Excerpt: .... (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subds. (a), (b).) Objector has failed to demonstrate that the court intended to reopen discovery when it continued trial on May 10, 2019. The declaration in support of that motion and the motion itself do not mention a need for discovery beyond that which the court had already compelled, and the court granted all of the relief objector sought with respect to the trial date. In addition, the court denies objector's...

Excerpt: ...tion for Protective Order – DENIED. Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. moves to quash the deposition of the manager of its Tracy facility, and plaintiff moves to compel the same deposition. The court finds this deposition is relevant to plaintiff's claim for punitive damages, even though defendant now concedes liability on compensatory damages. Defendant has failed to support its claim that having the manager sit for deposition would be unduly burdenso...

Excerpt: ...ition, he never explicitly testified that this alleged failure was the cause of plaintiffs' injuries. D&D's only other evidence on this point is a set of discovery responses by the Huff defendants, but D&D may not use discovery responses by the Huff defendants against plaintiffs on this motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.410.) The court also questions the usefulness of discovery responses that are made in relevant part on information and belief. (...

Excerpt: ...to the well. “While the Court may interpret the terms of the parties' settlement agreement, ‘nothing in section 664.6 authorizes a judge to create the material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon.' ” (Leeman v. Adams Extract & Spice, LLC (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1374.) In this case, the language of the settlement agreement is at least somewhat ambiguous as to wh...

Excerpt: ...ot have jurisdiction to step into ongoing arbitrations to “enforce” anything short of a final award. The general rule is this: jurisdiction does not migrate from the arbitrator to the trial court unless the arbitrator has made a ruling disposing of all the issues. See Maplebear, Inc. v. Busick (2018) 26 Cal.App.5 th 394, 402-405; Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 13 Cal.App.5 th 1125, 1139-1140; Cinel v. Christopher...

Excerpt: ... not have jurisdiction to step into ongoing arbitrations to “enforce” anything short of a final award. The general rule is this: jurisdiction does not migrate from the arbitrator to the trial court unless the arbitrator has made a ruling disposing of all the issues. See Maplebear, Inc. v. Busick (2018) 26 Cal.App.5 th 394, 402-405; Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 13 Cal.App.5 th 1125, 1139-1140; Cinel v. Christoph...

Excerpt: ...ot support its motion with affirmative evidence negating an essential element of the plaintiff's case. Instead, the moving defendant may point to the absence of evidence to support the plaintiff's case. Defendant Open Door Services, Inc. has done so here, and thus, the burden shifted to the Plaintiff to present evidence demonstrating there is a triable issue of material fact. In opposition, and despite Defendant's objections to the evidence Plain...

Excerpt: ...ust that Dabblicious may have breached oral agreements, but also that it beached the contract itself by failing to conduct batch testing and allow remediation as allegedly required by industry standards. Dabblicious's attack on the third cause of action for fraud fails because, although JDI did not provide the name of the employee who met with its representative to discuss the processing agreement, it gave a month, year and location for the meeti...

Excerpt: ...n this case. No declaration of any kind accompanies the motion, which does not contain the information that was supposed to be included in the declaration. The court is therefore missing facts essential to its determining the motion. In addition, the court agrees with the opposition that plaintiff has failed to articulate a viable theory of damages to support a cause of action for either trespass or conversion. ...

Excerpt: ...LC has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. §§2030.290(a).) Therefore, Defendant shall provide answers, without objection, within 14 days of service of notice of entry of the order. Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with Defendant's failure to respond to the above-described discovery requests. (Code Civ. Proc. �...

Excerpt: ...th regard to the alleged existence of a dangerous condition at the subject intersection. Specifically, Plaintiffs have demonstrated material disputes of fact concerning, at a minimum, Defendant's Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts 3, 8, and 9. For example, the Court finds that factual issues exist as to whether the traffic controls in place at the intersection at the time of the accident were out of compliance with applicable regulat...

Excerpt: ..., and plaintiffs did not need to meet and confer about the responses before filing this motion. (Cf. Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300[no meet and confer needed if no response] with Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2) [meet and confer declaration required for motion to compel further responses to discovery].) Because defendant is obligated to provide responses that are as “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably availabl...

Excerpt: ...Where the conditions of compensation set forth in Section 3600 concur, the right to recover such compensation, pursuant to the provisions of this division is, except as specifically provided in this section, the exclusive remedy for injury or death of an employee against any other employee of the employer acting within the scope of his or her employment. . .”].) Here, plaintiff argues Labor Code section 3601 cannot bar his claim for negligence ...

Excerpt: ... for the purpose of establishing an official record or evidentiary fact by law, such as the court records and documents evincing title. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.70; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1113(l); Ross v. Creel Printing & Publishing Co., Inc. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 736, 743; Day v. Sharp (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 904, 914.) Regarding the first cause of action, for violation of Civil Code section 2937, the Court's judicial notice of the existence of ...

Excerpt: ... for the purpose of establishing an official record or evidentiary fact by law, such as the court records and documents evincing title. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.70; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1113(l); Ross v. Creel Printing & Publishing Co., Inc. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 736, 743; Day v. Sharp (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 904, 914.) Regarding the first cause of action, for violation of Civil Code section 2937, the Court's judicial notice of the existence of ...

Excerpt: ...ective Order to Modify the Subpoenas to: 1. Memorial Medical Center, 2. Memorial Medical Center/Billing Dept., 3. Memorial Medical/Radiology Dept., 4. Sutter Physical Services/Recovery Dept. TPL Unit, and Request for Sanctions in the amount of $1,810.00 against defendants and its attorney of record; c) Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash Defendant's Subpoenas for Medical Records; or in the Alternative for a Protective Order to Modify the Subpoenas to: 1....

Excerpt: ...sing statement and the referenced declarations and supporting exhibits. However, Defendants' failure in the first instance to supply sufficient evidence to negate the existence of a triable issue regarding the third cause of action for fraudulent inducement/concealment obviates further consideration of the evidentiary objections by either party. In each case, Defendants' proffered “fact” consists instead of a litany of conclusory and conteste...

Excerpt: ...e and import of federal preemption. Federal preemption, contrary to Defendant's assertion, is not merely a sub-species of “choice of law.” To the contrary, it goes to a trial court's fundamental subject matter jurisdiction, i.e., where federal law preempts state law it is not simply a question of which law one “chooses” to employ; it is instead a binary mandate that state law be disregarded in favor of federal law by virtue of the Suprema...

Excerpt: ...bility theory. (Chavers v. Gatke Corp. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 606, 617; La Vista Cemetery Assoc. v. Am. Sav. & Loan Ass'n (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 365, 369.) The same holds true for Plaintiff's “aiding and abetting” theory. (Casey v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1145.) The Third Cause of Action, as amended, fails to allege and plead with particularity the facts required for a conspiracy theory for the reasons set forth in De...

Excerpt: ...523-524; Hearn v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1206; Anderson v. Sherman (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 228, 238 [reasonableness of the misconception and justifiability of the failure to determine the correct facts or law are discretionary determinations for the trial court].) Acting pro se, moving party initiated this action by filing one suit and naming each of the defendants independently. His testimony indicated an awareness of the defendant wi...

Excerpt: ...and analogous to those of section 473(b). (Mannino, supra, 142 Cal.App.3d at 779.) Where, as here, the responsibility for the waiver is solely attributable to the attorneys, the mandatory relief provisions, by analogy, strongly suggests relief should be granted based on the remedial purposes of the statutes in question. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1228.) The Court finds that timely supplemental responses were made by moving party...

Excerpt: ...and/or unreasonable, such that the burden shifts to Plaintiff to show that the items charged were for matters necessarily relevant and material to the issues involved in the action. (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4 th 111, 131; Oak Grove School Dist. V. City Title Ins. Co. (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 678, 698.) The Court acts within its discretion in determining whether costs are excessive and should be reduced. (Levy v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S....

Excerpt: ... notice of its preparation by the reporter from the raw shorthand marks, and arguably not until signed and/or certified as such by the reporter itself. The intended use of the transcript is for trial and the reporter's sealing and certification are part and parcel of use and admiss<005700030049004c005100 47005600030057004b00480003> motion timely as the deposition was re-noticed, obligating objections to have been served upon such re-noticing, abs...

Excerpt: ...on Defendants Southern California Permanete Medical Group and the Permanete Medical Group, Inc.'s Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint The Court grants Defendants Southern California Permanete Medical Group and the Permanete Medical Group, Inc.'s Request for Judicial Notice. Evidence Code § 452(h). Judicial Notice is taken of Defendants' Exhibit A. The court sustains Defendants Southern California Permanete Medical Gro...

Excerpt: ... party's notice of intent are either not authorized statutory causes for new trial nor coherently related by moving party to an authorized statutory cause, or else moving party did not address or support such non-statutory causes in moving party's memorandum and affidavits. (Code Civ. Proc. § 659(b) [new trial motion limited to statutory grounds in notice of intent]; Code Civ. Proc. § 659a [supporting brief and affidavits required after filing ...