Preview
1 Jakrun S. Sodhi (State Bar No. 200851) Electronically Filed
Ameet S. Birring (State Bar No. 297118) 9/4/2020 8:36 AM
2 SODHI LAW GROUP
1301 K Street, Suite F Superior Court of California
3 Modesto, CA 95354 County of Stanislaus
Telephone: 209.900.8200 Clerk of the Court
4 Facsimile: 209.900.8205 By: Kimberly Mean, Deputy
Ameet@sodhilawgroup.com
5 Jak@sodhilawgroup.com
6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs JAGROOP TAKHAR and SUDARSHAN KAUR
7
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
10
JAGROOP TAKHAR, SUDARSHAN Case No.: CV-20-000808
11 KAUR,
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
12 Plaintiffs, REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN
SUPPORT OF THEIR OPPOSITION TO
13 vs. DEFENDANTS’ JEFFREY DOLEN’S
AND JOSEPH COLANGELO’S
14 JEFFREY DOLEN; JOSEPH D. DEMURRER TO THE FIRST AMENDED
COLANGELO; CENTRAL VALLEY COMPLAINT
15 REALTY VENTURE-STOCKTON, a
California Corporation dba Keller Williams
16 Realty; NORCAL GOLD, INC., a California Date: September 17, 2020
corporation dba Re/Max Gold Stockton; and Time: 8:30 a.m.
17 DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Dept.: 22
Judge: Hon. Stacy Speiller
18 Defendants.
________________________________/
19
20
21 INTRODUCTION
22 Plaintiffs Jagroop Takhar and Surdarshan Kaur hereby submit this opposition to request for
23 judicial notice in support of their opposition to Defendants’ Jeffrey Dolan’s and Joseph Colangelo’s
24 demurrer to the First Amended Complaint. (“FAC”).
25 ///
26 ///
27
28 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANTS’ JEFFREY DOLEN’S AND JOSEPH COLANGELO’S DEMURRER TO THE FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 ARGUMENT
2 1. The Request Was Untimely
3 Defendants did not file and serve their request for judicial notice until September 1, 2020. It
4 was due 16 court days before the hearing. (CCP § 1005(b).) September 1, 2020 is only 11 court day
5 before the hearing and only two days before Plaintiffs’ opposition was due. Plaintiffs were highly
6 prejudiced by this late service and filing and the request for judicial notice should be rejected in its
7 entirety.
8 2. The Documents Sought to Judicially Noticed are Not Subject to Judicial Notice
9 Defendants request the court take judicial notice, pursuant to Evidence Code 452, of various
10 documents that purport to be sales documents (Defendants’ Judicial Notice Exs. B, C, D, and E.) The
11 FAC attaches the subject contract as Exhibit A. The contract is dated January 8, 2018. The
12 documents sought to be judicially noticed are a portion of the contract attached to Plaintiffs’ FAC
13 (Defendants’ Judicial Notice, Ex. B); a purported MLS form titled Market Conditions Advisory
14 allegedly dated and docu-signed February 14, 2018 (Defendants’ Judicial Notice, Ex. C), a purported
15 MLS purchases agreement allegedly dated and docu-signed February 6, 2018 (Defendants’ Judicial
16 Notice, Ex. D), and another purported MLS form titled Possible Representation of More than One
17 Buyer or Seller-Disclosure and Consent (Defendants’ Judicial Notice, Ex. E).
18 The court is required to take judicial notice of matters specified in Evid Code § 451 and may
19 take judicial notice of matters set forth in Evid Code § 452. However, the court is required to take
20 judicial notice of matters set forth in Evid Code § 452 if a party requests that judicial notice be taken,
21 gives each adverse party notice of the request, and furnishes the court with sufficient information to
22 enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. (Evid Code § 453.)
23 The enumerated categories for Evid Code § 451 are:
24 (a) The decisional, constitutional, and public statutory law of this state and of the United
States and the provisions of any charter described in Section 3, 4, or 5 of Article XI of the
25 California Constitution.
26 (b) Any matter made a subject of judicial notice by Section 11343.6, 11344.6, or 18576 of the
Government Code or by Section 1507 of Title 44 of the United States Code.
27
-1-
28 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANTS’ JEFFREY DOLEN’S AND JOSEPH COLANGELO’S DEMURRER TO THE FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1
(c) Rules of professional conduct for members of the bar adopted pursuant to Section 6076 of
2 the Business and Professions Code and rules of practice and procedure for the courts of
this state adopted by the Judicial Council.
3
(d) Rules of pleading, practice, and procedure prescribed by the United States Supreme Court,
4 such as the Rules of the United States Supreme Court, the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Admiralty Rules, the Rules of the
5 Court of Claims, the Rules of the Customs Court, and the General Orders and Forms in
Bankruptcy.
6
(e) The true signification of all English words and phrases and of all legal expressions.
7
(f) Facts and propositions of generalized knowledge that are so universally known that they
8 cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute.
9 The documents sought to be judicially noticed obviously do not fall into any of those
10 categories. Nor do the documents fall into any of the categories enumerated in Evid Code § 452. The
11 enumerated categories for Evid Code § 452 are:
12 (a) The decisional, constitutional, and statutory law of any state of the United States and the
resolutions and private acts of the Congress of the United States and of the Legislature of
13 this state.
14 (b) Regulations and legislative enactments issued by or under the authority of the United
States or any public entity in the United States.
15
16 (c) Official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and
of any state of the United States.
17
(d) Records of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of
18 any state of the United States.
19 (e) Rules of court of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States
or of any state of the United States.
20
(f) The law of an organization of nations and of foreign nations and public entities in foreign
21 nations.
22 (g) Facts and propositions that are of such common knowledge within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute.
23
(h) Facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of
24 immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable
accuracy.
25
26 Thus, the Exhibits B, C, D, and E sought to be judicially notice are not subject to judicial
27 notice.
-2-
28 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANTS’ JEFFREY DOLEN’S AND JOSEPH COLANGELO’S DEMURRER TO THE FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 3. The Documents Are Extrinsic Evidence That in Inappropriate for a Demurrer
2 Demurrers may not allege or deny facts or otherwise refer to extrinsic evidence other than
3 evidence subject to judicial notice. (see, e.g., Cook v. De La Guerra (1864) 24 C 237, 239; Hayward
4 v. Henderson (1979) 88 CA3d 64, 71; see also Gould v. Md. Sound Indus., Inc. (1995) 31 CA4th
5 1137, 1144.) Here, Exhibits B, C, D, and E which are sought to be judicially noticed are not part of
6 the complaint. They are extrinsic evidence that is not subject to judicial notice. The foundation is not
7 even laid. They documents are not properly authenticated, or even attempted to be authenticated.
8 Even if the foundation were laid and the documents were authenticated, they would still be
9 inappropriate the pleading stage. This is not a motion for summary judgement.
10 CONCLUSION
11 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court not take judicial notice
12 of Defendants’ Exhibits B, C, D, and E.
13
14 DATED: September 2, 2020 SODHI LAW GROUP
15
16
17 __________________________________
JAKRUN S. SODHI
18 AMEET SINGH BIRRING
Attorney for Plaintiffs JAGROOP TAKHAR and
19 SUDARSHAN KAUR
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-3-
28 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANTS’ JEFFREY DOLEN’S AND JOSEPH COLANGELO’S DEMURRER TO THE FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2
I am employed in the County of Stanislaus; my business address is 1301 K Street, Suite F, Modesto,
3 California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the foregoing action.
4 On September 3, 2020, I served the following document(s):
5 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT
OF THEIR OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ JEFFREY DOLEN’S AND JOSEPH
6 COLANGELO’S DEMURRER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
7
X By overnight delivery on the following party(ies) in said action, in accordance with Code of
8 Civil Procedure § 1013(c), by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, with delivery
fees paid or provided for, in a designated area for outgoing overnight mail, addressed as set forth
9 below. In the ordinary course of business at the law offices of the Sodhi Law Group, mail placed in
that designated area is picked up that same day for delivery the following business day:
10
11 Lindsey N. Casillas
Jessica Spinola
12 Klinedinst Sacramento
801 K Street, Suite 2100
13 Sacramento, CA 95814
14 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true
and correct, and that this document was executed on September 3, 2020 at Modesto, California.
15
16
17
_____ _____
18 Melanie M. Caligiuri
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-4-
28 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANTS’ JEFFREY DOLEN’S AND JOSEPH COLANGELO’S DEMURRER TO THE FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT