Motion-Secondary: GEORGE MARDIKIAN VS WAWANESA GENERAL INSURANCE

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Kenneth    N.  Greenfleld>    Ksq.        (State  Bar No,    105721)
                                 Alexandra     iN. Sclfridge,   Esq.       (State  Bar No. 2A7063)
                                           L A IV00 8 ICE8  0                                                     Qe@0      J
                                              TII N. GREENEIELD
                                                              I'mary     Judgment,    or  in thc alternative,   Summary     Adjudication    with
                            16    respect  to  the  Complaint    of George     Mardilcian.   Defendant.'s   objections    to (he  entire  docuinent

                            17    were  sustained   by the  Court   at that time.

                            18             3.       Judicial  notice   is not  required   by  Evidence    Code    section  451,  The   document     is

                                  Wawanesa's      Answer     to  Plamtiff    George    Mardikiaii's    Complaint.     It  is Lilhan    Mardikian's

                            20    Complaint     and  the  Answer    thereto  which    are at issue  in  the instant  Motion.    In addition,  to  thc

                            2]    extent  this document    is to be  used  as supposed    evidence   of post-filing bad   faith litigation conduct,
                            22    it isirrelevant   and  privileged,   (Civ.  Code,  ( 47;  This  conduct   is not  made   relevant  or admissible

                            23    by  way   of  W~rt'e  v  PVesrern   Trrle Ins   Co   (1986)   40  Cal,3d   870   I221  Cal.Rptr,   509,  710  P 2d

                            24    309],  which   holds  only that  unreasonably     low Code    of Civil Piocedure     section  998  Offers  may  be

                            25    admissible    as evidence   of insurance    "bad  faith";  See  further  discussion   at Eviclentiary   ObJection

                                  No,  17.)  Thus,  judicial notice   should  not be  authoiized   by Evidence     Code   section  452.

                            27             4.       No objection,

                            28             5.       Judicial  notice   is not  required   by  Evidcncc    Cocle   section  451,   The  document     is

                                                                                           1


                                                             OBJECTIONS       TO REQUEST      FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
                                 "Wawanesa's      Memorandum        ot'Points  and  Autho»ties    in support  of Motion to    Compel    filed Apiil

                             2   28,  2013  in  action  no   CIV   517132,"    This  was  a  Motion to    Compel    further  discovery   responses

                             3   from   Geoige   Mardikian,    not  Lillian Maiclikian. It is   Lillian Maidilcian's    case  which  is at issue  in

                             4   the instant  Motion. Thus,    juclicial notice  should   not be authorized    by Eviclence   Code   section  452.

                                          6.       Judicial  notice  is not required   by Evidence     Code   section  451,  Thc  document    is the

                             6    2005   tax case  of rYhuss   Trust v  Commtsstoner.     Wawancsa's      cxpeit  witness,   Monte   Sobreio,   was

                             7    a pcicipient   wit.ness  m  that, case   I-Ieappraised    a.van  for  the petitioners   at $ 19,750,   When   Mr
                             8    Sobrero   prepared   his  appraisal,  he  did not  have  the  lceys to the van,  and  was   unc1ble to  detelmlne

                             9    its mileage.   As  a result, he  was   unable   to mal