Electronically FILE DJ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 y Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 02/06/2019 02:31 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by A. Miro,Deputy Clerk Carney R. Shegerian, Esq., State Bar No. 150461 CShegerian @ Shegerianlaw.com Anthony Nguyen, Esq., State Bar No. 259154 ANguyen@Shegerianlaw.com William Reed, Esq., State Bar No. 261931 WReed @Shegerianlaw.com SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Santa Monica, California 90401 Telephone Number: (310) 860-0770 Facsimile Number: (310) 860-0771 Attorneys for Plaintiff, BERTA SOSA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT BERTA SOSA, Case No.: BC 675 252 ) The Honorable Michelle Williams Court Plaintiff, ) ) PLAINTIFF BERTA SOSA’S Vs. ) OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ ) IMPROPERLY FILED REPLY IN COMERICA BANK, a corporation, ) SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ COMERICA MANAGEMENT ) SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMPANY, INC., a corporation, ) UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND JUAN CRUZ MUNIZ, an individual, ) RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S 185 and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, ADDITIONAL FACTS. ) Date: February 22, 2019 Defendants. ) Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept.: 74 ) Trial Date: ~~ May 6, 2019 ) Action Filed: September 8, 2017 ) FACFiled: November 6.2017 PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENCE ON REPLY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF BERTA SOSA’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS Plaintiff, Berta Sosa, raises the following objections to Defendants’ “Reply in Support of Defendants’ Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Responses to Plaintiff’s 185 Additional Facts.” The plaintiff objects to defendants’ “Reply” in its entirety, as said “Reply” is in reality: (1) an improper reply separate statement; and (2) an improper seventy-seven (77) page extension of their reply brief. A. Reply Separate Statements Are Not Allowed by the Code. The law is clear that there is no provision in the statute for a reply separate statement and no such evidence is generally allowed. (Nazir v. United Airlines (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 252 (Nazir) [defendants’ 279-page reply statement disallowed, criticized as inappropriate, and not considered by the court]; see Weil and Brown, California Practice Guide, Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2012) §10:220.6; San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 316 (Watercrafts) [while the code provides for reply papers, it makes no allowance for submitting a supplemental separate statement]; Soria v. Univision Radio Los Angeles, Inc., 5 Cal. App.5th 570, fn. 2 [striking “reply separate statement” as inappropriate].) The Court did not consider the Reply Separate Statement, nor the new evidence and new issues raised in the Reply papers, since to do so would be a violation of Plaintiffs’ due process rights. The purpose of reply papers is to respond to the opposing party's additional disputed facts, or to object to the opposing party’s evidence. There is no statutory authority for a “reply separate statement” or “exhibits in evidence in support of a reply.” As such, submitting such in reply is not appropriate and will not be considered by this court. (Hare v. Amerigas Propane (2014) 2014 Cal. Super. LEXIS 15499, *3; Wuxi Luoshe Printing & Dyeing Co. v. Anshan Li (2012) 2012 Cal. Super. LEXIS 9973, *1 [']; ! “Moving Defendants have filed a ‘Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication.” This document is 252 pages long. Section 437c and Rule 2 PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENCE ON REPLY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Gloster v. Sonic Auto. (2012) 2012 Cal. Super. LEXIS 14221, **48-49 [same].) The same, the moving party on a Motion for Summary Judgment may not remedy any evidentiary defects or omissions in their moving papers by submission of evidence through reply papers. (Cohen v. One Workplace L. Ferrari (2010) 2010 Cal. Super. LEXIS 10410, *1, citing San Diego Watercrafts, supra, at 316.) As such the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Defendants’ “Reply” to Plaintiff’s separate statement of additional material facts in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication be stricken from the record and/or removed from consideration. B. Defendants’ “Reply” Separate Statement is a Ploy to Argue Additional Points Beyond the Confines of the 10-Page Limitation. Likewise, reply briefs are strictly limited to 10 pages pursuant to California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1113(d). Here, no application to file a longer reply memorandum was filed as required by Rule 3.1113(e). As such, this extra seventy-seven (77) pages of argument in support of their motion for summary judgment/adjudication should be stricken from the record, or in the alternative, should be considered in the same manner as a late-filed paper as required by Rule 3.1113(g). Dated: February 6, 2019 SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Carn : Shege dy, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff, BERTA SOSA 3.1350 do not allow any ‘reply’ to the opposition to the separate statement of facts. Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, £10:220.6; Nazir v. United Airlines Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 252.” 3. PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENCE ON REPLY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SOSA v. COMERICA BANK, et al. LASC CASE NO.: BC 675 252 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am an employee in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a ary to the within action; my business address 1s 225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700, Santa Monica, California 90401. On February 6, 2019, I served the foregoing document, described as “PLAINTIFF BERTA SOSA’S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ IMPROPERLY FILED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S 185 ADDITIONAL FACTS.” on all interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: Tracey A. Kennedy, Esq. Limore Torbati, Esq. Timothy T. Kim, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1422 [[] (BY MAIL) As follows: [] I placed such envelope, with postage thereon prepaid, in the United States mail at Santa Monica, California. [] Tam readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collecting and processing corre- spondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. ostal Service on that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid, at Santa Monica, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that, on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in this affidavit. X (BY FED EX) I placed such envelope in a designated Federal Express pick-up box at Santa Monica, California. (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) I sent such document via electronic mail to the number(s) noted above. [] XI (STATE) I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the above is true and correct. Executed on February 6, 2019, at - Jose Castro