Farzad Kohanbash vs. Specialty Baking, Inc., Et Al

Objection SPECIALTY BAKING INCS OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY FARZAD KOHANBASH IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Cal. Super. - 2nd Dist.September 8, 2016

Electronically FILED by Superio AN Un BA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 26 27 28 I RAMSEY LAW GROUP HUSSEIN SAFFOURI - 177863 3736 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 300 Lafayette, CA 94549 Telephone: (925) 284-2002 Facsimile: (925) 402-8053 hussein @ramseylawgroup.com Cross-Defendant Specialty Baking, Inc. and Defendant Robert Murillo FARZAD KOHANBASH, Plaintiff, Vv. SPECIALTY BAKING, INC., ROBERT MURILLO, and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants. AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS motion for summary adjudication: Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 12/03/2018 04:07 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by J . Reyes,Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Defendant, Cross-Complainant and SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES No. VC065792 SPECIALTY BAKING, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY FARZAD KOHANBASH IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Date: December 5, 2018 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: G Defendant Specialty Baking, Inc. makes the following objections to the evidence submitted by plaintiff Farzad Kohanbash in support of his sur-reply in opposition to Specialty’s Evidence Objection Declaration of Farzad Kohanbash in Support of Sur-Reply [“Kohanbash Dec.”] 3 Improper legal argument and conclusion. (Osborn v. Mission Ready Mix (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 104, 114.) Lacks foundation. (Cal. Evid. Code § 1271.) OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE AN Un BA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 26 27 28 Kohanbash Dec. {4 The third sentence is hearsay. (Cal. Evid. Code § 1200.) Lacks relevance. (Cal. Evid. Code § 350.) There is no evidence of misleading statements regarding the restrictions on transfer of the Option. There is no evidence of detrimental reliance. There is no evidence of a waiver or estoppel relating to the restrictions on transfer of the Option (Lease, paragraph 12.2(g) and 39.2), or of the antiwaiver provision (Lease, paragraph 24) or the provision that the Lease may only be modified in writing, signed by all parties in interest (Lease, paragraph 47). Kohanbash Dec. {5 Hearsay. (Cal. Evid. Code § 1200.) Lacks relevance. (Cal. Evid. Code § 350.) The use of the word “option” in the alleged statements appears to be using the term in its general sense of a “possibility” or an “alternative” and not as a term of art referring to the Option in the Lease. Additionally, the purchase terms referenced in Mr. Kohanbash’s declaration are inconsistent with the purchase terms in the Lease Option. Contrary to the statements in Mr. Kohanbash’s declaration, the Option in the Lease does not provide that rent paid would be applied towards the purchase price. OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE “5 AN Un BA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 26 27 28 Kohanbash Dec. {6 Lacks relevance. (Cal. Evid. Code § 350.) The referenced documents are not relevant to the question of whether the assignment of the Lease also resulted in an assignment of the Option. DATED: November 30, 2018 OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE RAMSEY LAW GROUP By: // w= =~ _ HUSSEIN SAFFOURI Attorneys for Specialty Baking, Inc. and Robert Murillo ~N O N wn BA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE (CCP §§ 1013(a) and 2015.5; FRCP 5) I, the undersigned, am employed in the County of Contra Costa, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within action. My business address is Ramsey Law Group, 3736 Mount Diablo Boulevard, Suite 300, Lafayette, California, 94549. On December 3, 2018, I caused to be served the within SPECIALTY BAKING, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY FARZAD KOHANBASH IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION on each person named below: Rafi Moghadam Barry R. Swan Law Offices of Rafi Moghadam Reynolds, Jensen & Swan, LLP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600 3233 Arlington Ave., Suite 203 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Riverside, CA 92506 (businesslaw @ gmail.com) (bswan@rjslaw.com) [ 1(BY FIRST CLASS) - I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail in Lafayette, California to be served on the parties as indicated on the Service List. Iam “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Lafayette, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [ 1By Priority Mail, I placed said document(s) along with envelope(s) addressed as indicated above in the location designated by my employer for the collection, processing and mailing of correspondence. I am readily familiar with my employer's ordinary business practice for processing such correspondence for mailing which includes sealing said document(s) inside said envelope(s) and mailing them with postage fully prepaid the same day via Priority Mail service through the United States Postal Service. [ X1 (BY ELECTRONIC FILING AND/OR SERVICE) - I served a true copy, with all exhibits, electronically on designated recipients listed on the Service List on: December 3, 2018 at: 1:30pm [X ] FEDERAL EXPRESS) -I caused the envelope to be delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized to receive documents with delivery fees provided for. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on December 3, 2018, at Lafayette, CA. Ria Trina Audley PROOF OF SERVICE -2-