angeles County Office of the Dist. Attorney v. Civil (866) 823-8275 Serv. Comm'n of County of Los Angeles, 55 Cal. App. 4th 187, 201-202 (1997) 15 ("Rather than offer evidence showing [the fact sought to be proved, the party] merely insinuated [motives for the fact.] Such testimony is mere speculation not supported 16 by any evidence"); Trujillo v. First Am. Registry, Inc., 157 Cal. App. 4th 628, 635 17 (2008) ("opposition to summary judgment will be deemed insufficient when it is essentially conclusionary, argumentative or based on conjecture and speculation").) 18 COURTS RULING: SUSTAINED: 19 OVERRULED: 20 21 D. STATEMENT: 22 The changes to the location of the house on the lot, the changes to the size and design of the 23 house, and the changes to the attributes of the new home were very different from the previous 24 structure in place and necessitated additional construction expense. 25 OBJECTIONS: 26 (a) Mr. Machin’s statement lacks foundation (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 702(a), 800.) 27 (b) Where Mr. Machin fails to cite any evidence whatsoever to support his 28 opinion, his statement constitutes improper opinion testimony. (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720, 800-803; Greshko v. County of Los Angeles, 194 Cal. App. 3d 3 PLAINTIFF GARY KOOP’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF FARMERS’ SUPPLEMENT STATEMENT 1 822, 834 (1987) ("Affidavits or declarations setting forth only conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are held insufficient; even an expert's opinion 2 cannot rise to the dignity of substantial evidence if it is unsubstantiated by facts"); Reida v. Lund, 18 Cal. App. 3d 698, 702 (1971) (finding 3 diagnosis and conclusions arrived at from depositions, newspaper reports, 4 and a distrust for the other side's contrary declarations "lacks even a modicum of evidentiary value, for it amounts to no more than the psychologist's 5 personal and unsupported expression of disbelief in the testimony of another").) 6 (c) Where Mr. Machin fails to cite any evidence whatsoever to support his 7 opinion, his statement constitutes inadmissible speculation and conclusions 8 (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 400, 403, 410; Los Angeles County Office of the Dist. Attorney v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of County of Los Angeles, 55 Cal. App. 4th 9 187, 201-202 (1997) ("Rather than offer evidence showing [the fact sought to be proved, the party] merely insinuated [motives for the fact.] Such 10 testimony is mere speculation not supported by any evidence"); Trujillo v. First Am. Registry, Inc., 157 Cal. App. 4th 628, 635 (2008) ("opposition to 11 summary judgment will be deemed insufficient when it is essentially 12 conclusionary, argumentative or based on conjecture and speculation").) 14241 NE Woodinville-Duvall Road, Suite 382 13 (d) Mr. Machin testified in his declaration that he did not visit the site of the MONAHAN TUCKER LAW, P.C. property until after the fire, when the original home was destroyed. Therefore, this Woodinville, WA 98072 14 statement, which provides no support for his claims of changes to the location and (866) 823-8275 design of the home at issue, a home that was destroyed by fire before this lawsuit 15 began and before his visit to the site, constitutes inadmissible hearsay. (Cal. Evid. 16 Code §§1200.) 17 18 COURTS RULING: SUSTAINED: 19 OVERRULED: 20 21 E. STATEMENT: 22 Paragraph 3: Notably, the placement of the new construction on a slope on a different 23 location on the property increased the construction expense for the foundations, utilities, infrastructure, landscaping, erosion control and other related expenses that would have otherwise 24 been avoided. 25 OBJECTIONS: 26 (a) Mr. Machin’s statement lacks foundation (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 702(a), 800.) 27 (b) Where Mr. Machin fails to cite any evidence whatsoever to support his 28 opinion, his statement constitutes improper opinion testimony. (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720, 800-803; Greshko v. County of Los Angeles, 194 Cal. App. 3d 4 PLAINTIFF GARY KOOP’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF FARMERS’ SUPPLEMENT STATEMENT 1 822, 834 (1987) ("Affidavits or declarations setting forth only conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are held insufficient; even an expert's opinion 2 cannot rise to the dignity of substantial evidence if it is unsubstantiated by facts"); Reida v. Lund, 18 Cal. App. 3d 698, 702 (1971) (finding 3 diagnosis and conclusions arrived at from depositions, newspaper reports, 4 and a distrust for the other side's contrary declarations "lacks even a modicum of evidentiary value, for it amounts to no more than the psychologist's 5 personal and unsupported expression of disbelief in the testimony of another").) 6 (c) Where Mr. Machin fails to cite any evidence whatsoever to support his 7 opinion, his statement constitutes inadmissible speculation and conclusions 8 (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 400, 403, 410; Los Angeles County Office of the Dist. Attorney v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of County of Los Angeles, 55 Cal. App. 4th 9 187, 201-202 (1997) ("Rather than offer evidence showing [the fact sought to be proved, the party] merely insinuated [motives for the fact.] Such 10 testimony is mere speculation not supported by any evidence"); Trujillo v. First Am. Registry, Inc., 157 Cal. App. 4th 628, 635 (2008) ("opposition to 11 summary judgment will be deemed insufficient when it is essentially 12 conclusionary, argumentative or based on conjecture and speculation").) 14241 NE Woodinville-Duvall Road, Suite 382 13 (d) Mr. Machin testified in his declaration that he did not visit the site of the MONAHAN TUCKER LAW, P.C. property until after the fire, when the original home was destroyed. Therefore, this Woodinville, WA 98072 14 statement, which provides no support for his claims of changes to the location and (866) 823-8275 design of the home at issue, a home that was destroyed by fire before this lawsuit 15 began, constitutes inadmissible hearsay. (Cal. Evid. Code §§1200.) 16 COURTS RULING: SUSTAINED: 17 OVERRULED: 18 F. STATEMENT: 19 Paragraph 3: Accordingly, the amount of total construction costs Plaintiff contends as costs 20 to rebuild the home in his declaration is inaccurate as a reflection of what costs would have been required to rebuild the Subject Property which Plaintiff lost in the wildfire. 21 22 OBJECTIONS: 23 (a) Mr. Machin’s statement lacks foundation (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 702(a), 800.) 24 (b) Where Mr. Machin fails to cite any evidence whatsoever to support his opinion, his statement constitutes improper opinion testimony. (Cal. Evid. 25 Code §§ 720, 800-803; Greshko v. County of Los Angeles, 194 Cal. App. 3d 822, 834 (1987) ("Affidavits or declarations setting forth only conclusions, 26 opinions or ultimate facts are held insufficient; even an expert's opinion 27 cannot rise to the dignity of substantial evidence if it is unsubstantiated by facts"); Reida v. Lund, 18 Cal. App. 3d 698, 702 (1971) (finding 28 diagnosis and conclusions arrived at from depositions, newspaper reports, and a distrust for the other side's contrary declarations "lacks even a modicum 5 PLAINTIFF GARY KOOP’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF FARMERS’ SUPPLEMENT STATEMENT 1 of evidentiary value, for it amounts to no more than the psychologist's personal and unsupported expression of disbelief in the testimony of 2 another").) 3 (c) Where Mr. Machin fails to cite any evidence whatsoever to support his 4 opinion, his statement constitutes inadmissible speculation and conclusions (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 400, 403, 410; Los Angeles County Office of the Dist. 5 Attorney v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of County of Los Angeles, 55 Cal. App. 4th 187, 201-202 (1997) ("Rather than offer evidence showing [the fact sought 6 to be proved, the party] merely insinuated [motives for the fact.] Such testimony is mere speculation not supported by any evidence"); Trujillo v. 7 First Am. Registry, Inc., 157 Cal. App. 4th 628, 635 (2008) ("opposition to 8 summary judgment will be deemed insufficient when it is essentially conclusionary, argumentative or based on conjecture and speculation").) 9 COURTS RULING: SUSTAINED: 10 OVERRULED: 11 12 14241 NE Woodinville-Duvall Road, Suite 382 II. SEPTEMBER 2023 DECLARATION OF BRIAN HUNSAKER 13 MONAHAN TUCKER LAW, P.C. Woodinville, WA 98072 14 A. STATEMENT: (866) 823-8275 15 Paragraph 4: I never made any misrepresentation to Mr. Koop regarding the Policy in question. 16 OBJECTIONS: 17 (a) Contradicts prior sworn deposition that he failed to correctly insure Plaintiff’s 18 Property. D'Amico v. Board of Med. Examiners, 11 Cal. 3d 1, 21-22 (1974) bars testimony that contradicts a prior sworn admission made during discovery. See also 19 Archdale v. American Internat. Specialty Ins. Co., 154 Cal.App.4th 449, 473 20 (2007)("Where a party's self-serving declarations contradict credible discovery admissions and purport to impeach that party's own prior sworn testimony, they 21 should be disregarded"); Thompson v. Williams (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 566, 259 Cal.Rptr. 518. ( “... assertion of facts contrary to prior testimony does not constitute 22 ‘ “substantive evidence of the existence of a triable issue of fact.””); Collins v. Hertz Corp., 144 Cal.App.4th 64, 75 n. 5, 79 (a declaration contradicting deposition 23 testimony is insufficient to defeat summary judgment when objection to evidence 24 raised); Chaknova v. Wilbur-Ellis Co., 69 Cal. App. 4th 962, 977, 81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 871, 881 (1999) (a inability to recall does not create a disputed fact sufficient for 25 summary judgment); Gabriel v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 188 Cal. App. 4th 547, 555, 115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 622, 628 (2010) (same); Daddario v. Snow Valley, Inc., 36 Cal. 26 App. 4th 1325, 1340, 43 Cal. Rptr. 2d 726, 734 (1995) (where plaintiff testified that 27 she could not recall and then submitted a declaration refuting that testimony, the declaration was a sham and did not create a disputed material fact); Trovato v. 28 Beckman Coulter, Inc., 192 Cal. App. 4th 319, 324, 121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 330, 334 (2011) (same.). 6 PLAINTIFF GARY KOOP’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF FARMERS’ SUPPLEMENT STATEMENT 1 COURTS RULING: SUSTAINED: 2 OVERRULED: 3 4 B. STATEMENT: 5 Paragraph 12: In my opinion, the Subject Property is a nice quality home, but it is not a high- 6 end custom or premium home in the area. 7 OBJECTIONS: 8 (a) Opinion testimony without evidence is not admissible as factual evidence. Wells Truckways v. Cebrian, 122 Cal. App. 2d 666, 673, 265 P.2d 557, 562 (1954). 9 (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720, 800-803; Greshko v. County of Los Angeles, 194 Cal. App. 3d 822, 834 (1987) ("Affidavits or declarations setting forth only conclusions, 10 opinions or ultimate facts are held insufficient; even an expert's opinion cannot rise 11 to the dignity of substantial evidence if it is unsubstantiated by facts"); Reida v. Lund, 18 Cal. App. 3d 698, 702 (1971) (finding diagnosis and conclusions arrived at from 12 depositions, newspaper reports, and a distrust for the other side's contrary 14241 NE Woodinville-Duvall Road, Suite 382 declarations "lacks even a modicum of evidentiary value, for it amounts to no more 13 MONAHAN TUCKER LAW, P.C. than the psychologist's personal and unsupported expression of disbelief in the Woodinville, WA 98072 14 testimony of another").) (866) 823-8275 15 (b) Where Mr. Hunsaker fails to cite any evidence whatsoever to support his opinion, his statement constitutes inadmissible speculation and conclusions (Cal. 16 Evid. Code §§ 400, 403, 410; Los Angeles County Office of the Dist. Attorney v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of County of Los Angeles, 55 Cal. App. 4th 187, 201-202 (1997) 17 ("Rather than offer evidence showing [the fact sought to be proved, the party] merely insinuated [motives for the fact.] Such testimony is mere speculation not supported 18 by any evidence"); Trujillo v. First Am. Registry, Inc., 157 Cal. App. 4th 628, 635 19 (2008) ("opposition to summary judgment will be deemed insufficient when it is essentially conclusionary, argumentative or based on conjecture and speculation").) 20 (c) The statement lacks foundation. Hunsaker testified that he has never been 21 inside the Property and thus cannot know if it is a “high-end custom or premium home in the area.” Cal. Evid. Code § 702(a) (["T]the testimony of a witness concerning a particular 22 matter is inadmissible unless he has personal knowledge of the matter.” 23 (d) Contradicts prior sworn deposition testimony that per Farmers policies and 24 procedures, Plaintiff’s Property should have been insured as at least “custom.” D'Amico v. Board of Med. Examiners, 11 Cal. 3d 1, 21-22 (1974) bars testimony that contradicts a prior 25 sworn admission made during discovery. See also Archdale v. American Internat. Specialty Ins. Co., 154 Cal.App.4th 449, 473 (2007)("Where a party's self-serving declarations 26 contradict credible discovery admissions and purport to impeach that party's own prior sworn 27 testimony, they should be disregarded"); Thompson v. Williams (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 566, 259 Cal.Rptr. 518. ( “... assertion of facts contrary to prior testimony does not constitute ‘ 28 “substantive evidence of the existence of a triable issue of fact.””); Collins v. Hertz Corp., 144 Cal.App.4th 64, 75 n. 5, 79 (a declaration contradicting deposition testimony is 7 PLAINTIFF GARY KOOP’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF FARMERS’ SUPPLEMENT STATEMENT 1 insufficient to defeat summary judgment when objection to evidence raised); Chaknova v. Wilbur-Ellis Co., 69 Cal. App. 4th 962, 977, 81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 871, 881 (1999) (an inability 2 to recall does not create a disputed fact sufficient for summary judgment); Gabriel v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 188 Cal. App. 4th 547, 555, 115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 622, 628 (2010) (same); 3 Daddario v. Snow Valley, Inc., 36 Cal. App. 4th 1325, 1340, 43 Cal. Rptr. 2d 726, 734 (1995) 4 (where plaintiff testified that she could not recall and then submitted a declaration refuting that testimony, the declaration was a sham and did not create a disputed material fact); 5 Trovato v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 192 Cal. App. 4th 319, 324, 121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 330, 334 (2011) (same.). 6 COURTS RULING: SUSTAINED: 7 OVERRULED: 8 9 10 C. STATEMENT: 11 Paragraph 16: Fire never required me to perform an interior inspection of the Property. Fire did not instruct me to offer Mr. Koop a discount for agreeing to an interior inspection of the 12 Property. Fire only required an exterior visual inspection of the Property. 14241 NE Woodinville-Duvall Road, Suite 382 13 MONAHAN TUCKER LAW, P.C. OBJECTIONS: Woodinville, WA 98072 14 (866) 823-8275 (a) The statement violates the Best Evidence Rule by providing secondary oral 15 testimony regarding the contents of a writing. Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1520-23. 16 (b) To the extent the statement refers to instructions from Farmers, the statement is hearsay. Cal. Evid. Code §1200(a). 17 (c) Contradicts prior sworn deposition testimony that per Farmers policies and 18 procedures, Plaintiff’s Property should have been insured as at least “custom.” D'Amico v. Board of Med. Examiners, 11 Cal. 3d 1, 21-22 (1974) bars testimony that contradicts a prior 19 sworn admission made during discovery. See also Archdale v. American Internat. Specialty 20 Ins. Co., 154 Cal.App.4th 449, 473 (2007)("Where a party's self-serving declarations contradict credible discovery admissions and purport to impeach that party's own prior sworn 21 testimony, they should be disregarded"); Thompson v. Williams (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 566, 259 Cal.Rptr. 518. ( “... assertion of facts contrary to prior testimony does not constitute ‘ 22 “substantive evidence of the existence of a triable issue of fact.””); Collins v. Hertz Corp., 144 Cal.App.4th 64, 75 n. 5, 79 (a declaration contradicting deposition testimony is 23 insufficient to defeat summary judgment when objection to evidence raised); Chaknova v. 24 Wilbur-Ellis Co., 69 Cal. App. 4th 962, 977, 81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 871, 881 (1999) (an inability to recall does not create a disputed fact sufficient for summary judgment); Gabriel v. Wells 25 Fargo Bank, N.A., 188 Cal. App. 4th 547, 555, 115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 622, 628 (2010) (same); Daddario v. Snow Valley, Inc., 36 Cal. App. 4th 1325, 1340, 43 Cal. Rptr. 2d 726, 734 (1995) 26 (where plaintiff testified that she could not recall and then submitted a declaration refuting 27 that testimony, the declaration was a sham and did not create a disputed material fact); Trovato v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 192 Cal. App. 4th 319, 324, 121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 330, 334 28 (2011) (same.). 8 PLAINTIFF GARY KOOP’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF FARMERS’ SUPPLEMENT STATEMENT 1 COURTS RULING: SUSTAINED: 2 OVERRULED: 3 4 D. STATEMENT: 5 Paragraph 17: It is the insured’s duty to select the appropriate amount of coverage and 6 determine whether his insurance policy meets his own needs at the time. 7 OBJECTIONS: 8 (a) The statement violates the Best Evidence Rule by providing secondary oral testimony regarding the contents of a writing. Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1520-23. 9 (b) The statement lacks foundation. Hunsaker provides no basis for any personal 10 knowledge of this statement. Cal. Evid. Code § 702(a) (["T]the testimony of a witness 11 concerning a particular matter is inadmissible unless he has personal knowledge of the matter.”) 12 14241 NE Woodinville-Duvall Road, Suite 382 (c) Opinion testimony without evidence is not admissible as factual evidence. 13 MONAHAN TUCKER LAW, P.C. Wells Truckways v. Cebrian, 122 Cal. App. 2d 666, 673, 265 P.2d 557, 562 (1954). Woodinville, WA 98072 (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720, 800-803; Greshko v. County of Los Angeles, 194 Cal. App. 14 (866) 823-8275 3d 822, 834 (1987) ("Affidavits or declarations setting forth only conclusions, 15 opinions or ultimate facts are held insufficient; even an expert's opinion cannot rise to the dignity of substantial evidence if it is unsubstantiated by facts"); Reida v. Lund, 16 18 Cal. App. 3d 698, 702 (1971) (finding diagnosis and conclusions arrived at from depositions, newspaper reports, and a distrust for the other side's contrary 17 declarations "lacks even a modicum of evidentiary value, for it amounts to no more than the psychologist's personal and unsupported expression of disbelief in the 18 testimony of another").) 19 (d) Where Mr. Hunsaker fails to cite any evidence whatsoever to support his 20 opinion, his statement constitutes inadmissible speculation and conclusions (Cal. Evid. Code §§ 400, 403, 410; Los Angeles County Office of the Dist. Attorney v. Civil 21 Serv. Comm'n of County of Los Angeles, 55 Cal. App. 4th 187, 201-202 (1997) ("Rather than offer evidence showing [the fact sought to be proved, the party] merely 22 insinuated [motives for the fact.] Such testimony is mere speculation not supported by any evidence"); Trujillo v. First Am. Registry, Inc., 157 Cal. App. 4th 628, 635 23 (2008) ("opposition to summary judgment will be deemed insufficient when it is 24 essentially conclusionary, argumentative or based on conjecture and speculation").)