Objection

Cal. Super. - 3rd Dist.July 31, 2017

Ny o D A N D T KR Ww W 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ROSNER, BARRY & BABBITT, LLP Christopher P. Barry, SBN 179308 Lacee B. Smith, SBN 284168 10085 Carroll Canyon Road, Suite 100 San Diego, California 92131 Telephone: (858) 348-1005 Facsimile: (858) 348-1150 hawk@rbblawgroup.com lacee@rbblawgroup.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs FILED SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF PLACER JAN 10 2019 JAKE CKATTERS EXECUTIVE O R & CLERK By: E.C eputy SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER ANDREA FILIMON and EMANUELA FILIMON, Plaintiffs, V. ROSEVILLE TOYOTA, a California Corporation; TOYOTA FINANCIAL SERVICES, a California Corporation; RLI INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation; and DOES 1 through 75, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. SCV0039808 Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Declaration of John Britton filed in Support of Roseville Toyota’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs Date: January 17, 2019 Time: 8:30 a.m. Judge: Hon. Charles Wachob Dept: 42 Complaint Filed: July 31, 2017 Trial Date: vacated FILED BY FAX Plaintiffs object to the following portions of the declaration of John Britt on: 1. Paragraph 9, page 3, lines 20-22: “In that letter, I essentially offered full rescission of the Contract with payments of all monies back to the Plaintiffs mad e on the Contract. I also offered $1,500 in attorney’s fees and costs.” Objection: Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200), Best Evidence Rule (Evid. Code §§ 1520- 1523.) Mr. Britton is attempting to testify to the contents of a w riting. His testimony does not accurately reflect the contents of the writing, because the Septemb er 18 letter specifically stated payments would not be returned to Plaintiffs. 1 Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Declaration of John Britton filed in Support of Roseville Toyota’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs No oO o O ~ a n N D o ff Ww 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. Paragraph 12, page 4, lines 14-18: “I found that letter to be incredible , given the nature and extent of my prior communications with Mr. Mixer, reaching out to him essentially offering a full and complete rescission of the Sales Contract and all of the moni es paid back to the Plaintiffs, including the payoff of their automobile loan. The only issue remain ing at that time was the issue of attorney's fees and costs to be paid to the Plaintiffs’ law firm. Objection: Hearsay (Evid. Code 8 1200), Best Evidence Rule (Evid. Code 8§ 1520- 1523.). Mr. Britton is attempting to testify to the contents of the various wr itten correspondence between Plaintiffs’ counsel. His testimony does not accurately reflect the communications, because in November 2017, Roseville Toyota had not yet offered “full and complete rescission.” The parties had not reached an agreement on any aspect of settlement. 4. Paragraph 13, page 4, lines 20-22: “Again, I was only doi ng my best to reach out to attorney Mixer to try to work with him regarding the only rema ining issues in the case at that time, namely, the attorney’s fees and costs to be paid to the attorne ys representing the Plaintiffs.” Objection: Speculation. Mr. Britton’s assertion that the only issue left to resolve as of November 22, 2017, was attorney’s fees is speculative an d, in fact, false. 4. Paragraph 17, page 5, line 2-3: “In fact, the case had been settled, almost in its entirety, except for the issue of attorney's fees and costs.” Objection: Speculation. Mr. Britton’s assertion that the o nly issue left to resolve as of February 19, 2017, was attorney’s fees is speculative and , in fact, false. DATED: January 10, 2019 ROSNER, B ARRY & BABBITT, LLP By: | Wn 7 CHRISTOPHER P. BARRY / LACEE B. SMITH Attorneys for Plaintiffs 2 Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Declaration of John Britton filed in Support of Roseville Toyota's Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs to O o O N D o ff & 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE Filimon, Andrea & Emanuela v. Roseville Toyota, et al. Placer County Superior Case No.: SCV0039808 I am employed in the County of San Diego, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is: 10085 Carroll Canyon Road, First Floor, San Diego, California 92131. On January 10, 2019, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Declaration of J ohn Britton fi led in Support of Roseville Toyota’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorne y’s Fees and Costs on the interested parties in this action at San Diego, California, addressed as fo llows: Abraham J. Colman, Esq. Raagini Shah, Esq. REED SMITH LLP John A. Britton, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN A. BRITTON, INC. 1478 Stone Point Drive, Suite 400 Roseville, California 95661 Tel: (916) 781-2050 / Fax: (916) 782-7560 jbritton@jbrittonlaw.com Attorney for Defendant JOHN L. SULLIVAN INVESTMENTS, INC. dba ROSEVILE TOYOTA AND RLI INSURANCE COMPANY 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, California 90071 Tel: (213) 457-8000 Fax: (213) 457-8080 acolman@reedsmith.com rshah@reedsmith.com Attorneys for Defendant TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION [X] BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: [ enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person s at the above addressed. I caused such envelope or package to be deposited in a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. [X] above is true and correct. Executed on January 10, 2019 at San Diego, California. STATE: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the Ce Nadine Hicks 1 PROOF OF SERVICE