Roditi v. New River Investments Inc.

S.D. California

Roditi v. New River Investments Inc.

DecidedJanuary 25, 2024

Docket3:20-cv-01908

StatusUnknown

This text of Roditi v. New River Investments Inc. (Roditi v. New River Investments Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roditi v. New River Investments Inc., (S.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MANUEL RODITI and VENICE Case No.: 3:20-cv-01908-RBM-MSB BEJARANO, 12 ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ Plaintiffs, 13 OBJECTIONS TO DEFENSE v. EXHIBITS 201–204 AND 206–211 14

NEW RIVER INVESTMENTS INC., et 15 [Doc. 143] al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 On January 24, 2024, Plaintiffs filed objections to Defendants’ trial exhibits numbers 20 201 through 204 and 206 through 211. (Doc. 143.) Plaintiffs indicate that they sent 21 Defendants written objections on January 17, 2024 but that Defendants failed to respond, 22 necessitating judicial intervention. (Id. at 2–3.) Plaintiffs then argue that Defendants’ 23 exhibits are inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 901 and 604 because they are 24 not authentic English translations of Spanish documents. (Id. at 3.) Specifically, Plaintiffs 25 argue that the Certifications of Translation provided by Defendants are deficient because 26 they do not contain a sworn statement from the translator, they do not state the maker’s 27 qualifications or expertise regarding the language translation, and they do not state whether 28 the maker did the translations. (Id. at 4–5 (citing Jack v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 854 1 || F. Supp. 654 (N.D. Cal. 1994) and Brewster v. City of Los Angeles, No. EDCV 14-2257 2 || JGB (SPx), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82369, at *122—23 (C.D. Cal. May 9, 2023)).) Plaintiffs 3 contend that Defendants’ translations appear to be computer-generated. (d. at 5.) 4 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendants to filed detailed responses to 5 || Plaintiffs’ objections and arguments on or before 12:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time on 6 || January 26, 2024. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || DATE: January 25, 2024 9 10 TON’ RUTH BERMUEZ/MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MANUEL RODITI and VENICE Case No.: 3:20-cv-01908-RBM-MSB BEJARANO, 12 ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ Plaintiffs, 13 OBJECTIONS TO DEFENSE v. EXHIBITS 201–204 AND 206–211 14

NEW RIVER INVESTMENTS INC., et 15 [Doc. 143] al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 On January 24, 2024, Plaintiffs filed objections to Defendants’ trial exhibits numbers 20 201 through 204 and 206 through 211. (Doc. 143.) Plaintiffs indicate that they sent 21 Defendants written objections on January 17, 2024 but that Defendants failed to respond, 22 necessitating judicial intervention. (Id. at 2–3.) Plaintiffs then argue that Defendants’ 23 exhibits are inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 901 and 604 because they are 24 not authentic English translations of Spanish documents. (Id. at 3.) Specifically, Plaintiffs 25 argue that the Certifications of Translation provided by Defendants are deficient because 26 they do not contain a sworn statement from the translator, they do not state the maker’s 27 qualifications or expertise regarding the language translation, and they do not state whether 28 the maker did the translations. (Id. at 4–5 (citing Jack v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 854 1 || F. Supp. 654 (N.D. Cal. 1994) and Brewster v. City of Los Angeles, No. EDCV 14-2257 2 || JGB (SPx), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82369, at *122—23 (C.D. Cal. May 9, 2023)).) Plaintiffs 3 contend that Defendants’ translations appear to be computer-generated. (d. at 5.) 4 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendants to filed detailed responses to 5 || Plaintiffs’ objections and arguments on or before 12:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time on 6 || January 26, 2024. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || DATE: January 25, 2024 9 10 TON’ RUTH BERMUEZ/MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Roditi v. New River Investments Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roditi-v-new-river-investments-inc-casd-2024.