Suppose your case is before the trial court on summary judgment and both parties have filed evidentiary objections to the declarations and exhibits supporting and opposing the motion. What happens when the trial court does not expressly rule on those objections, but instead (pursuant to Biljac Associates v. First Interstate Bank, 218 Cal. App. 3d 1410 (1990)) states that it is basing its ruling on “competent and admissible evidence?”
According to the Sixth District Court of Appeals, the current weight of authority would find that such an action by the trial court results in a waiver by the objecting party of the objection. In Reid v. Google, however, the Sixth District disagreed with those other courts.
The rule announced in Reid is that the objection is preserved. The court will treat it as an objection on which the trial court had originally reserved its ruling on admissibility. When the court fails to issue an express ruling on the objection, “it is presumed to have overruled it and admitted the challenged matterinto evidence.” (emphasis in original.). On appeal, then, “the burden is on the objecting party to show that evidence presumptively considered by the trial court should instead disregarded in determining propriety of the order on the merits.”