Excerpt: ...;s injuries.' [Citation.] ” (PacifiCare of California v. Bright Medical Associates, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1451, 1464 (PacifiCare.) The California Supreme Court in Tech -Bilt v. Woodward -Clyde & Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal. 3d 488 (Tech- Bilt), set forth the factors to consider. The fa ctors are: (1) a rough approximation of plaintiffs' total recovery and the settlor's proportionate liability; (2) the amount paid in settlement; (3) the allocat...

Excerpt: ...of ruling. Plaintiff Randell Young is ORDERED to pay to Defendants Seabreeze Management Company, Inc., Estela Alday, Heidi Speare, Eric James, Fred Olsen, and Todd Hunter sanctions in the amount of $925 (5 hours x $185 per hour in reasonable attorney's fees) within 30 days of service of the notice of ruling. Defendants Seabreeze Management Company, Inc.; Estela Alday; Heidi Speare; Eric James; Fred Olsen; and Todd Hunter are ORDERED to serve all ...

Excerpt: ...el arbitration und er Section 1281.2 must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) The parties entered into a written agreement to arbitrate; and (2) one or more of the claims at issue are covered by that agreement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; Villacreses v. Molina ri (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1230.) If the moving party meets this burden, the burden shifts to the resisting party to prove by a preponderance of evidence a defense to e...

Excerpt: ...ses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions Plaintiff Colleen Curtin's unopposed Motion to Compel Defendant Alexandra Mendoza's Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED. A party's failure to timely respond to interrogatories results in a waiver of any objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories fails to s...

Excerpt: ...an element of the claim, or that it has a complete defense entitling it to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850- 851 (Aguilar).) If the defendant fails to meet this initial b urden, the plaintiff need not oppose the motion and the motion must be denied. (Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 840.) If the defendant meets its initial bu...

Excerpt: ...establishe s an affirmative defense to that cause of action. (p) For purposes of motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication: (1) A plaintiff or cross -complainant has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that par ty has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. Once the plaintiff or crosscomplainant has met that burden, the burden shif...

Excerpt: ...a motion pursuan t to Section 391.1 is filed prior to trial the litigation is stayed, and the moving defendant need not plead, until 10 days after the motion shall have been denied, or if granted, until 10 days after the required security has been furnished and the moving defendant given written notice thereof. When a motion pursuant to Section 391.1 is made at any time thereafter, the litigation shall be stayed for such period after the denial ...

Excerpt: ...er now but admonishes Defendant that the future failure to comply with all applicable rules and statutes may result in a motion being denied or taken off calendar, and sanctions, where appropriate. First Cause of Action for Inducing Breach of Contract and Second Cause of Actio n for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations Defendant argues that the first cause of action fails to plead sufficient facts showing that Plaintiff had an ong...

Excerpt: ...ecificity as to the element s of active concealment and existence of a defect. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff has not alleged when or where the alleged omitted information should or could have been revealed by Ford. Defendants further argue that the allegations fail to demonstr ate any duty to disclose because there was no transactional relationship between Plaintiff and Ford and that the claim is barred by the economic loss rule. The Cour...

Excerpt: ... The Court further granted 252 5 Main summary adjudication of Issue 9, which sought judgment on the second cause of action for disgorgement in 2525 Main's crosscomplaint as to Pacific LLC. (ROA 207.) The first cause of action of 2525 Main's cross -complaint was dismissed on 07/14/23. (RO A 300.) Thus, the only remaining claim is 2525 Main's second cause of action against Pacific INC. On 09/28/23, the Court signed an order releasing Pacific LL...

Excerpt: ...) Plaintiff argues that the arbitration agreement is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. (See Armendariz v. Foundation Heath Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal 4th 83). Unconscionability is a contract defens e used to invalidate arbitration agreements without contravening the Federal Arbitration Act or California law. (See OTO, LLC v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 125.) The evidence does reflect some level of procedural unconscio...

Excerpt: ...sert the c laims due to the Divorce Decree issued by the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, on September 29, 2023 (Divorce Decree). Specifically, Chartwell contends the Divorce Decree awarded the entire value of the “martial interest in Chartwe ll” to Tracy, Plaintiff's now ex -wife, and awarded Plaintiff nothing regarding the Chartwell shares. (See RJN, Exh. A, pp. 14, 18, 29.) Chartwell further contends, under New Yor...

Excerpt: ... issued its ruling on the MTQ on 10/30/23. (ROA #212.) Plaintiff Balboa Capital Corporation (“Plaintiff”) also filed and served a Notice of Ruling on the MTQ on 10/30/23. (ROA ##208, 210.) That Notice of Ruling was served via express mail, which extends the time to file a reco nsideration motion by two-court days. (Civ. Proc. Code § 1013(c).) Thus, Defendant had until 11/11/23 to file the present Motion. Instead, Defendant did not file t...

Excerpt: ...Summary A djudication “Summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) In addi tion, “[a] party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or...

Excerpt: ...01) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850-851 (Aguilar) [burden].) 24 Hour has demonstrated it was not a party to the contract at issue. (See Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821 [elements of breach of contract include, inter alia, existence of a contract]; Korc h e m n y v. Piterman (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 1032, 1048 (Korchemny) [a common count used in the alternative to seek the same recovery demanded in a claim for breach of contract falls...

Excerpt: ...le 3.1354, subdivision (b). Defendants' Evidentiary Objections to Plaintiff's Evidence Nos. 3, 4, 11 and 15 are OVERRULED. The court declines to rule on the remaining objections on the grounds that they are not material to the disposition of the Motion. Procedural defect: Defendants' separate statement is deficient as to the alternative motion for summary adjudication. On a motion for summary adjudication, the separate statement must tie each �...

Excerpt: ... be true. Blakemore v. Superior Court, 129 Cal. App. 4th 36, 53 (2005). “If facts appearing in the exhibits contradict those alleged, the facts in the exhibits take precedence.” Holland v. Morse Diesel Intern., Inc., 86 Cal. App. 4th 1443, 1447 (2001). Defendant argues that the challenged allegations must be stricken because they are inconsistent and/or contradictory to the terms of the Agreement attached to the Complaint, which do not eviden...

Excerpt: ... by the insp ection demand. To establish “good cause,” the burden is on the moving party to show both: (1) relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the document would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case); and (2) specific facts justif ying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial). Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (National Union Fire In...

Excerpt: ...nd Robert Cayton, also known as Orange County Superior Court Case Number 30 - 2012 - 00593016 -CUOE -CJC) ("Cayton Matter"). During the pendency of the Cayton Matter, but entirely unrelated to it, Plaintiff assisted the Chief Executive Officer of Defendant, Edward Clark ("Clark"), in a case involving the State Lands Commission. As a professional courtesy, any services Plaintiff provided to Clark related to Clark's case with th...

Excerpt: ...s required by the San Deigo County Superior Court. Plaintiffs HTL Hotel Advisors, Inc. and Yatish Natraj are ORDERED to pay to Defendants Shivam Patel and Kherva, LLC sanctions in the amount of $2,760 (6 hours x $450 per hour in reasonable attorney's fees and $60 in motion filing fees) within 60 days of service of the notice of ruling. Plaintiffs' counsel is ordered to pay sanctions of $2,360 (5 hours at $450 per hour + $60 filing fee and $50 t...

Excerpt: ...23 Order requiring Wilshire and its former counsel, Jaime Kim, to jointly and severally pay Cross -Defendants Zenbu USA, Inc., Time Escrow, Inc., Paramount Realty and Omni Realty (collectively, “Cross -Defendants”) $5,300 in monetary sanctions related to several discovery mot ions filed by Cross- Defendants against Wilshire. As an initial matter, it is noted Wilshire did not submit an attorney affidavit of fault. Thus, relief under the manda...

Excerpt: ... Code of Civil Procedure § 410.30. Said section states: (a) When a court upon motion of a party or its own motion finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall stay or dismiss the action in who le or in part on any conditions that may be just. (b) The provisions of Section 418.10 do not apply to a motion to stay or dismiss the action by a defendant who has made a gener...

Excerpt: ...st Calhoon, bu t both the underlying discovery requests were served on Thomas's behalf only.] Initially, the court notes Thomas timely filed a proof of service relating to both motions, but the proof is for electronic service only. Gary II is selfrepresented, and theref ore may be served electronically only if he has expressly consented to electronic service, and electronic filing does not constitute express consent to electronic service. (Code...

Excerpt: ...hree causes of action. Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 permits a special motion to strike Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”) lawsuits. A SLAPP suit is “a meritless suit filed primarily to chill the defendant's exercise of First Amendmen t rights.” (Finton Construction, Inc. v. Bidna & Keys, APLC (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 200, 208.) The purpose of the anti - SLAPP law is “not [to] insulate defendants fro...

Excerpt: ...inter alia, complexit y of case, skill exhibited, and results achieved. The prevailing buyer has burden of showing that fees incurred are allowable, reasonably necessary to conduct of litigation, and reasonable in amount.” (Nightingale v. Hyundai Motor America (1994) 31 Cal.App .4th 99, 104 -105.) Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiffs are the prevailing party entitled to recover fees pursuant to Civil Code §1794(d). While Defendant contends g...