California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Archer v. United Rentals Inc., B219089 (Cal. 2011):
4. Defendants objected to these particular facts on the ground plaintiffs incorrectly treated defendants, who are different entities, as a single entity. They also objected that in their respective depositions each plaintiff testified his driver's license was requested but did not testify he was advised his transaction would be declined if he failed to provide his license. The trial court presumptively overruled these objections, and defendants, having failed to challenge the rulings on appeal, have forfeited any claim of error. (See Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 534.)
5. On May 4, 2006, this court denied plaintiffs' writ petition challenging the trial court's statutory interpretation as untimely and without prejudice to the challenge being raised on appeal. (Archer v. Superior Court (B190526).)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.