Sunteți pe pagina 1din 19
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 STRIKE I. 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 STRIKE 2B 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

S-ar putea să vă placă și