A-1 TRANSMISSION AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY, 2:10-cv-08496-RSWL-SS. (2012)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20120504i36
Visitors: 14
Filed: Apr. 27, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 27, 2012
Summary: ORDER ON AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S DECLARTION TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. Rule 56 RONALD S.W. LEW, Senior District Judge. Upon review of all moving and opposing papers and evidence, and upon hearing argument of counsel, this Court issues the following rulings on Defendant AMCO Insurance Company's ("AMCO") Objections to Plaintiff's Declaration Testimony and Exhibits in Support of their Oppo
Summary: ORDER ON AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S DECLARTION TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. Rule 56 RONALD S.W. LEW, Senior District Judge. Upon review of all moving and opposing papers and evidence, and upon hearing argument of counsel, this Court issues the following rulings on Defendant AMCO Insurance Company's ("AMCO") Objections to Plaintiff's Declaration Testimony and Exhibits in Support of their Oppos..
More
ORDER ON AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S DECLARTION TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. Rule 56
RONALD S.W. LEW, Senior District Judge.
Upon review of all moving and opposing papers and evidence, and upon hearing argument of counsel, this Court issues the following rulings on Defendant AMCO Insurance Company's ("AMCO") Objections to Plaintiff's Declaration Testimony and Exhibits in Support of their Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
Declaration of Francis X. Doherty
Objection No. 1-4
Sustained: __________
Overruled: X
Objection No. 5
Sustained: X
Overruled: __________
Objection No. 6
Sustained: __________
Overruled: X
Objection No. 7-9
Sustained: X
Overruled: __________
Objection No. 10-13
Sustained: __________
Overruled: X
Declaration of Phil Allman
Objection No. 14-15
Sustained: __________
Overruled: X
Declaration of David Skipton
Objection No. 16
Sustained: X
Overruled: __________
Objection No. 17-18
Sustained: __________
Overruled: X
Objection No. 19
Sustained: X
Overruled: __________
Objection No. 20-32
Sustained: __________
Overruled: X
Declaration of David Krattenmaker
Objection No. 33-36
Sustained: __________
Overruled: X
Objection No. 37
Sustained: X
Overruled: __________
Objection No. 38-46
Sustained: __________
Overruled: X
Objection No. 47
Sustained: X
Overruled: __________
Objection No. 48-57
Sustained: __________
Overruled: X
Objection No. 58
The Court OVERRULES the objection
as to the part of the statement that states
that Defendant denied Plaintiff's claim
for the construction of the office. The
Court, however, SUSTAINS the
objections as to the part of the statement
that Defendant did not inspect the office
because statement lacks foundation.
Objection No. 59
Sustained: __________
Overruled: X
Objection No. 60
The Court OVERRULES as to the
portion of the statement that Defendant
denied Plaintiff's EE claim. The Court,
however, SUSTAINS the objections as
to the portion of the statement that
Defendant gave no consideration to
Plaintiff's interests, because it lacks
foundation.
Objection No. 61
The Court OVERRULES the portion
that Melton failed to inspect because
Krattenmaker has personal knowledge as
to whether Melton inspected the
premises. The Court SUSTAINS the
objection as to the portion that Melton
speculated that the extra expenses were
actually for the repair of the building,
because it lacks foundation
Objection No. 62-64
Sustained: __________
Overruled: X
Objection No. 65
The Court SUSTAINS as to the part that
relates to Skipton's "impression,"
because Krattenmaker does not have
personal knowledge as to Skipton's
impressions. The Court OVERRULES
as to the part that the extra expenses were
not used for the repair of the building.
Objections No. 66-74 Defendant has numbered its objections
incorrectly and does not actually include
objections number 66-74.
Objection No. 75-76
Sustained: __________
Overruled: X
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
