Jazayeri v. Mao

192 Citing cases

  1. Chambers v. Crown Asset Mgmt.

    71 Cal.App.5th 583 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 22 times
    Explaining that an order on a motion to compel arbitration is subject to substantial evidence review when the order is based on a decision of fact

    ) Information about the sources of information and the method and time of preparation of the records, including whether they were prepared at or near the time of alleged mailing, is completely absent from Anderson's affidavit. Crown relies on Jazayeri v. Mao (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 301, 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 198 ( Jazayeri ), but it shows the inadequacy of Anderson's affidavit. Jazayeri involved a dispute between the plaintiff, a chicken supplier, and the defendant, a poultry processor.

  2. Pac. W. Bank v. Far Out Prods., Inc.

    No. B278076 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2018)

    Accordingly, "documents containing operative facts, such as the words forming an agreement, are not hearsay." (Jazayeri v. Mao (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 301, 316 (Mao), citing People v. Jimenez (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 795, 802 & People v. Dell (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 248, 261-262.) Promissory notes, as opposed to the notes' ledgers, are not hearsay, and hence not subject to exclusion on hearsay grounds.

  3. Nat'l Collegiate Student Loan Trusts v. Macias

    No. H040905 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 12, 2016)

    An evidentiary ruling based on a misunderstanding of the law is an abuse of discretion. (E.g., Brown v. County of Los Angeles (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1529, 1535; but see Jazayeri v. Mao (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 301, 319 (Jazayeri) [applying de novo standard of review where it appeared that the trial court misunderstood the foundational requirements of the official records exception to the hearsay rule].) Here, we need not resolve the parties' dispute because we agree with defendants that reversal is required under either standard.

  4. Integrated Investigations, Inc. v. O'Donnell

    B231035 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 18, 2011)

    The documents and testimony are, by definition, not hearsay. (Jazayeri v. Mao (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 301, 316; Holland v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 940, 947; Evid. Code, § 1200.) Moreover, she authenticated the documents as documents she received, and she clearly had personal knowledge of what she received and reviewed.

  5. Pringle v. C.B. Richard Ellis, Inc.

    No. B250304 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 19, 2015)

    The documents are not hearsay when not offered for the truth of their contents. (Evid. Code, § 1200, subd. (a); Jazayeri v. Mao (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 301, 316.) In a fraud and misrepresentation case, one of the operative facts is what the defendant communicated to the plaintiff.

  6. In re Anderson

    No. B232746 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 5, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    The proponent's burden is met "when sufficient evidence has been produced to sustain a finding that the document is what it purports to be [citation]." (Jazayeri v. Mao (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 301, 321.) "This foundation is usually provided by the testimony of a person who was present at the time the picture was taken, or who is otherwise qualified to state that the representation is accurate."

  7. In re Anderson

    No. B232746 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 17, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    The proponent's burden is met "when sufficient evidence has been produced to sustain a finding that the document is what it purports to be [citation]." (Jazayeri v. Mao (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 301, 321.) "This foundation is usually provided by the testimony of a person who was present at the time the picture was taken, or who is otherwise qualified to state that the representation is accurate."

  8. Pelonis v. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co.

    B237098 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2012)

    Operative facts are words offered as original evidence, such as words forming an agreement or giving rise to a cause of action for deceit. (Jazayeri v. Mao (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 301, 316.) Tuft's statement is an operative fact for appellants' breach of contract, fraud, and misrepresentation claims.

  9. Swanson v. Equilon Enters. LLC

    No. A129205 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2012)

    We believe the court correctly determined plaintiff offered exhibit No. 95 for the truth of the matter asserted: to establish Shell impermissibly considered age when deciding who to terminate. Plaintiff's reliance on Jazayeri v. Mao (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 301 (Jazayeri) does not alter our conclusion. In Jazayeri, appellant chicken suppliers sued a processer, Mao Foods, and its owners, including Susan Mao, for breach of contract and fraud.

  10. People v. Smith

    179 Cal.App.4th 986 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 68 times

    A trial court's finding that sufficient foundational facts have been presented to support admissibility is reviewed for abuse of discretion. ( People v. Lucas, (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 466 [ 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 525, 907 P.2d 373]; Jazayeri v. Mao (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 301, 319 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 198]; Molenda v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 974, 999-1000 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 792].) Evidence Code sections 1410 through 1421 list various methods of authentication of documents — e.g., by the testimony of a subscribing witness or a handwriting expert — but these methods are not exclusive.