point that its "holding must be overturned.” (Def.’s Supp. Brief at 2.) The defendant has attempted to convince the court that it simply cannot comply with Orthopaedic Hospital's requirement of conducting cost studies, declaring that “Orthopaedic is an example of the impractical and unreasonable requirement of relying upon cost studies as a basis for rate setting.” (Opp'n to CMA’s Mot. at 27.) If the defendant wishes to argue the impracticably or invalidity of Orthopaedic Hospital, she must do so before the Ninth Circuit. 20 . Both plaintiffs and defendant make eviden-tiary objections to each others' submissions. The objections either lack merit or do not affect the court's overall assessment of the record. See also Flynt Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Harvey, 734 F.2d 1389, 1394 (9th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). 21 . In 2001, the Legislative Analyst
holding that a trial court can only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction holding that a court may rely on otherwise inadmissible evidence including hearsay evidence at the preliminary injunction stage holding that court can consider inadmissible evidence in the context of a motion for preliminary injunction holding that a motion for a preliminary injunction and a hearing on that motion were insufficient to prevent the plaintiff from dismissing by notice