Objection Evidence

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.April 5, 2021

410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91 203 LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21 CV379147 Santa Clara - Civil Edwin Aiwazian (SBN 232943) Arby Aiwazian (SBN 269827) Joanna Ghosh (SBN 272479) Elizabeth Parker-Fawley (SBN 301592) Arman Marukyan (SBN 327 1 50) LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91203 Tel: (818) 265-1020 / Fax: (818) 265-1021 Attorneys for Plaintiff Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 10/14/2021 5:38 PM Reviewed By: R. Walker Case #21 CV379147 Envelope: 7469061 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DEANGELO DANIELS, individually, and on behalf of other members 0f the general public similarly situated; Plaintiff, VS. GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA INSTAWORK, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: 2 1 CV379147 Honorable Patricia M. Lucas Department 3 PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE Hearing Date: October 27, 2021 Hearing Time: 1:30 p.m. Hearing Place: Department 3 Complaint Filed: April 5, 2021 Jury Trial Date: None Set PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91 203 LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Deangelo Daniels (“Plaintiff”) hereby submits the following objections to Defendant Garuda Labs, Inc. dba Instawork’s (“Defendant”) evidence in support of Defendant Garuda Labs, Inc. dba Instawork’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, Strike Class Allegations, and Stay Proceedings (“Motion”): I. OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF ADAM STEPINSKI Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling Objection 1: Lack of Foundation and _ Personal Knowledge. (Evid. suStamed: Declaration of Adam Stepinski in Code, §§ 403, 702). The Overruled: support of Defendant Garuda Labs, declaration fails t0 establish the Inc. dba Instawork’s Motion to preliminary fact as t0 Whether the Compel Arbitration, Strike Class declarant actually reviewed the Allegations, and Stay Proceedings declaration or otherwise verified the accuracy 0f the information provided in the declaration prior t0 signing the declaration. Additionally, declarant offers no evidence of his personal knowledge other than being a “Director 0f Engineering.” Conclusory. Declarations which set forth only conclusions, opinions, or ultimate facts is insufficient. (Kramer v. Barnes, 212 (1963) Cal. App. 2d 440, 446.) Objection 2: Lack 0f Foundation. (Evid. , Code, § 403.) The statement fails suStamed: “To proceed, the pro must tap t0 establish the preliminary facts Overruled: ‘Review Agreement.” The pro must 0f how the declarant knew the then scroll down t0 review and read information asserted in the the entire CSA. At the end of the statement. CSA, the pro must then tap ‘I accept’ t0 agree toits terms t0 proceed. Apro Improper opinion and cannot claim a gig or other speculation. (Evid. Code, § opportunity Without reviewing and 800). Declarant fails t0 accepting the CSA. ” demonstrate that his opinion is rationally based 0n his Stepinski Decl., 11 5. perception. Secondary Evidence Rule. (Evid. Code, § 1523.) Testimony 1 PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91 203 LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 is not admissible t0 prove the content 0f a writing. Conclusory. Declarations Which set forth only conclusions, opinions, or ultimate facts is insufficient. (Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal. App. 2d 440, 446.) Objection 3: Lack of Foundation. (Evid. Code, § 403.) The statement fails Summed‘ “Attached to this Declaration as t0 establish the preliminary facts Overruled: Exhibit A are true and correct 0f how the declarant knew the examples 0f screenshots of each information asserted in the screen 0f the Instawork App that a statement. pro must review and accept t0 create an account and book a ‘gig’ as Improper opinion and described in the preceding speculation. (Evid. Code, § paragraphs.” 800). Declarant fails t0 demonstrate that his opinion is Stepinski Decl., 11 6. rationally based on his perception. Secondary Evidence Rule. (Evid. Code, § 1523.) Testimony is not admissible t0 prove the content 0f a writing. Conclusory. Declarations Which set forth only conclusions, opinions, or ultimate facts is insufficient. (Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal. App. 2d 440, 446.) Objection 4: Lack of Foundation. (Evid. , Code, § 403.) The statement fails Summed‘ Exhibit A t0 Stepinski Declaration t0 establish the preliminary facts Overruled: Stepinski Decl., 11 6. 0fthe authenticity 0fthe writings. Hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200). Conclusory. Declarations Which set forth only conclusions, opinions, or ultimate facts is insufficient. (Kramer v. Barnes 2 PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91 203 LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (1963) 212 Cal. App. 2d 44o, 446.) Objection 5: Lack of Foundation. (Evid. , Code, § 403.) The statement fails suStamed: “By accessing the Instawork App and t0 establish the preliminary facts Overruled: booking a ‘gig,’ a pro is required to of how the declarant knew the agree t0 the CSA, which contains information asserted in the Arbitration Provisions. Attached to statement. this Declaration as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the operative Improper opinion and CSA, which each pro is required to speculation. (Evid. Code, § open, review, and accept before they 800). Declarant fails t0 are able to book a ‘gig.”’ demonstrate that his opinion is rationally based on his Stepinski Decl., 11 7. perception. Secondary Evidence Rule. (Evid. Code, § 1523.) Testimony is not admissible t0 prove the content 0f a writing. Conclusory. Declarations which set forth only conclusions, opinions, 0r ultimate facts is insufficient. (Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal. App. 2d 440, 446.) Objection 6: Lack of Foundation. (Evid. , Code, § 403.) The statement fails suStamed: Exhibit C t0 Stepinski Declaration t0 establish the preliminary facts Overruled: Stepinski Decl., 11 7. ofthe authenticity ofthe writings. Hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200). Conclusory. Declarations which set forth only conclusions, opinions, 0r ultimate facts is insufficient. (Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal. App. 2d 440, 446.) The document is incomplete. There are lines 0f text that appear t0 be missing from the document between pages as the sentences begun at the bottom 0f 3 PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91 203 LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 one page do not carry on t0 the top 0f the next page. Objection 7: “According t0 my review of Instawork’s business records, 0n November 9, 2020, Plaintiff negotiated his first work opportunity with a third-party business as a pro. Before accepting that opportunity, he had to enter into the CSA With Instawork as described in paragraph 5 above. On November 9, 2020, Plaintiff tapped ‘1 accept’ to accept the terms 0f the CSA. A true and correct copy 0n the CSA Plaintiff accepted on November 9, 2020, is attached hereto as Exhibit B.” Stepinski Decl., 11 9. Lack 0f Foundation. (Evid. Code, § 403.) The statement fails t0 establish the preliminary facts of how the declarant knew the information asserted in the statement. Improper opinion and speculation. (Evid. Code, § 800). Declarant fails t0 demonstrate that his opinion is rationally based on his perception. Secondary Evidence Rule. (Evid. Code, § 1523.) Testimony is not admissible to prove the content 0f a writing. Conclusory. Declarations which set forth only conclusions, opinions, 0r ultimate facts is insufficient. (Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal. App. 2d 440, 446.) Sustained: Overruled: Objection 8: Exhibit B t0 Stepinski Declaration Stepinski Decl., 11 9. Lack 0f Foundation. (Evid. Code, § 403.) The statement fails t0 establish the preliminary facts ofthe authenticity ofthe writings. Hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200). Conclusory. Declarations which set forth only conclusions, opinions, 0r ultimate facts is insufficient. (Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal. App. 2d 440, 446.) The document is incomplete. There are lines 0f text that appear t0 be missing from the document between pages as the sentences begun at the bottom of one page 4 PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91 203 LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 do not carry on t0 the top 0f the next page. Objection 9: “According t0 my review of Instawork’s business records, 0n April 2, 2021, Plaintiff again negotiated a work opportunity with a third-party business as a pro. Before accepting that opportunity, he had t0 enter into an updated CSA With Instawork as described in paragraph 5 above. On April 2, 2021 , Plaintiff tapped ‘1 accept’ to accept the terms 0fthe updated, operative CSA. A true and correct copy on the operative CSA Plaintiff accepted 0n November 9, 2020, is attached hereto as Exhibit C.” Stepinski Decl., 11 11. Lack 0f Foundation. (Evid. Code, § 403.) The statement fails t0 establish the preliminary facts of how the declarant knew the information asserted in the statement. Improper opinion and speculation. (Evid. Code, § 800). Declarant fails t0 demonstrate that his opinion is rationally based on his perception. Secondary Evidence Rule. (Evid. Code, § 1523.) Testimony is not admissible to prove the content 0f a writing. Conclusory. Declarations which set forth only conclusions, opinions, 0r ultimate facts is insufficient. (Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal. App. 2d 440, 446.) Objection 10: “Attached t0 this Declaration as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the electronic record 0f the date and time in which Plaintiff tapped ‘I accept’ t0 accept the terms 0f the CSA attached hereto as Exhibit B and the terms 0f the operative CSA attached hereto as Exhibit C. Stepinski Decl., 11 12. Lack 0f Foundation. (Evid. Code, § 403.) The statement fails t0 establish the preliminary facts of how the declarant knew the information asserted in the statement. Improper opinion and speculation. (Evid. Code, § 800). Declarant fails t0 demonstrate that his opinion is rationally based on his perception. Secondary Evidence Rule. (Evid. Code, § 1523.) Testimony is not admissible to prove the content 0f a writing. Misleading and prejudicial 5 PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91 203 LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (EVid. Code § 352): Declarant’s statement is misleading because, contrary t0 the statement, Exhibit D does not demonstrate that Plaintiff accepted the agreement in any way. Conclusory. Declarations which set forth only conclusions, opinions, 0r ultimate facts is insufficient. (Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal. App. 2d 440, 446.) Objection 11: Exhibit D to Stepinski Declaration Stepinski Decl., 11 12. Lack 0f Foundation. (Evid. Code, § 403.) The statement fails t0 establish the preliminary facts ofthe authenticity ofthe writings. Hearsay. (Evid. Code, § 1200). Relevance. (Evid. Code, § 350). Exhibit D is not relevant here as it does not demonstrate that Plaintiff accepted, signed, or otherwise agreed t0 the terms 0f the service agreement. Exhibit D merely demonstrates that the service agreement was “created,” not that it was accepted. Therefore, Exhibit D provides n0 probative value, and is neither relevant nor admissible. Misleading and prejudicial (Evid. Code § 352): Exhibit D is misleading and prejudicial as it is not What Defendant purports it to be. Contrary to Defendant’s claim, Exhibit D does not demonstrate that Plaintiff accepted the service agreement. Exhibit D merely demonstrates that the service agreement was “created.” Conclusory. Declarations which set forth only conclusions, 6 PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91203 LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC \OOOQON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 opinions, 0r ultimate facts is insufficient. (Kramer v. Barnes (1963) 212 Cal. App. 2d 440, 446.) Dated: October 14, 2021. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC . Elizabeth Parker-Fawley Arman Marukyan Attorneysfor Plaintiff 7 PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE