Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel
Parties, or why the requirements of that statute were designed to prevent the type of conduct alleged in the FAC, including in regard to the purportedly insufficient background check or the operation of a commercial vehicle by a for hire motor carrier of property while intoxicated. For all reasons discussed above, the court will deny the Plaintiffs MSA. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c, subd. (f)(1); Bostrom, supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at p. 1663.)
Evidentiary objections: The Uber Parties submit 34 objections to material appearing in Plaintiffs' compendium of evidence, including as to the entirety of exhibits 3, 5 through 11, 14 through 29, 35, and 36; and to matters contained in the transcript of the deposition of Burgher. (Uber Parties Objections to Plaintiffs' Compendium of Evidence nos. 1-34.)
As to the objections to statements or materials appearing in the transcript of Burger's deposition, the California Rules of Court require that written objections to evidence "[q]uote or set forth the objectionable statement or material[.]" (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1354(b)(3).) Though the written objections of the Uber Parties include citations to where each matter objected to appears in that transcript, the Uber Parties have failed to quote or set forth the objectional material itself. This failure to quote the objectionable material forces the court to locate the cited portions of the transcript, and to guess whether the Uber Parties object to that material in whole or in part.
For these reasons, the court may disregard those objections for failure to comply with the formatting rules set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1354(b)(3). (Hodjat v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1, 8 [a trial court may decline ruling on improperly formatted objections].)
Notwithstanding the deficiencies in the written objections of the Uber Parties discussed above, "[i]n granting or denying a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the court need rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c, subd. (q).) The court does not deem the evidence objected to by the Uber Parties material to its disposition of the Plaintiffs MSA.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
With their reply, Plaintiffs submit written objections to material contained in the transcript of the deposition of Jason Phulps, who is the CHP's person most qualified. (Uber Parties Compendium of Evidence, exhibit B.) As Plaintiffs assert multiple objections to multiple statements or material appearing in that transcript, the same or similar reasoning and analysis apply. (See Pl. Objections to Evidence nos. 1-5.) For all reasons discussed above, Plaintiffs' objections fail to comply with the format set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1354, and force the court to guess which of the multiple objections apply to each of the multiple quoted statements or material. Notwithstanding these deficiencies, the court does not deem the evidence objected to by Plaintiffs material to its disposition of the Plaintiffs MSA.
(3) The Letter Brief
Plaintiffs do not dispute, and appear to concede, that the Letter Brief was not filed within the time prescribed in Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, and is not "based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law[.]" (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1008, subd. (a).) The Letter Brief also does not persuade the court that the April Order is erroneous. (Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1108 [general discussion].) Under these circumstances, the court declines to reconsider the ruling set forth in the April Order.
Tentative Ruling: Sayma Sultana vs Jamuna-CA Inc et al Tentative Ruling: Sayma Sultana vs Jamuna-CA Inc et al Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 08/07/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel Tentative Ruling