Brittanee Jackson, Michael Stewart vs Yardi Systems Inc et al

application, Shambala asserts that there exists a threshold evidentiary problem in regard to the authenticity of the Invoices, hearsay contained within the Traina declaration, whether Traina may properly authenticate those records under Evidence Code section 1271, and whether the payment or other records of Herbl were complete or accurate considering that Herbl was insolvent or approaching insolvency. Shambala further asserts that neither Distro nor the receiver in the Receivership Action could vouch for the accuracy of Herbl's records.

"All documentary evidence ... must be presented in admissible form, generally requiring proper identification and authentication, and admissibility as nonhearsay evidence or under one or more of the exceptions to the hearsay rule, such as the business records exception." (Lydig, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 944.)

"Authentication of a writing means (a) the introduction of evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that it is the writing that the proponent of the evidence claims it is or (b) the establishment of such facts by any other means provided by law." (Evid. Code, Sec. 1400.)

"Authentication of a writing is required before it may be received in evidence. [P.] Authentication of a writing is required before secondary evidence of its content may be received in evidence." (Evid. Code, Sec. 1401.)

Further, the proponent of a writing "ha[s] the burden of showing their authenticity, including the absence of any material alteration." (J&A Mash & Barrel, LLC v. Superior Court (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 1, 19 (J&A Mash).)

The Traina declaration does not describe or explain the manner, custom, or practice by which Herbl created or otherwise processed the Invoices, including those purportedly submitted to Shambala, or any payment or nonpayment of any of the Invoices. (People ex rel. Harris v. Sarpas (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1571.)

Traina also does not state whether they "saw the [Invoices] made or executed[]" or include information or evidence showing why Shambala has "at any time admitted" the authenticity of the Invoices or "acted upon" the Invoices "as authentic...." (Evid. Code, Sec.Sec. 1413 &1414, subd. (a)-(b).)

The application also does not show why Traina is "familiar with the procedures followed" by Herbl in preparing the Invoices. (Jazayeri v. Mao (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 301, 322 (Jazayeri).)

In addition to the method by which the Invoices were prepared by Herbl, the application also includes no information or evidence showing why the Invoices were "made in the regular course" of Herbl's business, "at or near the time of the act, condition, or event[.]" (Evid. Code, Sec. 1271, subds. (a)-(d).)

For these and all reasons further discussed above, the application fails to show why the copies of the Invoices attached to the Traina declaration are complete, genuine, or trustworthy. (J&A Mash, supra, 74 Cal.App.5th at pp. 19-20 [general discussion].)

Alternatively, "[t]he fact conflicting inferences can be drawn regarding authenticity goes to the document's weight as evidence, not its admissibility." (Jazayeri, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 321.)

To the extent the application is sufficient to show that the Invoices were made in the regular course of Herbl's business, Shambala has raised in its opposition questions and disputes from which conflicting inferences may be drawn regarding the authenticity of those documents.

For these and all further reasons discussed above, under the circumstances present here, the Invoices are not sufficiently weighty to show a "probable validity of the claim upon which the attachment is based." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 484.090, subd. (a)(2); Sec. 482.040; see also Kemp, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1481-1482 [the Court must "assess the sufficiency" of the evidence to determine the probable validity of claim].)

" '[A]ttachment is a harsh remedy at best in that an alleged debtor loses control of his property before the claim against him is adjudicated. This being so, the provisions relating thereto should be strictly construed.' " [Citation.]" (J.C. Peacock, Inc. v. Hasko (1961) 196 Cal.App.2d 363, 365.)

For all reasons discussed above, Plaintiff has failed to meet their burden to establish the probable validity of the claim upon which the attachment is based. Therefore, the Court will deny the application.

Tentative Ruling: Brittanee Jackson, Michael Stewart vs Yardi Systems, RentCafe LLC Tentative Ruling: Brittanee Jackson, Michael Stewart vs Yardi Systems, RentCafe LLC Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion

Hearing Date / Time Wed, 03/25/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Application for Pro Hac Vice (2) Tentative Ruling Issue Application of James Pastore as counsel as pro hac vice in connection with all aspects of the above-captioned case. Application of Vice of Maura K. Monaghan as counsel pro hac vice in connection with all aspects of the above-captioned case. Attorneys Abraham Tabaie, David Sarratt, James Schaefer James Pastore, Maura K. Monaghan (pro hac vice forthcoming) RULING The Pro Hac Vice motions are GRANTED. There are [Proposed] Orders in the file that the Court intends to sign.

Tentative Ruling: Brittanee Jackson, Michael Stewart vs Yardi Systems Inc et al Tentative Ruling: Brittanee Jackson, Michael Stewart vs Yardi Systems Inc et al Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 05/06/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Plaintiffs apply for an order permitting Brandon Haase and Tyler Green of Consovoy McCarthy PLLC to appear in this action and be admitted to the bar of this Court pro hac vice.

Tentative Ruling

GRANTED; there are [Proposed] Orders submitted that the Court will sign. No appearances required.

Tentative Ruling: 25CV03158 Tentative Ruling: 25CV03158 Case Number Claudia Zoghlami v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 03/04/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motions to Compel Further Responses (2) Tentative Ruling For Plaintiff Claudia Zoghlami: Michael H. Rosenstein, Sepehr Daghighian, Michael William Oppenheim, California Consumer Attorneys, P.C. For Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.: Christina Burk, Corinne Orquiola, SJL Law LLP