have they discussed the multiple grounds on which each objection was sustained. . . . In arguing not and citations to only generalities, plaintiffs’ briefs do contain ‘argument authority as to why the trial evidentiary rulings were court’s wrong.’ [Citation.] ‘We are not required to search the record to ascertain whether it contains support for [plaintiffs’] at p. 1074; see similarly (2015) 242 Ramos v. Westlake Services LLC contentions.’ ” (Id. Cal.App.4th 674, 684 [challenge to evidentiary rulings waived by failure to cite legal authority]; (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1198 [same].) In Villaneuva v. City of Colton the same way, we decline to examine the multitude of objections filed by Reddy in a search for the meritorious. By failing to present legal argument with respect to individual objections, Reddy forfeited any challenge to the trial evidentiary rulings. court’s In any event, a cursory review of objections suggests the trial Reddy’s court’s ruling was appropriate. first objection, for example, contends that the city Reddy’s that he had visited the property inspector’s statement “multiple times” lacks foundation because in a prior declaration the inspector said he had inspected the property only twice. Plainly, while the may have been false, it did not lack foundation; inspector’s statement the inspector was in position to testify about his own activities. The evidentiary objection was therefore without merit, if not frivolous. We reviewed many of other Reddy’s objections and found a similar pattern. While the objections are phrased as objections and purport to be based on evidentiary grounds, they are not truly evidentiary objections. Instead, the purported objections are merely a premise for arguing with the conclusions stated in the declarations. Based on this review, we find no reason to doubt the city’s trial conclusion that the objections, such as they are, go to the weight to be given court’s the declarations, not their admissibility. The Failure To Hear Live Testimony. At the hearing on the motion, counsel suggested for the first time that the Reddy’s trial court should take live testimony. Reddy contends the court erred in ignoring that request. The trial court properly disregarded request to present live testimony Reddy’s because Reddy failed to follow proper procedures for seeking leave to present such
have they discussed the multiple grounds on which each objection was sustained. . . . In arguing only generalities, plaintiffs’ briefs do not contain ‘argument and citations to authority as to why the trial court’s evidentiary rulings were wrong.’ [Citation.] ‘We are not required to search the record to ascertain whether it contains support for [plaintiffs’] contentions.’ ” (Id. at p. 1074; see similarly Ramos v. Westlake Services LLC (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 674, 684 [challenge to evidentiary rulings waived by failure to cite legal authority]; Villaneuva v. City of Colton (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1198 [same].) In the same way, we decline to examine the multitude of objections filed by Reddy in a search for the meritorious. By failing to present legal argument with respect to individual objections, Reddy forfeited any challenge to the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. In any event, a cursory review of Reddy’s objections suggests the trial court’s ruling was appropriate. Reddy’s first objection, for example, contends that the city inspector’s statement that he had visited the property “multiple times” lacks foundation because in a prior declaration the inspector said he had inspected the property only twice. Plainly, while the inspector’s statement may have been false, it did not lack foundation; the inspector was in position to testify about his own activities. The evidentiary objection was therefore without merit, if not frivolous. We reviewed many of Reddy’s other objections and found a similar pattern. While the objections are phrased as objections and purport to be based on evidentiary grounds, they are not truly evidentiary objections. Instead, the purported objections are merely a premise for arguing with the conclusions stated in the city’s declarations. Based on this review, we find no reason to doubt the trial court’s conclusion that the objections, such as they are, go to the weight to be given the declarations, not their admissibility. The Failure To Hear Live Testimony. At the hearing on the motion, Reddy’s counsel suggested for the first time that the trial court should take live testimony. Reddy contends the court erred in ignoring that request. The trial court properly disregarded Reddy’s request to present live testimony because Reddy failed to follow proper procedures for seeking leave to present such
A143640.DOCX