On October 31, 2019 a
No Value
was filed
involving a dispute between
Beletsis, Daphne,
Rainey, Yvonne,
Karki, Bobby,
Leitch, John Dylan,
Thomas, Emmanuel,
and
Davis, Zachary Nash,
Garcia, Moises Tenorio,
Garcia, Rafael,
Guevara, Christopher,
Kahlon, Najpreet Singh,
Karki, Bobby,
King, Derek,
Leitch, John Dylan,
Leon, Stefan Matias,
Mclaughlin, Quinn,
Takayama, Jordan Keiichi,
Theta Chi Fraternity, Inc.,
Theta Iota Chapter Of Theta Chi Fraternity,
Thomas, Emmanuel,
Visacki, Brad,
for (23) Unlimited Other PI / PD / WD
in the District Court of Santa Cruz County.
Preview
THE FIERBERG NATIONAL LAW GROUP, PLLC
I3?
DOUGLAS E. FIERBERG (admitted pro hac vice)
derber g@tfnlgroup. com
JONATHON N. FAZZOLA (admitted pro hac vice)
jfazzola@g”nlgroup. com
161 East Front Street, Suite 200
Traverse City, MI 49684
Telephone: (23 1) 933-01 80
Fax: (23 1) 252-8100
SAWYER & LABAR LLP
IVO LABAR, State Bar No203492~
labal@sawyerlabar. com
1700 Montgomery Street, Suite 108
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1
Telephone: (4 l 5) 262-3 820
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
10 DAPHNE BELETSIS
'. YVONNE RAINEY
11
"
z
M12
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
LABAR LLP
‘13
COUNTY 0F SANTA CRUZ
1700 MONTGOMERY ST. srE 105..
TELEPHONE: '41 5.2623820
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 941 11
mvwsa‘wyerlabancom
14 DAPHNE BELETSIS, individually, and as 7
Case No. 19CV03287
Administrator of the ESTATE OF
&
1'5
ALEXANDER BELETSIS, and
SAWYER
YVONNE RAINEY, surviving parent of
16
ALEXANDER BELETSIS, deceased OBJECTIONS To EVIDENCE
SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT
17 . _
NAJPREET SINGH KAHLON IN
Plamtlffs, SUPPORT 0F MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT 0R 1N THE
' ‘
18 vs. I
-
I
‘
ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY
19 THETA CHI FRATERNITY , ADJUDICATION; AND
'
INC , et al. ,
. [PROPOSED]
ORDER
20
21
Defendants; Hearing Date:
Time:
IQWM
8: 30 a. m. is]
Dept: 10
22
.
Complaint Filed: October 3 1, 2019
23 FAC Filed: February 5, 2020
Trial Date: June 9. 2022
24
25
26
27
28
'
I ‘ i
PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
RUUNGS l
Pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.1352 and 3.1354, Plaintiffs Daphne Beletsis,
and as Administrator of the Estate of Alexander Beletsis (“Alex”), and Yvonne
individua11y
Rainey, as a surviving parent of Alex, hereby obj ect to portions of the evidence led in support of
Defendant Najpreet Singh Kahlon’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative,
Summary Adjudication. IPlaintiffs respectfully request that the Court strike the objectionable
portions of'the evidence, as set forth below.
_’77wCowY‘17 N/QSQSQj/OWS;
.F (XL) Mam] OBJECTIONS To KAHLON DECLARATION
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling: ,~
-
10
1. Kahlon Declaration, page Improper Legal Conclusion Sustained:
2, lines 4-7: “Alex Beletsis (Evid. Code § 310). See also
was not being initiated or Hayman v.Block, 176 OVemlled-
11
‘hazed’ in any capacity, as Ca1.App.3d 629, 638—39 (1986)
\U\
12 he was already a fully (afdavits and declarations
member of Theta Chi since in support of summary
LLI’
submitted
13
the Fall of 2017. (judgment “must cite evidentiary gate—M—
1700 MONTGOMERY ST. STE 108
-
LABA'R
TELEPHON Elf“ 5.2623820
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94111
facts, not legal conclusions or
mvwzst'rawyellahamom
14
. .,
_
_
-
=
‘ultimate’facts”);Marriage of
Heggie, 99 Cal. App. 4th 28, 30
8L
.15-
n.3 (2002) (“The proper place
SA\VYER
'
16 for argument is in points and Judge
authorities, not declarations”).
17
Defendant Kahlon’s statement is
18
not a statement of fact, but an
19 improper legal conclusion that
conicts, as a matter of law, with
20 the Court’s October 14, 2020
Order Denying Defendant
21 Kahlon’s Motion to Strike
Portions of the First Amended
22
Complaint, and the Court’s
23 October 14, 2020 Order Denying
Defendant Theta Chi Fraternity
24 lnc.’s Motion to Strike Portions
of the First Amended Complaint.
25 See October 14, 2021 Order
Denying Kahlon Motion (Ex. 3
26
to Plaintiffs’ Index of Evidence);
‘
27 See October l4, 2021 Order
Denying Kahlon Motion (Ex. 4
28
2
RVLJ [V650N PLAINTIFFS EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONs .
to Plaintiffs’ Index of Evidence).
2. Kahlon Irrelevant (Evid. Code‘ §§ 2 1 0, Sustained:
Declaration, page 350)
lines 7-8: “. Overruled:
2, ..
and unlike Alex-I Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code §
did not have a 403) .
/
_
fake-ID to
alcohol.” Speculation / Lacks Personal
purchase Knowledge (Evid. Code § 702)
(Judge
'33“;
1
.7,.y
- y
I"“—.
5 PF
:3] {1,2
i‘r-i'v
..
3. Kahlon Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, lsu‘staine’d:
e
a
10 Declaration, page 350) ‘
I
lines 23-24: Overruled:
2,
11 “Alex was well Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code §
liked but not 403) .
12 considered very
Speculation / Lacks Personal
LABAR LLP
responsible ...”
13 Knowledge (Evid-E’Cd‘de‘ §‘:702)
9
A
1700 MONTGOMERY ST. STE 108
TELEPHONE: 41 512623820
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 941 11
www.5awyerlabancom
14
&
15
32-1;-
SAWYER
16~
17
II.
18
R VLJ M65 071/ OBJECTIONS To O’NEIL DECLARATION
19 N
‘"
MaterialwObjectéd toi '1VGrOuli‘dsfor Objection: '7 Ruling “l'
V.
_
20 4. O’Neil Declaration, W 3- Best Evidence Rule (Evid. Code Sustained:
10. §§ 1520, 1523)
*21‘
Improper Secondary Evidence
Overruled: i
(Evid. Code § 1521)
23
Speculation / Lacks Personal Date: OZ
24 Knowledge (Evid. Code § 702)
i 25‘
.,
Misstates Evidence
5- l/
‘26 Improper Argument and Legal Judge
Conclusions, Not Factual
27 gfahu
glfga
Statements (Evid. Code § 310);
28 See also Hayman v. Block, 176
Ca1.App.3d 629, 638-39 (1986)
l 3 -
. .
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS"
PUMA/gs W'PLAINTIFFS’ h
(afdavits and declarations
submitted in support of summary
judgment “must cite evidentiary
facts, not legal conclusions or
‘ultimate’ facts,” and “[m]atters
which would be excluded under
the rules of evidence if proffered
by a witness in a trial as hearsay,
conclusions or impermissible
opinions must be disregarded in
supporting afdavits”); Marriage
ofHeggie, 99 Cal. App. 4th 28,
30 n.3 (2002) (“The proper place
for argument is in points and
authorities, not declarations”).
:10 Improper Opinion (Evid. Code §
803)
11
12
L'ABAR LLP
13 III.
RUM/V
1700 MONTGOMERY ST. STE 108
TELEPHONE: 415.252.8820
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 941 11
W\vw.sawyellabar.com
14 OBJECTIONS OEXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT KAHLON
'
15‘ Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection:
3L
l
Sustained:Rulin‘gf/
'
SAWYER
Santa Rosa High Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210,
”dam;
.
16
School Records 350)
Overruled:
17 (Ex E to
Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code §
Defendant
18 Kahlon’s Index of 403) ‘
»
p
’
\
pgg ZS
'
Evidence).
19 Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200, et- Date:
2Q
seq.)
20
21
JP
:ZIIE
22 Riggs}: €531)“
from the Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code § Sustained:
23
. Excerpts
Deposition 403)
24 Transcript of
Matthieu Turk (Ex. Lacks Personal Knowledge /
Speculation (Evid. Code § 702)
25_ H to Defendant
Kahlon’s Index of Code §
26 Improper Opinion (Evid.
Evidence), page 803)
27 183, lines 5-13: “Q.
.. did anyone at
28 Theta Chi pressure
A ’ g l 4
k UL} IVES GIV PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
Alex to drink like,
you know, say hey?
A. -No, I didn’t see
AIex get pressured.
Not that I recall.
-Q.'A Would you say
that Alex drank
because he liked to
drink? [Obj ection]
A. I would say
. Alex drank because
heliked to drink.” ‘v
/
Excerpts om the Improper Opinion (Evid. Code § Sustained:
Deposition 803)
Transcript of
10 Miguel Salvidar Speculation / Lacks Personal
Knowledge (Evid. Code § Overruledzt
(Ex. I to Defendant 702)
Wpfinf
11
12
Kahlon’s Index of
Evidence), pages:
Date. w
177, lines 9—12: “Q.
LABAR LLP
13 Was there a lot of
1700 MONTGOMERY ST. STE 106
TELEPHONE?“ 52623820
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 941 11
peer pressure at
www.mwyeriabancom
'14
Theta Chi? A.
-
From my
s;
-.
.
1‘5
experience, no. Q. E"!35m W3. MAREG3333::f5 {E‘F
SAWYER
/
16 Why do you say
that? A. We’re all
17
individuals, 'ee
18 will.”
19 . UCSC Records Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, S s ained:
concerning Alexander 350) lg
20
Beletsis (Ex. K to vegle :
Defendant Kahlon’s Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code §
21
Index of Evidence). 403)
22
Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200, et
23 seq.)
24
25
mm E “ ‘ '
A26 . Text Messages between Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 2 1 0, é‘t’lecf:
27 Sophia Beletsis and 350)
Alex Beletsis (Ex. F to
Lacks Foundation (Evid. Overruled.
28 Defendant Kahlon’s Code §
A I Wsgl/a)
W
. 5 _
PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECT-IONS
HyL/A/GS
Index of Evidence) 403)
Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200, et
seq-)
2:-
“
”
4
10.Excerpts from the Improper Opinion (Evid. Code § Overruled:
Deposition Transcript of 803)
Leon Burns (Ex. G to _S° ‘ ._.
Defendant Kahlon’s Index rm: I‘ anv
of Evidence), pages: Date.
268125—269z8: “Q: was
Alex someone who was
10 :
known as someone who
liked to drink? A. Yes ...”
Judge
11
AW
1
r:
:xA Alprvui
12 ‘“15r=‘_r“\..="*b
3aAL§$A
1i
LABAR LLP
.13 DATED:
700 MONTGOMERY ST. STE 108
mmlsjjzl
TELEPHONE: ‘41 5.2623820
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 941 11
Mvw.sawyerlabar.com
14
8:
15
SA‘VYER
16
1
17
18
19
26
21
22
23
24
‘
25
26
27
28
A
V
A A A I 6 '
R UNA/‘95 div PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
Preview
THE FIERBERG NATIONAL LAW GROUP, PLLC I3? DOUGLAS E. FIERBERG (admitted pro hac vice) derber g@tfnlgroup. com JONATHON N. FAZZOLA (admitted pro hac vice) jfazzola@g”nlgroup. com 161 East Front Street, Suite 200 Traverse City, MI 49684 Telephone: (23 1) 933-01 80 Fax: (23 1) 252-8100 SAWYER & LABAR LLP IVO LABAR, State Bar No203492~ labal@sawyerlabar. com 1700 Montgomery Street, Suite 108 San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 Telephone: (4 l 5) 262-3 820 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 10 DAPHNE BELETSIS '. YVONNE RAINEY 11 " z M12 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA LABAR LLP ‘13 COUNTY 0F SANTA CRUZ 1700 MONTGOMERY ST. srE 105.. TELEPHONE: '41 5.2623820 SAN FRANCISCO. CA 941 11 mvwsa‘wyerlabancom 14 DAPHNE BELETSIS, individually, and as 7 Case No. 19CV03287 Administrator of the ESTATE OF & 1'5 ALEXANDER BELETSIS, and SAWYER YVONNE RAINEY, surviving parent of 16 ALEXANDER BELETSIS, deceased OBJECTIONS To EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT 17 . _ NAJPREET SINGH KAHLON IN Plamtlffs, SUPPORT 0F MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 0R 1N THE ' ‘ 18 vs. I - I ‘ ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY 19 THETA CHI FRATERNITY , ADJUDICATION; AND ' INC , et al. , . [PROPOSED] ORDER 20 21 Defendants; Hearing Date: Time: IQWM 8: 30 a. m. is] Dept: 10 22 . Complaint Filed: October 3 1, 2019 23 FAC Filed: February 5, 2020 Trial Date: June 9. 2022 24 25 26 27 28 ' I ‘ i PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS RUUNGS l Pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.1352 and 3.1354, Plaintiffs Daphne Beletsis, and as Administrator of the Estate of Alexander Beletsis (“Alex”), and Yvonne individua11y Rainey, as a surviving parent of Alex, hereby obj ect to portions of the evidence led in support of Defendant Najpreet Singh Kahlon’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication. IPlaintiffs respectfully request that the Court strike the objectionable portions of'the evidence, as set forth below. _’77wCowY‘17 N/QSQSQj/OWS; .F (XL) Mam] OBJECTIONS To KAHLON DECLARATION Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling: ,~ - 10 1. Kahlon Declaration, page Improper Legal Conclusion Sustained: 2, lines 4-7: “Alex Beletsis (Evid. Code § 310). See also was not being initiated or Hayman v.Block, 176 OVemlled- 11 ‘hazed’ in any capacity, as Ca1.App.3d 629, 638—39 (1986) \U\ 12 he was already a fully (afdavits and declarations member of Theta Chi since in support of summary LLI’ submitted 13 the Fall of 2017. (judgment “must cite evidentiary gate—M— 1700 MONTGOMERY ST. STE 108 - LABA'R TELEPHON Elf“ 5.2623820 SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94111 facts, not legal conclusions or mvwzst'rawyellahamom 14 . ., _ _ - = ‘ultimate’facts”);Marriage of Heggie, 99 Cal. App. 4th 28, 30 8L .15- n.3 (2002) (“The proper place SA\VYER ' 16 for argument is in points and Judge authorities, not declarations”). 17 Defendant Kahlon’s statement is 18 not a statement of fact, but an 19 improper legal conclusion that conicts, as a matter of law, with 20 the Court’s October 14, 2020 Order Denying Defendant 21 Kahlon’s Motion to Strike Portions of the First Amended 22 Complaint, and the Court’s 23 October 14, 2020 Order Denying Defendant Theta Chi Fraternity 24 lnc.’s Motion to Strike Portions of the First Amended Complaint. 25 See October 14, 2021 Order Denying Kahlon Motion (Ex. 3 26 to Plaintiffs’ Index of Evidence); ‘ 27 See October l4, 2021 Order Denying Kahlon Motion (Ex. 4 28 2 RVLJ [V650N PLAINTIFFS EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONs . to Plaintiffs’ Index of Evidence). 2. Kahlon Irrelevant (Evid. Code‘ §§ 2 1 0, Sustained: Declaration, page 350) lines 7-8: “. Overruled: 2, .. and unlike Alex-I Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code § did not have a 403) . / _ fake-ID to alcohol.” Speculation / Lacks Personal purchase Knowledge (Evid. Code § 702) (Judge '33“; 1 .7,.y - y I"“—. 5 PF :3] {1,2 i‘r-i'v .. 3. Kahlon Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, lsu‘staine’d: e a 10 Declaration, page 350) ‘ I lines 23-24: Overruled: 2, 11 “Alex was well Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code § liked but not 403) . 12 considered very Speculation / Lacks Personal LABAR LLP responsible ...” 13 Knowledge (Evid-E’Cd‘de‘ §‘:702) 9 A 1700 MONTGOMERY ST. STE 108 TELEPHONE: 41 512623820 SAN FRANCISCO. CA 941 11 www.5awyerlabancom 14 & 15 32-1;- SAWYER 16~ 17 II. 18 R VLJ M65 071/ OBJECTIONS To O’NEIL DECLARATION 19 N ‘" MaterialwObjectéd toi '1VGrOuli‘dsfor Objection: '7 Ruling “l' V. _ 20 4. O’Neil Declaration, W 3- Best Evidence Rule (Evid. Code Sustained: 10. §§ 1520, 1523) *21‘ Improper Secondary Evidence Overruled: i (Evid. Code § 1521) 23 Speculation / Lacks Personal Date: OZ 24 Knowledge (Evid. Code § 702) i 25‘ ., Misstates Evidence 5- l/ ‘26 Improper Argument and Legal Judge Conclusions, Not Factual 27 gfahu glfga Statements (Evid. Code § 310); 28 See also Hayman v. Block, 176 Ca1.App.3d 629, 638-39 (1986) l 3 - . . EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS" PUMA/gs W'PLAINTIFFS’ h (afdavits and declarations submitted in support of summary judgment “must cite evidentiary facts, not legal conclusions or ‘ultimate’ facts,” and “[m]atters which would be excluded under the rules of evidence if proffered by a witness in a trial as hearsay, conclusions or impermissible opinions must be disregarded in supporting afdavits”); Marriage ofHeggie, 99 Cal. App. 4th 28, 30 n.3 (2002) (“The proper place for argument is in points and authorities, not declarations”). :10 Improper Opinion (Evid. Code § 803) 11 12 L'ABAR LLP 13 III. RUM/V 1700 MONTGOMERY ST. STE 108 TELEPHONE: 415.252.8820 SAN FRANCISCO. CA 941 11 W\vw.sawyellabar.com 14 OBJECTIONS OEXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT KAHLON ' 15‘ Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: 3L l Sustained:Rulin‘gf/ ' SAWYER Santa Rosa High Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, ”dam; . 16 School Records 350) Overruled: 17 (Ex E to Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code § Defendant 18 Kahlon’s Index of 403) ‘ » p ’ \ pgg ZS ' Evidence). 19 Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200, et- Date: 2Q seq.) 20 21 JP :ZIIE 22 Riggs}: €531)“ from the Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code § Sustained: 23 . Excerpts Deposition 403) 24 Transcript of Matthieu Turk (Ex. Lacks Personal Knowledge / Speculation (Evid. Code § 702) 25_ H to Defendant Kahlon’s Index of Code § 26 Improper Opinion (Evid. Evidence), page 803) 27 183, lines 5-13: “Q. .. did anyone at 28 Theta Chi pressure A ’ g l 4 k UL} IVES GIV PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS Alex to drink like, you know, say hey? A. -No, I didn’t see AIex get pressured. Not that I recall. -Q.'A Would you say that Alex drank because he liked to drink? [Obj ection] A. I would say . Alex drank because heliked to drink.” ‘v / Excerpts om the Improper Opinion (Evid. Code § Sustained: Deposition 803) Transcript of 10 Miguel Salvidar Speculation / Lacks Personal Knowledge (Evid. Code § Overruledzt (Ex. I to Defendant 702) Wpfinf 11 12 Kahlon’s Index of Evidence), pages: Date. w 177, lines 9—12: “Q. LABAR LLP 13 Was there a lot of 1700 MONTGOMERY ST. STE 106 TELEPHONE?“ 52623820 SAN FRANCISCO. CA 941 11 peer pressure at www.mwyeriabancom '14 Theta Chi? A. - From my s; -. . 1‘5 experience, no. Q. E"!35m W3. MAREG3333::f5 {E‘F SAWYER / 16 Why do you say that? A. We’re all 17 individuals, 'ee 18 will.” 19 . UCSC Records Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, S s ained: concerning Alexander 350) lg 20 Beletsis (Ex. K to vegle : Defendant Kahlon’s Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code § 21 Index of Evidence). 403) 22 Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200, et 23 seq.) 24 25 mm E “ ‘ ' A26 . Text Messages between Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 2 1 0, é‘t’lecf: 27 Sophia Beletsis and 350) Alex Beletsis (Ex. F to Lacks Foundation (Evid. Overruled. 28 Defendant Kahlon’s Code § A I Wsgl/a) W . 5 _ PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECT-IONS HyL/A/GS Index of Evidence) 403) Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200, et seq-) 2:- “ ” 4 10.Excerpts from the Improper Opinion (Evid. Code § Overruled: Deposition Transcript of 803) Leon Burns (Ex. G to _S° ‘ ._. Defendant Kahlon’s Index rm: I‘ anv of Evidence), pages: Date. 268125—269z8: “Q: was Alex someone who was 10 : known as someone who liked to drink? A. Yes ...” Judge 11 AW 1 r: :xA Alprvui 12 ‘“15r=‘_r“\..="*b 3aAL§$A 1i LABAR LLP .13 DATED: 700 MONTGOMERY ST. STE 108 mmlsjjzl TELEPHONE: ‘41 5.2623820 SAN FRANCISCO. CA 941 11 Mvw.sawyerlabar.com 14 8: 15 SA‘VYER 16 1 17 18 19 26 21 22 23 24 ‘ 25 26 27 28 A V A A A I 6 ' R UNA/‘95 div PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS