Free Objection - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-02732-SC

Document 56

Filed 01/11/2008

Page 1 of 2

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

DAVID J. BROWN (State Bar No. 56628) MBV LAW LLP 855 Front Street San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: 415-781-4400 Facsimile: 415-989-5143 Attorneys for Defendant TIBERON MINERALS LTD.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION TREVOR MOSS, Plaintiff, v. TIBERON MINERALS LTD., Defendant. CASE NO. C 07 2732 SC OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF JAMES M. HANAVAN IN SUPPORT OF RULE 59 AND 60 MOTIONS BY PLAINTIFF TREVOR MOSS Date: Time: Dept.: Judge: February 8, 2008 10:00 a.m. Courtroom 1, 17th Floor Hon. Samuel Conti

Defendant Tiberon Minerals Ltd. objects to portions of the James M. Hanavan declaration in support of Moss's Rule 59 and 60 motions on the following grounds. The materials to which the objections apply should not be considered in ruling on the motions because they do not constitute material and admissible evidence as they are presented to the Court. Tiberon reserves its rights later to object to statements and documents in and attached to the Moss Declaration if those materials are presented in other aspects of this case. Overall, most of the Hanavan Declaration is objectionable because it is further argument masqueraded as a declaration. And as is the usual case with Moss's arguments, the conclusions are not really supported by the documents cited, and do not negate the factual matter presented by
OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF JAMES M. HANAVAN IN SUPPORT OF RULE 59 AND 60 MOTIONS BY PLAINTIFF TREVOR MOSS ­ CASE NO. C 07 2732 SC
61001.01\\385174.DOC

1

Case 3:07-cv-02732-SC

Document 56

Filed 01/11/2008

Page 2 of 2

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

Tiberon in its Forum Non-Conveniens motion. One example is illustrative of this overused "strawman" problem. Hanavan concludes that Caron's declaration suggests that he and others are now connected with Tiberon when currently they are not. He misses the mark. At the time of Caron's Declaration he was still a part of Tiberon. Regardless of whether he now is or is not CEO, which he is not, he still knows the facts relevant to this controversy and hence is an important witness. So are the other Canadian witnesses for similar reasons. The fact they sold their interests in Tiberon and a some point in time, after determining that Moss was not entitled to a bonus, left Tiberon, does not change their value as witnesses of events that occurred while at Tiberon. A second example is Hanavan's argument in his Declaration that Caron and others sold their interests in the Company prior to making a decision about Moss's bonus. That sale of interests did not deprive them of the powers and duties to act for the Company while they still remained with it. Furthermore, it does not refute the declaration testimony of Mr. Crosswell offered in Tiberon's Forum Non-Conveniens Motion as to when and who acted in considering Moss's bonus. Passage ¶¶ 2, 3 4, 5. Entire paragraphs Objection FRE, Rule 402 ­ Lacks relevance to a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. FRE, Rule 701 ­ Lacks foundation with respect to the conclusions stated. ¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. Entire paragraphs Improper argument in a Declaration. FRE, Rule 402 ­ Lacks relevance to a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. MBV LAW LLP

DATED: January 11, 2008

By /s/ DAVID J. BROWN Attorneys for Defendant TIBERON MINERALS LTD.

OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF JAMES M. HANAVAN IN SUPPORT OF RULE 59 AND 60 MOTIONS BY PLAINTIFF TREVOR MOSS ­ CASE NO. C 07 2732 SC
61001.01\\385174.DOC

2