Ellen A. Pansky (SBN 77688)
‘Art Barsegyan (SBN 279064)
PANSKY MARKLE ATTORNEYS AT LAW FILED
1010 Sycamore Ave., Suite 308
South Pasadena, CA. 91030
Telephone: (213) 626-7300 UL 17 2019
Facsimile: (213) 626-7330
STATE BAR COURT
CLERK'S OFFICE
Attor
mneys for Respondent LOS ANGELES
Michael Avenatti, Esq.
BEFORE THE STATE BAR COURT
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
HEARING DEPARTMENT ~ LOS ANGELES
In the Matter of Case Nos. SBC 19-TE-30259
RESPONDENT’S OBJECTIONS TO AND
MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
DECLARATIONS OF GREGORY
BARELA, STEVEN BLEDSOE, JOY
NUNLEY, DAVID J. SHEIKH, JOHN P.
REITMAN, ELI D. MORGENSTERN,
AND CERTAIN EXHIBITS ATTACHED
THERETO
MICHAEL JOHN AVENATTI
Member No. 206929,
A Member of the State Bar.
[Rules of Procedure, rule 5.230]
Hearing Date: July 22, 2019 at 10:00 am.
RESPONDENT'S OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKEI. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
In matters where the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel (“OCTC”) seeks the involuntary
inactive enrollment of a member pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6007(c)(2), Rules
of Procedure (*CRPC”), rule 5.230 governs the admission of evidence. Hearsay is generally
insufficient as evidence, and conclusions of law in a declaration are not evidence. See, CRPC
5.230(A). This objection and motion to strike is made under CRPC 5.230, subsection (D), which
provides that the hearing judge will rule on objections and motions to strike material in the
declarations in support of the application. In support of its application to involuntary enroll
Respondent Michael Avenatti (“Respondent” or “Avenatti”) to inactive status, filed with this Court on
June 5, 2019, OCTC has offered the Declaration of Gregory Barela, dated May 24, 2019 (“Barela
Declaration”), the Declaration of Steven Bledsoe, dated May 24, 2019 (“Bledsoe Declaration”), the
Declaration of David J. Sheikh, dated June 3, 2019 (“Sheikh Declaration”), and the Declaration of Joy
Nunley, dated June 3, 2019 (“Nunley Declaration”). On July 10, 2019, OCTC also filed the
Declaration of John P. Reitman (“Reitman Declaration”), dated July 10, 2019, and the Declaration of
Eli D. Morgenstern (‘Morgenstern Declaration”), dated July 10, 2019.
I. | THE DECLARATION OF GREGORY BARELA CONTAINS INADMISSIBLE
HEARSAY, ARGUMENT, SPECULATION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent objects to and moves to strike the following portions of the Barela Declaration:
Objection No.1
‘The statement in Paragraph 5 at lines 7 to 9, which provides: “required the Settling Party to
make an initial payment of $1,600,000 by March 10, 2018, and three additional payments of
$100,000 by March of 2019, 2020, 2021, respectively, for a total of $1,900,000" on the grounds of
hearsay and the best evidence rule, as the document can speak for itself.
1
RESPONDENT'S OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE2B
m4
25
26
27
28
Court’s Ruling on Objection 1 Sustained) Overruled:
Objection No. 2
‘The statement in Paragraph 5 at lines 9 to 10, which provides: “Respondent also told me that
the settlement payments were payable in March of each year” as it is improper hearsay.
Court's Ruling on Objection 2: Sustained’ Overruled:
Objection No. 3
The statement in Paragraph 6 at lines 14 to 16, which provides: “the actual settlement
agreement negotiated by respondent on my behalf required the Settling Party to make the initial
payment of $1,600,000 by January 10, 2018, and the three additional payments of $100,000 by
January 10 of 2019, 2020, 2021, respectively” on the grounds of hearsay and the best evidence rule, as
the document can speak for itself.
Court's Ruling on Objection 3: Overruled:
Objection No. 4
The statement in Paragraph 7 at lines 17 to 18, which provides: “because the version of the
settlement agreement that respondent provided to me on December 28, 2017 to sign included the
falsified March payment dates” on the ground of improper argument.
Court's Ruling on Objection 4: Sustained: Overruled:
Objection No. 5
‘The statement in Paragraph 8 at lines 12 to 25, which provides: “Respondent represented to me
that he believed that the costs were between $100,000 and $125,000, but that his office manager and
paralegal was conducting a final accounting of costs. Based on these representations, respondent told
2
RESPONDENT'S OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE