Array
(
)
Search by Keyword:
Start Date:
End Date:
Tip: Wrap text in quotation marks when searching for phrases (e.g. "motion to dismiss").

117 Results

Clear Search Parameters x
Location: Orange County x
Judge: Larsh, Erick x 
Array
(
)
SELECT * FROM wp_posts WHERE (post_type = 'attachment') AND ID IN (SELECT object_id FROM wp_term_relationships WHERE term_taxonomy_id IN (SELECT term_id FROM wp_term_taxonomy WHERE taxonomy = 'wpmf-category' AND parent IN (SELECT term_id FROM wp_terms WHERE term_id = 236)) AND term_taxonomy_id IN (SELECT term_id FROM wp_term_taxonomy WHERE taxonomy = 'wpmf-category' AND term_taxonomy_id = 794)) AND (true) AND (true) ORDER BY post_title DESC LIMIT 25
Array
(
)
2024.05.02 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 014
Location: Orange County
Judge: Larsh, Erick
Hearing Date: 2024.05.02
Excerpt: ... made the initial showi ng by: - Presenting evidence that Defendants CCR and Gleason observed corporate formalities such that imposition of alter ego liability is inappropriate. (SSUMF Nos. 1 -18.) - Presenting evidence that Plaintiff cannot establish the element of damages. (SSUM F Nos. 30-33.) - Presenting evidence that Plaintiff cannot establish the element of intent to disrupt, necessary to sustain his claim for Intentional Interference with ...
2024.05.02 Demurrers to SAC 906
Location: Orange County
Judge: Larsh, Erick
Hearing Date: 2024.05.02
Excerpt: ...ral and con clusory allegations do not suffice; policy of liberal construction of the pleadings will not ordinarily be invoked. Murphy v. BDO Seidman, LLP (2003) 113 Cal. App. 4th 687. That specificity has not been achieved with the representations themselves. Fo r example, paragraphs 17 through 21 are incorporated into the first cause of action, but the allegations of paragraph 44 only serve to confuse those allegations. That paragraph states:...
2024.04.18 Motion for Preliminary Injunction 233
Location: Orange County
Judge: Larsh, Erick
Hearing Date: 2024.04.18
Excerpt: ... the weight and credibility of these matters, and rules as follows: Plaintiff Pure Dermatology's motion for preliminary injunction is denied. “A trial court may grant a preliminary injunction upon a showing that (1) the party seeking the injunction is likely to preva il on the merits at trial, and (2) the ‘interim harm' to that party if an injunction is denied is greater than ‘the [interim] harm the [opposing party] is likely to suffer if t...
2024.04.11 Motion for Entry of Judgment 129
Location: Orange County
Judge: Larsh, Erick
Hearing Date: 2024.04.11
Excerpt: ...al.App.4th 267, 288 (Kim) [evidence of damages is required for default judgment]; see also ROA No. 356 –Heidary Decl., in passim [one -page conclusory declaration].) There is also no affidavit of notice. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 587; Bae v. T.D. Service Co. of Arizona (201 6) 245 Cal.App.4th 89, 108, fn. 15.) Even if plaintiff had complied with the foregoing requirements, the request for default judgment would still be denied because the operat...
2024.04.11 Demurrer 314
Location: Orange County
Judge: Larsh, Erick
Hearing Date: 2024.04.11
Excerpt: ...nd unintelligible. ” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e) & (f); see Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 430.50, subd. (a) [demurrer may be taken to whole pleading or to any of the causes of action stated therein].) “A person against whom a complaint or cross -complaint has been fi led may, within 30 days after service of the complaint or crosscomplaint, demur to the complaint or cross -complaint.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 430.40, subd. (a)....
2024.03.28 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 789
Location: Orange County
Judge: Larsh, Erick
Hearing Date: 2024.03.28
Excerpt: ...same].) Specifically, defendants failed to m eet their initial burden as to Noticed Issue No. 1 because the issue fails to completely dispose of any cause of action. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) Defendants met their initial evidentiary burden as to Noticed Issues No. 3. & 5, Even if d efendants had met their initial burden as to each noticed issue, plaintiffs met their shifted burden to show triable issues of material fact. (See ...
2024.03.21 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 789
Location: Orange County
Judge: Larsh, Erick
Hearing Date: 2024.03.21
Excerpt: ...[same].) Specifically, defendants failed to meet their initial burden as to Noticed Issue No. 1 because the issue fails to completely dispose of any cause of action. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) Defendants met their initial evidentiary burden as to Noticed Issues No. 3. & 5, Even if defendants had met their initial burden as to each noticed issue, plaintiffs met their shifted burden to show triable issues of material fact. (See C...
2024.03.07 Petition to Compel Arbitration 486
Location: Orange County
Judge: Larsh, Erick
Hearing Date: 2024.03.07
Excerpt: ...ion, violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 (UCL), and br each of implied warranty; and the 5th cause of action for violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) to the extent it seeks any relief (see Compl. ¶¶ 77, 79 -80) other than public injunctive relief (id. ¶ 81). To be clear, the petition is DENIED to t he extent it seeks an order compelling arbitration of the 4th cause of action for liability on dealer bond, and the...
2024.03.07 Motion for Summary Judgment 129
Location: Orange County
Judge: Larsh, Erick
Hearing Date: 2024.03.07
Excerpt: ...existence of duty/absolute duty]; Chee v. Amanda Goldt Property Management (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1369 [“landlord does not owe a duty of care to protect a third party from his or her tenant's dog unless the landlord has actual knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities”]; accord, Fraser v. Fa r v i d (2024) – Cal.App.5th – (Fraser) [2024 WL 510111, at *1]; see also Def. SSMF Nos. 3, 6 -9, 12 -16, 19.)“ ‘Under California law, ...
2024.03.07 Motion for Summary Adjudication 018
Location: Orange County
Judge: Larsh, Erick
Hearing Date: 2024.03.07
Excerpt: ...� 437c, subds. (a), (p)(2); SSUMF Nos. 18 -37 [COA 1], 48 -56 [COA 1], 68 -72 [COA 1]; 148 -160 [COA 2]; 339 -352; [COA 5]; and 357 -370 [COA 6].) Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden to identify a triable issue of material fact with admissible evidence. Plaintiff's attempt falls short as she seeks to establish a triable issu e through a self-serving declaration or citation to evidence that does not actually contradict the material facts Defen...
2024.02.29 Motion for Attorney Fees 214
Location: Orange County
Judge: Larsh, Erick
Hearing Date: 2024.02.29
Excerpt: ... fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the “lodestar,” i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.” (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 (PLCM Group).) “The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work. The lodesta r figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fe...
2024.02.29 Motion for Entry of Judgment 129
Location: Orange County
Judge: Larsh, Erick
Hearing Date: 2024.02.29
Excerpt: ...e of damages is required for default judgment]; see also ROA No. 356 –Heidary Decl., in passim [one -page conclusory declaration].) There is also no affidavit of notice. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 587; Bae v. T.D. Service Co. of Arizona (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 89, 108, fn. 15.) Even if plaintiff had complied with the for egoing requirements, the request for default judgment would still be denied because the operative first amended complaint (FAC)...
2024.02.29 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 271
Location: Orange County
Judge: Larsh, Erick
Hearing Date: 2024.02.29
Excerpt: ...alif. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(b); Truong v. Glasser (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 102, 118.) Defendant's separate statement fails to comply with Calif. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(b). Rather than deny the motion outright (CCP 437c(b)(1); Beltran v. Hard Rock Hotel Licensing, Inc. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 865, 875), the court el ects to treat defendant's motion as one for summary judgment only. Defendants fails to meet their initial burden to show the e...
2024.02.29 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 314
Location: Orange County
Judge: Larsh, Erick
Hearing Date: 2024.02.29
Excerpt: ...(Bohrer v. County of San Diego (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 15 5, 164 [“[a]bsent a special statute, there is no authority for the court to take judicial notice … from a governmental document to establish the cause of death”].) Defendant's Reply Separate Statement (ROA 315) is not authorized and was not considered. (Na zir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 252.) 1st cause of action: elder abuse / neglect. Moving party has not met...
2024.02.29 Motion to Compel Further Responses, for Monetary Sanctions 279
Location: Orange County
Judge: Larsh, Erick
Hearing Date: 2024.02.29
Excerpt: ...ted protective order to the court. If the parties fa il to timely do so, the court will impose a protective order limiting the use of responses to the interrogatories in which a confidentiality/privacy right is claimed to this litigation and requiring that such information be surrendered or destroyed at the conclusion of this litigation. Upon entry of the protective order, Defendant John Marcin is ordered to serve complete, non- evasive further ...
2024.02.22 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 061
Location: Orange County
Judge: Larsh, Erick
Hearing Date: 2024.02.22
Excerpt: ... second Hariri Decl., filed in support of cross- complainant's supplemental Opposition on 1 -5 -24, nor crossdefendants' objections to same. The original hearing was continued solely due to crosscomplainant's failure to provide an opposing separate statement, and the court specifically ordered that no new evidence was permitted. (See 12 -14 -23 min ute order continuing hearing (ROA 669).] 1st cause of action: professional negligence (Summary Ad...
2024.02.15 Motion to Quash Records Subpoenas 375
Location: Orange County
Judge: Larsh, Erick
Hearing Date: 2024.02.15
Excerpt: ...such records. Thus, the subpoenas to the billing departments of A & S H ealthcare and Alta Vista Assisted Living are quashed in full, and the balance of the subpoenas are quashed to the extent that they seek billing records. The motion is denied as to the balance of the records subpoenas issued by defendant. While the plaintiff s may assert a claim under the physician -patient privilege (See California Consumer Health Care Council, Inc. v. Califo...
2024.02.15 Demurrers to FAC 129
Location: Orange County
Judge: Larsh, Erick
Hearing Date: 2024.02.15
Excerpt: ...ouri (Doe 5) and Kouri Law Firm, APC (Doe 6) (together, the K houri defendants). (See ROA No. 401.) 5. San Bernardino County (Doe 4), erroneously sued as “County of San Bernardino.” (See ROA No. 322.) 6. Tushar Ramnik Doshi (Doshi) (Doe 9). All six demurrers are SUSTAINED as to the first amended complaint (FAC) in its entirety without leave to amend. The court on its own motion takes judicial notice of the following: 1. The 1/18/24 minute or...
2024.02.08 Motion to Compel Physical Exam 208
Location: Orange County
Judge: Larsh, Erick
Hearing Date: 2024.02.08
Excerpt: ... had previously conducted an independent medical examination of Plainti¯ in July 2021. Having failed to resolve this dispute informally, Defendant Sun now moves the Court for an Order requiring Plainti¯ to make himself available for another independent medical examination. Defendant Sun argues that Cal. Code Civ. Proc.. §2032.220, subd. (a) provides “any party” with the right to take a single physical examination on demand without leave ...
2024.02.08 Demurrer to FAC 019
Location: Orange County
Judge: Larsh, Erick
Hearing Date: 2024.02.08
Excerpt: ...ion of Labor Code sections 201, 202. The Þrst cause of action does not “clearly and a¯irmatively” appear time-barred on its face. (See Lee v. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1225, 1232 (Lee) [a demurrer based on the statute of limitations is only permissible where the running of the statute appears “clearly and a¯irmatively” from the dates alleged, it is not su¯icient that the complaint might be barred].) The statute of limitations for an...
2024.02.08 Demurrer 996
Location: Orange County
Judge: Larsh, Erick
Hearing Date: 2024.02.08
Excerpt: ...with the pleading rules governing statutory claims.” (Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 496, 407 (citing Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 790).) Here, while lengthy, the Complaint is hazy on the details when it comes to alleging how Moving Defendants' conduct constituted “neglect” within the meaning of the Act and how that neglect was a causal factor in the injuries alleged. Sp...
2024.02.08 Demurrer 906
Location: Orange County
Judge: Larsh, Erick
Hearing Date: 2024.02.08
Excerpt: ...ing members/board o directors o POKI CAT INNOVATIONS, LLC ("POKI CAT" or "deendant LLC"), a Caliornia limited liability company ("LLC"), and its member managers/presumptive Board o Directors to pursue the below-described claims against POKI CAT, Does 1 to 25, inclusive, deendants, and each o them, and the various co-deendants or diversion, conversion, deception, embezzlement, tax raud, securities raud, breach o contract, sel-dealing,...
2024.02.01 Motion for Summary Adjudication 375
Location: Orange County
Judge: Larsh, Erick
Hearing Date: 2024.02.01
Excerpt: ... (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc., §437c, subds. ()(1) and (p)(2); Aguilar v. Atlantic RichÞeld Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850-851.) In support o their Motion, Plainti¯s cite to Deendant's responses to various requests or admission and a corresponding Form Interrogatory No. 17.1. Plainti¯s contend that Deendant's responses are devoid o actual content, evasive, and demonstrate that Deendant has no evidence to support the a¯irmative deens...
2024.01.25 Motion to Compel Further Responses, for Monetary Sanctions 628
Location: Orange County
Judge: Larsh, Erick
Hearing Date: 2024.01.25
Excerpt: ...ants provided pursuant to this Court's Order is inadequate because it does not contain sufficient detail to enable Plaintiff to evaluate the merits of Defendants' privilege objection. Upon review of Defendants' privilege log, the Court finds the privilege log to contain sufficient information to evaluate Defendants' claims of privilege and/or work product protection. Defendants have complied with the Court's Order that they produce a privilege lo...
2024.01.25 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 481
Location: Orange County
Judge: Larsh, Erick
Hearing Date: 2024.01.25
Excerpt: ...'s discretion to deny motion on the basis of failure to comply with Rule 3.1350]. ) Summary judgment is denied because moving parties have not shown that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that they are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff's entire operative Second Amended Complaint [SAC]. (Code Civ. Proc„ S 437c, subd. (c).) Specifically, as to the 1st cause of action, moving parties have not met their init...

117 Results

Per page

Pages