Case Number:
20STCV17139
Hearing Date:
September 28, 2022
Dept:
47
WILLIAM HANDEL, et al. vs OVATION FERTILITY
, Case No. 20STCV17139
Defendants MIL #1
to exclude testimony of Plaintiffs expert Bill Hartzer from being offered at trial
TENTATIVE:
Denied
, without prejudice to specific objections being asserted at trial to specific question about the expert opinions offered by Mr. Hartzer.
The interpretation of a contract is a judicial function designed to give effect to the mutual intentions of the parties at the time the contract was executed.
(
Wolf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television
(2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1125-1126.)
Ordinarily, the objective intent of the contracting parties is a legal question determined solely by reference to the contract's terms.
(
Ibid.
[Citation omitted].)
While the Court may not consider extrinsic evidence to contradict the clear and unambiguous terms of a written contract, such evidence is admissible to interpret
Hearing Date
September 28, 2022
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Case Number:
20STCV17139
Hearing Date:
September 28, 2022
Dept:
47
WILLIAM HANDEL, et al. vs OVATION FERTILITY
, Case No. 20STCV17139
Defendants MIL #1
to exclude testimony of Plaintiffs expert Bill Hartzer from being offered at trial
TENTATIVE:
Denied
, without prejudice to specific objections being asserted at trial to specific question about the expert opinions offered by Mr. Hartzer.
The interpretation of a contract is a judicial function designed to give effect to the mutual intentions of the parties at the time the contract was executed.
(
Wolf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television
(2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1125-1126.)
Ordinarily, the objective intent of the contracting parties is a legal question determined solely by reference to the contract's terms.
(
Ibid.
[Citation omitted].)
While the Court may not consider extrinsic evidence to contradict the clear and unambiguous terms of a written contract, such evidence is admissible to interpret