Excerpt: ...der filed on October 19, 2021.1 The factual and procedural background of the action and the Court's analysis of the settlement and settlement class are set forth in that order. Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the settlement and for approval of his attorney fees, costs, and service award. The motion is unopposed. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS final approval. I. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR SETTLEMENT APPROVAL A. Class Ac...

Excerpt: ...brings his own motion for summary adjudication of this issue, which Defendants oppose. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion and DENIES Plaintiff's. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual As alleged in the operative complaint, Defendants maintain and operate a health and fitness facility in California, where Plaintiff was employed. (First Amended Representative Action Complaint (“FAC”), ¶¶ 2, 14, 15.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants c...

Excerpt: ...plus Lines Insurance Company, seeking compensation under their policies for losses resulting from the COVID‐19 pandemic. Before the Court are (1) Factory Mutual's demurrer to the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for failure to state a claim, and alternative motion to strike allegations from the FAC, and (2) Lexington and Starr's motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to sever for improper joinder and i...

Excerpt: ...nts & Medical Credit Corporation, Inc. (“MMCC”) and James Matthew Hresko oppose this motion. Also at issue is a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction by Mr. Brewer and Ms. Church, which Plaintiff opposes. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS the motion for leave to amend and DENIES the motion to quash. I. BACKGROUND MMCC is a Michigan corporation engaged in the business of collecting defaulted consumer debts in California. (Compla...

Excerpt: ...roved in an order filed on October 22, 2021. The factual and procedural background of the action and the Court's analysis of the settlement and settlement class are set forth in that order. Before the Court are Plaintiffs' motions for final approval of the settlement and for approval of their attorney fees, costs, and service awards. The motions are unopposed. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS final approval, but awards only the $20,888.21 in ...

Excerpt: ...ination. 2 The parties reached a settlement, which the Court preliminarily approved in an order filed on October 22, 2021. The factual and procedural background of the action and the Court's analysis of the settlement and settlement class are set forth in that order. Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the settlement and for approval of her attorney fees, costs, and service award. The motion is unopposed. As discussed bel...

Excerpt: ...6 I. BACKGROUND According the complaint, Plaintiff worked for Defendant from August 2011 to January 17, 2019 as an hourly, non‐exempt employee. (Complaint, ¶ 7.) During this time, he and other California employees were provided with wage statements that failed to identify Northrop Grumman's legal name and address; failed to identify any applicable hourly rates of pay; and failed to state employees' total hours worked accurately when overtime w...

Excerpt: ...reliminary approval, subject to the parties' agreement to amend the release to conform with Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521 (Amaro). I. BACKGROUND Defendants Tupaz Homes, LLC; Tupaz Day Care Services Inc.; Rosario Tupaz; and Beebe Tupaz own and operate several care homes, intermediate care facilities for the developmentally disabled, and adult health day care facilities in Santa Clara County. (Third Amended Compla...

Excerpt: ...d. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS preliminary approval. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that he and Defendant's other non‐ exempt employees were not provided with compliant meal and rest breaks or informed or their right to the same. (First Amended Complaint (FAC), ¶¶ 24–27.) They were not reimbursed for expenses for their use of personal cellphones and mileage incurred to complete their job duties. (Id., ¶ 28.) And Defendant willful...

Excerpt: ...s fee” to the successful Rosenthal Act plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks a total of $486,843.75 in fees. Defendant Mandarich Law Group, LLP opposes her motion, acknowledging that an award of fees and costs is required but urging the Court to award a reduced amount of fees and costs, totaling no more than $160,174.92. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion in the reduced amount of $269,325.75. It DENIES Defendant's untimely request to ...

Excerpt: ...l claims asserted in the operative Fifth Amended Complaint (“5AC”) and also move to strike dozens of specific allegations concerning (1) damages and (2) trademark infringement and “passing off.” Plaintiff opposes both motions. As discussed below, the Court SUSTAINS Defendants' demurrer to the third cause of action without leave to amend, but otherwise OVERRULES the demurrer. It DENIES the motion to strike. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual SinCo a...

Excerpt: ... at issue, which resulted from the COVID‐19 pandemic and associated public health orders.5 The Court held that PLG's interpretation of covered “direct physical” loss of or damage to its property “to encompass indirect, economic loss is unreasonable; inconsistent with related portions of the Policy; and contrary to California authorities, including [MRI Healthcare Center of Glendale, Inc. v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4...

Excerpt: ...(a)(3) (FDCPA). Defendants bring a special motion to strike the complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (anti‐SLAPP motion), which Plaintiff opposes. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS the motion. I. BACKGROUND As alleged in the Complaint,1 Defendants bring collection actions on behalf of their client CACH, LLC, which is a debt buyer. (See Complaint, ¶ 16.) But no CACH employee has first‐ hand knowledge of the original...

Excerpt: ...sion in a related federal case, Epic Games Inc. v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal., No. 4:20‐ CV‐05640) (“Epic”), Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Class Action Complaint (“FAC”). Apple now demurs to each cause of action in the FAC for failure to state a claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) Plaintiffs oppose the demurrer in its entirety. As discussed below, the Court SUSTAINS the demurrer with 30 days' leave to amend. I. B...

Excerpt: ...ubject to the parties' agreement to amend the release to conform with Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521 (Amaro) and subject to its review of further information from Plaintiff. I. BACKGROUND Defendant is a Utah limited liability company that employed Plaintiff and other hourly workers performing manual labor in California. (First Amended Complaint (FAC), pp. 2–3.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant did not implement...

Excerpt: ...greements”). Before the Court is the Tributary Agencies' motion for monetary and evidence sanctions against City of San Jose for asserted disobedience of the Discovery Referee's May 17, 2021 Discovery Case Management Order No. 2 (“Order No. 2”). San Jose opposes the motion. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS the Tributary Agencies' motion in part and DENIES it in part. I. BACKGROUND The allegations of the Complaint are detailed in the Cou...

Excerpt: ...Director Defendants demur to the remaining claim alleged against them in the operative Second Amended Complaint (SAC): the third cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff opposes the demurrer. As discussed below, the Court OVERRULES the Director Defendants' demurrer. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual According to the operative complaint, Flora Bioscience is a Delaware corporation with its principal business office in Santa Clara County. (SAC...

Excerpt: ... seek monetary sanctions in connection with Plaintiffs' motion. As discussed below, the Court largely GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion but DENIES the parties' requests for monetary sanctions. I. BACKGROUND The factual and procedural background to this action are detailed in the Court's order on Defendants' demurrer to/motion to strike the Third Amended Complaint, and are not repeated here. Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on August 16, 2021, to be he...

Excerpt: ... a settlement, and Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval in August 2021. The Court denied this motion due to concerns over the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) portion of the settlement and the definition of the class period, but invited the parties to meet and confer about possible modifications to the settlement to address those issues. The parties met and conferred accordingly and agreed to amend the settlement to remove the FLSA component....

Excerpt: ...ysis of the settlement and settlement class are set forth in that order. Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the settlement and for approval of her attorney fees, costs, and service award. The motion is unopposed. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS final approval. I. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SETTLEMENT APPROVAL Generally, “questions whether a [class action] settlement was fair and reasonable, whether notice to the class was...

Excerpt: ... complaint (“3AC”) by Defendants ZZ Noodles, Inc., Green Earth Food, and Steve Kim (“Moving Defendants”) and Defendants' motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs' 3AC. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Allegations Plaintiffs allege that they were non‐exempt employees of Defendants and Defendants failed to pay them for all hours worked, failed to pay a legal minimum wage, failed to provide them with accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to...

Excerpt: ...ious ways through their operation of the YouTube video‐sharing platform. In a June 2021 order (“June Order”), the Court sustained Defendants' demurrer to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on the basis that its claims were all barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (the “CDA”).9 But the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs then moved to lift the initial discovery stay in this case, ur...

Excerpt: ... alleges that Mr. Forrester and a coconspirator, Jon Billow, perpetuated various schemes to benefit themselves and another company controlled by Mr. Billow, Peak Hosting, at SnapRoute's expense. Before the Court is Defendants' demurrer to each cause of action in the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC), as well as Mr. Forrester's demurrer to each cause of action in the Cross‐Complaint. As discussed below, the Court OVERRULES Defendants' demu...

Excerpt: ...om accessing personal property (mostly sports memorabilia) he kept at the business that he asserts was worth $30,000 at the time. Plaintiff sued Defendant (Baker v. Baker, case no. 16CV298904) over the termination and that case eventually went into arbitration to resolve the dispute. Plaintiff alleges that from January 2016 to August 2017 he did not demand the return of his personal property because he (incorrectly) believed it would be part of t...

Excerpt: ... of the settlement and settlement class are set forth in that order. Before the Court are Plaintiff's motions for final approval of the settlement and for approval of her attorney fees, costs, and service award. The motions are unopposed. As discussed below, the Court is inclined to grant both motions, subject to the parties' agreement to amend the release to conform with Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521 (Amaro). I...