HomeMy WebLinkAbout21CV-0734 - Evidentiary Objectionspdf1 -
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF VALNETTE GARCIA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BEST BEST &KRIEGER LLPATTORNEYS AT LAW18101VON
KARMAN AVENUE,SUITE
1000IRVINE,CALIFORNIA 92612JEFFREY V. DUNN, Bar
No. 131926 jeffrey.
dunn@bbklaw.com DANIEL L.
RICHARDS, Bar No. 315552 daniel.richards@bbklaw.
com BEST BEST &
KRIEGER LLP 18101 Von
Karman Avenue, Suite 1000
Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 263-2600 Facsimile: (
949) 260-0972 Attorneys for Defendants and Respondents City of San
Luis Obispo and City Council of and for
the City of San Luis
Obispo EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6103 SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO NHC SLO,
LLC,Petitioner and Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO; CITY COUNCIL OF AND
FOR
THE CITY
OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO; AND
DOES 1-10,
INCLUSIVE, Defendants and
Respondents. Case No.
21CV-0734 Judge: Rita
Federman EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO
DECLARATION OF VALNETTE GARCIA IN SUPPORT
OF OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF NHC SLO, LLC’S
EX PARTE APPLICATION
FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Date:
January
31, 2022 Time: 8:30 a.
2 -
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF VALNETTE GARCIA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BEST BEST &KRIEGER LLPATTORNEYS AT LAW18101VON KARMAN AVENUE,
SUITE 1000IRVINE,CALIFORNIA 92612EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF VALNETTE GARCIA Defendants and Respondents City of
San Luis Obispo and City Council of and for the City of San
Luis Obispo (“Defendants”) hereby submit evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Valnette Garcia in Support of
Plaintiff and Petitioner NHC SLO, LLC’s Ex Parte Application for Temporary
Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause regarding Preliminary Injunction as follows, and concurrently moves
to strike
the identified matters to the extent the Court sustains these objections.
Obj.
No.
Material Objected To Grounds for
Objection Ruling on the Objection
1.The facts stated [in
NHC SLO, LLC’
s Verified Petition and
Complaint for Writ of Mandate, Prohibition,
Or Both, And For Declaratory Relief]
are true, and each and
every exhibit is a
true and correct copy of what
each attached exhibit
purports to be, and that
I have personal
knowledge of
same.” 3, p.
16:6–12.) Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code § 403);
Lacks personal
knowledge. Evid. Code §§
403, 702.); Hearsay (
Evid. Code §§
1200
et
3 -
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF VALNETTE GARCIA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BEST BEST &KRIEGER LLPATTORNEYS AT LAW18101VON KARMAN AVENUE,SUITE 1000IRVINE,CALIFORNIA
92612Obj.
No.
Material Objected To Grounds for Objection
Ruling on the Objection
2.I have
been involved in other
local cannabis licenses and California State business
licenses, and from experience, if
a local license is lost, this
results in the State revoking
its State license,
and if the State
license is not promptly reinstated, then
the application process with the State
starts all over again, and
presently it is
taking 12-14
months for the
State to approve
new cannabis business licenses
from submission, which
is significant because you
cannot
lawfully open a cannabis business without
both local and
State authorization.”
5, p. 16:
16–16:23.) Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code § 403);
Lacks personal
knowledge. Evid. Code §§
403,
702.); Hearsay (Evid. Code §§
1200 et
seq.); Speculative (Evid. Code 702.);
Assumes facts (Evid. Code 402-405.);
Opinion on Issue of Law See
Summers v. A.
L. Gilbert Co. (1999) 69
Cal.App.4th
1155, 1178 (opinion
testimony on a question
of law is prohibited); Improper Legal Argument
See Marriage of Heggie 2002) 99
Cal.App.4th 28, 30 fn. 3);
Cal Prac Guide Civ
Pro. Before Trial
Ch. 9(
I)-B declarations
limited
to
facts,
4 -
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF VALNETTE GARCIA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BEST BEST &KRIEGER LLPATTORNEYS AT LAW18101VON KARMAN AVENUE,SUITE 1000IRVINE,CALIFORNIA
92612Obj.
No.
Material Objected To Grounds for Objection
Ruling on the Objection 3.
If NHC SLO, LLC does
not have its local cannabis
permit reinstated to prevent
the loss of its
existing issued State cannabis,
NHC SLO, LLC presently faces
the immediate threat of irreparable harm because
its[sic] cannot wait
for 12-14 months
to get its State license reinstated
after resolving this litigation with the City,
as the company
will run out of money by
then and forced
to close.”
6, p. 16:
24–17:2.) Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code §
403);
Lacks personal knowledge. Evid.
Code §§ 403,
702.)
Speculative (
5 -
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF VALNETTE GARCIA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BEST BEST &KRIEGER LLPATTORNEYS AT LAW18101VON KARMAN AVENUE,SUITE 1000IRVINE,CALIFORNIA
92612Obj.
No.
Material Objected To Grounds for
Objection Ruling on the
Objection 4.Moreover, it is
likely that NHC, SLO
will prevail because the City
failed to follow its
own Ordinances and Laws
regarding when and how
an issued cannabis business
permit may be revoked in revoking
NHC SLO, LLC’
s license.”
7, p. 17:
3–17:6.) Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code § 403);
Lacks personal
knowledge. Evid. Code §§
403,
702.); Hearsay (Evid. Code §§
1200 et
seq.); Speculative (Evid. Code 702.);
Assumes facts (Evid. Code 402-405.);
Opinion on Issue of Law See
Summers v. A.
L. Gilbert Co. (1999) 69
Cal.App.4th
1155, 1178 (opinion
testimony on a question
of law is prohibited); Improper Legal Argument
See Marriage of Heggie 2002) 99
Cal.App.4th 28, 30 fn. 3);
Cal Prac Guide Civ
Pro. Before Trial
Ch. 9(
I)-B declarations
limited
to
facts,
6 -
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF VALNETTE GARCIA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BEST BEST &KRIEGER LLPATTORNEYS AT LAW18101VON KARMAN AVENUE,SUITE 1000IRVINE,CALIFORNIA
92612Obj.
No.
Material Objected To Grounds for Objection
Ruling on the Objection 5.And,
the City will
not suffer harm even
if
the Court orders the immediate reinstatement
of the Cannabis
Business Permit . . .”
8, p. 17:7–
17:8.)
Lacks Foundation (Evid.
Code § 403); Hearsay (Evid.
Code §§ 1200 et seq.); Lacks
personal knowledge. Evid. Code §§ 403, 702.);
Opinion on Issue of Law See
Summers v. A.
L. Gilbert Co. (1999) 69
Cal.App.4th
1155, 1178 (opinion
testimony on a question
of law is prohibited); Improper Legal Argument
See Marriage of Heggie 2002) 99
Cal.App.4th 28, 30 fn. 3);
Cal Prac Guide Civ
Pro. Before Trial
Ch. 9(
I)-B declarations
limited
to
facts,
7 -
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF VALNETTE GARCIA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BEST BEST &KRIEGER LLPATTORNEYS AT LAW18101VON KARMAN AVENUE,SUITE 1000IRVINE,CALIFORNIA
92612Obj.
No.
Material Objected To Grounds
for Objection Ruling
on the Objection 6.Granting
Ex Parte Relief, including,
without limitation, setting
an Order to Show Cause Hearing why
a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue
is also in
the public interest,
in that the State of California
has deemed cannabis business “
essential services” to be open
to the public
during this pandemic as
cancer patients, and other persons have
recognized medical needs for cannabis.”
9, p. 17:17–17:22.)
Opinion on Issue of Law See
Summers v. A.
L. Gilbert Co. (1999) 69
Cal.App.4th
1155, 1178 (opinion testimony
on a
question of law
is prohibited);
Hearsay (Evid. Code §§
1200 et seq.); Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code §
403); Lacks personal knowledge.
Evid. Code §§ 403, 702.); Improper Legal Argument
See Marriage of Heggie 2002) 99
Cal.App.4th 28, 30 fn. 3);
Cal Prac Guide Civ
Pro. Before Trial
Ch. 9(
I)-B declarations
limited
to facts, not
legal
arguments)); Impermissible Legal Conclusion (
Evid. Code
310.);
Speculative (
Evid. Code 702.); Assumes facts (Evid. Code 402-
405.).
Sustained:______ Overruled:______Dated:
January 28, 2022
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP By:
JEFFREY V. DUNN DANIEL L. RICHARDS Attorneys for
Defendants and Respondents City of San Luis Obispo and
City Council of and
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BEST BEST &KRIEGER LLPATTORNEYS AT LAW18101VON
KARMAN AVENUE,SUITE 1000IRVINE,CALIFORNIA 92612Proof of Service By Overnight Delivery I am a citizen of the
United States and employed in Orange County, California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not
a party to the within-entitled action. My business address is 18101 Von Karman
Avenue, Suite 1000, Irvine, California 92612. On January 28, 2022, I deposited with Federal
Express, a true and correct copy
of the within document(s): EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION
OF VALNETTE GARCIA IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF NHC SLO, LLC’S EX PARTE APPLICATION
FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE RE:
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION in
a sealed envelope, addressed as
follows: John Armstrong Armstrong
Law Group 23232 Peralta
Drive, Suite
102 Laguna Hills, CA
92653 Tel. 949-942-6069 john@armstronglawgroup.co Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff Following
ordinary business practices, the envelope was sealed and placed for collection by Federal Express on this date,
and would, in the ordinary course of business,
be retrieved by Federal Express for overnight delivery on this date. I declare under penalty of perjury
under the laws of
the State of California that the above is
true and