arrow left
arrow right
  • Mark Sellars et al vs Patrick Leahy et alUnlimited Other Complaint (Not Spec) (42) document preview
  • Mark Sellars et al vs Patrick Leahy et alUnlimited Other Complaint (Not Spec) (42) document preview
  • Mark Sellars et al vs Patrick Leahy et alUnlimited Other Complaint (Not Spec) (42) document preview
  • Mark Sellars et al vs Patrick Leahy et alUnlimited Other Complaint (Not Spec) (42) document preview
  • Mark Sellars et al vs Patrick Leahy et alUnlimited Other Complaint (Not Spec) (42) document preview
  • Mark Sellars et al vs Patrick Leahy et alUnlimited Other Complaint (Not Spec) (42) document preview
  • Mark Sellars et al vs Patrick Leahy et alUnlimited Other Complaint (Not Spec) (42) document preview
  • Mark Sellars et al vs Patrick Leahy et alUnlimited Other Complaint (Not Spec) (42) document preview
						
                                

Preview

1 LAW OFFICES OF Mc CAR THY & KROES 125 E. VICTORIA STREET, SUITE A 2 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101 (805) 564-2085 3 4 R. Chris Kroes, SBN 134935 Linda Elias-Wheelock, State Bar No. 150431 5 Attorneys for Defendants: CHANNE COLES, 6 THE LAW OFFICE OF CHANNE G. COLES, a California corporation 7 SUPERJOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 9 10 MARK SELLARS, individually and as Trustee CASE NO.: 20CV04132 11 of the Rosemary Free Trust u/d/t dated September 13, 2000, and REBECCA MORIN, OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF - ei:: -< 14 Plaintiffs, TIME: 8:15 a.m. :r: 0 co f-, f-, ei:: ei::S:! co 15 S:i ui - -CG c:i 15 'd ui -0::-< :r:Ooo E--E--o:: o::S::! 00 15 'd u.i -< ~.,.E-- N :Z - ::/) -< 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF DAVID TAPPEINER 1 NO. OBJECTION GROUNDS RULING 2 Page 5, 123-24 1. Lack of Personal Knowledge/Speculation. 4. Mamou v. Trendwest (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 686, 3 692. No Foundation and calling for expert testimony. 4 5 2. Hearsay. Pajaro Valley Water v. McGrath (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1093; Evidence Code 6 Section 1200 7 2. Declarations must cite evidentiary facts, not legal conclusions or personal opinions. Taylor v. 8 Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (2021) 67 9 Cal.App.5th 966, 994; Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 638-639. 10 3. Arguments of counsel have no place in a 11 declaration. In re Marriage of Heggie (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 28, 30. Arguments of counsel have no 12 .,:;2 IZl u..l C'l place in a declaration. In re Marriage of Heggie o- °'- et: cc 15 ~CJ.i- .:,: co u . cc 15 Defendant in Pro Per Patrick Leahy ~ ~