Preview
Charles H. Samel, Bar No. 182019
CSamel@perkinscoie.com
PERKINS COIE LP
1888 Century Park E., Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721
Telephone: 310.788.9900
Facsimile: 310.788.3399
Susan E. Foster (Pro Hac Vice Application Pending)
WSBA Bar No. 18030
SFoster@perkinscoie.com
PERKINS COIE tip
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800
Seattle, WA 98199
Telephone: 206.359.8846
Facsimile: 206.359.9846
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Trulia, Inc.
ELECTRONICALLY
FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
03/09/2015
Clerk of the Court
BY-WILLIAM TRUPEK
Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
TRULIA, INC., No. CGC-15-544255
Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF TRULIA, INC.’S
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
v. SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT
MOVE SALES, INC. IN RESPONSE
MOVE SALES, INC., TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
Defendant. ORDER THEREON
Date:
Time:
Dept:
Case No. CGC-15-544255
March 12, 2015
9:30 a.m.
302
Hon. Ernest H. Goldsmith
Complaint filed: February 20, 2015
Trial Date: None
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
BY DEFENDANT IN OPP TO MOTION FOR.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONPursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1354, Plaintiff Trulia, Inc. (“Trulia”) hereby
submits the following objections to certain evidence filed by Defendant Move Sales, Inc. (“Move
Sales’) In Support Of Its Response To Order To Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction:
OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF LUKE GLASS IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF TRULIA, INC.’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION (the “Glass Declaration”)':
i Paragraph 4, p. 1, Irrelevant. Sustained:
line 24 through p. 2, line 2. Evidence Code sections 210, 350; Overruled:
Civil Code section 1638.
“No evidence is admissible except
relevant evidence.” Evid Code
§ 350. “[E]vidence of the
undisclosed subjective intent of the
parties is irrelevant to determining
the meaning of contractual
language.” Winet v. Price, 4 Cal.
App. 4th 1159, 1166, fn. 3 (1992).
It is the outward manifestation or
expression of assent that is
controlling. Titan Group, Inc. v.
Sonoma Valley County Sanitation
Dist., 164 Cal. App. 3d 1122, 1127
' The Glass Declaration is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Richard L. Stone In Support
Of Defendant’s Response To Order To Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction.
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Case No. CGC-15-544255 . 2. BY DEFENDANT IN OPP TO MOTION FOR,
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION(1985). “The true, subjective, but
unexpressed intent of a party is
immaterial and irrelevant.” Vaillette
v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 18 Cal.
App. 4th 680, 690 (1993).
“Contract formation is governed by
objective manifestations, not
subjective intent of any individual
involved. The test is what the
outward manifestations of consent
would lead a reasonable person to
believe.” Allen v. Smith, 94 Cal.
App. 4th 1270, 1277 (2002)
(internal quotation marks & citation
omitted). “The parties’ undisclosed
intent or understanding is irrelevant
to contract interpretation.”
Founding Members of the Newport
Beach Country Club v. Newport
Beach Country Club, Inc., 109 Cal.
App. 4th 944, 956 (2003).
Here, the declarant’s unexpressed
understanding should not be
admissible to vary the meaning of
the Platform Services Agreement
with Trulia (the “Agreement”). The
Glass Declaration is devoid of any
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Case No. CGC-15-544255 3 BY DEFENDANT IN OPP TO MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONsuggestion that the declarant
communicated his intent to Trulia.
Accordingly, this Paragraph is not
relevant and therefore, inadmissible.
2. Paragraph 5, p. 2,
lines 3-16,
Irrelevant.
Evidence Code sections 210, 350;
Civil Code section 1638.
“No evidence is admissible except
relevant evidence.” Evid Code
§ 350. “[E]vidence of the
undisclosed subjective intent of the
parties is irrelevant to determining
the meaning of contractual
language.” Winet v. Price, 4 Cal.
App. 4th 1159, 1166, fn. 3 (1992).
It is the outward manifestation or
expression of assent that is
controlling. Titan Group, Inc. v.
Sonoma Valley County Sanitation
Dist., 164 Cal. App. 3d 1122, 1127
(1985). “The true, subjective, but
unexpressed intent of a party is
immaterial and irrelevant.” Vaillette
y. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 18 Cal.
App. 4th 680, 690 (1993).
“Contract formation is governed by
objective manifestations, not
Sustained:
Overruled:
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Case No, CGC-15-544255 -4- BY DEFENDANT IN OPP TO MOTION FOR,
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONsubjective intent of any individual
involved. The test is what the
outward manifestations of consent
would lead a reasonable person to
believe.” Allen v. Smith, 94 Cal.
App. 4th 1270, 1277 (2002)
(internal quotation marks & citation
omitted). “The parties’ undisclosed
intent or understanding is irrelevant
to contract interpretation.”
Founding Members of the Newport
Beach Country Club v. Newport
Beach Country Club, Inc., 109 Cal.
App. 4th 944, 956 (2003).
Here, the declarant’s unexpressed
understanding should not be
admissible to vary the meaning of
the Platform Services Agreement
with Trulia (the “Agreement”). The
Glass Declaration is devoid of any ,
suggestion that the declarant
communicated his intent to Trulia.
Accordingly, this Paragraph is not
relevant and therefore, inadmissible.
3. Paragraph 6, p. 2, Irrelevant. Sustained:
lines 17-23. Evidence Code sections 210, 350; Overruled:
Civil Code section 1638.
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
Case No. CGC-15-544255 -5- BY DEFENDANT IN OPP TO MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION“No evidence is admissible except
relevant evidence.” Evid Code
§350. “[E]vidence of the
undisclosed subjective intent of the
parties is irrelevant to determining
the meaning of contractual
language.” Winet v. Price, 4 Cal.
App. 4th 1159, 1166, fn. 3 (1992).
It is the outward manifestation or
expression of assent that is
controlling. Titan Group, Inc. v.
Sonoma Valley County Sanitation
Dist., 164 Cal. App. 3d 1122, 1127
(1985). “The true, subjective, but
unexpressed intent of a party is
immaterial and irrelevant.” Vaillette
. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 18 Cal.
App. 4th 680, 690 (1993).
“Contract formation is governed by
objective manifestations, not
subjective intent of any individual
involved. The test is what the
outward manifestations of consent
would lead a reasonable person to
believe.” Allen v. Smith, 94 Cal.
App. 4th 1270, 1277 (2002)
(internal quotation marks & citation
Case No. CGC-15-544255
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
BY DEFENDANT IN OPP TO MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONomitted). “The parties’ undisclosed
intent or understanding is irrelevant
to contract interpretation.”
Founding Members of the Newport
Beach Country Club v. Newport
Beach Country Club, Inc., 109 Cal.
App. 4th 944, 956 (2003).
Here, the declarant’s unexpressed
understanding should not be
admissible to vary the meaning of
the Platform Services Agreement
with Trulia (the “Agreement”), The
Glass Declaration is devoid of any
suggestion that the declarant
communicated his intent to Trulia.
Accordingly, this Paragraph is not
relevant and therefore, inadmissible.
DATED: March 9, 2015
Case No. CGC-15-544255
PERKINS COIE LLP
wl Yul Mr _
Charles H. Samel, Bar No. 182019
CSamel@perkinscoie.com
Susan E. Foster, WSBA Bar No. 18030
(Pro Hac Vice Application Pending)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Trulia, Inc.
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
-T- BY DEFENDANT IN OPP TO MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Preview
Charles H. Samel, Bar No. 182019 CSamel@perkinscoie.com PERKINS COIE LP 1888 Century Park E., Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721 Telephone: 310.788.9900 Facsimile: 310.788.3399 Susan E. Foster (Pro Hac Vice Application Pending) WSBA Bar No. 18030 SFoster@perkinscoie.com PERKINS COIE tip 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, WA 98199 Telephone: 206.359.8846 Facsimile: 206.359.9846 Attorneys for Plaintiff Trulia, Inc. ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 03/09/2015 Clerk of the Court BY-WILLIAM TRUPEK Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO TRULIA, INC., No. CGC-15-544255 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF TRULIA, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE v. SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT MOVE SALES, INC. IN RESPONSE MOVE SALES, INC., TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND Defendant. ORDER THEREON Date: Time: Dept: Case No. CGC-15-544255 March 12, 2015 9:30 a.m. 302 Hon. Ernest H. Goldsmith Complaint filed: February 20, 2015 Trial Date: None OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT IN OPP TO MOTION FOR. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONPursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1354, Plaintiff Trulia, Inc. (“Trulia”) hereby submits the following objections to certain evidence filed by Defendant Move Sales, Inc. (“Move Sales’) In Support Of Its Response To Order To Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction: OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF LUKE GLASS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TRULIA, INC.’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (the “Glass Declaration”)': i Paragraph 4, p. 1, Irrelevant. Sustained: line 24 through p. 2, line 2. Evidence Code sections 210, 350; Overruled: Civil Code section 1638. “No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence.” Evid Code § 350. “[E]vidence of the undisclosed subjective intent of the parties is irrelevant to determining the meaning of contractual language.” Winet v. Price, 4 Cal. App. 4th 1159, 1166, fn. 3 (1992). It is the outward manifestation or expression of assent that is controlling. Titan Group, Inc. v. Sonoma Valley County Sanitation Dist., 164 Cal. App. 3d 1122, 1127 ' The Glass Declaration is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Richard L. Stone In Support Of Defendant’s Response To Order To Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction. OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED Case No. CGC-15-544255 . 2. BY DEFENDANT IN OPP TO MOTION FOR, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION(1985). “The true, subjective, but unexpressed intent of a party is immaterial and irrelevant.” Vaillette v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 18 Cal. App. 4th 680, 690 (1993). “Contract formation is governed by objective manifestations, not subjective intent of any individual involved. The test is what the outward manifestations of consent would lead a reasonable person to believe.” Allen v. Smith, 94 Cal. App. 4th 1270, 1277 (2002) (internal quotation marks & citation omitted). “The parties’ undisclosed intent or understanding is irrelevant to contract interpretation.” Founding Members of the Newport Beach Country Club v. Newport Beach Country Club, Inc., 109 Cal. App. 4th 944, 956 (2003). Here, the declarant’s unexpressed understanding should not be admissible to vary the meaning of the Platform Services Agreement with Trulia (the “Agreement”). The Glass Declaration is devoid of any OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED Case No. CGC-15-544255 3 BY DEFENDANT IN OPP TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONsuggestion that the declarant communicated his intent to Trulia. Accordingly, this Paragraph is not relevant and therefore, inadmissible. 2. Paragraph 5, p. 2, lines 3-16, Irrelevant. Evidence Code sections 210, 350; Civil Code section 1638. “No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence.” Evid Code § 350. “[E]vidence of the undisclosed subjective intent of the parties is irrelevant to determining the meaning of contractual language.” Winet v. Price, 4 Cal. App. 4th 1159, 1166, fn. 3 (1992). It is the outward manifestation or expression of assent that is controlling. Titan Group, Inc. v. Sonoma Valley County Sanitation Dist., 164 Cal. App. 3d 1122, 1127 (1985). “The true, subjective, but unexpressed intent of a party is immaterial and irrelevant.” Vaillette y. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 18 Cal. App. 4th 680, 690 (1993). “Contract formation is governed by objective manifestations, not Sustained: Overruled: OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED Case No, CGC-15-544255 -4- BY DEFENDANT IN OPP TO MOTION FOR, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONsubjective intent of any individual involved. The test is what the outward manifestations of consent would lead a reasonable person to believe.” Allen v. Smith, 94 Cal. App. 4th 1270, 1277 (2002) (internal quotation marks & citation omitted). “The parties’ undisclosed intent or understanding is irrelevant to contract interpretation.” Founding Members of the Newport Beach Country Club v. Newport Beach Country Club, Inc., 109 Cal. App. 4th 944, 956 (2003). Here, the declarant’s unexpressed understanding should not be admissible to vary the meaning of the Platform Services Agreement with Trulia (the “Agreement”). The Glass Declaration is devoid of any , suggestion that the declarant communicated his intent to Trulia. Accordingly, this Paragraph is not relevant and therefore, inadmissible. 3. Paragraph 6, p. 2, Irrelevant. Sustained: lines 17-23. Evidence Code sections 210, 350; Overruled: Civil Code section 1638. OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED Case No. CGC-15-544255 -5- BY DEFENDANT IN OPP TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION“No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence.” Evid Code §350. “[E]vidence of the undisclosed subjective intent of the parties is irrelevant to determining the meaning of contractual language.” Winet v. Price, 4 Cal. App. 4th 1159, 1166, fn. 3 (1992). It is the outward manifestation or expression of assent that is controlling. Titan Group, Inc. v. Sonoma Valley County Sanitation Dist., 164 Cal. App. 3d 1122, 1127 (1985). “The true, subjective, but unexpressed intent of a party is immaterial and irrelevant.” Vaillette . Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 18 Cal. App. 4th 680, 690 (1993). “Contract formation is governed by objective manifestations, not subjective intent of any individual involved. The test is what the outward manifestations of consent would lead a reasonable person to believe.” Allen v. Smith, 94 Cal. App. 4th 1270, 1277 (2002) (internal quotation marks & citation Case No. CGC-15-544255 OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT IN OPP TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONomitted). “The parties’ undisclosed intent or understanding is irrelevant to contract interpretation.” Founding Members of the Newport Beach Country Club v. Newport Beach Country Club, Inc., 109 Cal. App. 4th 944, 956 (2003). Here, the declarant’s unexpressed understanding should not be admissible to vary the meaning of the Platform Services Agreement with Trulia (the “Agreement”), The Glass Declaration is devoid of any suggestion that the declarant communicated his intent to Trulia. Accordingly, this Paragraph is not relevant and therefore, inadmissible. DATED: March 9, 2015 Case No. CGC-15-544255 PERKINS COIE LLP wl Yul Mr _ Charles H. Samel, Bar No. 182019 CSamel@perkinscoie.com Susan E. Foster, WSBA Bar No. 18030 (Pro Hac Vice Application Pending) Attorneys for Plaintiff Trulia, Inc. OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED -T- BY DEFENDANT IN OPP TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION