Excerpt: ... of this date, this task will apparently be completed soon. The court orders Defendants to respond without objection to all discovery orders within ten (10) days. At this time, terminating sanctions would be an excessive penalty. Sanctions must be in proposition to the dereliction. Lopez v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604–605. Defendants have paid the previous sanctions, and are ordered to pa...

Excerpt: ...n.” P & D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Carlsbad (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1345. Cross-Defendant has not identified any specific prejudice caused by this amendment. The court may entertain short continuance to avoid any potential prejudice, if that becomes necessary. “[E]ven if the proposed legal theory is a novel one, ‘the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer...

Excerpt: ...ding in particular, the parties against whom the settlement agreement is sought to be enforced. (See Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 305.) The written agreement at issue here has been signed by all of the parties to this action, which is referenced in the agreement as the “OC COMPLAINT.” And although she is a party to the settlement agreement, Lucy Garcia is only a party defendant in a different action referenced i...

Excerpt: ...ation, “the specific cause of action, affirmative defense, claims for damages, or issues of duty must be stated specifically in the notice of motion and be repeated, verbatim, in the separate statement of undisputed material facts.” (CRC 3.1350(b).) Here, the notice does not state specifically the issues to be adjudicated. Thus, the court will consider only the motion for summary judgment. A plaintiff moving for summary judgment must show tha...

Excerpt: .... The court's discretion will usually be exercised liberally so as not to deprive a party of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or defense. Defendants satisfied California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324. Defendants shall file and serve her first amended verified answer to Plaintiff's Verified Complaint, a copy of which was attached as Exhibit A to the moving papers, on all parties who have appeared in this action within 10 days. Motio...

Excerpt: ...n appellate court should look “beyond the claim's label, which is not dispositive when reviewing a trial court's sustaining of a general demurrer. . . .Instead [the court should] focus on the complaint's ‘actual gravamen,' on its ‘facts alleged.'” Peterson v. Cellco Partnership(2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1583, 1595. (Emphasis original). With the references to the Plaintiffs in the plural, there is a potentially viable argument that Plaintiffs ...

Excerpt: ......

Excerpt: ...edy at law. Darbun Enterprises, Inc. v. San Fernando Community Hospital (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 399, 409, fn 5. In addition, the terms “must be sufficiently certain ‘to make the precise act which is to be done clearly ascertainable.'” Id. at 409. A joint venture agreement may be oral and is not within the purview of the statute of frauds. Lasry v. Lederman (1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 480, 487-488. Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to constitute a...

Excerpt: ...laintiffs shall file and serve by 03/08/2018 the First Amended Complaint, which was attached to Plaintiffs' Motion. Plaintiffs shall attend a second deposition, as properly noticed by Defendant. Plaintiffs and or Plaintiffs' counsel shall pay the reasonable costs of the second deposition. The Jury Trial is continued to 8/6/18 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C24. All statutory discovery deadlines calculated from the trial date shall also be continued a...

Excerpt: ......

Excerpt: ...rty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail or electronic service at an address or electronic service address specified on the deposition record.” Plaintiff to give notice. ...

Excerpt: ... (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255. Plaintiff's medical records are confidential information protected by her right of privacy. Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864-865. Plaintiff has a right to privacy as to medical conditions she has not placed at issue in this litigation. John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1198. The information sought must be directly relevant to a claim or defense. Harris v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.Ap...

Excerpt: ......

Excerpt: ...6. “In short, the testator's intent to benefit the plaintiff is a prerequisite to the imposition of a duty on the attorney to the plaintiff. This makes sense, as the rationale for allowing testamentary instrument beneficiaries to recover in the event of a breach by the attorney is that ‘the main purpose of the testator in making his agreement with the attorney is to benefit' those beneficiaries ‘and this intent can be effectuated ... only b...

Excerpt: ...inari (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 ground for denial (e.g., fraud or unconscionability). (Villacreses v. Molinari, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at 1230.) Here, it is undisputed that the parties entered into a written agreement to arbitrate, the claims at issue are covered by that agreement, and Plaintiff has refused to arbitr...

Excerpt: ... is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2033.290.) However, in the event that Plaintiff Kenneth Mayer serves a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220 before the time of the hearing, the Court will deny the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c) [the court shall deem the matters admitted "unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admissi...

Excerpt: ...hin 30 days. Code Civ. Proc. §§2023.010(d) and (g), 2023.030, 2030.290(c). Plaintiff Ashad Hamideh is ordered to serve verified supplemental responses without objections to the form interrogatories within 15 days. The Motions by Defendant Imran Khan (1) for Terminating Sanctions and/or Other Monetary Sanctions and Attorney Fees against Plaintiff Mohammad Hamideh and (2) for Terminating Sanctions and/or Other Monetary Sanctions and Attorney Fees...

Excerpt: ...ts' motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The motion for summary adjudication is DENIED as to Issue Nos. 1-5. Hiring Defendants' objections are OVERRULED. Issue No. 1: Plaintiff Jason Leasure's cause of action for negligence is barred by Lab. Code, § 3602 Lab. Code, § 3602(a) provides (emphasis added): “Where the conditions of compensation set forth in Section 3600 concur, the right to recover compensation is, except as specifically provided...

Excerpt: ...A related cause of action “means a cause of action which arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause of action which the plaintiff alleges in his complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 426.10(c).) Here, Epson's proposed cross- complaint is compulsory. (See Time for Living Inc. v. Guy Hatfield Homes (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 30, 38-39 [indemnity claims arise out of the same occurrences or series...

Excerpt: ...ion application is under consideration or a denial is being appealed, the borrower is making timely modification payments, or a foreclosure prevention alternative is being evaluated or exercised.” Here, the SAC alleges that Defendant Chase collected late fees while Plaintiff was in compliance with her permanent loan modification. (SAC ¶ 52.) Defendant's contention that the provision applies only while loan modification applications are under c...

Excerpt: ...ssor client just because the will becomes irrevocable at the testator's death.” Baker Manock & Jensen v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal. App. 4th 1414, 1422. Assignment Ineffective: In 2000, Robert and Suzanne Skowron engaged AmeriEstate Legal Plan, Inc. They retained Stephen Clemmer as their attorney to draft a living trust. Robert is deceased. Suzanne assigned her rights to Plaintiffs. As a matter of California public policy, legal malpractice...

Excerpt: ...at agreement; and (3) the responding party refused a prior demand for arbitration under the agreement of the claims at issue. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; Villacreses v. Molinari (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 ground for denial (e.g., fraud or unconscionability). (Villacreses v. Molinari, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at 1230.) ...

Excerpt: ...s (Set Two): No. 17.1: No. 17.1(c): Further responses are required providing more specific information, e.g., the identity of those family members and or health care providers, if any, whom Plaintiff knows have knowledge. CCP 2030.220. Special Interrogatories: Nos. 2, 9, 10- 15 and 19- 27: No. 2: The Objection was appropriate. This Special Interrogatory referred to No. 1, which requested Plaintiff to list her health care provider for the past ten...

Excerpt: ...nses, without objections, to Defendant's Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Identification and Production of Documents (Set One) within 20 days of the notice of ruling. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) Failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code of Civ. Proc. section 2023.010(d).) So, too, is disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (Id., ...

Excerpt: ...h. The Court sets a post-Arbitration Review hearing at 8:30 a.m. on 8/7/18 in this Department. A party moving to compel arbitration under Code Civil Procedure section 1281.2 must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the parties entered into a written agreement to arbitrate; (2) one or more of the claims at issue are covered by that agreement; and (3) the responding party refused a prior demand for arbitration under the agreement of ...