Excerpt: ...arch 20, 2018, but plaintiff served her moving papers on defendant's prior counsel, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, on June 1, 2018. Plaintiff must either give counsel of record statutory notice of the next hearing date or file a waiver of notice from them. Plaintiff must submit an invoice from Administrator ILYM Group, Inc. to support the requested Administrator fee. Plaintiff now seeks an Administrator fee of $11,750 even though the original papers, in...

Excerpt: ...d and the Administrator provides an updated report. E-service of the moving papers on June 7, 2018 provided defense counsel with insufficient notice of this hearing. Plaintiffs must either give counsel statutory notice of the next hearing date or file a waiver of notice from them. The moving papers report that five of six workweek disputes have been resolved. Plaintiffs must explain what happened to the sixth workweek dispute, and if there is any...

Excerpt: ...ite no authority supporting the proposition that vouchers should be considered part of a common fund. The court in Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 1794, 1809-10, questioned the common fund theory in a coupon settlement. In this court's view, a reasonable fee would be 1/3 of the cash settlement, which is $312,500, but in this case the $50,000 being used to pay the employer's share of payroll taxes (which seems high for this settleme...

Excerpt: ...arch 20, 2018, but plaintiff served her moving papers on defendant's prior counsel, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, on June 1, 2018. Plaintiff must either give counsel of record statutory notice of the next hearing date or file a waiver of notice from them. Plaintiff must submit an invoice from Administrator ILYM Group, Inc. to support the requested Administrator fee. Plaintiff now seeks an Administrator fee of $11,750 even though the original papers, in...

Excerpt: ... plaintiffs and that no grounds exist to bar enforcement of the agreement. CCP §1281.2. This action is ordered stayed pending completion of the arbitration. The Status Conference set for today is ordered off calendar. A Post-Arbitration Review Hearing is set for January 11, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. The parties must file a Joint Status Report at least a week before the hearing. The unopposed motion of K&L Gates LLP to be relieved as counsel of record fo...

Excerpt: ...es have undertaken sufficient discovery. It is too early for the court to make any such conclusions. The court notes that it would have heard the Corp. Code §709 trial by now, and potentially had a better sense of the merits of the new pleading, if the parties hadn't stipulated to continue the trial multiple times. Intervenor Bastel Wardak's request for attorneys' fees is denied. The court does not yet know if the First Amended Complaint in Inte...

Excerpt: ...o be only for plaintiff Sadeghi while the Kibriya plaintiffs still intend to use the original Complaint. The motion is therefore denied without prejudice, but defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings will create the window for plaintiff Sadeghi to file a proper pleading. Defendant Shapell Industries, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, as joined in by defendant Richfield Tile & Construction Company, Inc., is granted with 15 days ...

Excerpt: ...er 2, 2014, almost four years ago, noted that construction of the underground parking structure, a planned mitigation measure, was no longer an available or realistic option. The court therefore ruled that plaintiff's construction of the surface parking lot would not be admissible at trial as a mitigation measure. Defendants thus will be entitled to recover their eminent domain damages based on no mitigation having taken place. The court even obs...

Excerpt: ...claimants. The court also will need the Administrator's final estimated invoice for its services. Detailed hourly billing breakdowns are required from all of plaintiffs' law firms or attorneys who intend their hours to be considered in the lodestar base to be used to cross-check the attorneys' fees requested, and who want to be awarded part of the $3.39 million in attorneys' fees requested here. Charts summarizing those hours are not adequate (wi...

Excerpt: ...er 2, 2014, almost four years ago, noted that construction of the underground parking structure, a planned mitigation measure, was no longer an available or realistic option. The court therefore ruled that plaintiff's construction of the surface parking lot would not be admissible at trial as a mitigation measure. Defendants thus will be entitled to recover their eminent domain damages based on no mitigation having taken place. The court even obs...

Excerpt: ...judice along with the entry of final Judgment, which is expressly prohibited by CRC Rule 3.769(h). The Administrator Declaration of Chris Pikus (at p. 3, para. 12) reflects that one out of four disputes was denied. However, the revised Notice of Estimated Individual Settlement Payment attached to the December 1, 2017 Supplemental Declaration of Jared Hague, which the court approved, reflected (at p. 1, para. 5) that the court would address any di...

Excerpt: ...ot to demur to it even though other defendants did so, and successfully. This court is not interested in having a pleading challenge motion granted with leave to amend (since these defendants have never demurred, and the prior court of appeal decision doesn't address causes of action challenged here), and then going through one or more further rounds of demurrers. Indeed, now the Thompson defendants say they want to move for judgment on the plead...

Excerpt: ...f $10,000 plus $12,500 in adjudicated reasonable costs” to “the total amount of $24,827.29, consisting of an agreed amount to Claimant of $10,000 plus $12,500 in adjudicated reasonable attorney fees and $2,327.29 in adjudicated reasonable costs”. The award may be corrected pursuant to CCP §1286.6 because the arbitrator exceeded his powers but the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submi...

Excerpt: ...nd denied as to #4-5 and 10. Plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient facts to state causes of action against these moving defendants. Plaintiffs must allege actual facts, not conclusions, which would establish liability against each of the defendants. Plaintiffs should keep in mind that entities cannot act except through persons, even if through persons employed by other entities, if appropriate. It is not enough to vaguely assert that four or more ...

Excerpt: ..., “it is a rare case in which a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his pleadings so that he may properly present his case”. Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal. App. 2d 527, 530. For ACIC to seek to interplead a $15,000 bond does not change the nature of this case, and ACIC's new claims are based on the same nucleus of operative facts existing in this case. ACIC's proposed new causes of action appear to be based on...

Excerpt: ...using a party leave to amend his pleadings so that he may properly present his case”. Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal. App. 2d 527, 530. Plaintiffs are not changing the nature of this case, and their new claims are based on the same nucleus of operative facts. Plaintiffs' proposed new cause of action appears to be based on the same overall transaction and course of events. The amendment would not result in any undue prejudice to defenda...

Excerpt: ...llege sufficient facts that would establish an oral contract, or the terms of the contract. The only alleged misrepresentations of a past or existing fact in Patel's 3rd cause of action for negligent misrepresentation are that plan participants were covered beneficiaries and that treatment was covered by the plan, but Patel alleges the contrary in paragraph 5, that plan participants were in fact covered beneficiaries. Further, Patel's factual all...

Excerpt: ...reakdown whatsoever of their claimed costs. Plaintiffs seek 1.8 hours for needlessly appearing at the Default Prove-Up Hearing on December 1, 2017, but an MSC was also set for that date, requiring plaintiffs' appearance even if there had been no Default Prove-Up Hearing. Plaintiffs also want 7.3 hours in preparing both counsel and a witness for the prove-up hearing, but default prove-ups are done on the papers, not with live testimony, and plaint...

Excerpt: ...a trial. Defendants made modifications to their lighting system both before trial and during the one and then two month break the court afforded the parties to resolve the lighting issue before closing argument and the ruling. The court even informally advised the parties there would be no money damages awarded, but there was no agreement, the parties wanted a ruling at trial, and the ruling was in plaintiffs' favor. The settlement of plaintiffs'...

Excerpt: ...terrogatories seek information that is relevant to the subject matter of the action, and defendant has not justified any of its objections. Plaintiff may seek information that could justify class action allegations. Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal. App. 3d 1, 10-11. The discovery sought does not come close to invading anyone's privacy, even if follow-up discovery might trigger discovery concerns. Defendant has not prese...

Excerpt: ... court cannot reach a determination as to whether the settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable absent fully updated information on the efforts to locate class members and obtain class claims, along with final opt-out and objection figures. Plaintiffs must file an updated Administrator declaration with the final numbers. Detailed hourly billing breakdowns are required from each of plaintiffs' law firms to permit this court to complete an inform...

Excerpt: ...uld be fine. (1) On p. 4, line 24, change “Class Notice” to “revised Notice of Settlement of Class Action Lawsuit (Class Notice)”; (2) On p. 4, line 25, change “Request for Exclusion form” to “revised Request for Exclusion Form (Request for Exclusion)”; (3) On p. 5, line 18, the Administrator's declaration is due at least 16 court days before the Final Approval Hearing, just like all other papers for that hearing; and (4) On p. 6,...

Excerpt: ...l cures these deficiencies before the hearing date, the hearing will be continued. Moving parties are ordered to give notice of the ruling. ...

Excerpt: ...onfer before the hearing). Plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions is denied. Defendant has shown that plaintiff did not serve a formal response to the demand, waiving his objections. Defendant must nonetheless show good cause, and it has done so. Plaintiff appears to have no objection to a second inspection of his treadmill. Although plaintiff has concerns as to defendant inspecting his home's computers, which would be legitimate if defendant...

Excerpt: ...ase in which a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his pleadings so that he may properly present his case”. Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal. App. 2d 527, 530. The amendment would not result in any undue prejudice to plaintiffs, since both sides have operated under the premise that defendant already asserted the administrative exemption defense. Plaintiffs even filed a Motion for Summary Adjudication as to that def...