Motion-Secondary: PERFORMING ARTS LLC, VS. KILLARNEY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                MIMOATAAN

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Aug-24-2012 11:22 am

Case Number: CGC-10-498405
Filing Date: Aug-24-2012 11:18
Filed by: LESLEY FISCELLA
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03737964
ORDER

PERFORMING ARTS LLC, VS. KILLARNEY CONSTRUCTION CoO., INC. et al

001C03737964

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.oO © YA WF WN

Se oe Se
wow N =

+
n Wn

Gordon & Rees LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Rp

RYN RN NNN om
§S & & FSS © FSF Se A

28

(ASH/1063653/13365277v.1

DION N. COMINOS (SBN 136522)
dcominos@gordonrees.com

MARK C. RUSSELL (SBN 208865)
mrussell@gordonrees,com

OLIVIA B. NELSON (SBN 253323)
onelson@gordonrees.com
GORDON & REES LLP

275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 986-5900
Facsimile: (415) 986-8054

Attomeys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant/Cross-Defendant FE I L E D

C INAL CONSULTIN G, INC. San Francisca County Superior Court
. AUG 2 4 2012
CLERK OF THE COURT
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OPSANFRANGISEQ Es

PERFORMING ARTS, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company,

Plaintiff,

vs.

KILLARNEY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.,
MID-MARKET DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.,

CARDINAL CONSULTING, INC.,
CULLINANE CONSTRUCTION, AL

NORMAL MECHANICAL, INC., MICHAEL

MURRAY, CONSTRUCTION TESTING
SERVICES, and DOES 1 THROUGH 200,
inclusive,

Defendants.

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION(S).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2
)
2
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. CGC-10-498405

CARDINAL CONSULTING, INC.’S
OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S
EVIDENCE SUPPORTING
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
CARDINAL’ CONSULTING INC.’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR
SUMMARY ADJUDICATION °
ORDER on ofSECNONS
Accompanying Papers:

Reply Brief;

Response to Plaintiff's Objection to
Evidence; Reply to Stmt. Of Undisputed
Facts; Opposition to Stmt of Additional
Evidence

Date: August 24, 2012
Time: 9:30 a.m.

Dept: 302

Judge: Harold E. Kahn

Complaint Filed: April 7, 2010
Trial Date: February 4, 2013

CARDINAL’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF'S
OPPOSITION TO CARDINAL’S MSJ/MSAGordon & Rees LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111

as follows:

Defendant CARDINAL CONSULTING INC. (“Cardinal”), objects to the evidence
submitted by Plaintiff PERFORMING ARTS, LLC (“Plaintiff”) in support of its Opposition to

Cardinal’s Motion For Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Adjudication,

PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE

GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION

RULINGS

1.

August 9, 2012 Declaration
of Thomas P. Reeves in

Opposition to Motion for
Summary Judgment of
Defendant Cardinal

Consulting, Inc.
(“Reeves Decl.”)

Cardinal asserts the following objections to
the entire declaration of Thomas Reeves in
addition to the objections to specific
portions of the declaration set forth in
Objection Nos. 2 through 20, which follow...

The Reeves Decl. must be stricken in its
entirety. Mr. Reeves is not q ied as an.
expert Witness and cannot opine regarding
Cardinal’s work monitoring the Subj
Loan for United Commercial Bank.

Mr. Reeves provides no foundation of his
education, certifications, licenses or other
background associated with the field in
which Mr. Cardinal works. Mr. Reeves
does not attach a resume to his declaration
and does not present experience which
would qualify him as an expert on the
financial aspects of loan monitoring. While
he declares that he has “acted as an
inspector and representative for banks...
for providing funding control oversight” he
does not explain how many times he has
held this role. He also does not specify
whether this includes experience
conducting preconstruction reviews,
evaluating the estimated percentage of
completion of a project such as 973 Market
Street, reviewing requests for
disbursement, reviewing progressofa
project through site visits and documents,
providing an opinion on budgets and
reasonableness of funds requested. Simply
working with consultants who perform loan
monitoring, such as Cardinal, also does not
qualify him as an expert in the standard of
care for that field (though he also provides
no foundation of how often he does work
directly with such consultants or any other
specific details regarding this work).

Reeves opinion is based on assumptions of
fact that are without evidentiary support,
speculative matters and conjectural matters.

-1-

CARDINAL’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO CARDINAL’S MSJ/MSAGordon & Rees LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111

Co mem YN DW PF BY

N N NY N YN NR NY Dee ei
oN DN UN FF YW Nn KF OD OOD DH F&F YB N KF OS

PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE

GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION

RULINGS

Besides Mr. Cardinal’s reports and his
contract with UCB, which were introduced
and properly authenticated with Cardinal’s
Declaration, Mr. Cardinal’s Declaration,
and portions of the first day of Mr.
Cardinal’s deposition, none of the
purported evidence on which Reeves bases
his opinion (such as Bode Concrete
records, SF Building Department
documents, and CTS documents) has been
introduced or authenticated. Additionally,
Mr. Reeves has not reviewed other
evidence associated with Mr. Cardinal’s
work on the Subject Loan, including the
second day of Mr. Cardinal’s deposition,
the deposition transcripts of the UCB
representatives who have testified in this
matter, UCB’s file related to this loan, all
of the plans and other project documents.
Thus, his opinion has no evidentiary value.

Not Qualified as an Expert Witness.
Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720(a),(b).

Lacks Foundation. Cal. Evid. Code § 403;
Garibay v. Hemmat (2008) 161
Cal.App.4th 735, 742.

Not in Declarant’s Personal Knowledge.
Cal. Evid. Code § 702.

Inadmissible Hearsay.
Cal. Evid. Code § 1200, et seq.

Opinion Based on Improper Matter
Cal. Evid. Code § 803

‘af overruled
I overruled
‘W overruled

NM4i_overruled

¥ overruled

2.

Reeves Dec., 14, pg, 3. lines
17-20.

“Finally, I have also reviewed
concrete delivery records of
cross-defendant Bode
Concrete, LLC (“Bode”), the
concrete supplier for the
project and the San Francisco
Department of Building
Inspection file and the

Mr. Reeves lacks foundation to testify as to
the contents of these records which have
not been authenticated nor admitted to the
Court. He lacks personal knowledge of
these documents and Plaintiff cannot use
Mr. Reeves declaration of their contents as
evidence of the truth of the documents.

To the extent Plaintiff relies on Mr.
Reeves’s statements regarding these
documents for the truth of the matters

-2-

CARDINAL’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO CARDINAL’S MSJ/MSA

© sustained

a sustained

O sustained

O sustained

a, sustainedGordon & Rees LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111

Cw ND HW FF WN

Rae a a i
co DU wmoO ND UH kW NY KY S

PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION RULINGS

defendant Construction contained in them, they are inadmissible

Testing Services, Inc. hearsay and hearsay within hearsay.

(“CTS”) special inspection

agency file for the project.” _

. Lacks Foundation. Cal. Evid. Code § 403; |, Sustained

Garibay v. Hemmat (2008) 161 ‘6 overruled
Cal.App.4th 735, 742.
Not in Declarant’s Personal Knowledge. a sustained
Cal. Evid. Code § 702. © overruled
Inadmissible Hearsay. G sustained
Cal. Evid. Code § 1200, et seq. w overruled
Opinion Based on Improper Matter O sustained
Cal. Evid. Code § 803 s_verruled

3. Mr. Reeves is not qualified to give an

Reeves Decl., (5. pg. 3, line
21 through pg. 4, line 6.

“T have concluded upon my
review of Cardinal’s contract,
Mr. Cardinal’s deposition
testimony, and his reports,
that Cardinal breached its
contract with UCB, and was
grossly negligence in
performing its duties under its
contract with UCB. Asa
matter of the standard of care
in the industry of a
construction funding control
consultant, Cardinal’s
performance of the contact
with reference to the 973
Market Street project was
woefully inadequate,
superficial, and highly
misleading to UCB. Asa
result, Cardinal’s reports gave
a wholly inaccurate picture of

expert opinion regarding Mr. Cardinal’s
work on the Subject Loan (see objections
challenging Mr. Reeves’s qualification in
the objections to the entire declaration in
Objection No. 1, above).

Additionally, Reeves opinion is based on
assumptions of fact that are without
evidentiary support, speculative matters
and conjectural matters. Besides Mr.
Cardinal’s reports and his contract with
UCB, which were introduced and properly
authenticated with Cardinal’s Declaration,
Mr. Cardinal’s Declaration, and portions of
the first day of Mr. Cardinal’s deposition,
none of the purported evidence on which
Reeves bases his opinion (such as Bode.
Concrete records, SF Building Department
documents, and CTS documents) has been
introduced or authenticated. Additionally,
Mr. Reeves has not reviewed other
evidence associated with Mr. Cardinal’s
work on the Subject Loan, including the
second day of Mr. Cardinal’s deposition,

the pr oe the that and being the deposition transcripts of the UCB
repeatedly wron: full representatives who have testified in this
Teoo. mney ded and a yn oved matter, UCB’s file related to this loan, all
fanding when any r en able of the plans and other project documents.
funding control op nsultant Thus, his opinion has no evidentiary value.
would have recommended Mr Réeves’s testimony also contains a
against funding, and would number of speculative and conjectural

3-

CARDINAL’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO CARDINAL’S MSJ/MSAGordon & Rees LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111

CoO YN DA HW BF WLN &

NN NY NY YY NY DD eae
ony A UF BH FF SOD we AI DH BRB BH = CS

PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION RULINGS

and should have specifically | matters, not permitted, such as comments

and explicitly advised the as to what “had to have been,” and “should

bank to examine exactly what | have been” noticeable to Mr. Cardinal:

was going on at the site and | These statements completely lack

whether it wanted to even foundation as to time and Mr. Reeves lacks

proceed with the loan, given | foundation to testify regarding these

the overt non-compliant matters.

activities occurring at the site

that had to have been, and —_______—

certain would and should Not Qualified as an Expert Witness. O sustained

have been noticeable to any | Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720(a),(b). overmled

reasonably competent

funding control consultant.” : —_______
Lacks Foundation. Cal. Evid. Code § 403; | C sustained
Garibay v. Hemmat (2008) 161 overruled
Cal.App.4th 735, 742.
Not in Declarant’s Personal Knowledge. a sustained
Cal. Evid. Code § 702. ‘overruled
Inadmissible Hearsay. © sustained
Cal. Evid. Code § 1200, et seg. ‘overruled
Opinion Based on Improper Matter a sustained
Cal. Evid. Code § 803 weoverruled

4,

Reeves Decl.. {7 pg. 4, line
10 through pg. 5, line 4.

“There is no indication that
Cardinal ever obtained any of
the following that should
have been in its control and
possession, in order to
reasonably perform its duties
with reference to the subject
project:

A. Engineered building plans
approved and permitted by
the City and County of San
Francisco for construction;

B. Duly issued permits for
construction work pursuant to

|| said plans including permit

application 2005 0988 2313
through Revision 6 dated
5/9/07 and application 2007
1221 1199 R3;

Mr. Reeves is not qualified to give an
expert opinion regarding Mr. Cardinal’s
work on the Subject Loan (see objections
challenging Mr. Reeves’s qualification in
the objections to the entire declaration in
Objection No. 1, above).

Additionally, Reeves’s opinion lacks
foundation and is based on assumptions of
fact that are without evidentiary support,
speculative matters and conjectural matters.
Mr. Reeves has not reviewed the bank’s
file on the Subject Loan or the transcripts
of the bank representatives, nor has he even
reviewed Mr. Cardinal’s second day of
deposition testimony. His statement that
Mr. Cardinal did not review matters A
through F lacks foundation.

Mr. Reeves does -not.contend that he
reviewed any plans related to the Subject
Loan or any permits related to the Subject
Loan. He also does not declare whether the
bank reviewed any of the plans or permits, -

4

CARDINAL’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO CARDINAL’S MSJ/MSAGordon & Rees LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111

1 PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION RULINGS

6 C. A project Construction ~~) or was aware of any of the plans or permits,
schedule in order for Cardinal | which would be clearly necessary in order

B ||| to know and understand the ‘| to form an opinion regarding Mr.
planned sequencing of the Cardinal’s services for UCB. His opinion

||] project; has no evidentiary value.

B ||| D. Copies of the Preliminary we. . 0 sustained
Notices submitted by the Me Qualified as 8 moo of overruled .
subcontractors and vendors . . ue OT

| for protecting their lien Wsstained MP it Ke

eee 1
rights; Lacks Foundation, Cal. Evid. Code § 403; | Sustained PP
TT %Garibay v. Hemmat (2008) 161 overruled 1 9
E. Copies of the San Cal.App.4th 735, 742.
q ||| Francisco Department of SZ sustaned
Building Inspection Not in Declarant’s Personal. Knowledge. a sustained
10| ||| inspection Job Card for Cal. Evid. Code § 702. RaAverruled _
permit(s); and
11 soos O sustained
. ._4 | Inadmissible Hearsay.
F. Copies of the CTS Special} . qyoverruled
121 |}| Inspection Reports required Cal. Evid. Code § 1200, et seq. aww
B by the San Francisco sasuined
Department of Building inion Based on Im Matt O sustain
Inspection for the structural Opinion Based on Improper Matter opverruled
14 ||] sextord comerete Cal. Evid. Code § 803. Bpverruled _
installations.
15\ os fb Mee thems
16 ||| This documentation, ata oy , le fredohon
minimum, wo ave been
17 ||| tequired for a reasonable bas berm sotab baled.
funding control consultant to WW
18 ||} execute any meaningful
oversight and reporting
19 ||| regarding funding to UCB.
In the absence of having in its
20 possession the above,
Cardinal should not have
21 ||| authorized or approved
payments of any money for
27 ||| the project. In short, without
physical control and
23 ||| possession of these
fundamental documents, it
24 ||| was simply not only
unreasonable, but reckless to
25 ||| tecommend funding for the
subject project.”
26 41) 5. :
Reeves Decl., {8 pg. 5, lines | Mr. Reeves is not qualified to give an
27 ||| 5 through 12. expert opinion regarding Mr. Cardinal’s
28 work on the Subject Loan (see objections

<5

CARDINAL’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF'S

OPPOSITION TO CARDINAL’S MSJ/MSAGordon & Rees LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111

Co wow ND HW FF YW YN =

Ny N WN RB NY NY NY NY NO we me
o Nn a a BP WwW N re OD Oo ON nn & Bw N rr Oo

PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION RULINGS

“Tt must be borne in mind, challenging Mr. Reeves’s qualification in

that the funding control the objections to the entire declaration in

officer is the bank’s ‘eyes and | Objection No. 1, above).

ears’ at a project. Thus, a

bank is very reliant upon and | Additionally, Reeves’s opinion lacks

depends on proactive foundation and is based on assumptions of

inspection and review of the | fact that are without evidentiary support,

planned work and actual _ speculative matters and conjectural matters.

work progress as a condition | Mr. Reeves has not reviewed the bank’s

precedent to the authorization | file on the Subject Loan or the transcripts

and approval of any funding. | of the bank representatives, nor has he even

Without these fundamental | reviewed Mr. Cardinal’s second day of

documents, it is simply deposition testimony. Not only does

untenable for Cardinal to Reeves’s opinion assume facts not in

have made any evidence regarding the bank’s practices and

recommendations to the bank procedures, but it also makes unfounded

whatsoever. Without the - assumptions, There is no connection in Mr.

above fundamental and Reeves’s testimony that the Bank suffered

available documents, “catastrophic consequences” or any

Cardinal issued the below damages at all. His opinion has no

dated reports, which resulted | evidentiary value.

in catastrophic consequences .

for UCB, as illustrated Dwsuined

below.” Not Qualified as an Expert Witness. o sus 4
Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720(a),(b). exrule
Lacks Foundation. Cal. Evid. Code § 403; | 9 Sustained
Garibay v. Hemmat (2008) 161 overruled
Cal. App.4th 735, 742.
Not in Declarant’s Personal Knowledge. 5 sustained
Cal. Evid. Code § 702. PBC overruled
Inadmissible Hearsay. 9 sustained
Cal. Evid. Code § 1200, et seq. overruled

0 sustained

Opinion Based on Improper Matter
Cal. Evid. Code § 803.

eXoverruled _

6.

Reeves Decl., {10 pg. 5,
lines 22 through 27.

*Most noteworthy is that
Cardinal’s report reflects that
100% of the
foundation/slab/grade beams
had been completed when, in
fact, this is an inaccurate

Mr. Reeves is not qualified to give an
expert opinion regarding Mr. Cardinal’s
work on the Subject Loan (see objections

challenging Mr. Reeves’s qualification in
the objections to the entire declaration in
Objection No. 1, above).

Mr. Reeves’s opinion regarding the status
of the concrete work on the

6-

CARDINAL'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PLAINTIFFS
OPPOSITION TO CARDINAL’S MSJ/MSAGordon & Rees LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111

0 em N DOD WH FF YW N

oN vow NON — moe -
BRxXRRRRBBRAESSARe ABE BH Ee S

GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION

PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE RULINGS
misrepresentation of the foundation/slabs/grade beams lacks
status of the site at that time. | complete foundation and is based on
In fact, the actual status was | assumptions of fact that are without
that the “mat slab” foundation | evidentiary support, speculative matters
supporting the structural and conjectural matters. Mr. Reeves’s
components was changed to a | reference to a 5/17/07 non-permitted
“grade beam” foundation drawing is hearsay. This alleged document
through an interim Santos & | is not before the Court and Plaintiff cannot
Urrutia (the-architects) non- _| introduce the substance of it through Mr.
permitted drawing dated Reeves’s declaration. Furthermore, there is
SALT/0T” no explanation of how a document, which
is dated four months prior to Mr. Cardinal’s
report has any bearing on his report. This
opinion has no evidentiary value.
Not Qualified as an Expert Witness. D sustained

Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720(a),(b).

Lacks Foundation. Cal. Evid. Code § 403;
Garibay v. Hemmat (2008) 161
Cal.App.4th 735, 742.

Not in Declarant’s Personal Knowledge.
Cal. Evid. Code § 702.

Inadmissible Hearsay.
Cal. Evid. Code § 1200, et seq.

Opinion Based on Improper Matter
Cal. Evid. Code § 803.

d * overruled

sustained
O overruled
Dx sustained
O overruled

sustained
Oo overruled

a sustained
O overruled _

7

Reeves Decl., (11, pg. 5, line
28 through pg. 6, line 8.

“With reference to concrete
shear walls at various
locations, the report indicates
90% completion (PA 02288).
Again, this is a gross
misrepresentation of the
building's actual status in the
following regards: since
Construction Testing Services
and Bode Concrete, LLC in
documents produced in this
matter confirm that shear

Mr. Reeves is not qualified to give an
expert opinion regarding Mr. Cardinal’s
work on the Subject Loan (see objections
challenging Mr. Reeves’s qualification in
the objections to the entire declaration in
Objection No. 1, above).

Mr. Reeves’s opinion regarding the status
of the concrete work and the installation of -
shear walls lacks complete foundation and
is based on assumptions of fact that are
without evidentiary support, speculative
matters and conjectural matters. Mr.
Reeves’s reference to CTS and Bode
Concrete documents is-hearsay. These

-J-

CARDINAL’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF'S
OPPOSITION TO CARDINAL’S MSJ/MSAGordon & Rees LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111

om YN DH BB WN

No N NY NY NY NY NY NR ees
ea YN A HW BRB BH F&F SO MN DH BIW YN KF

PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION RULINGS
walls were continuing to be alleged document are not before the Court
installed well after the 90% and Plaintiff cannot introduce the substance
cited by Cardinal. The of them through Mr. Reeves’s declaration.
foundations necessary to This opinion has no evidentiary value.
support the shear walls were
not installed and shear walls :
at 1st and 2nd floors at grid Not Qualified as an Expert Witness. 1 sustaned
C/3.5 and C/4.0 never were Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720(a),(b).
installed. Further, there was : Devoverruled _
no permit for the revised :
structural plan used for the Lacks Foundation, Cal. Evid. Code § 403; | 3 sustained
building (see Cardinal Site Garibay v. Hemmat (2008) 161
Inspection Regarding Current | Cal.App.4th 735, 742. O overruled
Draw Request comments, 2nd .
paragraph dated 9/13/07).” Not in Declarant’s Personal Knowledge. LX sustained
Cal. Evid. Code § 702.
O overruled
Inadmissible Hearsay. ® sustained
Cal. Evid. Code § 1200, ef seq. * overruled
Opinion Based on Improper Matter sustained
Cal. Evid. Code § 803. overruled

8.

Reeves Decl., {.12, pg. 6,
lines 9 through 19.

jbe-fitst report also
indicates the insiallation of a
metal trussed roof was 55%

. Once again, this
was inaccurate for the
following reasons: there was
nome roof in the
original permit 2005 0988
2313 through Revision 6 or in
the subsequent interim Santos
& Urrutia non-permitted
drawing dated 5/17/07 and no
such mciah trussed roof was —
ever installed ie roof was
revised from a delta rib
concrete deck in permit 2005
0988 2313 through Revision
6 to a cast in place concrete
design shown in permit 2007
1221 1199 R3. Similarly,
there is a reference to a
basement slab as 70%

Mr. Reeves is not qualified to give an
expert opinion regarding Mr. Cardinal’s
work on the Subject Loan (see objections
challenging Mr. Reeves’s qualification in
the objections to the entire declaration in
Objection No. 1, above).

Mr. Reeves’s opinion regarding the status
of the installation of the roof lacks
complete foundation and is based on
assumptions of fact that are without
evidentiary support, speculative matters
and conjectural matters. Mr. Reeves’s
references to a 5/17/07 non-permitted.
drawing and permits are hearsay. These
alleged documents are not before the Court
and Plaintiff cannot introduce the substance
of them through Mr. Reeves’s declaration.
Furthermore, there is no explanation of
how a document, which is dated four
months prior to Mr. Cardinal’s report has
any bearing on his report. This opinion has
no evidentiary value,

-8-

CARDINAL’ 'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO CARDINAL’S MSJ/MSAGordon & Rees LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111

Ce ND WH BP WN

bon Nb ww BN = = ee ow =
BRRERRBRBARBRSFAARRBESHES

PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION RULINGS
complete. Agin. this is not cot Qualified as ie ae O sustained
accurate and the acne! status | Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720(a),(b).
at the time we eG overruled
work has ever been
completed, much less 70% of | Lacks Foundation. Cal. Evid. Code § 4037-7 ¥' sustained
the work. This ostensible Garibay v. Hemmat (2008).161 overruled
truss work also demonstrates | Cal.App.4th 735, 742. Soverruled
that the construction work
was not being done pursuant | Not in Declarant’s Personal Knowledge. Xf sustained
to plans.” Cal. Evid. Code § 702. ay overruled
Inadmissible Hearsay. 2 sustained
Cal. Evid. Code § 1200, et seq. 2x overruled
Opinion Based on Improper Matter Oy sustained
Cal. Evid. Code § ?f overruled
wnlontined sgtley io added |
poor d Dngehon ts Dustaincd
9.
Reeves Decl., 13. pg. 6, Mr. Reeves is not qualified to give an
lines 20-26. - expert opinion regarding Mr. Cardinal’s
wort on the Subject Loan (see objections
te . challenging Mr. Reeves’s qualification in
In total, as of the date of the | the objections to the cntire declaration in
first report, Cardinal Objection No. 1, above).
indicated a concrete
subtotal of 72% completed, is | Mr. Reeves’s opinion regarding the status
grossly inaccurate. As of that | of the concrete work lacks complete
date only 66 cubic yards had | foundation and is based on assumptions of
been poured against a‘mat fact that are without evidentiary support,
slab total of +/- 944 cubic speculative matters and conjectural matters.
yards (105 truck loads) or the | Mr. Reeves’s reference to Bode Concrete
grade beam modified total of | documents is hearsay. These alleged
613 cubic yards (68 truck documents are not before the Court and
loads). As of that date, per Plaintiff cannot introduce the substance of
Bode's records, there was them through Mr. Reeves’s declaration.
delivery of approximately This opinion has no evidentiary value. _
758 cubic yards of concrete,
and approximately 1153.50 ——______—
cubic yards after that date, ie. | Not Qualified as an Expert Witness. O sustained
approximately 40% of the Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720(a),(b). bef overruled
total concrete delivered.”
Lacks Foundation, Cal. Evid. Code § 403; ( sustained
Garibay v. Hemmat (2008) 161 a overruled
Cal.App.4th 735, 742. a
Not in Declarant’s Personal Knowledge.  P&sustained
Cal. Evid. Code § 702. a overruled

-9-

CARDINAL’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO CARDINAL’S MSJ/MSA.Gordon & Rees LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111

NY ob NY NY N YN NN BeBe Bee ee Ee eR
NY DA A fF BVWwNH F§ BS OD we IN DA FF BW YN KK CO

Ny
0

Co em IN DOD HW F&F WY N

PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION RULINGS
Inadmissible Hearsay. sustained
Cal. Evid. Code § 1200, et seq. O overruled
Opinion Based on Improper Matter Sustained
Cal. Evid. Code § 803. ea

10.

Reeves Decl.. 14, pg. 6, line | Mr. Reeves.is not qualified to give an

27 through pg. 7, line 3. expert opinion regarding Mr. Cardinal’s
work on the Subject Loan (see objections

“ eat challenging Mr. Reeves’s qualification in

ee Ss eer coat the objections to the entire declaration in

a 32% completion of the Objection No. 1, above).

window installation at the oe .

project. This number is Mr. Reeves’s opinion regarding the

inaccurate since the window installation lacks complete

“installations” were not foundation and is based on assumptions of

complete as they were fact that are without evidentiary support,

lacking sill pans, flashings speculative matters and conjectural matters.

and back priming for the Mr. Reeves offers no explanation of his

exposed wood. Installations conclusion regarding the window

viewed from inside showed installation, nor does he provide any time

daylight around the frames reference which would relate it to Mr.

and sills.” Cardinal’s September 2007 report. This
opinion has no evidentiary value.
Not Qualified as an Expert Witness. G sustained

Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720(a),(b).

Lacks Foundation, Cal. Evid. Code § 403;
Garibay v. Hemmat (2008) 161
Cal.App.4th 735, 742.

Not in Declarant’s Personal Knowledge.
Cal. Evid. Code § 702.

Inadmissible Hearsay.
Cal. Evid. Code § 1200, et seg.

Opinion Based on Improper Matter
Cal. Evid. Code § 803.

pai overruled _

O sustained
overruled

Oo sustained
overruled

a sustained

2 overruled
0 sustained

x overruled

-10-

CARDINAL’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF'S
OPPOSITION TO CARDINAL’S MSJ/MSA.Gordon & Rees LLP

275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111

Do Om YN DH WH FF WN

NN MY RY NN NY N SF Bee Be Be Be Be Be
ou AA BONS = SF GH ADAH BW NH SF

PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION RULINGS

11.

Reeves Decl.. 15. pg. 7. Mr. Reeves is not qualified to give an

lines 4 through 16. expert opinion regarding Mr. Cardinal’s
wor on the Subject Loan (see objections

“ + . challenging Mr. Reeves’s qualification in

Tn conclusion, with the objections. to the entire declaration in

reference to the project Objection No. 1, abo

summary presented on jection No. 1, above).

September 13, 2007, Cardinal . wee :

misleadingly and carelessly _| Reeves opinion is based on assumptions of

stated the actual progress at _| fact that are without evidentiary support,

the site and inaccurately speculative matters and conjectural matters.

represented the progress at | Besides Mr. Cardinal’s reports and his

the site to the bank. contract with UCB, which were introduced

Notwithstanding these and properly authenticated with Cardinal’s

obvious and glowing Declaration, Mr. Cardinal’s Declaration,

inaccuracies that Cardinal and portions of the first day of Mr.

should have known of, Cardinal’s deposition, none ofthe

Cardinal failed to bring these | Purported evidence on which Reeves bases

inaccurate matters to the his opinion (such as Bode Concrete

bank's attention, and records, SF Building Department

furthermore recommended documents, and CTS documents) has been

and approved continued introduced or authenticated. Additionally,

funding of the project, instead | Mr. Reeves has not reviewed other ©

of what it should have done, | eVidence associated with Mr. Cardinal’s

je. advise the bank that the work on the Subject Loan, including the

project did not have lawfully | second day of Mr. Cardinal’s deposition,

‘approved revised plans and the deposition transcripts of the UCB

attendant permits. Given representatives who have testified in this

these underlying crucial matter, UCB’s file related to this loan, all

factors, lack of permits and _| of the plans and other project documents.

lack of approved plans, at the | Thus, his opinion has no evidentiary value.

very least, , Cardinal should

have immediate . .

recommended na. further Not Qualified as an Expert Witness. D sustained

funding pending receipt of Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720(a),(b). overruled

such Permits and such A overmlee

approved plans. But . :

aeetteless, Cardinal, in Lacks Foundation. Cal. Evid. Code § 403; | sustained

gross disregard of its duties, | Garibay v. Hemmat (2008) 161 overruled

recommended and approved | Cal-App.4th 735, 742. {overruled _

the funding of $1,530,366.74, . 5

the full amount requested by | Not in Declarant’s Personal Knowledge. D Sustained

the borrower.” Cal. Evid. Code § 702. overruled
Inadmissible Hearsay. swstaned
Cal. Evid. Code § 1200, et seq. Covel
Opinion Based on Improper Matter D sustamed
Cal. Evid. Code § 803. PRoverruled

-]l-

CARDINAL’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF'S
OPPOSITION TO CARDINAL’S MSJ/MSAGordon & Rees LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111

_

NN NY NY NM YN NY NY Be Bee ee ee
oN A vA FB YW NH - SBS ODN KD H FW NH KF S&S

PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE

GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION

RULINGS

Ce rN A HF YW DN

12.
Reeves Dee j a pg. 7,
lines 23 through 26.

“This sort of canned reporting
indicates to me that Cardinal
was not performing its duties
and was not committing
sufficient time to do an
adequate inspection of the
premises in order to oversee
the progress and to generate
individualized reports
regarding the progress and its
recommendations.”

Mr. Reeves is not qualified to give an
expert opinion regarding Mr. Cardinal’s
work on the Subject Loan (see objections
challenging Mr. Reeves’s qualification in
the objections to the entire declaration in’
Objection No. 1, above).

Reeves opinion is based on assumptions of
fact that are without evidentiary support,

speculative matters and conjectural matters.

Besides Mr. Cardinal’s reports and his
contract with UCB, which were introduced
and properly authenticated with Cardinal’s
Declaration, Mr. Cardinal’s Declaration,
and portions of the first day of Mr.
Cardinal’s deposition, none of the
putported evidence on which Reeves bases
his opinion (such as Bode Concrete
records, SF Building Department
documents, and CTS documents) has been
introduced or authenticated. Additionally,
Mr. Reeves has not reviewed other
evidence associated with Mr. Cardinal’s
work on the Subject Loan, including the
second day of Mr. Cardinal’s deposition,
the deposition transcripts of the UCB
representatives who have testified in this
matter, UCB’s file related to this loan, all
of the plans and other project documents.
Thus, his opinion has no evidentiary value.

Not Qualified as an Expert Witness.
Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720(a),(b).

Lacks Foundation. Cal. Evid. Code § 403;
Garibay v. Hemmat (2008) 161
Cal.App.4th 735, 742.

Not in Declarant’s Personal Knowledge.
Cal. Evid. Code § 702.

Inadmissible Hearsay.
Cal. Evid, Code § 1200, et seq.

Opinion Based on Improper Matter
Cal. Evid: Code § 803.

0 sustained

x overruled

0D sustained

Def overruled

D sustained
overruled

O sustained
fat overruled _

0 sustained
PtKoverruled -

-12-

CARDINAL’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF'S
OPPOSITION TO CARDINAL’S MSJ/MSAGordon & Rees LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111

PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION RULINGS

13.

Reeves Decl.. 418. pg. 7, line | Mr. Reeves is not qualified to give an

27 through pg. 6, line 6. expert opinion regarding Mr. Cardinal’s
work on the Subject Loan (see objections

“Tn thi vt, th ‘i challenging Mr. Reeves’s qualification in

n this report, the concrete | the objections to the entire declaration in

subtotal is reported as 100% Objection No. 1, above).

completed (see

Cardinal's Ex. E, PA 02454). | Mr. Reeves’s opinion regarding the status

This report simply defies of the concrete work lacks complete

reality, with reference to the | foundation and is based on assumptions of

subject site, as confirmed by | fact that are without evidentiary support,

my various visits to the site speculative matters and conjectural matters.

and of what actually Mr. Reeves offers no explanation of the

transpired after the date of the | support for his conclusion regarding the

inspection for the report, concrete shear walls, and also fails to

November 27, 2007. The explain in connection in time to Mr.

concrete work at the site was | Cardinal’s November 2007 report. This

never even close to 100% opinion has no evidentiary value.

completed. For example, the

concrete foundation grade ———__—

beams needed to support the | Not Qualified as an Expert Witness. O sustained

concrete shear walls and the | Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720(a),(b). overruled

concrete shear walls from the

basement to the first floor and —________

the first to second floor were | Lacks Foundation. Cal. Evid. Code § 403; | 0 sustained

not installed.” Garibay v. Hemmat (2008) 161 overruled
Cal.App.4th 735, 742. PA overruled _
Not in Declarant’s Personal Knowledge. 0 sustained
Cal. Evid. Code § 702. bP overruled
Inadmissible Hearsay. O sustained
Cal. Evid. Code § 1200, et seq. og overruled.
Opinion Based on Improper Matter sustained
Cal. Evid. Code § 803. PX overruled

14.

Reeves Decl.. 419. pg. 8 Mr. Reeves is not qualified to give an

jines 7 through 19. expert opinion regarding Mr. Cardinal’s
work on the Subject Loan (see objections

“ challenging Mr. Reeves’s qualification in

Bey documents produced by the objections to the entire declaration in

November 27, 2007, Bode _| Objection No. 1, above).

had delivered 1,305 cubic we .

yards of concrele to the " Mr. Reeves’s opinion regarding the status

project site. However, after | of the concrete work lacks complete

November 27, 2007, Bode foundation and is based on assumptions of

-13-

CARDINAL’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO CARDINAL’S MSJ/MSAGordon & Rees LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111

PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION RULINGS
delivered an additional fact that are without evidentiary support,

approximately 573.5 cubic speculative matters and conjectural matters.

yards of concrete (or Mr. Reeves’s reference to the Bode

approximately 63 truckloads) | Concrete documents is hearsay. These

‘over the ensuing three months | alleged documents are not before the Court

through and inclusive of and Plaintiff cannot introduce the substance

March 7, 2009. Obviously, of them through Mr. Reeves’s declaration.

the concrete work could not | Furthermore, there is no explanation of

possibly have been 100% how a document, which is dated four

completed, if after Cardinal's | months prior to Mr. Cardinal’s report has

November 27, 2007 report, an | any bearing on his report. This opinion has

additional 63 truckloads of no evidentiary value.

concrete were delivered. The

additional loads of concrete —____—
did not include the omitted | Not Qualified as an Expert Witness. D sustained
foundation grade beams and | Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720(a),(b). overruled
shear walls which increases

the missing concrete work by ——_______
729 (116 shear walls + 613 Lacks Foundation. Cal. Evid. Code § 403; sustained
grade beams and foundations | Garibay v. Hemmat (2008) 161 o overruled

) cubic yards ( 93 truck Cal.App.4th 735, 742. TT
loads). This, of course, is —______—
inexcusable and a gross Not in Declarant’s Personal Knowledge. ox sustained
misrepresentation of the Cal. Evid. Code § 702. o overruled
status of progress at the site. TT
The concrete incompletion —_____—
had to be overtly and clearly | _Inadmissible Hearsay. sustained
evident to Cardinal and Cal. Evid. Code § 1200, et seq. o' overruled
should have been clearly

brought to the attention of the ——______—
bank, but, in a grossly Opinion Based on Improper Matter @ustained
negligent fashion, it was not a overruled

by Cardinal.”

Cal. Evid. Code § 803.

15.

Reeves Decl., { 20, pg. 8.
lines 20 through 23.

“Instead of recommending
against the further funding as
it should have, Cardinal
recommended and approved
an additional $690,161.89 to
be funded by the bank to the
borrower. For reasons noted
above, this was a negligent
and improper
recommendation and
approval.”

Mr. Reeves is not qualified to give an
expert opinion regarding Mr. Cardinal’s
work on the Subject Loan (see objections
challenging Mr. Reeves’s qualification in
the objections to the entire declaration in
Objection No. 1, above).

Reeves opinion is based on assumptions of
fact that are without evidentiary support,
speculative matters and conjectural matters.
Besides Mr. Cardinal’s reports and his
contract with UCB, which were introduced
and properly authenticated with Cardinal’s
Declaration, Mr: Cardinal’s. Declaration,
and portions of the first day of Mr.
Cardinal’s deposition, none of the
purported evidence on which Reeves bases
his opinion (such as Bode Concrete

-14-

CARDINAL’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO CARDINAL’S MSJ/MSA.Gordon & Rees LLP

275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111

co eo NY DH HW BF BN

N N NY NY BY NN DY Nw ei
ot DA HW BF Ww NH KF GBC wm XA DH BR WN SF OO

PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION RULINGS
records, SF Building Department
documents, and CTS documents) has been
introduced or authenticated. Additionally,
Mr. Reeves has not reviewed other
evidence associated with Mr. Cardinal’s
work on the Subject Loan, including the
second day of Mr. Cardinal’s deposition,
the deposition transcripts of the UCB
representatives who have testified in this
matter, UCB’s file related to this loan, all
of the plans and other project documents.
Thus, his opinion has no evidentiary value.
Not Qualified as an Expert Witness. 0 sustained
Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720(a),(b). overruled
Lacks Foundation. Cal. Evid. Code § 403; | O sustained
Garibay v. Hemmat (2008) 161 overruled
Cal.App.4th 735, 742. ear
Not in Declarant’s Personal Knowledge. 0 sustained
Cal. Evid. Code § 702. & overruled
Inadmissible Hearsay. O sustained
Cal. Evid. Code § 1200, et seq. SY overruled
Opinion Based on Improper Matter sustained

Cal. Evid. Code § 803.

5 governuled

16.

Reeves Decl., (22, pg. 8, line
28 through pg. 9, line 7.

“Tn the project summary,
Cardinal states, "This period .

funds requested for
contingency for roughly 30%
of the budget. As the project
was complete to roughly 33%
this use of contingency
appears reasonable." But, for
reasons noted above, this
33% completion is clearly not
accurate and is a
misrepresentation and one
that Cardinal failed to correct
over the months since its

Mr. Reeves is not qualified to give an
expert opinion regarding Mr. Cardinal’s
work on the Subject Loan (see objections
challenging Mr. Reeves’s qualification in
the objections to the entire declaration in
Objection No. 1, above).

Reeves opinion is based on assumptions of
fact that are without evidentiary support,

speculative matters and conjectural matters.

Besides Mr. Cardinal’s reports and his
contract with UCB, which were introduced
and properly authenticated with Cardinals
Declaration, Mr. Cardinal’s Declaration,
and portions of the first day of Mr.
Cardinal’s deposition, none of the
purported evidence on which Reeves bases
his opinion (such as Bode Concrete

-15-

CARDINAL’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO CARDINAL’S MSJ/MSAGordon & Rees LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111

PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE

GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION

RULINGS

initial misrepresentation in its
first report. In short, the
misrepresentations are
snowballing and causing
repeated recommendations of
approval for funding based
upon initial inaccuracies and
compounding inaccuracies in
the initial and intervening
reports.”

records, SF Building Department
documents,.and CTS documents) has been
introduced or authenticated. Additionally,
Mr. Reeves has not reviewed other
evidence associated with Mr. Cardinal’s
work on the Subject Loan, including the
second day of Mr. Cardinal’s deposition,
the deposition transcripts of the UCB
representatives who have testified in this
matter, UCB’s file related to this loan, all
of the plans and other project documents.
Thus, his opinion has no evidentiary value.

Not Qualified as an Expert Witness.
Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720(a),(b).

Lacks Foundation. Cal. Evid. Code § 403;
Garibay v. Hemmat (2008) 161
Cal.App.4th 735, 742.

Not in Declarant’s Personal Knowledge.
Cal. Evid. Code § 702. ,

wW lrgut 4

yay =
Inadmissible Hearsay. qin
Cal. Evid. Code § 1200, ef seq. Hyshors

Opinion Based on Improper Matter
Cal. Evid. Code § 803.

mY sustained

a overruled

sustained
5 overruled _

2x sustained
a overruled

2x sustained
a overruled

‘eXsustained

oO overruled

17.

Reeves Decl., 23. pg. 9,
lines 8 through 22.

“As with the prior reports, the
concrete subtotal is at 100%,
which is not accurate, never
was accurate, and could not
have been reasonably
represented as being accurate.
If for no other reason, it is
inaccurate because Cardinal
had to have recognized and.
seen that since its last report
on November 27, 2007, and
the date of the inspection for
Report No. 3, January 4,
2008, there had been

Mr. Reeves is not qualified to give an
expert opinion regarding Mr. Cardinal’s
work on the Subject Loan (see objections
challenging Mr. Reeves’s qualification in
the objections to the entire declaration in
Objection No. 1, above).

Mr. Reeves’s opinion regarding the status
of the concrete work lacks complete
foundation and is based on assumptions of
fact that are without evidentiary support,

‘speculative matters and conjectural matters.

Mr. Reeves’s reference to the delivery of
concrete by Bode is hearsay. This alleged
evidence is not before the Court and
Plaintiff cannot introduce the substance of
it through Mr. Reeves’s declaration. Mr.
Reeves’s opinion is pure conjecture and

-16-

CARDINAL’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF'S
OPPOSITION TO CARDINAL’S MSJ/MSAGordon & Rees LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111

oO wo nN KD vA FF Ww NHN

N HN NY eet
B ’SRREBBRRERBESEeFWAGDEBSHR ES

PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION RULINGS
significant additional speculation with no foundation. This

concrete work in that time opinion has no evidentiary value.

frame. Bode delivered 102

cubic yards of concrete in that —_____—-
time frame between Not Qualified as an Expert Witness. a sustained
November 27, 2007 and Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720(a),(b). overruled
January 4, 2008. The failure

to note this additional amount -

of concrete is indicative of Lacks Foundation. Cal. Evid. Code § 403; a sustained
only one thing: no thorough | Garibay v. Hemmat (2008) 161 o overruled
examination of the building | Cal-App.4th 735, 742. TT
was conducted by Cardinal -

since such a vast quantity of | Not in Declarant’s Personal Knowledge. sustained
concrete would and should Cal. Evid. Code § 702. Oo overruled
have been manifestly OT
apparent to any reasonable ——
funding control consultant Inadmissible Hearsay. 2X sustained

and should have been noted Cal. Evid. Code § 1200, et seq. O overruled
with red flags to the bank. TT
Likewise, again, at this -
inspection, it had to be Opinion Based on Improper Matter aKgustained
readily apparent to Cardinal | Cal, Evid. Code § 803. a overruled

that various shear wall and
grade beams, etc, which
required concrete had not
been done or completed at ~
grid C/3.5 and C/4 at the Ist
and 2nd floors. Instead of
sending red flags to UCB,
Cardinal recommended and
approved more funding in the
amount of $461,312.49.”

18.

Reeves Decl., (25, pg. 9, line
27 through 10, line 2.

“This report makes a
recommendation and
approved of further funding
in the amount of $613,436.16.
It continues to repeat the prior
misrepresentations noted
above, and for the same
reasons, it is deficient and
misleadingly and causes the
bank to lend more money.”

Mr. Reeves is not qualified to give an
expert opinion regarding Mr. Cardinal’s
work on the Subject Loan (see objections
challenging Mr. Reeves’s qualification in
the objections to the entire declaration in
Objection No. 1, above).

Reeves opinion is based on assumptions of
fact that are without evidentiary support,
speculative matters and conjectural matters.
Besides Mr. Cardinal’s reports and his
contract with UCB, which were introduced.
and properly authenticated with Cardinal’s
Declaration, Mr. Cardinal’s Declaration,
and portions of the first day of Mr.
Cardinal’s deposition, none of the
purported evidence on which Reeves bases
his opinion (such as Bode Concrete

-17-

CARDINAL’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF'S
OPPOSITION TO CARDINAL’S MSJ/MSAGordon & Rees LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111

PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE

GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION RULINGS

records, SF Building Department
documents, and CTS documents) has been
introduced or authenticated. Additionally,
Mr. Reeves has not reviewed other
evidence associated with Mr. Cardinal’s
work on the Subject Loan, including the
second day of Mr. Cardinal’s deposition,
the deposition transcripts of the UCB so
representatives who have testified in this sustained
matter, UCB’s file related to this loan, all overruled

of the plans and other project documents.
Thus, his opinion has no evidentiary value.

sustained

0 overruled
Not Qualified as an Expert Witness.
Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720(a),(b). % sustained

O overruled
Lacks Foundation. Cal. Evid. Code § 403
Garibay v. Hemmat (2008) 161 —
Cal.App.4th 735, 742. 2 sustained

oO overruled

Not in Declarant’s Personal Knowledge.
Cal. Evid. Code § 702. hm Qgtr astaned

pe~ 5 overruled _
Inadmissible Hearsay. areal
Cal. Evid. Code § 1200, et seq. "RCA a4

Opinion Based on Improper Matter
Cal. Evid. Code § 803.

19.
Reeves Decl., { 27, pg. 10.
lines 10 through 17.

“Tn my experience as a bank.
consultant, I know that banks
rely heavily on the inspection
report recommendation(s)
and approval of funding —
and if a recommendation is
made, the banks generally-
will follow them. The banks.
generally do not have the in-
house expertise and time to
review progress of projects
and thus rely on their
consultants to bring matters
of concern to their attention
in a direct and summarized
fashion. For example here,

Mr. Reeves is not qualified to give an
expert opinion regarding Mr. Cardinal’s
work on the Subject Loan (see objections
challenging Mr. Reeves’s qualification in
the objections to the entire declaration in
Objection No. 1, above).

Mr. Reeves’s opinion lacks foundation and
is based on assumptions of fact that are
without evidentiary support, speculative
matters and conjectural matters. Mr.
Reeves offers no specific details regarding
his “experience” as a bank consultant.
Furthermore, he offers no opinion that he is
familiar with the practices of UCB as he
did not review any of the UCB records in
this matter or the testimony from the
former bank employees. Mr. Reeves also
provides no foundation for his opinion

~18-

CARDINAL’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF'S
OPPOSITION TO CARDINAL’S MSJ/MSA.Gordon & Rees LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111

Oo em NY DHA PF WN

Nb NR YY NY NY N N NY DN Fe Be ee ee —
ea a ak BSF F&F Se WADE SAHR eS

PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE

GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION RULINGS

the bank needed to be regarding the permits for the work on the

informed directly of the Subject Property. This opinion has no

absence of permits and the evidentiary value.

ongoing unpermitted work .

with a recommendation that

all funding stop pending Not Qualified as an Expert Witness. O sustained

permit approval.” Cal. Evid. Code §§ 720(a),(b). = overruled
Lacks Foundation. Cal. Evid. Code § 403; | 4 sustained
Garibay v. Hemmat (2008) 161
Cal.App.4th 735, 742. pa overruled _
Not in Declarant’s Personal Knowledge. O sustained
Cal. Evid. Code § 702. Q overruled
Inadmissible Hearsay. 0 sustained
Cal. Evid. Code § 1200, et seq. sy overruled
Opinion Based on Improper Matter O sustained

Cal. Evid. Code § 803.

overruled

20

Reeves Decl.. { 28, page 10.
lines 18 throu