Preview
om “~ FILED BY FAX
Sohey! Tahsildoost (Bar No. 271294)
. _ 4 SUPERIORa Cou
Kainoa Aliviado (Bar No. 308382) RT OF CALIFORNIA
THETA LAW FIRM, LLP VNTY OF PLACER
15901 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 270 RN
Lawndale, CA 90260 N 03 2020
Telephone: (424) 297-3103 S )LAKE CHATTERS
Facsimile: (424) 286-2244 By. TIVE OFFICER & CLERK
. Waggoner, Deputy
Attorneys for defendant Hyundai Motor America
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF PLACER
ANNA P. KING, Case No.: SCV0038637
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR
AMERICA’S OBJECTIONS TO THE
Vs. DECLARATION OF STEVE MIKHOV
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a Complaint Filed: October 28, 2016
California Corporation, and DOES | Trial Date: July 1,2019
through 10, inclusive,
Defendants. Hearing Date: January 10, 2020
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Ne
TO THE HONORABLE COURT, PLAINTIFF, AND HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Defendant Hyundai Motor America (“HMA”), respectfully submits the following
Objections to the Declaration of Steve Mikhov (“Mikhov Declaration”) that was filed
concurrently with Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Strike and/or Tax Plaintiff's
Costs.
25 /I/
26 //
27 ///
28
l
DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF STEVE
MIKHOV
Objections to Mikhov Declaration
Court’s Ruling:
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection:
Nw
|. Mikhov Decl., § 3:14-17: “At Lack of personal knowledge Court's Ruling on
all times, my firm tries to keep (Evid. Code §§ 403(1)(2), Objection No. |:
costs and expenses as low as 702(a)); Lacks foundation
possible and they are incurred only (Evid. Code §§ 403, 1400 et. Sustained
when necessary and reasonable. It seq.); Hearsay (Evid. Code §
1200.); Relevance (Evid. Overruled
is inthe firm’s best interests to
keep costs down due to the risk Code §§ 210, 350);
10 that they may not be reimbursed in Improperly states a legal
1 the event the client does not conclusion.
12 prevail inthe action.”
2. Mikhov Decl., ¥ 12: “In an
13 Lack of personal knowledge Court's Ruling on
14 effort to streamline thisprocess (Evid. Code §§ 403(1)(2), Objection No. 2:
and keep attorney fees down, the 702(a)); Lacks foundation
16 firm seeks recovery of reasonable (Evid. Code §§ 403, 1400 et.
17 seq.); Hearsay (Evid. Code §
attorney fees incurred for opposing
18 Sustained
1200.); Relevance (Evid.
HMA’s motion. The alternative
19 Code §§ 210, 350);
procedure is to filea new noticed Overruled
20
motion, which will require
21
22 additional work for a motion, reply This isa completely improper
and appearance at another hearing. method of requesting
24 Plaintiff will be obliged to pursue attorney’s fees. Plaintiff's
25 improper request and
that alternative, costlier path if
26 justification forthe request is
27 entirely irrelevant. Moreover,
28
2
DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF STEVE
MIKHOV
HMA objects to seeking fees in
Plaintiffis not entitled to
this Opposition.” attorneys fee’s after HMA’s
N
Second 998 Offer made on
May 26, 2017.
3. Mikhov Decl., ¥ 14: “Mark R. Lack of personal knowledge Court's Ruling on
Berns is associated with Knight (Evid. Code §§ 403(1)(2), Objection No. 3:
Law Group drafting motions for 702(a)); Lacks foundation
the Lemon Law practice. Mark R. (Evid. Code §§ 403, 1400 et. Sustained
Berns has been admitted to the seq.); Hearsay (Evid. Code §
State Bar of California since 2006. Overruled
1200.); Relevance (Evid.
He graduated from the University Code §§ 210, 350).
of Southern California Gould
School of Law and received his Again, Plaintiff's request for
undergraduate degree from the attorney’s fees is procedurally
University of California, Los improper and should be
Angeles. Mr. Berns’ regular stricken outright. Moreover,
hourly rate is $350/hour. His Plaintiff is not entitled to
billing entries are indicated by the attorneys fee’s after HMA’s
initials“MRB” in the billing Second 998 Offer made on
statement exhibited to this May 26, 2017. Additionally,
declaration.” Plaintiff does not provide
separate declarations attesting
to the veracity of Mr. Berns
hourly rate. This is especially
troublesome as Mr. Berns is
3
DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF STEVE
MIKHOV
not employed by Knight Law
Group and Knight Law Group
N
seems to have outsourced the
writing of this motion.
Accordingly, any statements
by Mr. Mikhov about his time
ishearsay. Accordingly, due
to the above noted Evidence
Code sections and Evidence
Code section 1271 this
portion of Mr. Mikhov’s
declaration must be stricken.
4. Mikhov Decl., ¥ 15 and Lack of personal knowledge Court's Ruling on
Exhibit I attached thereto: “Mr. (Evid. Code §§ 403(1)(2), Objection No. 4:
Berns spent 5.7 hours to review 702(a)); Lacks foundation
Defendant’s motion and to draft (Evid. Code §§ 403, 1400 et. Sustained
this opposition and supporting seq.); Hearsay (Evid. Code §
Overruled
declarations. Plaintiff also 1200.); Relevance (Evid.
requests anticipated time of 1.0 Code §§ 210, 350).
hour to review HMA’s reply
papers and to prepare for the Again, Plaintiff's request for
hearing as well as eight (8) hours attorney’s fees is procedurally
to attend the hearing including improper and should be
travel. A true and correct copy of stricken outright. Moreover,
25 the attorney fee invoice isattached Plaintiffis not entitled to
26 hereto as Exhibit I.” attorneys fee’s after HMA’s
27 Second 998 Offer made on
28
4
DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF STEVE
MIKHOV
May 26, 2017. The attached
Exhibit I “invoice” is nothing
NO
more than a self-serving
attempt to bill up the file and
includes amounts that have
not been incurred.
Additionally, Plaintiff does
not provide separate
declarations attesting to the
10 time Mr. Berns incurred. This
1 is especially troublesome as
12 Mr. Berns is not employed by
13 Knight Law Group and
14 Knight Law Group seems to
15 have outsourced the writing of
16 this motion. Accordingly, any
17 statements by Mr. Mikhov
18 about his time ishearsay.
19 Accordingly, due to the above
20 noted Evidence Code sections
21 and Evidence Code section
2 1271 this portion of Mr.
Mikhov’s declaration must be
24 stricken.
25 M1
26 ///
a7 HI
5
DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF STEVE
MIKHOV
Dated: January 3, 2020
THETA LAW FIRM, LLP
: Cp
SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST
Attorneys for defendant Hyundai Motor America
10
11
25
26
27
6
DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF STEVE
MIKHOV
PROOF OF SERVICE
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(3) Revised 5-1-88)
I am over the age of 18, not a party to this action, and employed inthe county where this mailing
occurred. My business address is 15901 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 270, Lawndale, CA 90260. On
January 3, 2020, I served the following documents described as DEFENDANT HYUNDAI
MOTOR AMERICA’S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF STEVE MIKHOV
on interested parties in thisaction by placing original/true copies thereofin sealed envelopes
addressed as follows:
Steve Mikhov Bryan Altman
Amy Morse The Altman Law Grou p
Knight
10250
Law Group,
Constellation
LLP
Blvd., Suite 2500
10250Angeles.
Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500
Los CA 90067
Los Angeles, CA 90067 Via U @ ‘ail
(310) 552-2250 Phone
(310) 552-7973 Fax
Via Overnight Delivery
HACKLER DAGIDGHIAN MARTINO &
NOVAK, P.C.
Sepehr Daghighian (SBN 239349)
10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Via Overnight Delivery
13 Xx] BY MAIL: I deposited such envelope in the mail at Lawndale, California. The envelope
was mailed with proper postage thereon fully prepaid. I am "readily familiar" with the firm's
14 practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Said mailing is deposited with
the United States Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business and there is
15 delivery service by United States mail at the place so addressed. |am aware that on motion of
the party served, service ispresumed invalid ifpostal cancellation date or postage meter date is
16 more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
17 | BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I delivered such envelope by hand to the individual(s) listed
on the above service list.
18
L] BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Icaused to be electronically transmitted such
document referenced above to the individual(s) listedon the above service list.
20 ] BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION: I transmitted the facsimile tothe individual(s)
listed on the above service listat the facsimile number listedthereon. The telephone number on
21 the facsimile machine Iused is (424) 286-2244. The facsimile machine I used complied with
Rule 2.306 and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to Rule 2.306, I caused the
oD machine to print a transmission record of the transmission, a copy of which is attached to this
declaration.
23
X BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: | enclosed the documents inan envelope or package
24 provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person atthe above-address. I
placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly
25 utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier.
26 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
istrue and correct. Executed on January 3,2020 atLawndale, California.
2d
7
DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF STEVE
MIKHOV
i)
ge
Steven Correa
10
11
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
8
DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF STEVE
MIKHOV
Preview
om “~ FILED BY FAX Sohey! Tahsildoost (Bar No. 271294) . _ 4 SUPERIORa Cou Kainoa Aliviado (Bar No. 308382) RT OF CALIFORNIA THETA LAW FIRM, LLP VNTY OF PLACER 15901 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 270 RN Lawndale, CA 90260 N 03 2020 Telephone: (424) 297-3103 S )LAKE CHATTERS Facsimile: (424) 286-2244 By. TIVE OFFICER & CLERK . Waggoner, Deputy Attorneys for defendant Hyundai Motor America SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF PLACER ANNA P. KING, Case No.: SCV0038637 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OBJECTIONS TO THE Vs. DECLARATION OF STEVE MIKHOV HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a Complaint Filed: October 28, 2016 California Corporation, and DOES | Trial Date: July 1,2019 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Hearing Date: January 10, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. Ne TO THE HONORABLE COURT, PLAINTIFF, AND HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Defendant Hyundai Motor America (“HMA”), respectfully submits the following Objections to the Declaration of Steve Mikhov (“Mikhov Declaration”) that was filed concurrently with Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Strike and/or Tax Plaintiff's Costs. 25 /I/ 26 // 27 /// 28 l DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF STEVE MIKHOV Objections to Mikhov Declaration Court’s Ruling: Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Nw |. Mikhov Decl., § 3:14-17: “At Lack of personal knowledge Court's Ruling on all times, my firm tries to keep (Evid. Code §§ 403(1)(2), Objection No. |: costs and expenses as low as 702(a)); Lacks foundation possible and they are incurred only (Evid. Code §§ 403, 1400 et. Sustained when necessary and reasonable. It seq.); Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200.); Relevance (Evid. Overruled is inthe firm’s best interests to keep costs down due to the risk Code §§ 210, 350); 10 that they may not be reimbursed in Improperly states a legal 1 the event the client does not conclusion. 12 prevail inthe action.” 2. Mikhov Decl., ¥ 12: “In an 13 Lack of personal knowledge Court's Ruling on 14 effort to streamline thisprocess (Evid. Code §§ 403(1)(2), Objection No. 2: and keep attorney fees down, the 702(a)); Lacks foundation 16 firm seeks recovery of reasonable (Evid. Code §§ 403, 1400 et. 17 seq.); Hearsay (Evid. Code § attorney fees incurred for opposing 18 Sustained 1200.); Relevance (Evid. HMA’s motion. The alternative 19 Code §§ 210, 350); procedure is to filea new noticed Overruled 20 motion, which will require 21 22 additional work for a motion, reply This isa completely improper and appearance at another hearing. method of requesting 24 Plaintiff will be obliged to pursue attorney’s fees. Plaintiff's 25 improper request and that alternative, costlier path if 26 justification forthe request is 27 entirely irrelevant. Moreover, 28 2 DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF STEVE MIKHOV HMA objects to seeking fees in Plaintiffis not entitled to this Opposition.” attorneys fee’s after HMA’s N Second 998 Offer made on May 26, 2017. 3. Mikhov Decl., ¥ 14: “Mark R. Lack of personal knowledge Court's Ruling on Berns is associated with Knight (Evid. Code §§ 403(1)(2), Objection No. 3: Law Group drafting motions for 702(a)); Lacks foundation the Lemon Law practice. Mark R. (Evid. Code §§ 403, 1400 et. Sustained Berns has been admitted to the seq.); Hearsay (Evid. Code § State Bar of California since 2006. Overruled 1200.); Relevance (Evid. He graduated from the University Code §§ 210, 350). of Southern California Gould School of Law and received his Again, Plaintiff's request for undergraduate degree from the attorney’s fees is procedurally University of California, Los improper and should be Angeles. Mr. Berns’ regular stricken outright. Moreover, hourly rate is $350/hour. His Plaintiff is not entitled to billing entries are indicated by the attorneys fee’s after HMA’s initials“MRB” in the billing Second 998 Offer made on statement exhibited to this May 26, 2017. Additionally, declaration.” Plaintiff does not provide separate declarations attesting to the veracity of Mr. Berns hourly rate. This is especially troublesome as Mr. Berns is 3 DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF STEVE MIKHOV not employed by Knight Law Group and Knight Law Group N seems to have outsourced the writing of this motion. Accordingly, any statements by Mr. Mikhov about his time ishearsay. Accordingly, due to the above noted Evidence Code sections and Evidence Code section 1271 this portion of Mr. Mikhov’s declaration must be stricken. 4. Mikhov Decl., ¥ 15 and Lack of personal knowledge Court's Ruling on Exhibit I attached thereto: “Mr. (Evid. Code §§ 403(1)(2), Objection No. 4: Berns spent 5.7 hours to review 702(a)); Lacks foundation Defendant’s motion and to draft (Evid. Code §§ 403, 1400 et. Sustained this opposition and supporting seq.); Hearsay (Evid. Code § Overruled declarations. Plaintiff also 1200.); Relevance (Evid. requests anticipated time of 1.0 Code §§ 210, 350). hour to review HMA’s reply papers and to prepare for the Again, Plaintiff's request for hearing as well as eight (8) hours attorney’s fees is procedurally to attend the hearing including improper and should be travel. A true and correct copy of stricken outright. Moreover, 25 the attorney fee invoice isattached Plaintiffis not entitled to 26 hereto as Exhibit I.” attorneys fee’s after HMA’s 27 Second 998 Offer made on 28 4 DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF STEVE MIKHOV May 26, 2017. The attached Exhibit I “invoice” is nothing NO more than a self-serving attempt to bill up the file and includes amounts that have not been incurred. Additionally, Plaintiff does not provide separate declarations attesting to the 10 time Mr. Berns incurred. This 1 is especially troublesome as 12 Mr. Berns is not employed by 13 Knight Law Group and 14 Knight Law Group seems to 15 have outsourced the writing of 16 this motion. Accordingly, any 17 statements by Mr. Mikhov 18 about his time ishearsay. 19 Accordingly, due to the above 20 noted Evidence Code sections 21 and Evidence Code section 2 1271 this portion of Mr. Mikhov’s declaration must be 24 stricken. 25 M1 26 /// a7 HI 5 DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF STEVE MIKHOV Dated: January 3, 2020 THETA LAW FIRM, LLP : Cp SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST Attorneys for defendant Hyundai Motor America 10 11 25 26 27 6 DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF STEVE MIKHOV PROOF OF SERVICE (Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(3) Revised 5-1-88) I am over the age of 18, not a party to this action, and employed inthe county where this mailing occurred. My business address is 15901 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 270, Lawndale, CA 90260. On January 3, 2020, I served the following documents described as DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF STEVE MIKHOV on interested parties in thisaction by placing original/true copies thereofin sealed envelopes addressed as follows: Steve Mikhov Bryan Altman Amy Morse The Altman Law Grou p Knight 10250 Law Group, Constellation LLP Blvd., Suite 2500 10250Angeles. Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500 Los CA 90067 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Via U @ ‘ail (310) 552-2250 Phone (310) 552-7973 Fax Via Overnight Delivery HACKLER DAGIDGHIAN MARTINO & NOVAK, P.C. Sepehr Daghighian (SBN 239349) 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Via Overnight Delivery 13 Xx] BY MAIL: I deposited such envelope in the mail at Lawndale, California. The envelope was mailed with proper postage thereon fully prepaid. I am "readily familiar" with the firm's 14 practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Said mailing is deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business and there is 15 delivery service by United States mail at the place so addressed. |am aware that on motion of the party served, service ispresumed invalid ifpostal cancellation date or postage meter date is 16 more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 17 | BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I delivered such envelope by hand to the individual(s) listed on the above service list. 18 L] BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Icaused to be electronically transmitted such document referenced above to the individual(s) listedon the above service list. 20 ] BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION: I transmitted the facsimile tothe individual(s) listed on the above service listat the facsimile number listedthereon. The telephone number on 21 the facsimile machine Iused is (424) 286-2244. The facsimile machine I used complied with Rule 2.306 and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to Rule 2.306, I caused the oD machine to print a transmission record of the transmission, a copy of which is attached to this declaration. 23 X BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: | enclosed the documents inan envelope or package 24 provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person atthe above-address. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly 25 utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. 26 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above istrue and correct. Executed on January 3,2020 atLawndale, California. 2d 7 DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF STEVE MIKHOV i) ge Steven Correa 10 11 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 8 DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF STEVE MIKHOV