HomeMy WebLinkAbout21CV-0734 - Objections Filed_Objections to Evidence82508.00018\40195981.2 -1 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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 CHRISTINE
DIETRICK, Bar No. 206539
cdietrick@slocity.org CITY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 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 Plaintiff, 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 OBJECTIONS
TO EVIDENCE IN
SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT
OF DEMURRER Filed concurrently with:
1. Reply]
Date: July 7, 2022 Time:
9:
00
a.m. Dept.: 2 Action Filed:
82508.00018\40195981.2 -2 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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 Defendants and Respondents City of
San Luis Obispo and City Council of and for the City of
San Luis Obispo (“Defendants” or “Respondents”) hereby submit evidentiary objections to Plaintiff’s Opposition to City of
San Luis Obispo’s Demurrer and the evidence relied upon in support of that opposition as
follows, and concurrently move 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.
Entire Declaration of
Helios Dayspring Supporting Opposition
to Demurrer.
Dayspring Declaration”) Dayspring Declaration
1–64 & Exs.
A–H.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint”
and
matters
82508.00018\40195981.2 -3 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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.Based
on the SLO
City Police Department’s
investigation as to my disclosed
criminal activities, the City
Police Department recommend that
the City deny NHC
SLO s cannabis application because
of my involvement,
and the City expressly
told me that
its Police Department was
disapproving
NHC SLO’s cannabis
business permit
application because of my
involvement.” Dayspring Decl.
at 10.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]);Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code §
403);
Lacks personal knowledge. Evid.
Code §§ 403, 702); Speculative (Evid. Code
702); Hearsay (Evid. Code §§
1200 et seq.; see also People
v. ConAgra Grocery Prod. Co.
2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 51,
142 [citing People
v.
Sanchez
2016)
82508.00018\40195981.2 -4 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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.I
also disclosed to the
City that I was the major financial
contributor to NHC SLO,
LLC
and that I had made most of my
fortune selling cannabis.” Mot. Prel. Inj.
at p. 12:
16–18, citing Folk.
Decl.
Ex. H at
100 [unsigned
memorandum submitted by
member of public].) Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code §
403);
Lacks personal knowledge. Evid.
Code §§ 403,
702); Speculative (Evid. Code
702); Hearsay (
Evid. Code §§ 1200
et
seq.);
Assumes
82508.00018\40195981.2 -5 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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.Additionally, because . . . Suzie
Walsh, and her insistent and
borderline criminal behavior
trying to disqualify NHC
SLO’s
application and to discredit
me . . . .” Dayspring Decl.
at 16.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]);Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code § 403); 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, not
legal
arguments]);
Impermissible
82508.00018\40195981.2 -6 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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.Regarding
cannabis financing, I
also provided most of the
financing for the other two
successful applications in
2019 that the
City of San Luis
Obispo awarded Cannabis Business Operator
Permits,
namely, Megan’s Organic
Market, LLC
and SLO Cal Roots,
LLC.” Dayspring Decl.
at 19.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]);Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code §
403);
Lacks personal knowledge. Evid.
Code §§ 403,
702); Speculative (Evid.
Code
702.);
Hearsay (
82508.00018\40195981.2 -7 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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.I also
provided substantial support and assistance
to Megan’s Organic
Market and SLO Cal Roots
and have personal knowledge that these
entities failed to disclose that
I was
providing much of their
financing since
I assisted with their
applications.” Dayspring Decl.
at 20.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]) Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code §
403);
Lacks personal knowledge. Evid.
Code §§ 403,
702); Speculative (Evid. Code
702); Hearsay (
Evid. Code §§ 1200
et
seq.);
Assumes
82508.00018\40195981.2 -8 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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 7.
I was also contacted by
the principals of SLO Cal Roots and
Megan’s Organic Market
that the City had
sent them the same
follow up financing questionnaires
that had
been sent to NHC
SLO.” Dayspring Decl.
at 21.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]);Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code §
403);
Lacks personal knowledge. Evid.
Code §§ 403,
702); Speculative (Evid. Code
702); Hearsay (
Evid. Code §§ 1200
et
seq.);
Assumes
82508.00018\40195981.2 -9 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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 8.These subsequent disclosures to
the City showed that the
City knew I
provided most of the financing
for all three successful cannabis
business operator permit, but
the City only
took action against NHC
SLO for misrepresentations
in the
original cannabis
applications even though all
three successful
applicants made material omissions/
misstatements.” Dayspring Decl.
at 22.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]);Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code §
403);
Lacks personal knowledge. Evid.
Code §§ 403,
702); Speculative (Evid. Code
702); Hearsay (
Evid. Code §§ 1200
et
seq.);
Assumes
82508.00018\40195981.2 -10 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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 9.
That is, to date, has taken
no action to disqualify either
SLO Cal Roots or Megan’
s
Organic Market, and has
only gone
after NHC SLO‘s
license.” Dayspring Decl.
at 23.)Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]); Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code §
403);
Lacks personal knowledge. Evid.
Code §§ 403,
702); Speculative (Evid. Code
702); Hearsay (
Evid. Code §§ 1200
et
seq.);
Assumes
82508.00018\40195981.2 -11 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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
10.On July 28, 2021,
the U.S. Department of
Justice reported that I was
pleading guilty to federal tax
evasion charges (see San
Luis Obispo Man Agrees to
Plead Guilty to
Bribing County Supervisor
to Vote on Issues Affecting
His Cannabis Businesses | USAO-CDCA |
Department of Justice) and
in early August of
2021, local news
media began reporting the SLO
City Mayor, Heidi Harmon,
was resigning because of the
combination of the criminal charges
against me and that
had previously done fundraisers for her
and other SLO City
Council members to get
re-elected (see Heidi
Harmon
to announce career change
amid local
bribery case - Cal Coast
Times).” Dayspring Decl.
at 28.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]); Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code § 403);
Lacks personal
knowledge. Evid. Code §§ 403,
702); Hearsay (
Evid. Code §§ 1200
et
seq.);
Assumes
82508.00018\40195981.2 -12 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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 11.
Shortly thereafter in August of
2021, the City
of San Luis Obispo
sent all three Cannabis
Business Operator Permit Holders,
namely, NHC SLO, LLC,
Megan’s Organic
Market ( MOM ), and SLOC
Cal Roots, LLC a
supplemental 5 question
document relating to
financial interests and
information not disclosed during
the application
period, as previously mentioned
above.” Dayspring Decl.
at 29.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]); Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code §
403);
Lacks personal knowledge. Evid.
Code §§ 403,
702); Speculative (Evid. Code
702); Hearsay (
Evid. Code §§ 1200
et
seq.);
Assumes
82508.00018\40195981.2 -13 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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 12.
A true and correct
copy of the August
23, 2021 City Letter requesting
follow up disclosures
to all cannabis permit holders
because of the criminal
charges
brought against me is
attached as
Exhibit A
to this Declaration.” Dayspring
Decl. at 30 &
Ex. A.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]); Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code § 403);
Lacks personal
knowledge. Evid. Code §§
403,
702);. Hearsay (Evid.
Code §§ 1200 et seq.);
Speculative (Evid. Code 702);
Lacks Authentication (
Evid. Code § 1400
et
seq.);
Assumes
82508.00018\40195981.2 -14 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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 13.These questions showed
that City that I,
Helios
Dayspring, was the primary
financer for
all three successful cannabis
applications.” Dayspring Decl.
at 31.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]); Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code § 403);
Lacks personal
knowledge. Evid. Code §§
403,
702); Hearsay (Evid.
Code §§ 1200 et seq.);
Speculative (Evid. Code 702);
Lacks Authentication (
Evid. Code § 1400
et
seq.);
Assumes
82508.00018\40195981.2 -15 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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 14.The
court can click on the
following link to see the
final virtual walk through that
was built, which shows it
cost millions to complete the
build out of
this dispensary. See https://
my.matterport.
com/sho w/?m=
zPceG3t8dSx.)” Dayspring Decl.
at 34.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]); Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code § 403);
Lacks personal
knowledge. Evid. Code §§
403,
702); Hearsay (Evid.
Code §§ 1200 et seq.);
Speculative (Evid. Code 702);
Lacks Authentication (
Evid. Code § 1400
et
seq.);
Assumes
82508.00018\40195981.2 -16 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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 15.Starting
in September of 2021, NHC
SLO, LLC started
getting roadblocked by various City of
San Luis Obispo Departments
who need to confirm that the
now built cannabis dispensary is
safe to
open to the public,
encouraging me
to spend even more
money.” Dayspring Decl.
at 35.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]); Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code § 403);
Lacks personal
knowledge. Evid. Code §§
403,
702);
Hearsay (
82508.00018\40195981.2 -17 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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 16.Previously, on November
13, 2020, the City
wrote Valnette Garcia that
the City had confirmed
the validity of NHC SLO’
s Cannabis Business Operator Permit
and confirmed that the City had
approved the transfer of NHC
SLO’s ownership from me to Valnette
Garcia. A
true and correct of
the City’s 11-13-
2020 correspondence confirming NHC
SLO’s license and
equity transfer
is attached as Exhibit
C.” Dayspring Decl.
at 37.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]); Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code § 403);
Lacks personal
knowledge. Evid. Code §§
403,
702); Hearsay (Evid.
Code §§ 1200 et seq.);
Speculative (Evid. Code 702);
Lacks Authentication (
Evid. Code § 1400
et
seq.);
Assumes
82508.00018\40195981.2 -18 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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 17.I
confirmed with NHC SLO,
that it had reached out
to all the City Departments to request
final sign offs and paid
to make sure that all the
build outs complied with all
the City’s various requests
for changes and additions to the
built out retail dispensary I
had built for NHC
SLO,
LLC to comply with
City’s
September 13, 2021 warning
letter.” Dayspring Decl.
at 38.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]); Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code § 403);
Lacks personal
knowledge. Evid. Code §§
403,
702); Hearsay (Evid.
Code §§ 1200 et seq.);
Speculative (Evid. Code 702);
Lacks Authentication (
Evid. Code § 1400
et
seq.);
Assumes
82508.00018\40195981.2 -19 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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 18.
T]he City had been
aware
of the federal criminal
action against
me since July 28,
2021.” Dayspring Decl.
at 40.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]); Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code § 403);
Lacks personal
knowledge. Evid. Code §§
403,
702); Hearsay (Evid. Code §§
1200 et
seq.); Speculative (Evid.
Code
702);
Assumes
82508.00018\40195981.2 -20 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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 19.
Then, on October 6, 2021, the
City of San Luis
Obispo sent NHC SLO, LLC
a letter that it was
immediately terminating NHC SLO,
LLC’s City of San Luis
Obispo Cannabis Business Operator’
s Permit, and that
this was
not appealable to the
City.” Dayspring Decl.
at 41.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]); Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code § 403);
Lacks personal
knowledge. Evid. Code §§
403,
702);
Hearsay (
82508.00018\40195981.2 -21 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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
20.Thereafter, NHC SLO,
LLC tried to resolve with
the City without
success, attempted to appeal the
City Manager’s unilateral
decision to terminate the
permit, but
the City refused the
appeal.” Dayspring Decl.
at 42.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]); Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code § 403);
Lacks personal
knowledge. Evid. Code §§
403,
702);
Hearsay (
82508.00018\40195981.2 -22 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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 21.Thereafter,
NHC SLO, LLC retained legal
counsel regarding filing a writ
since NHC
SLO, LLC had not
violated the City’s
Cannabis Ordinance regarding operation of the
Cannabis Business Operator’s Permit
and the only provision
in the City s
Ordinance that provides for
termination or revocation
of an issued
Cannabis Business Operator’s
Permit requires
wrongful operation of the
Permit.” Dayspring Decl.
at 43.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]); Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code § 403);
Lacks personal
knowledge. Evid. Code §§ 403, 702).
Hearsay (Evid. Code §§ 1200 et seq.);
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, not
legal
arguments]);
Impermissible
82508.00018\40195981.2 -23 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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 22.
Since NHC SLO, LLC never opened
to the public, it
could not have violated
the City’s only
Ordinance
providing for termination or
revocation of
an issued Cannabis Business
Permit.” Dayspring Decl.
at 44.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]); Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code § 403);
Lacks personal
knowledge. Evid. Code §§ 403, 702);
Hearsay (Evid. Code §§ 1200 et seq.);
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, not
legal
arguments]);
Impermissible
82508.00018\40195981.2 -24 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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 23.Instead,
the City claimed that it
had the right to treat
NHC SLO, LLC s issued Cannabis
Business Operator’s Permit as
a mere application since
it had not opened to
the public, however,
I have personally reviewed
ALL the City’s
Ordinances and Cannabis Regulations and there is
nothing in those regulations that allows the
City to
treat an issued permit
as if
it still a mere
application.” Dayspring Decl.
at 45.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]); Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code § 403);
Lacks personal
knowledge. Evid. Code §§ 403, 702);
Hearsay (Evid. Code §§ 1200 et seq.);
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, not
legal
arguments]);
Impermissible
82508.00018\40195981.2 -25 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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 24.However,
once an application ripens
into a permit, the
County or City
must follow its enacted
Ordinance to
revoke or terminate the
license.” Dayspring Decl.
at 48.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]); Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code § 403);
Lacks personal
knowledge. Evid. Code §§ 403, 702);
Hearsay (Evid. Code §§ 1200 et seq.);
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, not
legal
arguments]);
Impermissible
82508.00018\40195981.2 -26 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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 25.This
makes senses because the
government entity granting a permit
conducts a thorough examination of
the application, at which
point
the applicant only has
a mere
chance at procuring a
license.” Dayspring Decl.
at 49.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]); Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code § 403);
Lacks personal
knowledge. Evid. Code §§ 403, 702);
Hearsay (Evid. Code §§ 1200 et seq.);
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, not
legal
arguments]);
Impermissible
82508.00018\40195981.2 -27 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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 26.When a
business is merely applying
for a cannabis permit,
lender, investors, and others will
provide little support
for a cannabis application
as so
many of them are
denied.” Dayspring Decl.
at 50.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]); Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code § 403);
Lacks personal
knowledge. Evid. Code §§
403,
702);
Hearsay (
82508.00018\40195981.2 -28 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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 27.Once
a permit is issued, however, the
property where the permitted cannabis operation
is to take place
is
usually worth 2-3x
what its
market value would otherwise
be. Dayspring Decl.
at 52.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]); Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code § 403);
Lacks personal
knowledge. Evid. Code §§
403,
702);
Hearsay (
82508.00018\40195981.2 -29 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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 28.
Once a City or
County issues a permit to
an applicant, lenders and investors
are willing to fund these
projects as the application has
ripened into an entitlement/permit, so
there is much more
certainty that an investor
will see
a return on its
investment.” Dayspring Decl.
at 53.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]); Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code § 403);
Lacks personal
knowledge. Evid. Code §§ 403, 702);
Hearsay (Evid. Code §§ 1200 et seq.);
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, not
legal
arguments]);
Impermissible
82508.00018\40195981.2 -30 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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 29.This
is why the City of
San Luis Obispo’
s Ordinances and every other
City and County Ordinance regulating cannabis
permits has different rules
for whether an applicant can get
a license, which
usually does not entitle
an applicant to a hearing
for being unsuccessful, while
require a full hearing and
proof of wrongful/illegal operation
of the
cannabis permit before the
issued permit
can be revoked or
terminated.” Dayspring Decl.
at 53.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]); Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code § 403);
Lacks personal
knowledge. Evid. Code §§ 403, 702);
Hearsay (Evid. Code §§ 1200 et seq.);
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, not
legal
arguments]);
Impermissible
82508.00018\40195981.2 -31 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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
30.Based on the information
that City of SLO
received on the questionnaires
it sent out to
all three successful applicants who were
awarded permits, namely, NHC SLO,
SLO Cal Roots, and Megan’
s Organic Market, the City
has been aware
since August of 2021
that none of
three Cannabis Business Operator Permit
Holders properly or truthfully disclosed their financial
or tax information to the City,
yet the City has
only singled out NHC
SLO, since
I was the primary
financial contributor
to all three successful
applications.” Dayspring Decl.
at 54.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]); Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code § 403);
Lacks personal
knowledge. Evid. Code §§
403,
702);
Hearsay (
82508.00018\40195981.2 -32 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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
31.Exhibit D is part
of the information Megan’s
Organic Market submitted as to who
the its
principals were. Eric Powers
states he has 5-
years experience cultivating
thousands
of pounds of cannabis,
which should
have generated
millions in revenue.” Dayspring
Decl. at 56 &
Ex. D.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]); Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code § 403);
Lacks personal
knowledge. Evid. Code §§
403,
702); Hearsay (Evid.
Code §§ 1200 et seq.);
Speculative (Evid. Code 702);
Lacks Authentication (
Evid. Code § 1400
et
seq.);
Assumes
82508.00018\40195981.2 -33 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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
32.For example two thousands
pounds of cannabis at $
1,000 per pound based on
2015-2019 prices
should have generated at
least $2,
000,000 in gross
revenue.” Dayspring Decl.
at 57.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]); Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code §
403);
Lacks personal knowledge. Evid.
Code §§ 403,
702); Speculative (Evid.
Code
702);
Assumes
82508.00018\40195981.2 -34 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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 33.But in attached
Exhibit E, the Ownership structure
from Megan’s Organic Market, Mr. Powers
claimed he made only 1 in
2016, $1,611 in
2017, and $8,875
in 2018, which
was "coincidentally" the exact
amount that
Megan Souza
made in 2018.” Dayspring
Decl. at 58 &
Ex. E.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]); Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code § 403);
Lacks personal
knowledge. Evid. Code §§
403,
702); Hearsay (Evid.
Code §§ 1200 et seq.);
Speculative (Evid. Code 702);
Lacks Authentication (
Evid. Code § 1400
et
seq.);
Assumes
82508.00018\40195981.2 -35 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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 34.Megan’s
Organic Market further stated in its application s
Financial Investment section to
the City of SLO
that all of the listed
members self-funded Megan’s Organic
Market, a
true and correct copy
of which
is attached
as Exhibit F.” Dayspring
Decl. at 59 &
Ex. F.) Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]); Lacks
Foundation (Evid. Code § 403);
Lacks personal
knowledge. Evid. Code §§
403,
702); Hearsay (Evid.
Code §§ 1200 et seq.);
Speculative (Evid. Code 702);
Lacks Authentication (
Evid. Code § 1400
et
seq.);
Assumes
82508.00018\40195981.2 -36 -
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
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
35.W]hich SLO Cal
Roots failed to disclose in
its application with the City
of San Luis Obispo but later
disclosed in August of
2021. To date, the
City
has not
taken any adverse licensing
action against SLO
Cal Roots.” Improper Extrinsic Evidence
in Support of
Opposition to Demurrer. See, e.g.,
Thorburn v. Department of
Corrections 1998) 66 Cal.App.
4th 1284, 1288 [
Whether a demurrer should be sustained
turns on the
allegations contained within the “
four
corners of the
complaint” and
matters which may
be judicially noticed.”]); 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); Irrelevant (Evid. Code §
350).
Sustained:______ Overruled:______Dated:
June 29, 2022
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP By:
JEFFREY V. DUNN DANIEL L. RICHARDS Attorneys for
Defendants and Respondents City of San Luis Obispo and
82508.00018\34822950.1
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 I, Janice Liu, declare: 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 June
29, 2022, I served a copy
of the within document(s): OBJECTIONS
TO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER by transmitting via facsimile
the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s)
set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. by placing the
document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid,
the
United States mail at Irvine, California addressed as set forth below. by placing
the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill,
and
causing the envelope to be delivered to a agent for delivery. by personally delivering
the document(s) listed above
to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. by transmitting
via e-mail or electronic transmission the document(s) listed above to the
person(s)
at the e-
mail address(es) set forth
below.John Armstrong Armstrong
Law Group 23232 Peralta
Drive, Suite 102
Laguna Hills, CA
92653 Phone: (949) 942-6069 Email: john@armstronglawgroup.co Attorneys for Petitioner I am 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
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
82508.00018\34822950.1 -2 -
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 92612I declare under penalty of perjury
under the laws of
the State of California that the above is
true and