Kulshrestha

Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial Corp.

Caution
15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 793·2004 Cal. LEXIS 6292·2004 Daily Journal DAR 8718·33 Cal. 4th 601·93 P.3d 386
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 19, 2004S115654California6,175 words

Opinion

Opinion

Baxter, J.

Under limited statutory circumstances, written out-of-court statements, though hearsay, may serve as competent evidence of the facts set forth therein, and may be used in lieu of other competent evidence, such as live testimony given under oath in court. “[Declarations,” for instance, are allowed to support and oppose motions for summary judgment. (Code Civ, Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(1) & (2).) Critical here is section 2015.5, which defines a “declaration” as a writing that is signed, dated, and certified as true under penalty of perjury. In addition, section 2015.5 specifies that a declaration must either reveal a “place of execution” within California, or recite that it is made “under the laws of the State of California.”

In this suit against a firm for which he briefly worked, the plaintiff sought to prevent summary judgment by filing a declaration under penalty of perjury that showed a “place of execution” in another state. (§ 2015.5.) Moreover, the document did not reference California’s “laws.” (Ibid.) The evidence was excluded, summary judgment was granted, and dismissal was affirmed on appeal.

We now decide if declarations signed under penalty of perjury outside…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.