Free Objection - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 72

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 1 of 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Hway-ling Hsu, Esq., State Bar No. 196178 [email protected] BERGESON, LLP 303 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 500 San Jose, CA 95110-2712 Telephone: (408) 291-6200 Facsimile: (408) 297-6000 Attorneys for Specially-Appearing Defendants S.A.S. LES CHAMPS RENIERS AND CHRISTOPHE RAPENEAU

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION JOHN GIDDING, et al. Plaintiffs, vs. DEREK ANDERSON, et al., and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants. Case No. C-07-4755 JSW DEFENDANTS S.A.S. LES CHAMPS RENIERS AND CHRISTOPHE RAPENEAU'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Date: May 30, 2008 Time: 9:00 a.m. Judge: Hon. Jeffrey S. White Complaint Filed: September 14, 2007

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DEFENDANTS S.A.S. LES CHAMP RENIERS'S AND CHRISTOPHE RAPENEAU'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE C-07-4755 JSW

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 72

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 2 of 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Specially-appearing defendants Christophe Rapeneau and S.A.S. Les Champs Reniers ("Defendants") hereby object to the following evidence submitted by Plaintiffs in support of their opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") set for hearing on May 30, 2008 before this Court: A. Declaration Of John Giddings [sic] In Opposition To Motion To Dismiss .A.S. [sic] Les Champs Reniers And Christophe Rapeneau For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction ("Gidding Declaration") OBJECTION NO. 1: Defendants object to and move to strike the portion of paragraph 3 that states: "Christophe and Jean Francois Rapeneau control companies that control the diverse Champagne holdings of the Rapeneau and Ducellier families. Many of these companies sell Champagne and the Unites [sic] States is a major Champagne market. One, some, or all of these companies solicit sales in the United States. . . . Christophe is the administrative brother, JeanFrancois is the sales brother, and they are two sides of the same coin, one side sells the other administers." Grounds for Objection: Defendants object because these statements lack foundation. There is no showing that Gidding has personal knowledge of any facts on which to base these statements. Declarations in support of a motion must be made by a witness having personal knowledge of the facts stated therein. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") Rule 56(e). Moreover, it is insufficient for a witness simply to state that he or she has personal knowledge of the facts stated. Rather, the declaration itself must contain facts showing the declarant's connection with the matters stated therein, establishing the source of his or her information. Federal Rules of Evidence ("FRE") Rule 602; see, United States v. Shumway, 100 F.3d 1093, 1104 (9th Cir. 1999). Defendants further object because the statements constitute opinion testimony that does not satisfy the requirements of FRE 701, and should be excluded. Price v. Kramer, 200 F.3d 1237, 1251 (9th Cir. 2000). Defendants further object on the grounds that the statements are not relevant. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. FRE Rule 402.
-1DEFENDANTS S.A.S. LES CHAMP RENIERS'S AND CHRISTOPHE RAPENEAU'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE C-07-4755 JSW

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 72

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 3 of 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

OBJECTION NO. 2: Defendants object to and move to strike the portion of paragraph 3 that states: "In my twenty five years in the wine trade, Christophe's agents have solicited business from me." Grounds for Objection: Defendants object because the reference to "Christophe's agents" lacks foundation. There is no showing that Gidding has personal knowledge of any facts on which to base the conclusion that persons who solicited business from him were "Christophe's agents." Declarations in support of a motion must be made by a witness having personal knowledge of the facts stated therein. FRCP Rule 56(e). Moreover, it is insufficient for a witness simply to state that he or she has personal knowledge of the facts stated. Rather, the declaration itself must contain facts showing the declarant's connection with the matters stated therein, establishing the source of his or her information. FRE Rule 602; see, United States v. Shumway, 100 F.3d 1093, 1104 (9th Cir. 1999). Defendants further object because the statement constitutes opinion testimony that does not satisfy the requirements of FRE 701, and should be excluded. Price, 200 F.3d at 1251. Defendants further object on the grounds that the statement is not relevant. Whether unidentified alleged agents solicited business from Gidding has no relevance to whether either defendant has the requisite minimum contacts with California. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. FRE Rule 402. OBJECTION NO. 3: Defendants object to and move to strike the portion of paragraph 5 that states: "On July 23, 2003, Christophe used his company, Financier ER, to secretly acquire 80% of SCEV from Defendant Compagnie des Vins du Levant ("Levant") (SIMON exhibit B), 20% from Defendant Ollivier Lemal ("Lemal") (Simon exhibit I), and 1% from Defendant Serge Hauchart (Simon exhibit K). As such, as the owner of SCEV, RENIERS sold wine and Champange [sic] to the United Stats [sic] including California." Grounds for Objection: Defendants object because the statements lack foundation. There is no showing that
-2DEFENDANTS S.A.S. LES CHAMP RENIERS'S AND CHRISTOPHE RAPENEAU'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE C-07-4755 JSW

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 72

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 4 of 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Gidding has personal knowledge of any facts asserted. Declarations in support of a motion must be made by a witness having personal knowledge of the facts stated therein. FRCP Rule 56(e). Moreover, it is insufficient for a witness simply to state that he or she has personal knowledge of the facts stated. Rather, the declaration itself must contain facts showing the declarant's connection with the matters stated therein, establishing the source of his or her information. FRE Rule 602; see, United States, 100 F.3d at 1104. Defendants further object because the statements constitute opinion testimony that does not satisfy the requirements of FRE 701, and should be excluded. Price, 200 F.3d at 1251. Defendants further object on the grounds that the statements are not relevant. The alleged secret acquisition of 101% of SCEV shares has no relevance to either defendant's alleged contacts with California. Nor is the allegation of Les Champs Reniers ownership of SCEV shares relevant to the question of whether either defendant has the requisite California contacts to support jurisdiction. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. FRE Rule 402. Defendants further object on the grounds that the assertions as to the contents of the exhibits are inadmissible hearsay pursuant to FRE Rule 802. OBJECTION NO. 4: Defendants object to and move to strike Exhibit B and the portion of paragraph 6 that states: "Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the commercial registration of SA Charles de Cazanove in Reims ("Cazanove-B"). Christophe, Jean Francois, and Thierry Lombard are directors." Grounds for Objection: Defendants object because the statements lack foundation. There is no showing that Gidding has personal knowledge of any facts asserted. Declarations in support of a motion must be made by a witness having personal knowledge of the facts stated therein. FRCP Rule 56(e). Moreover, it is insufficient for a witness simply to state that he or she has personal knowledge of the facts stated. Rather, the declaration itself must contain facts showing the declarant's connection with the matters stated therein, establishing the source of his or her information. FRE
-3DEFENDANTS S.A.S. LES CHAMP RENIERS'S AND CHRISTOPHE RAPENEAU'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE C-07-4755 JSW

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 72

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 5 of 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Rule 602; see, Shumway, 100 F.3d at 1104. Defendants further object because the statements constitute opinion testimony that does not satisfy the requirements of FRE 701, and should be excluded. Price, 200 F.3d at 1251. Defendants further object on the grounds that the statement is not relevant. The alleged status of Christophe Rapeneau as a director of a French company that is not alleged to have done business in California has no relevance to either defendant's alleged contacts with California. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. FRE Rule 402. Defendants further object on the grounds that the exhibit has not been properly authenticated. Documentary evidence must be authenticated, usually by declaration by someone with personal knowledge of the document's genuineness and execution. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feinter & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550-51 (9th Cir. 1989). A writing is not authenticated simply by attaching it to a declaration. Beyenne v. Coleman Security Services, Inc., 854 F.2d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 1988). Here, there is no showing that Gidding has personal knowledge of the genuineness of the document. Defendants further object on the grounds that the assertions as to the contents of the exhibit are inadmissible hearsay pursuant to FRE Rule 802. OBJECTION NO. 5: Defendants object to and move to strike Exhibit C and the portion of paragraph 7 that states: "Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of SCEV's minutes, dated February 5, 2004. These minutes indicate that Christophe and Jean-Francois changed SCEV's name to Charles de Cazanove ("Cazanove-B")." Grounds for Objection: Defendants object because the statements lack foundation. There is no showing that Gidding has personal knowledge of any facts asserted. Declarations in support of a motion must be made by a witness having personal knowledge of the facts stated therein. FRCP Rule 56(e). Moreover, it is insufficient for a witness simply to state that he or she has personal knowledge of the facts stated. Rather, the declaration itself must contain facts showing the declarant's
-4DEFENDANTS S.A.S. LES CHAMP RENIERS'S AND CHRISTOPHE RAPENEAU'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE C-07-4755 JSW

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 72

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 6 of 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

connection with the matters stated therein, establishing the source of his or her information. FRE Rule 602; see, Shumway, 100 F.3d at 1104. Defendants further object because the statements constitute opinion testimony that does not satisfy the requirements of FRE 701, and should be excluded. Price, 200 F.3d at 1251. Defendants further object on the grounds that the statements are not relevant to either defendant's alleged contacts with California. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. FRE Rule 402. Defendants further object on the grounds that the exhibit has not been properly authenticated. Documentary evidence must be authenticated, usually by declaration by someone with personal knowledge of the document's genuineness and execution. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc., 896 F.2d at 1550-51. A writing is not authenticated simply by attaching it to a declaration. Beyenne, 854 F.2d at 1182. Here, there is no showing that Gidding has personal knowledge of the genuineness of the document. Defendants further object on the grounds that the assertions as to the contents of the exhibit are inadmissible hearsay pursuant to FRE Rule 802. OBJECTION NO. 6: Defendants object to and move to strike Exhibit D and the portion of paragraph 8 that states: "Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of SCEV's minutes, dated February 23, 2004. These minutes indicate that Thierry Lombard, the owner of Cazanove-A, resigned as a director from Cazanove-B." Grounds for Objection: Defendants object because the statements lack foundation. There is no showing that Gidding has personal knowledge of the facts asserted. Declarations in support of a motion must be made by a witness having personal knowledge of the facts stated therein. FRCP Rule 56(e). Moreover, it is insufficient for a witness simply to state that he or she has personal knowledge of the facts stated. Rather, the declaration itself must contain facts showing the declarant's connection with the matters stated therein, establishing the source of his or her information. FRE
-5DEFENDANTS S.A.S. LES CHAMP RENIERS'S AND CHRISTOPHE RAPENEAU'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE C-07-4755 JSW

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 72

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 7 of 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Rule 602; see, Shumway, 100 F.3d at 1104. Defendants further object because the statements constitute opinion testimony that does not satisfy the requirements of FRE 701, and should be excluded. Price, 200 F.3d at 1251. Defendants further object on the grounds that the statements are not relevant to either defendant's alleged contacts with California. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. FRE Rule 402. Defendants further object on the grounds that the document has not been properly authenticated. Documentary evidence must be authenticated, usually by declaration by someone with personal knowledge of the document's genuineness and execution. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc., 896 F.2d at 1550-51. A writing is not authenticated simply by attaching it to a declaration. Beyenne, 854 F.2d at 1182. Here, there is no showing that Gidding has personal knowledge of the genuineness of the document. Defendants further object on the grounds that the assertions are inadmissible hearsay pursuant to FRE Rule 802. OBJECTION NO. 7: Defendants object to and move to strike the portion of paragraphs 11 and 12 that states: "In March 2006, Pivotal received a letter in California from Chalons-en-Champagne, France indicating that SA Charles de Cazanove (Cazanove-B") had obtained a default judgment against Pivotal, and that Pivotal must pay $1,000/day for every day they did not sequester $150,000 to the lawyers association of Chalons-en Champagne. 12. . . . the demand was made in California." Grounds for Objection: Defendants object because the statements lack foundation. There is no showing that Gidding has personal knowledge of any facts asserted. Declarations in support of a motion must be made by a witness having personal knowledge of the facts stated therein. FRCP Rule 56(e). Moreover, it is insufficient for a witness simply to state that he or she has personal knowledge of the facts stated. Rather, the declaration itself must contain facts showing the declarant's connection with the matters stated therein, establishing the source of his or her information. FRE
-6DEFENDANTS S.A.S. LES CHAMP RENIERS'S AND CHRISTOPHE RAPENEAU'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE C-07-4755 JSW

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 72

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 8 of 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Rule 602; see, Shumway, 100 F.3d at 1104. Defendants further object because the statements constitute opinion testimony that does not satisfy the requirements of FRE 701, and should be excluded. Price, 200 F.3d at 1251. Defendants further object on the grounds that the statements are not relevant to either defendant's alleged contacts with California. The statement does not identify the sender of the letter, or the maker of the demand in California. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. FRE Rule 402. Defendants further object on the grounds that Mr. Gidding's testimony regarding the purported letter is not the best evidence of its contents, and is not admissible under FRE Rule 1004. Defendants further object on the grounds that the assertions as to the contents of the letter are inadmissible hearsay pursuant to FRE Rule 802. OBJECTION NO. 8: Defendants object to and move to strike the portion of paragraph 12 that states: "Christophe and Jean Francois [sic] use of the wires and mails resulted in the final execution of the scheme to deprive Pivotal and I of the California Judgment." Grounds for Objection: Defendants object because the statements lack foundation. There is no showing that Gidding has personal knowledge of any facts asserted. Declarations in support of a motion must be made by a witness having personal knowledge of the facts stated therein. FRCP Rule 56(e). Moreover, it is insufficient for a witness simply to state that he or she has personal knowledge of the facts stated. Rather, the declaration itself must contain facts showing the declarant's connection with the matters stated therein, establishing the source of his or her information. FRE Rule 602; see, Shumway, 100 F.3d at 1104. Defendants further object because the statements constitute opinion testimony that does not satisfy the requirements of FRE 701, and should be excluded. Price, 200 F.3d at 1251. Defendants further object on the grounds that the statements as to Christophe Rapeneau's alleged use of unspecified "wires and mails" are not relevant to either defendant's alleged contacts
-7DEFENDANTS S.A.S. LES CHAMP RENIERS'S AND CHRISTOPHE RAPENEAU'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE C-07-4755 JSW

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 72

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 9 of 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

with California. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. FRE Rule 402. OBJECTION NO. 9: Defendants object to and move to strike Exhibit E and the portion of paragraph 13 that states: "Attached as exhibit E is a true and correct Judgment in a matter involving Serge Hauchart and SCEV. This judgment indicates that there is a Contract between PPSA and SCEV that gives PPSA the control of the United States Market and PPSA is controlled and directed from this District (FAC ex. 13). When Renier purchased SCEV Christophe directed the contacts with California through PPSA." Grounds for Objection: Defendants object because the statements lack foundation. There is no showing that Gidding has personal knowledge of any facts asserted. Declarations in support of a motion must be made by a witness having personal knowledge of the facts stated therein. FRCP Rule 56(e). Moreover, it is insufficient for a witness simply to state that he or she has personal knowledge of the facts stated. Rather, the declaration itself must contain facts showing the declarant's connection with the matters stated therein, establishing the source of his or her information. FRE Rule 602; see, Shumway, 100 F.3d at 1104. Defendants further object because the statements constitute opinion testimony that does not satisfy the requirements of FRE 701, and should be excluded. Price, 200 F.3d at 1251. Defendants further object on the grounds that the statements are not relevant to either defendant's alleged contacts with California. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. FRE Rule 402. Defendants further object on the grounds that the exhibit has not been properly authenticated. Documentary evidence must be authenticated, usually by declaration by someone with personal knowledge of the document's genuineness and execution. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc., 896 F.2d at 1550-51. A writing is not authenticated simply by attaching it to a declaration. Beyenne, 854 F.2d at 1182. Here, there is no showing that Gidding has personal knowledge of the genuineness of the document.
-8DEFENDANTS S.A.S. LES CHAMP RENIERS'S AND CHRISTOPHE RAPENEAU'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE C-07-4755 JSW

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 72

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 10 of 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendants further object on the grounds that the assertions as to the contents of the exhibit are inadmissible hearsay pursuant to FRE Rule 802. OBJECTION NO. 10: Defendants object to the remaining statements contained in Paragraphs 2 through 13, inclusive, on the grounds that they are not relevant to any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the issues in this motion. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. FRE Rule 402. B. ERRATA TO DECLARATION OF JOHN GIDDINGS [sic] IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO [sic] .A.S. [sic] LES CHAMPS RENIERS AND CHRISTOPHE RAPENEAU FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OBJECTION NO. 11: Defendants object to and move to strike Exhibit F and the portion of the Errata that purports to amend paragraph 3 that states: "Attached hereto marked Exhibit F and incorporated herein by reference is a true and correct copy of a web page that confirms the many companies and brands showing there is contact with the Untied [sic] States by the sale of wine and champagne." Grounds for Objection: Defendants object because the reference to "a web page" lacks foundation. There is no showing that Gidding has personal knowledge regarding the exhibit. Declarations in support of a motion must be made by a witness having personal knowledge of the facts stated therein. FRCP Rule 56(e). Moreover, it is insufficient for a witness simply to state that he or she has personal knowledge of the facts stated. Rather, the declaration itself must contain facts showing the declarant's connection with the matters stated therein, establishing the source of his or her information. FRE Rule 602; see, Shumway, 100 F.3d at 1104. Defendants further object because the statements constitute opinion testimony that does not satisfy the requirements of FRE 701, and should be excluded. Price, 200 F.3d at 1251. Defendants further object on the grounds that the statement is unintelligible and not relevant. The assertion that "many companies and brands showing there is contact with the Untied
-9DEFENDANTS S.A.S. LES CHAMP RENIERS'S AND CHRISTOPHE RAPENEAU'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE C-07-4755 JSW

Case 3:07-cv-04755-JSW

Document 72

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 11 of 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

States [sic]" has no relevance to either defendant's alleged contacts with California. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. FRE Rule 402. Defendants further object on the grounds that the document has not been properly authenticated. Documentary evidence must be authenticated, usually by declaration by someone with personal knowledge of the document's genuineness and execution. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc., 896 F.2d at 1550-51. A writing is not authenticated simply by attaching it to a declaration. Beyenne, 854 F.2d at 1182. Here, there is no showing that Gidding has personal knowledge of the genuineness of the document. Defendants further object on the grounds that the assertions as to the contents of the exhibit are inadmissible hearsay pursuant to FRE Rule 802. Dated: March 28, 2008 BERGESON, LLP

/s/ Hway-ling Hsu Attorneys for Specially-Appearing Defendants S.A.S. LES CHAMPS RENIERS AND CHRISTOPHE RAPENEAU

By:

- 10 DEFENDANTS S.A.S. LES CHAMP RENIERS'S AND CHRISTOPHE RAPENEAU'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE C-07-4755 JSW