Excerpt: ...aint].” Complaint paragraph 5. This allegation is insufficient to support causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, negligence, and violation of California Business & Professions Code section 17200. There are no allegations of any relationship between Plaintiff and the Leeor Defendants (contractual or otherwise), any misrepresentation by the Leeor Defendants, any duty or breac...

Excerpt: ...viously agreed to dismiss that cause of action. Opposition at 6:18- 20. The indemnity and contribution/apportionment claims alleged in the second, third and fourth causes of action are based on potential liability for alleged construction defects. There can be no indemnity without liability. City of San Diego v. United States Gypsum Co. (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 575, 587-589. As a result, an indemnity claim requires that the complainant have paid a c...

Excerpt: ...s court. “The order of the reviewing court is contained in its remittitur, which defines the scope of the jurisdiction of the court to which the matter is returned. ‘The order of the appellate court as stated in the remittitur, ‘is decisive of the character of the judgment to which the appellant is entitled. The lower court cannot reopen the case on the facts, allow the filing of amended or supplemental pleadings, nor retry the case, and if...

Excerpt: ...ordance with California Rule of Court 2.550, the court finds that the nature of the documents Scottsdale seeks to seal, i.e., an insurance application and correspondence between Plaintiffs and Scottsdale related to insurance coverage, supports sealing the documents due to the confidential information set forth in such materials. In addition, the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored and extends only to certain exhibits submitted by Scottsdale in ...

Excerpt: ... while these motions were pending, Defendant served supplemental responses to these requests. As described below, Plaintiff's motions are granted in part and denied in part. The court has reviewed all of the materials submitted in support of and in opposition to these motions, including Defendant's supplemental responses. Defendant is ordered to send a letter to Plaintiff by February 22, 2018 stating whether Defendant has withheld any documents o...

Excerpt: ...et profits of her law firm for the years 2010 through 2014. Plaintiff responded to each of these interrogatories by referring to tax documents that Plaintiff would produce reflecting the law firm's profits on an annual basis. Special Interrogatory Nos. 39 through 42 ask Plaintiff to provide the business expenses for her law firm for the years 2010 through 2013. Plaintiff responded to each of these interrogatories by referring to tax documents tha...

Excerpt: ...e in confusing the various advertisements Defendants have published. This error did not cause any significant effect on the pleading. In the declaration of Proud Usahacharoenporn, there was adequate explanation for this mistake. Plaintiff's first cause of action sufficiently alleges breach of contract, as Judge Crandall previously concluded in connection with Defendants' prior demurrer. See Constructive Protective Servs, Inc. v. TIG Specialty Ins...

Excerpt: ...Act) and breach of contract. In doing so, Plaintiff alleges unlawful acts that can serve as a basis for violations of section 17200. See Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing(2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 49, 81. Indeed, Plaintiff specifically alleges that “[b]y violating the Act, Neff has engaged in unlawful activities, thereby satisfying the ‘unlawful prong' of the UCL [section 17200 et seq.].” FAC ¶ 38. Relying on Prudential Home Mortgage Co. v. S...

Excerpt: ...Defendants' demurrer is overruled. Plaintiff law firm alleges that a third party minor's father signed a contingency fee agreement with Plaintiff in February 2017. Plaintiff alleges that approximately two months later, Plaintiff was informed the third party had decided to retain another attorney to pursue her personal injury claims. Whether the third party's initial fee agreement with Plaintiff is valid is immaterial to Defendants' demurrer. In c...

Excerpt: ...following reasons, Defendant's motion is granted. A. Vicarious Liability California law generally imposes liability on the owner of a vehicle, albeit there is a limitation on the amount of damages that may be collected for any resulting death or injury. See Cal. Veh. Code §§ 17150, 17151. The Graves Amendment, however, precludes liability based on the law of any state against an owner that is in the business of renting vehicles, if the harm occ...

Excerpt: ...orizon facility for an event sponsored by Defendant. Defendant initially objected to this interrogatory and responded “hotel venue vendor;” in its supplemental response, Defendant objected again and responded that it “is not ‘affiliated' with Horizon Resort & Casino” and that Defendant “has used Horizon as a hotel venue vendor on two occasions.” Plaintiff's motion to compel is granted. Interrogatory No. 1 seeks relevant information....

Excerpt: ...dants. Both of these causes of action also include, respectively, a conclusory allegation that (i) Defendants' conduct “was the result of willful and wanton acts or omissions and/or done with a conscious disregard for the safety of the users of the Product involved in the ACCIDENT,” FAC ¶ 37, and (ii) Defendants' acts were done “willfully, wantonly and/or with a conscious disregard of others.” Id. ¶ 47. In order to survive a motion to s...

Excerpt: ... Superior Ct. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4 th475, 480-81 (financial records are protected by individual's right to privacy); Valley Bank of Nev. v. Superior Ct. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656 (individual has right to privacy in his or her confidential financial affairs). Plaintiff has not identified countervailing interests that outweigh Defendant's privacy interests in his financial records with respect to much of the information sought by the subpoenas. See...

Excerpt: ...otion to quash the subpoena to Dr. Stevens is granted. Defendant contends she seeks Dr. Stevens's records to obtain consent forms signed by Plaintiff and photographs of Plaintiff's face, mouth and teeth, and allegedly to prove Plaintiff was dissatisfied with her breast augmentation and “may suffer from body dysmorphic disorder.” None of these purported reasons for seeking Plaintiff's medical records from an unrelated procedure on a different ...

Excerpt: ...2030.290. Plaintiffs did not serve and have not served responses to these sets of discovery. Plaintiffs also did not file an opposition to Defendant's motions to compel. Defendant served the subject discovery requests by mail on August 17, 2017. Keidel Interrogatory Decl. ¶¶ 2-5; Keidel RFP Decl. ¶ 2. Responses were due September 21, 2017. Plaintiffs did not serve and have not served responses. Keidel Interrogatory Decl. ¶¶ 6-7; Keidel RFP D...

Excerpt: ...m Interrogatory No. 6.4.” Form Interrogatory 6.4 asked Plaintiff whether she received any consultation, examination or treatment from a health care provider for any injury she attributes to the incident at issue in this case, and, if so, to identify the provider, the type of consultation, examination or treatment provided, the relevant dates, and the charges to date. After Plaintiff served her responses to Request Nos. 1-7, 9, 10, 14 and 19, he...

Excerpt: ...Proc. Code § 2032.320 (a). Defendant has shown good cause for the second physical examination with a neurosurgeon. Prior to the first examination with the orthopedic surgeon, Defendant had no medical report indicating that Plaintiff needed surgery. Plaintiff's first neurosurgeon, Dr. Alexander Taghva, did not recommend surgery: “Unfortunately I have no surgery to offer patient, can consider NS second opinion.” Ex. E at 3. In Plaintiff's depo...

Excerpt: ...egarding Requests for Production Nos. 1, 6, 11, 13 and 19, Plaintiff's counsel is ordered to send Defendant's counsel a letter by February 1, 2018 stating whether Plaintiff has withheld any documents responsive to Requests for Production Nos. 1, 6, 11, 13 and 19 on the basis of any of the objections stated in Plaintiff's responses (initial and supplemental, if supplemental responses were served) to those Requests for Production. If Plaintiff has ...

Excerpt: ...gh inadvertence, THE PART DRAWINGS, any portion of THE PART DRAWINGS, and/or any drafts or earlier or later versions of THE PART DRAWINGS.” Plaintiff responded with an objection that the interrogatory is compound and further responded “Responding Party has never made the part drawings publicly accessible through inadvertence or otherwise.” Civil Procedure Code § 2030.060(f) states: “No specially prepared interrogatory shall contain subpa...

Excerpt: ...ant responded to Form Interrogatory No. 209.2 with only objections. Plaintiff's motion is granted, as limited by this ruling. Defendant is ordered to respond to Form Interrogatory No. 209.2 limited as follows: Except for this action, in the past five years has any employee employed in Defendant's Central Business Office or employed in any office overseen or supervised by the Senior Regional Director of Patient Accounting of West Region filed a ci...