New CA Evidence Case (Hearsay and Corporate Representatives)
California Case Summaries™
Know the New Cases to Win Your Cases
Last year California courts published 472 new civil cases and many of them significantly changed California law. California civil attorneys need to know about these new cases, but it has historically been hard to keep up because of the number of new cases, the fact that many cases are 50-100 pages long, and because California courts also publish many new cases in the areas of criminal law, juvenile law and family now.
Now, there's a quick, easy way to know the new civil cases: California Case Summaries™. I prepare one-paragraph summaries, that can be read in 2 minutes and are organized by legal topic, so California lawyers can easily know the new case law to work up their active cases better, get bigger settlements, and win more summary judgments and trials to make more money. For less than 1 billable hour per month, you'll always know the new civil cases and get a competitive advantage over your opponents. To subscribe, click here.
Join Our Email List: To get my free summaries of every new civil case published by the California Supreme Court in 2022, click here.
Below is a free sample of one of my new civil case summaries.
Corporate Representative Testimony
While a corporation will be bound by the testimony of a corporate representative, what are the rules when a corporation wants to use the testimony of its corporate representative offensively? Last month, the Second District Court of Appeal published a new decision addressing this issue. To find out what they decided, watch the video and read my case summary below.
New CA Code of Evidence Decision
LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2023) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2023 WL 354915: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting defendant Avon Products, Inc.’s (defendant) motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs Alicia Ramirez (Alicia)[1] and her husband Fermin Ramirez (collectively plaintiffs) in their complaint for damages against several defendants due to Alicia's development of mesothelioma. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment relied on a declaration from Lisa Gallo (Gallo Declaration), an employee who did not begin work at Avon until 1994, halfway through Alicia’s alleged exposure period. Plaintiffs objected to the Gallo Declaration and attached exhibits on the grounds they lacked foundation, lacked personal knowledge, and contained hearsay. The trial overruled the objections and granted the motion for summary judgment, finding the declaration was the sole evidence which shifted the burden to the plaintiffs to produce evidence sufficient to create a triable issue of material fact. The Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that the trial court erred in overruling plaintiffs' objections based on lack of foundation, lack of personal knowledge and the hearsay nature of the documents. Because Lisa Gallo was a lay witness, not an expert witness, she was limited to testimony reflecting her personal knowledge and could not testify to hearsay. There is no special category of “corporate representative” witness. Moreover, a person deposed as a corporate person most qualified (PMQ deponent) may only testify at trial according to the rules evidence which apply to ordinary lay witnesses. The rules relating to witness testimony at a trial or hearing apply equally to defendants and plaintiffs. The trial court abused its discretion in admitting the declaration and hearsay documents. Without the Gallo Declaration, defendant did not offer evidence which shifted the burden to plaintiffs. The Court of Appeal rejected defendant’s argument that the summary judgment should still have been granted because plaintiffs’ discovery responses were factually devoid, because defendant failed to adequately develop this theory in the trial court and on appeal. It was therefore forfeited. (C.A. 2nd, January 23, 2023.)
[1] Alicia died while the appeal was pending, and the action was then prosecuted by Fermin in his individual capacity and as Alicia’s successor-in-interest.
Mediation, Arbitration & Referee Services
I help attorneys and their clients settle cases as a mediator, fairly decide cases as an arbitrator, and fairly decide issues as a referee at ADR Services, Inc. I handle cases in the areas of business, employment, insurance (bad faith, coverage, UIM) probate (trusts and estates), real property, and torts (elder abuse, medical malpractice, personal injury, product liability and wrongful death). A Zoom expert, I conduct Zoom and in-person hearings throughout California. To schedule a matter, please contact my case managers at ADR Services, Inc., Haward Cho, (213) 683-1600, [email protected] or Rachael Boughan, (619) 233-1323,
[email protected].
Stay safe and healthy.
Best regards,
Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
California Case Summaries™
Mediator, Arbitrator & Referee
Master Lawyer Mentoring™
CA Civil Trial Attorney Since 1980
ABOTA Member Since 1995
Past President San Diego County Bar Assn., SD ABOTA Chapter
Phone: (619) 990-4312.
Email: [email protected]