Motion for Summary Judgment in FARAH GOHARI et al vs MCDONALD?S CORPORATION et al| Trellis.Law

On June 20, 2016 a Exhibit,Appendix was filed involving a dispute between Farah Gohari, Gohari Farah, and Mcdonald?S Corporation, Mcdonald?S Fran. O?Hare T, Mcdonald?S Fran. O'Hare T, for Class Actions in the District Court of Cook County.

Preview
Hearing Date: No hearing scheduled
Location: <>
J udge: Calendar, 9
FILED
10/21/2022 5:34 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS IRIS Y. MARTINEZ
CIRCUIT CLERK
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION
COOK COUNTY, IL
2016CH08261
FARAH GOHARI as the Named Calendar, 9
Class Representative Plaintiff, and all 20001472
others similarly situated,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2016 CH 08261
Vv.
Hon. Cecilia A. Horan
McDONALD’S CORPORATION,
LOTT #1, INC., McDonald’s franchise at
O’Hare Airport, Terminal 1, Concourse C,
and LOTT #1, INC., McDonald’s franchise at
O’Hare Airport, Terminal 1, Concourse B,

Defendants.

EXHIBIT B

DEFENDANT McDONALD’S CORPORATION’S MEMORANDUM
OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
EXHIBIT B
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CHANCERY DIVISION

FARAH GOHARI, as the Named
Class Representative Plaintiff,
and All Others Similarly
Situated,

Plaintiff,
vs. No. 2016 CH 08261

q MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, LOTT #1,
INC., McDonald's Franchise at
O'Hare Airport, Terminal 1,
Concourse C, and LOTT #1, INC.,
McDonald's Franchise at O'Hare
Airport, Terminal 1, Concourse B,

Defendants.

Record of proceedings had e the hearing

of the above-entitled cause, before the Honorable

ANNA M, LOFTUS, one of the Judges of said Court, on

January 7 , 2020, 4 1 2410, ard J Daley

Center, Chicago, Illinois, commencing at 10:50 a.m.

ABSOLUTE REPORTERS (312) 444-9882
www.absolutereporters.net

Purchased from re:SearchIL Cc 660
Page 2 Page 4
APPEARANCES THE CLERK: 10:30 matters.
KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 16 CH 8261, Gohari vs. McDonald's.
20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1300 THE COURT: Allright. Thank you,
Chicago, Illinois 60606 everyone, You may be seated.
(312) 606-0500
BY: MR. CLINTONA. KRISLOV Thank you very much for your
clint@krisiovlaw.com patience. I know we're starting a little bit late.
MR. KENNETH T. GOLDSTEIN If the attorneys want to approach.
ken@kri vlaw.com MR. KRISLOV: Good morning, Your Honor,
for the plaintiff,
Clint Krislov, with me, Ken Goldstein, on behalfof
FREEBORN & PETERS, LLP 10 the plaintiff, Farah Gohari, who is here at the
10 311 Sot th Wacker Drive, ite 3000
Chicago, Hlinois 60606 table.
(312) 360-6000 THE COURT: Good morning.
BY: MR. DAVID J. DOYLE 13 MR. DOYLE: Good morning, Your Honor,
a ddoyie@ eeborn.com 4
b for defendant McDonald's Corporation; David Doyle on behalf of McDonald's Corporation.
u 15 MS. BURTNETT: Jessica Burtnett on behalf
TRAUB LIEBERMAN STRAUS & SHREWSBERRY, LLP, 16 of the co-defendant.
a 303 West Madison Street, Suite 1200 a
Chicago, Illinois 60606 THE COURT: Okay. All right. We are
ae (312) 332-3900 here today for an evidentiary hearing, as I've
BY. MS_JESSICAK. BURTNETT a9
jburtnett@tlsslaw com previously stated when I ruled on the motion for
le for defendant Lott #1, Inc. 20 summary judgment denying the motion for summary
2
20 judgment, because there is a question of fact as to
22 what Ms. Gohari's knowledge was at the time of her
23 purchasing experience.
23
24 24 We had met last week, and you all

Page 3 Page 5
INDEX identified some exhibits you are going to be using —
Page MR. DOYLE: Correct.
THE WITNESS: THE COURT: -- and then also that Ms.
Gohari was going to be a witness.
5 FARAH GOHARI Do you have those exhibits?
MR. DOYLE: I do. Here's a binder for
Direct Examination by Mr. Doyle 29 Your Honor.
Cross-Examination by Mr. Krislov 105 ‘THE COURT: Did plaintiffs get a copy of
Redirect Examination by Mr. Doyle 113 it?
10 Recross-Examination by Mr. Krislov 119 10 MR. DOYLE: Yesterday we messengered it
un to plaintiff's counsel at their request, and I have
12 EXHIBITS RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE 12 another binder -- it's the same binder -- for the
13 13 witness that I'll leave here.
14
Gohari Exhibit No. 1 THE COURT: Allright. Has there been
15 Gohari Exhibit No. 2 15 any discussion of any stipulations as to what
Gohari Exhibit No. 3 16 evidence will be admitted into evidence?
7 Gohari Exhibit No. 4 Vy MR. DOYL! There have not, Your Honor.
18 The first three pictures -- the first three exhibits
19 1g and I only intend to use the first four exhibits
7
20 in the binder during my examination, to be honest
a1 with Your Honor. I have attached her complaint and
22 22 her affidavits just so they're there for ease of
23 23 reference, but I intend to only use the first four
24 24 exhibits.

2 (Pages 2 to 5)

ABSOLUTE REPORTERS (312) 444-9882
www.absolutereporters.net

Purchased from re:SearchIL Cc 661
Page 6 Page 8
Those exhibits are photographs of MR. KRISLOV: as he characterized it
the restaurant that Ms. Gohari took, her receipt, as. That apparently i
and those were attached to the complaint. THE COURT: It's a complaint that was
THE COURT: Okay. made -- well, Counsel has put forth an affidavit
MR. DOYLE: And then the fourth document that it was something that McDonald's has received.
is the e-mail that I believe is, in her words, a I could go to the affidavit and use the exact word,
complaint that she made the day of her purchase. but it was something that was received by McDonald's
I don't anticipate any objections as in its system. And there is a "Comments" section
to any of these documents. And if you want to which I think your client acknowledged in her
19 entertain that discussion now, I'm happy to do it, io affidavit was drafted by her.
a but I had assumed that all of those would be ul MR. KRISLOV: Yeah, I don't think that we
12 admissible. dispute that the contents of the -- that the
THE COURT: We can probably do it at the 13 contents of the substance of the complaint in there
La time if you want to admit -- ifthere's an 4 that she did -- that I think she filled that in.
1s objection, you can raise it at that time. I don't as THE COURT: So are you going to have an
16 want to do it now, I don't think, because it depends 16 objection to the foundation of this document?
v on what's discussed during the evidentiary hearing. Tt sounds like you're admitting to
18 MR. DOYLE: And, Your Honor, just for the 18 the authenticity or agreeing to the authenticity.
9 arification on Exhibit 4, Your Honor will recall 19 It is what it purports to be.
20 -- we don't have a custodian here or a witness who 20 But as to the foundation, Counsel
can lay the foundation for it at this hearing, But had mentioned the affidavit of Kathy Anderson that
22 Your Honor will recall that in connection with our 22 was previously submitted in support of their motion
23 summary judgment filing, we submitted a declaration 23 for summary judgment which lays the foundation for
24 from an employee at McDonald's who spoke to what 24 the complaint, not the court complaint but the

Page 7? Page 99

that document is, so I had anticipated that that complaint to McDonald's, but he does not have her
would be sufficient foundation for us to use it here here today.
today. ‘And so my question is, is that
If Your Honor needs something more, are you going to object to the admission of Gohari
then we can supplement the record after the hearing, Exhibit 4 on that basis; meaning, there would have
but it was my expectation that this was really not a 6 to cither be some subsequent testimony or some other
controversial document and that the witness will be process we'd have to go about after the testimony we
able to explain whether these were her words or not hear today?
9 her words. MR. KRISLOV: Your Honor, you were the
10 THE COURT: Do you want to talk on that 20 one who directed that her testimony come in. If
now just to -- al they want -- they didn't ask us to agree to anything
12 MR. KRISLOV: Sure. We object. It's not 12 about this, and we don't.
13 an e-mail. What it is is apparently McDonald's 13 But, you know, I think if he asks
a4 records of what -- when you go to their website to 14 her, were these the words that -- the things that
15 file a complaint, you have to fill in some things. she typed in in her complaint, I think she will
16 And I think as to the substance of 16 probably acknowledge the substance of that so that
S)
it, well, you know, they don't contact us or ask us, while we don't -- while we do this procedure under
a and we -- as you know, we object to this whole 18 protest, you know, I'm sure, I believe, that she
19 procedure of doing it this way. We'll proceed -- 19 will probably acknowledge that that's what she typed
20 THE COURT: Let me ask you two questions. 20 off of her phone to McDonald's while she was still
21 You object to this document. I 21 at O'Hare before she left, and we think that that
22 didn't understand what you said 22 should qualify.
MR. KRISLOV: It is not an e-mail -~ 23 To the extent that a payment under
24 THE COURT: Understood. 24 protest was -- would be required in some way, that's

-
iS) (Pages 6 to 9)

ABSOLUTE REPORTERS (312) 444-9882
www.absolutereporters.net

Purchased from re:SearchIL C 662
Page 10 Page 12
as close to -- that's the only way that she had to So if that, in fact -- so that
lodge a protest. question of fact, if that's resolved, if it's
THE COURT: And I think you mentioned the resolved in your favor, then we continue. If it's
last time we were together that you object to the resolved in defendants' favor, then the case is
process or the procedure. over.
If you wanted to make that more So the concern here is that if we
explicit right now, what your specific objection is. have an issue that we know can tell us one way or
MR. KRISLOV: The objection is that their another whether the case survives, we should address
motion for summary judgment is their fourth attempt that now as opposed to going through the whole
10 to attack her complaint, which has been upheld at process in three years from now, and then I have
a least three times, and she should be allowed to 11 that question of fact come to a head at an
12 proceed; that allowing them this fourth whack at 12 evidentiary hearing, and I decide the same way I
43 her, if you will, is fundamentally unfair, Once you 13 would three years before.
a4 deny summary judgment, the case proceeds as a 14 So if] find in plaintiff's favor,
as disputed fact. 15 we'll continue, and we'll address all of the other
16 T understand Your Honor's thoughts factors. But again, if you don't meet this one
in doing this, And while we disagree with it, we factor of the Consumer Fraud Act, then the case is
18 are certainly cooperating out of respect for the a8 over, and so that's why -- I'm trying to be
Court, but this is not typically the way these cases 1s efficient, and that's why I determined that this
i20 20
proceed; that once the complaint has been upheld, it process was the most appropriate way.
2 is time to proceed. 21 MR. KRISLOV: With all due respect, this
22 We have asked for discovery from 22 is the fourth --
23 McDonald's. They refuse it. We've asked for class 23 THE COURT: I understand.
24 certification. It's been held in abeyance pending 24 MR. KRISLOV: This is the fourth attempt

Page 11 Page 8)

all of this. To give them repeated attempts to to end this case, and we have asked -- if this is
attack her complaint with things, most recently, going to be done on an issue of fact as to her
this complaint piece, the -- they call it - what we knowledge, the counter people at McDonald's are
refer -- he's referred to as the e-mail. This was certainly relevant because she will testify as to
in their possession the whole time from before our what they told her. And our understanding of what
complaint was even filed. In fact, as McDonald's they knew at the time and what they told people at
knew about this wrongdoing, this overcharging for at that time is relevant. It is a factual dispute as
least two months that we know of, they repeatedly to what you tell people and to what they understand.
attack the complaint. If you do this on this one-way
10 It is time to proceed, The reason 10 basis, this is -- with all due respect, this is
uu this case is now more than three years old is that tM) quite unfair.
12 McDonald's has been given repeated opportunities to 12 THE COURT: Did you have anything you
13 attack the complaint again and again with things 3 wanted to say before I address Counsel?
4 that were in its possession from the beginning. And 14 MR. DOYLE: Only, Your Honor, that I
1s while -- think the reason why we're here three years after
THE COURT: Well, they're allowed to file 16 the fact is not because of motion practice that took
7 motions to dismiss, a motion for summary judgment, ar a long time. I think it's because of a distinct
18 so I don't think that they've been given repeated ae lack of clarity in the record. This hearing is
19 attacks is the way I would phrase it. designed by Your Honor to get at that issue and to
20 Just to bring it back to where we 20 resolve that lack of clarity.
are today, the question of fact which caused me to 21 And we're finally going to hear Ms.
22 deny the summary judgment was your client's 22 Gohari's story. She will have her day in court.
23 knowledge at the time of her purchasing experience, 23 And if her story is such that it cannot sustain a
24 which would go to whether she was deceived. 24 cause of action under the Tlinois Consumer Fraud

4 (Pages 10 to 13)

ABSOLUTE REPORTERS (312) 444-9882
www.absolutereporters.net

Purchased from re:SearchIL C 663
Page 14 Page 6

Act, even if we accept everything that she says as proximate cause; and, therefore, summary judgment
true, then Your Honor is exactly right. We'd be should be granted in favor of the defendants.
sparing the litigants and the Court years of So, Your Honor, I don't necessarily
litigation potentially on a matter for which there's plan on getting out every statement and going
a kill shot. through both affidavits and going through the
There's a lack of evidence on a key complaint and making sure that everything coalesces.
lement of the cause of action, so I think what We have the witness here. We can hear her honest
we're doing here is the right thing, and we're ready testimony about what occurred that morning right
9 to proceed. from her mouth and then, based on that, decide
10 THE COURT: One question I had for you 10 whether they can proceed with a cause of action
a before I turn it back to Counsel is -- as [ set 12 under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.
2 forth in my ruling on summary judgment, a question 12 So I don't know, Your Honor, to be
ag of fact arose out of statements by Ms. Gohari 13 honest with you, whether or not a credibility
as herself, One was this complaint made to McDonald's, 4 determination of any kind on Your Honor's part will
45
and then that's compared with the complaint -- the actually be necessary because I have a suspicion and
16 court complaint as well as the affidavit, which seem 16 a sense that based on her testimony and accepting
to conflict. v7 that testimony as true, Your Honor will conclude
18 During this evidentiary hearing, I'm that there's a failure to create a triable issue of
19 going to hear from Ms. Gohari. Certainly with 19 fact on their Iinois Consumer Fraud Act claim.
20 respect to that conflict, which is a conflict 20 MS. BURTNETT: If I may dovetail onto
21 between what she said on various occasions, it 21 that, Your Honor, this will be no different than you
22 requires that I asse: her credibility. 22a reading a deposition transcript. You don't need to
23 MR. DOYL + Well, if f may, Judge, I'm 23i make a judge of credibility when you're reading a
24 not sure that that's true, to be honest with you, 24 deposition transcript. It would be the same,

Page 15 Page 17
because I think -- what I would like to do is walk determining: Is there a material issue of fact?
her through her story: What did she purchase? What So if there are slight
was she told? What did she know? I don't plan to inconsistencies, are those inconsistencies material
go into her affidavit or the allegations in her to your decision, so this just happens to be done in
complaint. front of Your Honor.
And, yes, you might find that what THE COURT: Well, it is an evidentiary
she says today is not entirely consistent with hearing because I am wanting to hear -- there have
what's in her complaint. But I think what you'll been two either slight or maybe more inconsistent --
find is that it probably will be, but it will just more than slight inconsistent statements by one
10 be more fleshed out. 10 person. She comes up and testifies consistent with
ul So we're going to hear today her 1 one.
12 full story. If Your Honor believes that her story 12 You're saying then that's the one
is contradicts other writings that have been submitted 13 that I go with?
and wants to follow up and try to get clarity on 14 You're not going to cross-examine
those issues, I think that might be appropriate, but 15 her on the other statements she's made? Because |
16 I -- the way I envision this happening is that I 16 think that then raises a credibility issue.
VW will simply question her about what happened that uv And that's why we're having her come
18 morning when she went to a restaurant at O'Hare. 18 to testify today, in part so that I can assess her
1g Bs19
And I believe, Your Honor, that credibility and, my understanding is, because there
20 based on what she says and regardless of what she 20 was a conflict in what she said on various
says, based on what I believe to be the truth and 21 occasions.
22 what I believe she's going to testify and what I've 22 MR. DOYLE: | agree with that, Your
23 seen in the documents, plaintiffs are going to fall 23 Honor.
24 short of creating a triable issue of fact on 24 Let me make a proposal. Let's put

2 (Pages 14 to 17 )}

ABSOLUTE REPORTERS (312) 444-9882
www.absolutereporters.net

Purchased from re:SearchIL Cc 664
Page 18 Page 20
Ms. Gohari on the witness stand and see what she has client's knowledge was at the time.
to say. My guess is that her testimony -- my guess But to the extent that I'm asked to
is that she tried to make a good-faith attempt in make a credibility determination at this point,
her complaint and in her affidavits to explain what there may be some benefit to having either witnesses
happened. I don't think it was that clear. to detract from her credibility or witnesses to
We have her here today, and she can bolster her credibility.
clarify it. And if-- and it may be based on what So we won't make that decision now.
she testifies that you and everybody here in this I think we'll go through the hearing, and then we'll
room says, "Oh, okay. That makes sense. I get it have a -- and then Ms. Gohari doesn't have to be
10 now. This is what she did." here for this, and other people can go, and we can.
That's the story that they would un have that discussion of what will happen next. But
12 tell at trial, okay? I'm accepting that, as Counsel 12 I wanted to raise that at the outset just so you
3 says, as though this is a deposition. I'm accepting 13 have that as a frame of mind.
aa this testimony. 4 If you had anything else you wanted
15 THE COURT; But it's not a deposition. 1s to say about that before we begin, I'd welcome it.
‘This is an evidentiary hearing. 16 MR. KRISLOV: I mean, as we've said in
MS. BURTNETT: Well, Your Honor, [ mean -~ the past, McDonald's personnel at the counter
18 THE COURT: Isn't there a distinction? 18 certainly are relevant in weighing her credibility,
19 MS. BURTNETT: There is a distinction. 1g if that's what this is about, which we get two
20 But, quite honestly, it's slight. It would be the 20 different answers from my colleagues across the
a same as if we were to take her deposition today in a aisle.
2a different location, attach a deposition transcript 22 I think while we object to doing it
2a and allow you to reconsider the motion for summary 23 in this fashion, I think you'll find Ms, Gohari, who
24 judgment. We're providing you with additional 24 has flown in from Wichita, Kansas, just for this

Page 19 Page 21
evidence on that issue here. purpose -- you know, this is -- it's a great
And as Counsel expressed, I believe commitment for her to actually -- I mean, she's
that any inconsistencies or lack of clarity ~ doing what a plaintiff does in a class case, and she
4 because I don't believe that any of the actual has, and she's prepared to testify. And while, you
inconsistencies in the complaint, the affidavit and know, I've indicated that we object to this, we're
6 her e-mail complaint are material to this, And so going ahead with it.
Your Honor will be able to listen -- just this is We do think that to the extent they
cutting to the chase. Instead of having to wait to want to attack her credibility, doing this as a
get a transcript and read it and go through 9 trial now is -- you know, it's not the way this
10 additional briefing, you are hearing her testimony 10 should be done, but why don't we proceed ahead and
now. a sce where we get to
12 THE COURT The reason why I'm raising a2 THE COURT: Okay.
this before I turn it over to you all is, as I was 13 MS. BURTNETT: Your Honor --
14 preparing for this, a concern arose. And I don't 4 THE COURT: Does your client have a
as specifically recall if this was requested by the flight home tonight, today, or do you have a --
16 plaintiffs. 1 know you've requested the appearance MR. KRISLOV: Yes. She's going home this
#
or the ability to question McDonald's counter afternoon,
18 workers. 18 THE COURT: What's the flight time?
19 MR. KRISLOV: Yes. 19 MR. GOLDSTEIN: No. She's planning to
20 THE COURT: And I think you had maybe 20 leave Chicago with her son to Ann Arbor where he
au mentioned having witnesses who had had similar 21 lives.
22 experiences as Ms. Gohari. And I rejected your 22 THE COURT: Okay. But given the weather,
23 request to bring in people who had similar 23 T'm cognizant of the time.
24 experiences because, again, this is what your 24 So did you have something else you

6 (Pages 18 to 21)

ABSOLUTE REPORTERS (312) 444-9882
www.absolutereporters.net

Purchased from re:SearchIL Cc 665
Page 22 Page 24
wanted to -- THE COURT: It may be at issue if it goes
MS. BURTNETT: 1} just had one, smal to her credibii
thing, Your Honor. Ifthey say, "Well, this is what I
With respect to the presence of the said," and she says, "Well, no, this is what
counter individuals, as Your Honor had previously occurred," that's one thing. So that might detract
stated, that goes to the -- potentially to the from her credibility.
intent to deceive, not whether there is actual If the counter people even recall
deception. And here, the issue before Your Honor is this and say the same thing as she does, that would
whether there was actual deception. And the only then bolster her credibility.
10 individual that is able to provide testimony on that 10 MR. KRISLOV: Right.
proximate cause issue is Ms. Gohari, so those un THE COURT: It's not what their intent
12 individuals’ testimony is not needed for you to 12 ‘was or --
decide this issue. MR. KRISLOV: I'm not looking for their
14 THE COURT: And I agree with you on that, 4 intent.
But as to her credibility, if the 15 THE COURT: Right.
16 counter people said the same thing as what Ms. 16 MR. KRISLOV: I don't believe that the
Gohari says, that would bolster her credibility. v counter people are the people who intended this
18 So it's not what their intent was. 1e wrongdoing. McDonald's knew that the signage was
It's what their memory of what o curred -- whether 19 wrong. And what they were telling people is
20 that's consistent with Ms. Gohari. 20 relevant to determine what was in consumers’ minds,
bal ai
MS. BURTNETT: Well -- to wit, what was in Ms. Gohari's mind when she
22 THE COURT: And that's why I -- and 22 raised the issue.
23 think the only thing that had been raised to me 23 So I think relevance is clear on
24 before was with respect to the intent to deceive, 24 that, that we should be able to get the counter

Page 23 Page 25
and that's why I rejected that. But then on my own people. And my guess is that they'll remember for
thinking about this, while it wasn't raised by the two months that their signage was wrong and that
parties to my recollection, I thought that maybe I they were having to explain it on a rare occasion or
should rai: it even though it hadn't been raised by maybe just with Ms. Gohari and --
the parti just to make sure that this is done ina THE COURT: But whether they remember
proper fashion. this specific transaction with Ms. Gohari is going
MS. BURTNETT: Well -- and for purposes to be what would be relevant.
of summary judgment, for your decision, we are going MR. KRISLOV: If they told the same thing
9 to view the facts most favorable to the plaintiff. to --
56
So if there is a discrepancy, you're HE COURT: It's not what they generally
going to view those facts most favorable to the tell people. It's what -- if it's up to her
plaintiff, which would be her own testimony 12 credibility, it would be the transaction with her.
regardless. 13 MR. KRISLOY: | fundamentally disagree
MR. KRISLOV: To be sure, the counter a4 with you, Your Honor, but why don't we proceed.
personnel that we wanted were for what was told to 4s THE COURT: I mean, they could just say,
16 people at the time, and that would -- that is "This is how we typically handle this."
uv certainly relevant because what was told to Ms. 17 MR. KRISLOV: No. "This is how we handle
aw Gohari and what was told to other people at the time 18 that. This is what"
sia) would go to what would be in consumers! minds as 19 THE COURT: Right. Right.
20 they make their purchases. 20 MR. KRISLOV: "When people say, ‘Oh, the
a THE COURT: But that's not the issue a1 price is different,' here's what we were told to
22 here. As I said previously, what they told to 22 tell people."
23 others certainly would not be at issue. 23 THE COURT: Well, right, but the issue is
24 MR. KRISLOV: What they told her is. 24 -- what Ms. Gohari did in response to that

7 (Pages 22 to 25)

ABSOLUTE REPORTERS (312) 444-9882
www.absolutereporters.net

Purchased from re:SearchIL C 666
Page 26 Page 28
information is what the issue is here. Okay. All right. So I think we
MR. KRISLOV: What the information talked about last time that you were the movant, so
provided to her was is relevant. if you would like to call your first witness.
So why don't we proceed so that she MR. DOYLE: I welcome the opportunity to
can get on a plane, I think. call Farah Gohari to the witness stand, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And I think I do need to THE COURT: And, ma'am, if you'd just
clarifi - I went back to confirm -- that I did deny stop here on your way just to get sworn in by my
the motion for summary judgment because of this fact clerk, please.
question, so the evidentiary hearing is not in (Witness sworn.)
10 furtherance of the motion for summary judgment. 10 THE COURT: Okay. And then walk right
1a MR. DOYLE: We had set forth certain aL around here. And there's some steps over here, so
12 facts in our summary judgment motion that we thought 12 be careful on your way up and just have a seat here.
13 were undisputed and meant that no trial needed to be 13 And I believe Counsel is going to
had. refer to that book over there for you to look at
1s THE COURT: Right. 15 from time to time.
16 MR. DOYLE: I think Your Honor looked at 16 Just make sure to keep your voice up
the e-mail and looked at the record and wasn't so that everybody can hear. And answer questions
18 entirely convinced that our version of the facts was 18 with words, not with a shake of the head, because
19 true because things were too muddled, and that's why 1g the court reporter can't take that down. And we'll
20 I think Your Honor had this hearing. I think this 20 remind you gently if you do because we all do it.
an hearing will help us get to the bottom of that Okay.

Case Info

Judge

Horan, Cecilia A. Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

October 21, 2022

Case Filing Date

June 20, 2016

County

Parties

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

Exhibit,Appendix: FARAH GOHARI et al vs MCDONALD?S CORPORATION et al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties