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

KLEE, TUCHIN, BOGDANOFF & STERN LLP 1999 AVENUE OF THE STARS, 39TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067-6049 TELEPHONE: (310) 407-4000

LEE R. BOGDANOFF (State Bar No. 119542) JONATHAN S. SHENSON (State Bar No. 184250) DAVID M. GUESS (State Bar No. 238241) KLEE, TUCHIN, BOGDANOFF & STERN LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 39th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 407-4000 Facsimile: (310) 407-9090 Proposed Bankruptcy Counsel for Debtors and Debtors In Possession Debtors' Mailing Address 3411 N. Perris Blvd. Perris, CA 92571 National R.V. Holdings, Inc.'s Tax I.D. #XX-XXX-1079 National R.V., Inc.'s Tax I.D. #XX-XXX-5022

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE DIVISION In re NATIONAL R.V. HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; NATIONAL R.V., INC., a California corporation, Debtors. Case No.: 6:07-17941-PC Chapter 11 Jointly Administered with Case No.: 6:07-17937-PC EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF DUANE PRATT IN SUPPORT OF FRITTS FORD'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY UNDER 11 U.S.C. 362 Date: Time: Place: Hearing January 10, 2008 9:30 a.m. Courtroom 303 U.S. Bankruptcy Court 3420 Twelfth Street Riverside, CA 92501

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
101407.1

Evidentiary Objections re Pratt Declaration

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
KLEE, TUCHIN, BOGDANOFF & STERN LLP 1999 AVENUE OF THE STARS, 39TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067-6049 TELEPHONE: (310) 407-4000

Pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1(a)(13)(B), National R.V. Holdings, Inc. and National R.V., Inc., the above-captioned debtors and debtors in possession (the "Debtors"), submit the following evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Duane Pratt (the "Pratt Declaration") filed in support of Fritts Ford's Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay Under 11 U.S.C. 362 [Docket #59] (the "Motion") and hereby move the Court to strike from the record all such objectionable testimony. I. OVERVIEW The Federal Rules of Evidence ("FRE") apply in hearings before the Bankruptcy Court, just as they do before any other federal trial court. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9017. "Testimony presented by [declaration] is different from testimony orally delivered, because the affiant is not subject to cross-examination. But that fact leads to greater, not lesser, strictures imposed on the testimony presented by affidavit." United States v. Dibble, 429 F.2d 598, 602 (9th Cir. 1970). Under the FRE, a declaration "must be based upon personal knowledge, set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the [declarant] is competent to testify to the matters stated therein." Allen v. IT&T, 164 F.R.D. 489, 491-92 (D. Ariz. 1995); see also Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc., 944 F.2d 1525, 1529 (9th Cir. 1991) (rejecting an affidavit because it was "not based on personal knowledge, but on information and belief"). Within the Motion, Fritts Ford requests entry of an order lifting the automatic stay to allow Fritts Ford "to proceed under applicable non-bankruptcy law to enforce its remedies and to repossess and sell the Property." Rather than set forth facts establishing cause to lift the automatic stay, as it must do in order to be entitled to relief, Fritts Ford has presented the Pratt Declaration, which lacks foundation and contains little other than legal argument. The Court should strike significant portions of the Pratt Declaration as inadmissible. The specific portions of Pratt Declaration to which the Debtors object are set forth below. For ease of reference, a copy of the Pratt Declaration is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 with the objectionable portions numbered and underlined.

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Evidentiary Objections re Pratt Declaration

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
KLEE, TUCHIN, BOGDANOFF & STERN LLP 1999 AVENUE OF THE STARS, 39TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067-6049 TELEPHONE: (310) 407-4000

II. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS 1. Page 1, 1. In his declaration, Mr. Pratt gives his opinion that "[w]e hold the

title . . . to the chassis until they have been paid" but fails to offer any factual foundation or expertise to support this conclusion. This is inadmissible opinion testimony. Federal Rule of Evidence ("FRE") 702; Drexel v. Union Prescription Centers, Inc., 582 F.2d 781, 789-90 (3d Cir. 1978) (statement, which is "essentially conclusory" and "lacking in specific facts," is inadequate to satisfy any evidentiary burden and should be stricken); accord King County v. Rasmussen, 299 F.3d 1077, 1082 (9th Cir. 2002) ("Declarations, which are supposed to 'set forth facts as would be admissible in evidence,' should not. . . includ[e] legal arguments. . ."). 2. Page 1, 2. In his declaration, Mr. Pratt gives his opinion that "[t]he MSO is

the title document for a chassis that is used in the manufacturing process and is necessary in order to have the recreational vehicle ("RV") licensed for sale," but again fails to offer any factual foundation or expertise to support this conclusion. This statement is thus

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

inadmissible opinion testimony for the same reasons as discussed in Paragraph 1, above. 3. Page 1, 3. In his declaration, Mr. Pratt gives his opinion that "FRITTS has a

valid security and ownership interest in the CHASSIS as evidenced by the attached MSO's," but once again fails to offer any factual foundation or expertise to support this conclusion. This is inadmissible opinion testimony for the reasons as discussed in Paragraph 1, above. 4. Page 1, 3. In his declaration, Mr. Pratt states that "[t]hese CHASSIS are

stored outside which will cause the components to deteriorate due to the elements, therefore depreciating in value . . . ."1 However, Mr. Pratt fails to provide any foundation for this statement. A declaration must be based on personal knowledge. See FRE 602 ("A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that

27 28

For the same reasons as discussed above and herein, the Debtors object to a nearly identical statement found in Paragraph 13 of the Personal Property Declaration, which is located at page 6 of the Motion. Paragraph 13 of this declaration states that "[t]he fair market value of the Property is declining based on/due to: Chassis stored outside and components subject to the elements."

101407.1

Evidentiary Objections re Pratt Declaration

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
KLEE, TUCHIN, BOGDANOFF & STERN LLP 1999 AVENUE OF THE STARS, 39TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067-6049 TELEPHONE: (310) 407-4000

the witness has personal knowledge of the matter."). Moreover, it is the declarant's "duty to show affirmatively that the [declarant] was competent to testify . . . all we have here is a bare assertion." Cermetek, Inc. v. Butler Avpak, Inc., 573 F.2d 1370, 1377 (9th Cir. 1978); see also Dibble, 429 F.2d at 601-02; Jameson v. Jameson, 176 F.2d 58, 60 (D.C. Cir. 1949) ("Belief, no matter how sincere, is not equivalent to knowledge."). statement is objectionable and should be stricken as inadmissible. 5. Page 1, 4. In his declaration, Mr. Pratt gives his opinion that "[t]he fair Accordingly, this

market value of the CHASSIS is $426,542.65," but fails again to offer any factual foundation or expertise to support this conclusion. This statement is thus inadmissible opinion

testimony for the reasons as discussed in Paragraph 1, above. Moreover, this statement does not appear to be based on personal knowledge. To the extent that it is not based on personal knowledge, it is inadmissible for the reasons discussed in Paragraph 4, above. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Debtors respectfully request that the Court sustain their objections and strike all inadmissible portions of the Pratt Declaration.

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DATED: December 27, 2007

/s/ David M. Guess DAVID M. GUESS, an Attorney with KLEE, TUCHIN, BOGDANOFF & STERN LLP Proposed Bankruptcy Counsel for Debtors and Debtors in Possession

101407.1

Evidentiary Objections re Pratt Declaration