On August 01, 2016 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Shrestha, Ramesh,
and
Does 1 To 100, Inclusive,
Hotel Sunrise, Inc.,
Hotel Sunrise, Llc,
Patel, Ketan,
Patel, Kirit Kumal,
Patel, Kiritkumar,
Patel, Shakuntalal,
Patel, Shakuntla,
for civil
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
LORI B. FELDMAN (State Bar No. 99655)
LAW OFFICES OF LORI B. FELDMAN
175 North Redwood Drive, Suite 150
San Rafael, CA 94903 ELECTRONICALLY
Telephone: (415) 492-2120 FILED
Facsimile: (415) 492-2019
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
Attorneys for Defendants HOTEL SUNRISE, INC.,
KIRITKUMAR PATEL and SHAKUNTLA PATEL Ditcrieoit
BY: SANDRA SCHIRO
Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED DIVISION
RAMESH SHRESHTHA. etc., ve
Case No, CGC-16-553387
Plaintiff,
DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF
Vv. EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS IN
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
HOTEL SUNRISE, INC., etc., et al. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendants.
Date: April 6, 2018
Time: 9:30 AM
Dept. 302
Hon. Harold Kahn
Reservation No. 03050406-01
Defendants HOTEL SUNRISE, INC., KIRITKUMAR PATEL, and SHAKUNTLA
PATEL (“Defendants”) respectfully submit this statement of evidentiary objections in
response to the motion of Plaintiff RAMESH SHRESHTHA (“Plaintiff”) for leave to file a
Second Amended Complaint on the eve of trial.
Declaration of Jamie V. Retmier
Page 2:3-12, Paragraph 4: — Objection: not competent to testify and hearsay.
Ramesh Shrestha y. Hotel Sunrise, Inc. et al.; SFSC Case No. CGC-16-533387 1
DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTArgument: The declarant asserts that she has personal knowledge that Defendants
(1) were “rude and belligerent” to Plaintiff; (2) reduced his work hours; (3) reduced his
overtime; and (4) “wrote him up” for having a dog on the premises, all for answering
questions from a government investigator concerning the wage claims of another employee.
Normally lawyers are not hired until after the events have occurred and as a result did not
witness them. No facts are set forth to show how Ms. Retmier acquired personal
knowledge, as opposed to inadmissible hearsay information from Plaintiff.
A declaration that is to be relied on in a civil case for the facts stated in it must be
based on the personal knowledge of the declarant. City of Santa Cruz v Municipal Court
(1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 87; Star Motor Imports, Inc. v. Superior Court (1979) 88 Cal. App.3d
201, 204. A declaration which is to be used as evidence must be positive, direct and not
based upon hearsay. Gutierrez v. Superior Court (1966) 243 Cal. App.2d 710, 725.
Page 2:13-21, Paragraph 5: 9 Objection: not competent to testify and hearsay.
Argument: This paragraph repeats the assertions in Paragraph 4 and is vulnerable
to the same objections. A declaration must be based on the personal knowledge of the
declarant. City of Santa Cruz v Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 87; Star Motor
Imports, Inc. v. Superior Court (1979) 88 Cal. App.3d 201, 204. It cannot be based upon
hearsay. Gutierrez v. Superior Court (1966) 243 Cal. App.2d 710, 725,
Page 2:22-3:2, Paragraph 6: © Objection: Most of this paragraph consists of legal
argument rather than facts.
Argument: Declarations should only provide facts, not arguments or interpretations.
Case No. CGC-16-533387 2
TIARY OBJECTIONS TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
Ramesh Shrestha y, Hotel Sunrise, Inc. et al.;
DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF EVID
FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTMemorandum of Points and Authorities
Page 3:3-11, 3:25-4:6 and 4:7-15: Objection: Assertions of fact not supported
by the declaration of Retmier; hearsay; lack of personal knowledge.
Argument: These three sections of the memorandum of points and authorities repeat
the allegations that Defendants (1) were “rude and belligerent” to Plaintiff; (2) reduced his
work hours; (3) reduced his overtime: and (4) “wrote him up” for having a dog on the
premises, all for answering questions from a government investigator. The memorandum is
signed by Ms. Retmier, but once again no showing is made that she has personal knowledge
of these alleged facts or that her source for them was anything other than inadmissible
hearsay from someone else.
Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that the foregoing evidentiary
objections be SUSTAINED and the averments disregarded.
Date: Mach 23 ) 28 LAW OFFICES OF LORI B. FELDMAN
By_\ é
Lori’B, Feldman
Attorneys for Defendants HOTEL
SUNRISE, INC., KIRITKUMAR PATEL and
SHAKUNTLA PATEL
Ramesh Shrestha v. Hotel Sunrise, Ine. et al.; SFSC Case No. CGC-16-533387 3
DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT.
Document Filed Date
March 23, 2018
Case Filing Date
August 01, 2016
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
LORI B. FELDMAN (State Bar No. 99655) LAW OFFICES OF LORI B. FELDMAN 175 North Redwood Drive, Suite 150 San Rafael, CA 94903 ELECTRONICALLY Telephone: (415) 492-2120 FILED Facsimile: (415) 492-2019 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco Attorneys for Defendants HOTEL SUNRISE, INC., KIRITKUMAR PATEL and SHAKUNTLA PATEL Ditcrieoit BY: SANDRA SCHIRO Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED DIVISION RAMESH SHRESHTHA. etc., ve Case No, CGC-16-553387 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF Vv. EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S HOTEL SUNRISE, INC., etc., et al. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendants. Date: April 6, 2018 Time: 9:30 AM Dept. 302 Hon. Harold Kahn Reservation No. 03050406-01 Defendants HOTEL SUNRISE, INC., KIRITKUMAR PATEL, and SHAKUNTLA PATEL (“Defendants”) respectfully submit this statement of evidentiary objections in response to the motion of Plaintiff RAMESH SHRESHTHA (“Plaintiff”) for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint on the eve of trial. Declaration of Jamie V. Retmier Page 2:3-12, Paragraph 4: — Objection: not competent to testify and hearsay. Ramesh Shrestha y. Hotel Sunrise, Inc. et al.; SFSC Case No. CGC-16-533387 1 DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTArgument: The declarant asserts that she has personal knowledge that Defendants (1) were “rude and belligerent” to Plaintiff; (2) reduced his work hours; (3) reduced his overtime; and (4) “wrote him up” for having a dog on the premises, all for answering questions from a government investigator concerning the wage claims of another employee. Normally lawyers are not hired until after the events have occurred and as a result did not witness them. No facts are set forth to show how Ms. Retmier acquired personal knowledge, as opposed to inadmissible hearsay information from Plaintiff. A declaration that is to be relied on in a civil case for the facts stated in it must be based on the personal knowledge of the declarant. City of Santa Cruz v Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 87; Star Motor Imports, Inc. v. Superior Court (1979) 88 Cal. App.3d 201, 204. A declaration which is to be used as evidence must be positive, direct and not based upon hearsay. Gutierrez v. Superior Court (1966) 243 Cal. App.2d 710, 725. Page 2:13-21, Paragraph 5: 9 Objection: not competent to testify and hearsay. Argument: This paragraph repeats the assertions in Paragraph 4 and is vulnerable to the same objections. A declaration must be based on the personal knowledge of the declarant. City of Santa Cruz v Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 87; Star Motor Imports, Inc. v. Superior Court (1979) 88 Cal. App.3d 201, 204. It cannot be based upon hearsay. Gutierrez v. Superior Court (1966) 243 Cal. App.2d 710, 725, Page 2:22-3:2, Paragraph 6: © Objection: Most of this paragraph consists of legal argument rather than facts. Argument: Declarations should only provide facts, not arguments or interpretations. Case No. CGC-16-533387 2 TIARY OBJECTIONS TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO Ramesh Shrestha y, Hotel Sunrise, Inc. et al.; DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF EVID FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTMemorandum of Points and Authorities Page 3:3-11, 3:25-4:6 and 4:7-15: Objection: Assertions of fact not supported by the declaration of Retmier; hearsay; lack of personal knowledge. Argument: These three sections of the memorandum of points and authorities repeat the allegations that Defendants (1) were “rude and belligerent” to Plaintiff; (2) reduced his work hours; (3) reduced his overtime: and (4) “wrote him up” for having a dog on the premises, all for answering questions from a government investigator. The memorandum is signed by Ms. Retmier, but once again no showing is made that she has personal knowledge of these alleged facts or that her source for them was anything other than inadmissible hearsay from someone else. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that the foregoing evidentiary objections be SUSTAINED and the averments disregarded. Date: Mach 23 ) 28 LAW OFFICES OF LORI B. FELDMAN By_\ é Lori’B, Feldman Attorneys for Defendants HOTEL SUNRISE, INC., KIRITKUMAR PATEL and SHAKUNTLA PATEL Ramesh Shrestha v. Hotel Sunrise, Ine. et al.; SFSC Case No. CGC-16-533387 3 DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT.