Excerpt: ...st Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges the following causes of action: 1. Assault & battery; 2. Intentional Infliction of emotional distress; 3. Negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention of employees; 4. Negligence; and 5. Violation of the Bane Civil Rights Act ACF and Hartford have filed separate demurrers and motions to strike the FAC. The motions are opposed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court sustains the demurrers and ...

Excerpt: ...seq., in August 2012. [1] The case originally went to trial in 2016, resulting in a jury verdict for the City. The Court of Appeal reversed, citing an error in the special verdict form, and remanded. The Court of Appeal awarded Ms. Bradford her costs on appeal. The case was re‐tried in May 2019; this time a jury found for Ms. Bradford on her retaliation claim and awarded her $655,000. Ms. Bradford filed memoranda of costs; currently before the ...

Excerpt: ...ld a meeting to discuss the free installation of solar panels. Benavente represented that the solar installation was sponsored by the federal government and was free for qualified homeowners. Plaintiffs indicated they were interested, but due to a death in the family had to travel to Nigeria. They told Benavente they would contact him upon their return. When plaintiffs returned in early October 2016 they found that solar panels had been installed...

Excerpt: ...ecause Defendant wanted “eye candy” for the office, that her hours were reduced because of her disability, and that she was denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is currently self‐represented. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges the following causes of action: 1. Disability Discrimination (Gov. Code § 12940(a)); 2. Retaliation (Gov. Code § 12940(h)); 3. Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA (Hostile Work Environment) Defendant now d...

Excerpt: ... designed, manufactured, and sold by defendant Gloucester Engineering Company (“GEC”). The incident occurred when Rojas allegedly was instructed to insert his arm into the machine to clear a jam. In 2015, prior to the incident, defendant Davis‐Standard, LLC, purchased the assets of GEC. The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: 1. Negligence; 2. Products Liability; 3. Breach of Warranty; and 4. Negligent Hiring, Retentions, Trai...

Excerpt: ...t the tires to his own garage where they were transferred to a third party. The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Intentional Tort; (2) Fraud; (3) Conversion; (4) Conspiracy to Defraud; and (5) Trespass to Chattels Meza now demurs to the Complaint. SCO has filed an opposition. No reply has been filed. The Court previously continued the demurrer to allow the parties to meet and confer, but Meza has yet to file a declaration to ...

Excerpt: ...dly turned left in front of her, resulting in a fatal collision. Plaintiffs allege the intersection was dangerous because Jackson Street, at that intersection, has a 49‐foot offset on either side of Garfield Avenue. Defendants also include Expert Plant Care, Inc. (“EPC”), Willdan Engineering, the City of Paramount, and the State of California. Defendant Garcia filed a Cross‐Complaint against Defendant City of Paramount. The City of Paramo...

Excerpt: ... ceilings of the interior offices were approximately 8–10 feet above the floor and 5–10 feet below the warehouse roof. The office roofs were made of acoustic tile and overlaid, in some areas, with plywood. In December 2016, Shahin Fatemian fell through the office roof. Garfield owned the premises and the Bendetti Company was the property manager. At the time of the incident, the premises were leased to Nationwide Uniform Group, Inc. The Secon...

Excerpt: ...oss‐complainant Sol Del Cielo LLC (“Sol” or “Cross‐complainant”) owns the adjacent property at 11165 Louise Ave., Lynwood, CA 90262. Plaintiffs also sued Defendants M.L. Culkin Construction Co. Inc. and Abrham Sandoval Jr., who are not cross‐complainants. Sol filed a cross‐complaint on September 7, 2018. Sol alleges that when it began new construction for residential units next to the Loveland property, Cross‐defendants began a ...

Excerpt: ...dvanced”), 1935 Via Arado (“1935”), Agron, Inc. as Doe 1 (“Agron”), and Anton Schiff as Doe 2 (“Schiff”) for negligence, premises liability, products liability, and loss of consortium. Following a demurrer by American, the Court sustained its demurrer without leave to amend as to the first, second, and fourth causes of action. Instant motions:  Motion for summary judgment/adjudication: Advanced;  Motion for summary judgment/ad...

Excerpt: ...to trial on April 15, 2019, where a verdict was rendered for defendants. Plaintiff Artin Fiterz now moves to tax costs. Defendants oppose. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion. II. Standard Code of Civil Procedure § 1032(a)(b) states that a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding unless a statute expressly states otherwise. CCP § 1033.5(a) lists the costs that are re...

Excerpt: ...or‐Jones (“Mr. Taylor‐Jones”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) were in a vehicle traveling northbound on Willowbrook Avenue, with Ms. Taylor‐Jones the driver and Mr. Taylor‐Jones the passenger. As Plaintiffs vehicle approached the intersection of Willowbrook Avenue and Alondra Boulevard, Ms. Taylor‐Jones sought to negotiate a left onto Alondra Boulevard, past a certain railroad track commonly known as the “Blue Line.” Plaintiffs'...

Excerpt: ...rnia Unruh Civil Rights Act. Avalos seeks an injunction, statutory damages of $8,000, costs, and attorneys' fees of $3,731.25. Avalos applies for attorneys' fees in excess of the Local Rule Default schedule based on counsel's extraordinary legal services. Tentative ruling: GRANT Local Rule 3.214(d) allows for a plaintiff to apply for fees in excess of the default schedule (Local Rule 3.214(a)) when extraordinary legal services are rendered. The a...

Excerpt: ...April 2008, but defendants abandoned the project, costing plaintiffs the benefit of the agreement and the property. Plaintiffs filed suit on July 29, 2009. Yang was served on January 8, 2010. Default judgment was entered on January 9, 2012. On March 12, 2019, plaintiffs recorded an abstract of judgment in Los Angeles County. On May 14, 2019, Yang filed this motion to vacate. The motion is opposed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies...

Excerpt: ...o enrich themselves. Global and AYT are joined as nominal defendants. AYT is a taxi logistics business that provides services for 61 taxi cabs, as well as support for Global, which offers paratransit services under a government contract. The relationship between the parties began to deteriorate in 2017. On June 5, 2018, Levertov's accountant visited Global and AYT to view their books. Levertov presented his proposed Complaint to the boards of bot...

Excerpt: ...the premises. U.S. Bank purchased the property at a trustee's sale. U.S. Bank now moves for summary judgment. The Court has considered the opposition and reply. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion. II. Standard A “motion for 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.” (...

Excerpt: ...rial on April 15, 2019; the jury found for defendants. Artin Fiterz now moves for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”). The motions are opposed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motions. II. Standard A. Judgment notwithstanding the verdict A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict “may properly be granted only if it appears from the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the par...

Excerpt: ...ions and invasion of privacy. In the Complaint, plaintiffs allege various building defects, defendant's failure to make repairs, and multiple attempts by defendant to evict plaintiffs. The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Breach of warranty of habitability, (2) Breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, (3) Negligent maintenance of premises, (4) Maintenance of nuisance, (5) Violation of Civil Code section 1941.1 et seq., (6) ...

Excerpt: ...set forth below, the Court grants the motion. II. Standard The Court may relieve a party or their legal representative from a proceeding taken against them resulting from their mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (C.C.P., § 473(b).) Mistake of fact is when a person understands facts to be other than they are. (Hodge Sheet Metal Products v. Palm Springs Riviera Hotel (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 653.) Surprise denotes a condition or s...

Excerpt: ... Barto's operation of the field. The parties resolved the case in November 1999 by entering into a settlement agreement. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Barto and Alamitos Land entered into another agreement called the Surface Use Relinquish Agreement and Grant of Easement (“SURGE”). The SURGE concerned an area located within Signal Hill East Unit known as the Boneyard. The SURGE granted easements allowing Barto to use the property for ...

Excerpt: ...ose, which in turn caused Gutierrez to fall. The premises were managed by defendant Property Management Associates (“PMA”). PMA filed a cross-complaint against defendant Brightview Landscapes, LLC, erroneously sued as Brickman Group Holding LLC, alleging equitable indemnity. Brightview is a landscaping company. PMA alleges they are responsible for the water on the sidewalk. In April of 2013, Brightview contracted with defendant Del Amo Units ...

Excerpt: ...ls Fargo improperly foreclosed on his property and that Ralph Partners failed to care for his personal property after his eviction. The operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleges the following causes of action: (1) Breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (2) Fraud and misrepresentation, (3) Negligence (mislabeled as fraud and misrepresentation), (4) Bailment, and (5) Conversion The first and second causes of action are alle...

Excerpt: ...k behind the tires, the truck rolled backwards. Other defendants are Mario Guzman, Navistar Inc., Utopia Transport, Inc., and U.S. Storage Centers, Inc. Robert Watkins Sr. died on May 11, 2018; Minnie Watkins continues the action as his successor in interest. Navistar now moves to compel further responses to its form interrogatories, set one, and special interrogatories, set three. The motions are opposed. For the reasons set forth below, the Cou...

Excerpt: ...alifornia, causing Demer to slip or fall, resulting in injuries. The Complaint contains a single cause of action for negligence. Del Amo now moves for the appointment of a discovery referee. The motion is unopposed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion. II. Standard Code of Civil Procedure § 638 allows for the appointment of a discovery referee upon the agreement of the parties. The agreement must be filed with the clerk,...

Excerpt: ..., and Scott Linden. The Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleges the following causes of action: (1) Conversion; (2) Fraud — intentional misrepresentation; (3) Intentional interference with prospective economic relations; (4) Unjust enrichment — constructive trust; (5) Declaratory relief; (6) Preliminary injunction; and (7) Damages. Defendants David Welch, Michael Blazevich, and Anna Blazevich demur and move to strike the SAC. Plaintiffs ...