Excerpt: ...ation in compliance with the meet and confer requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. Plaintiff shall file an opposition no later than 11/9/22, Defendant Page 3 of 4 shall file a reply, if any, no later than 11/16/22. If the parties agree to the filing of a third amended complaint in lieu of a hearing on defendant's demurrer to the second amended complaint, defendant shall notify the court promptly. The motion is captioned as a mot...

Excerpt: ...inee's bodily and mental privacy and other constitutional rights. (Reuter v. Superior Court (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 332, 343.) “Good cause” requires that the party produce specific facts justifying discovery and that the inquiry be relevant to the subject matter of the action or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840.) Notably, if the plaintiff stipulates that no...

Excerpt: ...that case. (See also Towner v. County of Ventura (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 761.) The litigation privilege bars plaintiff's cause of action for defamation. Plaintiff's invocation of Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b)(5), has not shown that that the reports were “false,” or that defendants made them “with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the report.” The requests for judicial notice are denied as irrelevant. (See, e.g., Mangin...

Excerpt: ...s.” (Dunzweiler v. Superior Court (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 569, 576.) While courts will occasionally deny leave to amend when the motion is brought on the eve of trial (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486; Nelson v. Specialty Records, Inc. (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 126, 139‐140), “it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.” (Kittredge Sports...

Excerpt: ...18, 19, and award sanctions in the reduced amount of $720. Where responses to document requests have been timely filed but are deemed deficient by the requesting party (e.g., the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the Page 3 of 4 response is without merit or too general), that party may file a motion to compel further responses. (CCP § 2031.310.) The motion must be accompanied by a declaration showing a “reasona...

Excerpt: ...ty's option to produce writings; or (3) an objection to the particular interrogatory. (Id. at §§ 2030.210(a)(1)–(3).) There is no requirement that a party moving to compel further interrogatory responses must show good cause. Plaintiff moves to compel GM to provide further responses to his first set of FROG No. 12.1, which asked: State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual: (a) who witnesses the INCIDENT or the events occ...

Excerpt: .... 5, 10, 14 and 23. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Pursuant to CCP § 2031.010, a party may demand that any other party produce and inspect a document that is in the possession of another party. The responding party must respond to each request by either a statement that the party will comply, a representation that the party is unable to comply or an objection. (CCP §§ 2031.210(a)(1)–(3).) A moving party must establish good cause justify...

Excerpt: ...ending that may render the arbitration unnecessary or create conflicting rulings on common issues. (CCP § 1281.2.) “There is a strong public policy in favor of arbitration agreements.” (Blake v. Ecker (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 728, 741.) “California law incorporates many of the basic policy objectives contained in the Federal Arbitration Act [(FAA)], including a presumption in favor of arbitrability and a requirement that an arbitration agreem...

Excerpt: ...e liable for common law theories of general negligence. (Miklosy v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876, 899.) Therefore, liability against a public entity must be authorized by statute. (Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1175, 1179.) Plaintiff's FAC alleges Gov. Code § 815.2(a) and 820(a). Section 815.2 states: “A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employ...

Excerpt: ... to 31 (subject to protective order), 33 (subject to protective order), 37, 40, 43, 57 (subject to protective order) and 58 (subject to protective order); DENIED as to Nos. 9, 13, 17, 48, 51–55. As to RFP Nos. 31, 33, 57, and 58, the parties are ordered to prepare a proposed protective order; or GM can file a motion for protective order to ensure that its documents are appropriately protected. Any party may obtain discovery by propounding to an...

Excerpt: ...disclosed on the face of the pleading or by matters that can be judicially noticed. (Cloud v. Northrop Gruman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.) All facts alleged in the complaint are deemed admitted and the complaint is given a reasonable interpretation. (Lance Camper Manufacturing Corp. v. Republic Indemnity Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 194, 198.) A motion for judgment on the pleadings by a defendant may be made on the grounds either that the ...

Excerpt: ...tion of the plaintiff,” provided the examination does not include any diagnostic test or procedure that is painful, protracted, or intrusive. Such a demand may be made without leave of court once the defendant has been served or has appeared in the action. “In any case in which a plaintiff is seeking recovery for personal injuries, any defendant may demand one physical examination of the plaintiff, provided the examination does not include an...

Excerpt: ...e of action. (CCP § 430.10(e).) In evaluating a demurrer, the court gives the pleading a reasonable interpretation by reading it as a whole and all of its parts in their context. (Moore v. Regents of University of California (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120, 125.) The court assumes the truth of all material facts which have been properly pleaded, of facts which may be inferred from those expressly pleaded, and of any material facts of which judicial notice ...

Excerpt: ....C.P. §§426.50; 428.50). With exceptions (such as restraining orders) not applicable here, a minor can only appear in court through a guardian ad litem. (C.C.P. §372.) And the guardian ad litem must act through an attorney; the guardian (and, needless to say, the minor) cannot appear in propria persona. (J.W. v. Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 958, 965‐967.) This is because “[w]hile the guardian ad litem has the power to assent to pro...

Excerpt: ...ntially complied with the flexible, informal rules established by the District's Governance Manual and the agenda for the December 1, 2020 general meeting provided sufficient information to allow the public a fair chance to participate. As such, there was no Brown Act violation. Based on this evidence. the District's actions on December 29, 2020 and April 16, 2021 were arbitrary and capricious. WRIT OF MANDATE: A proceeding for the issuance of a ...

Excerpt: ...strike, it is denied. The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to CCP § 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading, or strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule or an order of the court. (CCP § 436.) A motion to strike is also the proper vehicle to attack a punitiv...

Excerpt: ...djudication as to: (1) first cause of action for breach of express warranty against Walters on the ground that the subject vehicle was never presented for repairs during Walters' warranty period failing the presentment requirement of the Song‐Beverly Act; (2) second cause of action for breach of implied warranty against MBUSA on the ground that MBUSA did not act as a distributor of the subject vehicle as a used good under Civ. Code § 1795.5; a...

Excerpt: ... the pleading a reasonable interpretation by reading it as a whole and all of its parts in their context. (Moore v. Regents of University of California (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120, 125.) The court assumes the truth of all material facts which have been properly pleaded, of facts which may be inferred from those expressly pleaded, and of any material facts of which judicial notice has been requested and may be taken. (Crowley v. Katleman (1994) 8 Cal.4th...

Excerpt: ...$0 Expert Witness Fees $11,117.49 $1,137.14 Other: Attorney Service/Messenger Fees $0 $994.67 Court Call $124.00 Appearance Attorney $0 $65.00 Mediation Costs $0 $117.19 TOTAL $16,449.04 $2,314.00 KA brings this motion pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court (“CRC”), Rule 3.1700, which provides that a prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of the mailing of the entry of judgment . . ....

Excerpt: ...unction as a general demurrer, but is made after the time to file a demurrer has expired. C.C.P. §438(c). Lack of jurisdiction and the failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action are the only two grounds under which a motion for judgment on the pleadings may be brought. C.C.P. §438(c). Like a demurrer, the grounds for a motion for judgment on the pleadings “must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or be based o...

Excerpt: ...nder attack, or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable (Blank vs. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) In evaluating a complaint under the general demurrer standards, if there is any valid cause of action stated, even if not the one intended, the complaint is sufficient. (Saunders v. Cariss (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 905, 908.) The sufficiency of the cause of action is tested by presuming all of the material factual allegations...

Excerpt: ...otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense ...

Excerpt: ...ti‐SLAPP context, “good cause” for conducting discovery requires a showing that the specific discovery is necessary for the plaintiff to oppose the anti‐SLAPP motion and is tailored to that end. (Balla v. Hall (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 652, 692; Murray, 55 Cal.App.5th 10, 37.) “The statute's truncated time frame for anti‐SLAPP filings and hearings [Citation]; its provision for a stay of all discovery proceedings [Citation]; and its allowa...

Excerpt: ...1.) The Court is to consider the issues raised, determine the relevancy of the “evidence” sought, and whether production would be an invasion of privacy. (Southern Pacific Co. v. Superior Court (1940) 15 Cal.2d 206, 209.) The documents sought from First American are as follows: No. 1: Any and all DOCUMENTS, WRITINGS and COMMUNICATIONS between FIRST AMERICAN and EMPIRE WATER with regard to the 1917 DEED (Exhibit “I”) at any time. No. 2: Al...

Excerpt: ...has expired. (CCP § 438(e)(2); Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999, citing Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 1998) §§ 7:275 & 7:322.) A motion for judgment on the pleadings “attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleading or by matters that can be judicially noticed” and “[p]resentation of extrinsic evidence is therefore not proper on a motion for judgm...