Preview
©. elma
James:A, Lassart -.040913
_
JLassart@mpbf.com
2.)-Adrian G. ‘Driscoll ~ 95468
all
¥
FILED
ALAMEDA COUNTY
5:||San:F a
‘|Telepione: (415) 788- 1900 SEP 1 7.2021
6.||Facsimile: (415) 393-8087 - 1.
A - CLERK OF, SUPERIOR COUR]
7 \[Attomeys for Plaintiff By Pai Micke __}
SKY PARTNERS, INC. Depuly
8. :
| SUPERIOR COURT OF THESTATEOF CALIFORNIA:
10:
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
}1
12. . oo
SKY PARTNERS, INC., a California Case No.: RG21111126
13 ||corporation,
ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO
14 Plaintiff, JUDGE NOEL WISE
DEPARTMENT 24
15 ve
OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO
16 || JUSTIN BRIGGS, DOES 1 through 500, STRIKE CERTAIN EVIDENCE
PROFFERED BY DEFENDANT RE:
17 Defendants. PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR
FAX
ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY
18 INJUNCTION
19 Date: September 23, 2021
Time: 9:00 a.m.
20 Location: Dept. 24 (Hon. Judge Noél Wise)
© 21
1221 Oak Street,Oakland, CA 94612
BY
22 PlaintiffSky Partners, Inc.,(“SKY PARTNERS”) hereby objects to and moves to strike the
23 || following evidence proffered by defendant Justin Briggs (“BRIGGS”) inhis opposition to plaintiff's
24 || application for issuance of a preliminary injunction:
25
26
27
28
-|-
OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN EVIDENCE PROFFERED BY DEFENDANT RE:
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
—
THE DECLARATION OF JUSTIN BRIGGS
N
EVIDENCE TO WHICH.- ‘BASIS FOR.OBJECTION:
OBJECTION IS MADE
{
‘
B&B
Irrelevant. The alleged statements and. ©
ca "Briggs Declaration 79. ‘lines10-13, "10: 16,.
communications and negotiations contained in
and Exhs. A-G;, inclusive
these paragraphs and exhibits allpredate. the-
Ww
incorporation of Sky Partners, Inc.on September
.
13, 2013, and the Memorandum of
DH
Understanding for Justin Briggs — Charter Sales,
\
dated September 13, 2013, and are tothe
WD
retention of Briggs by Sky Partners, Inc. All of
Briggs declaration.regarding: negotiations prior: to. |:
CO
| the formation of Sky: Partners, Inc.-are‘irrelevant:
‘
(Cal. Evid. Code Section: 350.)
01
Lack of foundation. There is noevidence that
2. References by plaintiff inhis declaration to his
—
Briggs owned or operated an “independent
“independent charter brokerage” or charter
charter brokerage” or charter brokerage of any
—
brokerage in418, line 5,19: line 13.
kind. Objection is also made on the grounds that
Briggs reference to his operation of acharter
—
brokerage isa legal conclusion. (Cal. Evid. Code
Section 403.)
—
Lack of Foundation. Plaintiff provides no
—
3. Briggs reference to a “joint venture” between
evidence of a jointventure agreement between
Sky Partners, Inc. are between him and Sky him and Sky Partners. (Cal. Evid. Code Section
—
Partners, Inc.in 27, line 3. 403.)
Lack of Foundation. Briggs presents no evidence
—
4. Plaintiffs claim that he has aright to use the that he had any right touse thename Sky
names “Sky Partners” inparagraph 27, lines 3-4
Partners independent of his duties as an
boot
and 6-7.
employee of Sky Partners Inc. Objection is also
made on theground that plaintiffisnot qualified
downed
to provide any legal conclusion as to his rightto
the use of Sky Partners name. (Cal. Evid. Code
—d
Section 403.)
Hearsay, opinion, lack of foundation. Statements
ie)
5. Briggs statement on the information and belief
based on information and belief areinadmissible
that the alleged cancellation-of a credit lineby
speculation. (Cal. Evid. Code Section 1200, 800
Nw
Wells Fargo bank was the result of Sky Partners & 403.)
declining business operations and lossof
bo
investors atparagraph 33, line 17-19.
Hearsay, lack of foundation. Lack of personal
bho
6. Objection is made to paragraph 37 and Exhibit
J . - knowledge of the declarant. (Cal. Evid. Code
Section 1200 & 403.)
pho
'
Hearsay. Statements by “Client B” are hearsay
7. Objection is made to paragraph 39
and itisunclear which of the statements
contained inparagraph 39 were made by Craig
Miller on behalf of Sky Partners, Inc. (Cal. Evid.
Code Section 1200.)
-2-
OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN EVIDENCE PROFFERED BY DEFENDANT RE:
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
| Hearsay. Alleged statements by “Client B” are
§. Objection to patavtapi'40, lings 4-8: inadmissible hearsay (Cal. Evid. Code Section
11200.).
soe ott|
-9: Objection to;paragraphi 41;lines:8-12-——— -Hearsay.
Statement
Thadmissible
by:“Client B”
opinion
(Cal:
based.o1on
Evid. Code Section:
Do,
|
{ 800. &:1200.) Ir
0, Parag42, tinaesp12h-14 SS + Opinion,
| that;he:
lack‘of
was
foundation.
forced toterminate
Brij eS. ‘staternent-
his:“business.
| relationship” with plaintiffSky Partners as a
/ result of “plaintiffsegregious treatment of my
clients” isinadmissible by opinion and lacks
-foundation‘as'to the claim.that the client was’ ||: + Even
we
defendant Briggs client. (Cal. Evid. Code Section
800 & 403.)
ee ee ‘L1:Paragraph 43, lines 18-20, _|
| Hearsay;
on “flight
Plaintiffs’
tracking
representation
software” is
of information:
inadmissible:
,
|hearsay (Cal. Evid. Code Section 1200.)
Lacks foundation. Declarants reference to Mr.
12. Paragraph 43, lines 18-20
Jonathan Rosenberg as one of his clients(Cal.
Evid. Code Section 403.)
Hearsay. Communications between defendant
13. Paragraph 43, lines 20-24 and Jonathan Rosenberg are inadmissible. (Cal.
Evid. Code Section 1200.)
Lack of foundation, Hearsay. Briggs does not
14. Paragraph 43, lines 24-28 and portions of
provide any basis for his claim that plaintiffSky
Exh. L (letters by Mark Poniatowski
Partner improperly contacted said clientsand
‘forced them to make payments to plaintiff,when
payment was properly due to me.” (Cal. Evid...
Code Section 403 & 1200.)
15. Exhibit M to Briggs declaration Hearsay, Irrelevant, Lack of foundation. Exhibit
N lacks relevance inthat no foundation islaid in
the Briggs declaration with respect to the
document or why it isattached to the declaration
(Cal. Evid. Code Section 350, 403 & 1200.)
-3-
OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN EVIDENCE PROFFERED BY DEFENDANT RE: _
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
‘ © @ ,
DATED: September :16; 2021: oo, oo oo
—
MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY
Kristen Lc Iversen
YH
Attorneys forDefendant
SKY -PARTNERS, INC,
DN
ON
AGM.4040330.docx |
Oo
co
LO:
11
12:
T 3.
14
15.
16
\7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26:
27
28
-4-
OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN EVIDENCE PROFFERED BY DEFENDANT RE:
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
9 ‘ '
CERTIFICATE: OF SERVICE
Nake
I, Jennifer M. Cuellar, declare:
ed
er SEL
to.
~ “Yanra citizen of the United. States,am over te age oF eigen rea ‘and am.nota pat to or|:
Ct Dee ST
+
ORC
TOOT
.
Fraiciseo California 94104,
DN
On September 17, 2021, I served the:following: document(s) on the. Parties inthe.within action:
~~ tomeee ee a me re — om een FS
| OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO
—
APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
: VIA. MAIL: F am: familiag with the business practice2for collection aiid processing’
pro cof
=
‘
as
x ‘mail. The above-described document(s) will be enclosed in a sealed envelope, with first
10: +“ |-¢lasspostage thereon fully prepaid, and deposited withthe United Statés Postal.Service at:
San Francisco, California on this date, addressed as listed below.
1
| ; VIA E-MAIL: | attached the above-described document(s) to.an e-mail message, and.
12: X | invoked the send totransmit the e-mail message tothe person(s) at the e-mail address(es)
listed below. My email address is jcuellar@mpbf.com
13
Mark D. Poniatowski, Esq. Attorney forDefendant Justin Briggs
14 Poniatowski Leding Parikh Law Corporation
21715 Redwood Road
15: Castro Valley; CA 94546
Tel: (510) 881-8700
16 Fax: (510) 881-8702
Email: mponiatowski@ponlaw.com
17
18
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is}
19.
a trueand correct statement and that this Certificate was executed on September 17, 2021.
20
21
22
23
Sand
"& niferM. Cuellar
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN EVIDENCE PROFFERED BY DEFENDANT RE:
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Preview
©. elma James:A, Lassart -.040913 _ JLassart@mpbf.com 2.)-Adrian G. ‘Driscoll ~ 95468 all ¥ FILED ALAMEDA COUNTY 5:||San:F a ‘|Telepione: (415) 788- 1900 SEP 1 7.2021 6.||Facsimile: (415) 393-8087 - 1. A - CLERK OF, SUPERIOR COUR] 7 \[Attomeys for Plaintiff By Pai Micke __} SKY PARTNERS, INC. Depuly 8. : | SUPERIOR COURT OF THESTATEOF CALIFORNIA: 10: COUNTY OF ALAMEDA }1 12. . oo SKY PARTNERS, INC., a California Case No.: RG21111126 13 ||corporation, ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO 14 Plaintiff, JUDGE NOEL WISE DEPARTMENT 24 15 ve OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO 16 || JUSTIN BRIGGS, DOES 1 through 500, STRIKE CERTAIN EVIDENCE PROFFERED BY DEFENDANT RE: 17 Defendants. PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR FAX ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY 18 INJUNCTION 19 Date: September 23, 2021 Time: 9:00 a.m. 20 Location: Dept. 24 (Hon. Judge Noél Wise) © 21 1221 Oak Street,Oakland, CA 94612 BY 22 PlaintiffSky Partners, Inc.,(“SKY PARTNERS”) hereby objects to and moves to strike the 23 || following evidence proffered by defendant Justin Briggs (“BRIGGS”) inhis opposition to plaintiff's 24 || application for issuance of a preliminary injunction: 25 26 27 28 -|- OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN EVIDENCE PROFFERED BY DEFENDANT RE: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF — THE DECLARATION OF JUSTIN BRIGGS N EVIDENCE TO WHICH.- ‘BASIS FOR.OBJECTION: OBJECTION IS MADE { ‘ B&B Irrelevant. The alleged statements and. © ca "Briggs Declaration 79. ‘lines10-13, "10: 16,. communications and negotiations contained in and Exhs. A-G;, inclusive these paragraphs and exhibits allpredate. the- Ww incorporation of Sky Partners, Inc.on September . 13, 2013, and the Memorandum of DH Understanding for Justin Briggs — Charter Sales, \ dated September 13, 2013, and are tothe WD retention of Briggs by Sky Partners, Inc. All of Briggs declaration.regarding: negotiations prior: to. |: CO | the formation of Sky: Partners, Inc.-are‘irrelevant: ‘ (Cal. Evid. Code Section: 350.) 01 Lack of foundation. There is noevidence that 2. References by plaintiff inhis declaration to his — Briggs owned or operated an “independent “independent charter brokerage” or charter charter brokerage” or charter brokerage of any — brokerage in418, line 5,19: line 13. kind. Objection is also made on the grounds that Briggs reference to his operation of acharter — brokerage isa legal conclusion. (Cal. Evid. Code Section 403.) — Lack of Foundation. Plaintiff provides no — 3. Briggs reference to a “joint venture” between evidence of a jointventure agreement between Sky Partners, Inc. are between him and Sky him and Sky Partners. (Cal. Evid. Code Section — Partners, Inc.in 27, line 3. 403.) Lack of Foundation. Briggs presents no evidence — 4. Plaintiffs claim that he has aright to use the that he had any right touse thename Sky names “Sky Partners” inparagraph 27, lines 3-4 Partners independent of his duties as an boot and 6-7. employee of Sky Partners Inc. Objection is also made on theground that plaintiffisnot qualified downed to provide any legal conclusion as to his rightto the use of Sky Partners name. (Cal. Evid. Code —d Section 403.) Hearsay, opinion, lack of foundation. Statements ie) 5. Briggs statement on the information and belief based on information and belief areinadmissible that the alleged cancellation-of a credit lineby speculation. (Cal. Evid. Code Section 1200, 800 Nw Wells Fargo bank was the result of Sky Partners & 403.) declining business operations and lossof bo investors atparagraph 33, line 17-19. Hearsay, lack of foundation. Lack of personal bho 6. Objection is made to paragraph 37 and Exhibit J . - knowledge of the declarant. (Cal. Evid. Code Section 1200 & 403.) pho ' Hearsay. Statements by “Client B” are hearsay 7. Objection is made to paragraph 39 and itisunclear which of the statements contained inparagraph 39 were made by Craig Miller on behalf of Sky Partners, Inc. (Cal. Evid. Code Section 1200.) -2- OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN EVIDENCE PROFFERED BY DEFENDANT RE: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION | Hearsay. Alleged statements by “Client B” are §. Objection to patavtapi'40, lings 4-8: inadmissible hearsay (Cal. Evid. Code Section 11200.). soe ott| -9: Objection to;paragraphi 41;lines:8-12-——— -Hearsay. Statement Thadmissible by:“Client B” opinion (Cal: based.o1on Evid. Code Section: Do, | { 800. &:1200.) Ir 0, Parag42, tinaesp12h-14 SS + Opinion, | that;he: lack‘of was foundation. forced toterminate Brij eS. ‘staternent- his:“business. | relationship” with plaintiffSky Partners as a / result of “plaintiffsegregious treatment of my clients” isinadmissible by opinion and lacks -foundation‘as'to the claim.that the client was’ ||: + Even we defendant Briggs client. (Cal. Evid. Code Section 800 & 403.) ee ee ‘L1:Paragraph 43, lines 18-20, _| | Hearsay; on “flight Plaintiffs’ tracking representation software” is of information: inadmissible: , |hearsay (Cal. Evid. Code Section 1200.) Lacks foundation. Declarants reference to Mr. 12. Paragraph 43, lines 18-20 Jonathan Rosenberg as one of his clients(Cal. Evid. Code Section 403.) Hearsay. Communications between defendant 13. Paragraph 43, lines 20-24 and Jonathan Rosenberg are inadmissible. (Cal. Evid. Code Section 1200.) Lack of foundation, Hearsay. Briggs does not 14. Paragraph 43, lines 24-28 and portions of provide any basis for his claim that plaintiffSky Exh. L (letters by Mark Poniatowski Partner improperly contacted said clientsand ‘forced them to make payments to plaintiff,when payment was properly due to me.” (Cal. Evid... Code Section 403 & 1200.) 15. Exhibit M to Briggs declaration Hearsay, Irrelevant, Lack of foundation. Exhibit N lacks relevance inthat no foundation islaid in the Briggs declaration with respect to the document or why it isattached to the declaration (Cal. Evid. Code Section 350, 403 & 1200.) -3- OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN EVIDENCE PROFFERED BY DEFENDANT RE: _ PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ‘ © @ , DATED: September :16; 2021: oo, oo oo — MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY Kristen Lc Iversen YH Attorneys forDefendant SKY -PARTNERS, INC, DN ON AGM.4040330.docx | Oo co LO: 11 12: T 3. 14 15. 16 \7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26: 27 28 -4- OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN EVIDENCE PROFFERED BY DEFENDANT RE: PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 9 ‘ ' CERTIFICATE: OF SERVICE Nake I, Jennifer M. Cuellar, declare: ed er SEL to. ~ “Yanra citizen of the United. States,am over te age oF eigen rea ‘and am.nota pat to or|: Ct Dee ST + ORC TOOT . Fraiciseo California 94104, DN On September 17, 2021, I served the:following: document(s) on the. Parties inthe.within action: ~~ tomeee ee a me re — om een FS | OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO — APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION : VIA. MAIL: F am: familiag with the business practice2for collection aiid processing’ pro cof = ‘ as x ‘mail. The above-described document(s) will be enclosed in a sealed envelope, with first 10: +“ |-¢lasspostage thereon fully prepaid, and deposited withthe United Statés Postal.Service at: San Francisco, California on this date, addressed as listed below. 1 | ; VIA E-MAIL: | attached the above-described document(s) to.an e-mail message, and. 12: X | invoked the send totransmit the e-mail message tothe person(s) at the e-mail address(es) listed below. My email address is jcuellar@mpbf.com 13 Mark D. Poniatowski, Esq. Attorney forDefendant Justin Briggs 14 Poniatowski Leding Parikh Law Corporation 21715 Redwood Road 15: Castro Valley; CA 94546 Tel: (510) 881-8700 16 Fax: (510) 881-8702 Email: mponiatowski@ponlaw.com 17 18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is} 19. a trueand correct statement and that this Certificate was executed on September 17, 2021. 20 21 22 23 Sand "& niferM. Cuellar 24 25 26 27 28 -5- OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN EVIDENCE PROFFERED BY DEFENDANT RE: PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION