Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: BC716984, Date: 2023-03-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC716984    Hearing Date: March 20, 2023    Dept: P

Maroli Rita Ong et al. v. Alison Hernandez Cantillano et al., Case No. BC716984

Hearing Date March 20, 2023

Plaintiff’s Objections to Proposed Statement of Decision 

A statement of decision (SoD) is adequate if it “fairly discloses the determinations as to the ultimate facts and material issues in the case.” Central Valley General Hospital v. Smith (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 501, 513. Therefore, an SoD need not disclose each and every evidentiary basis for its conclusions in an SoD or address nonmaterial issues or arguments raised at trial. Further, objections to a proposed SoD cannot seek to reargue evidentiary issues already resolved at trial.

Objection 1:  Plaintiff states that the court should have considered Cal. Vehicle Code §2800 when determining whether Officer Lagin issued an order to Mrs. Ong. No argument regarding this section of the code was presented at trial, and therefore the court will not consider it. OVERRULED.

Objection 2: Plaintiff disputes whether Mrs. Ong was “at liberty” during her encounter with Officer Lagin, stating that she was barred from entering her property and therefore not completely at liberty. This argument was never presented at trial. Additionally, at trial both parties agreed Mrs. Ong was always free to leave at any point throughout the conversation. OVERRULED.

 Objection 3: This is new argument regarding the dangers inherent in “a live crime scene” that was never raised at trial. OVERRULED.

Objection 4: Plaintiff asks the court to reevaluate evidence produced at trial regarding the foreseeability of Ong’s injury. The court has already evaluated and weighed all available evidence. OVERRULED.

Objection 5: The statement of decision does identify the location where Mrs. Ong was struck as a zone of danger. OVERRULED.

Objection 6: OVERRULED for the same reason as objection 4.