Excerpt: ... an additional filing fee and bring proof of payment to court on the day of hearing and 2) provide a declaration on the day of the hearing show that it has satisfied the requirement of CCP § 2025.450(b)(2). If either of the conditions are not met, the hearing on this Motion will be continued. Background On June 4, 2015, Plaintiff Mario Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed this breach-of-warranty action against the seller of his vehicle (VIN 1HD4LE233F...

Excerpt: ... December 6, 2017. This motion was filed on December 21, 2017 and seeks attorneys' fees in the amount of $7,035.89 and $1008.61 in costs per its filed memorandum of costs. A motion for attorneys' fees must be filed and served within the time for filing a notice of appeal under California Rules of Court Rule 8.822. Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1702(b). Court Rule 8.822 states that an attorneys' fees motion must be filed within either (1) 30 days aft...

Excerpt: ...e was posted on the website www.ripoffreport.com, which is operated by Defendant Xcentric Ventures, LLC, and is available via search engines operated by Defendant Google, Inc. On July 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to have the article taken down. On August 17, 2017, the Court denied the motion, on the ground no proof of service demonstrates whether either the motion for preliminary injunction or the under...

Excerpt: ...ED. Background On August 9, 2017, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Sky High Investments Company, LLC (“Sky High”) filed the instant action against Defendant/Cross-Complainant Antonio Perez (“Cross-Complainant”). Sky High alleged in its complaint that Cross-Complainant Perez agreed to lease the property located at 931 E. Pico Blvd., Unit #117, and pay rent at $2,800 a month from February 1, 2017 until January 31, 2018. Sky High alleges that on or...

Excerpt: ...ED. Background On August 9, 2017, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Sky High Investments Company, LLC (“Sky High”) filed the instant action against Defendant/Cross-Complainant Daniel Aragon (“Cross-Complainant”). Sky High alleged in its complaint that Cross-Complainant Aragon agreed to lease the property located at 931 E. Pico Blvd., Unit #117, and pay rent at $2,800 a month from February 1, 2017 until January 31, 2018. Sky High alleges that on o...

Excerpt: ...ntrusted to the California State Controller's Office. In 2014, Plaintiff alleges that she discovered that Farmer's money had been fraudulently obtained by Thomas and Dustin Rodine (“the Rodines”). Plaintiff alleges that the Rodines were convicted of fraud in May 2010, and ordered to pay restitution. Plaintiff alleges that the Attorney General received the restitution, and Farmer received nothing. Plaintiff alleges that the money was delivered...

Excerpt: ...ered in a motor vehicle accident. On January 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). On April 3, 2017, Defendants filed motions to compel production, interrogatories, and deposition. On August 9, 2017, the Court granted Defendants' motions to compel responses and attendance at deposition. On September 29, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for reclassification. Defendants filed an opposition on December 21, 2017. De...

Excerpt: ...fendant to perform certain construction at the real property located at 433 E. Lanzit Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90061. Further, Plaintiff alleges that based on Defendant Khalil's representations, it did a limited portion of the work while Kahlil paid the deposit, and upon completion of this initial work submitted an invoice to Defendants in the amount of $19,273.13. Plaintiff filed the instant action to collect this amount due under the contract. D...

Excerpt: ...a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) “[A] penalty as severe as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with discovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.” (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.) Purs...

Excerpt: ...ontinuance must be considered on its own merits. (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted: (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance of trial due to any party; (3) the length of the continuance requested...

Excerpt: ...on as it was improperly filed. On March 1, 2017, Plaintiff American Technologies, Inc. (“ATI” or “Plaintiff”) filed this <0026004400550052004f00 002700440051004c0048[ls (“Mrs. Daniels”) and Bleaker Daniels (“Mr. Daniels”) (collectively, “Defendants”), who are wife and husband. On May 24, 2017, default was entered against Mrs. Daniels; and on June 7, 2017, default was entered against Mr. Daniels. No default judgment has been en...

Excerpt: ...ective economic advantage, and (5) conversion. This action arose from an alleged unpaid attorney's fee from another case. Plaintiff represented a Ronald Sarrow (“Sarrow”), a third party, in a vehicle collision action against Defendant in small claim court, and the representation was based on a contingency fee Retainer Agreement. Plaintiff assisted Sarrow in obtaining a judgment in his favor in the amount of $4,065 against Defendant, who was r...

Excerpt: ...ndsen is ordered to file and serve a supplemental briefing by December 11, 2017 explaining why the demurrer should not be placed off-calendar as moot in light of his dismissal. The Court also ordered that Gulbrandsen must meet and confer with Ganoung to resolve objections raised by demurrer pursuant to CCP §430.41 no later than December 11, 2017. On November 29, 2017, Gulbrandsen filed the Declaration of Robin F. Genchel Re: Meet and Confer Prio...

Excerpt: ... other pleadings. It raises issues of law, not fact, regarding the form or content of the opposing party's pleading. It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint; and for purpose of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be true . . . however improbable they may be. A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack, ...

Excerpt: ...e Company's Demurrer to the Third cause of action of the First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED. Defendant Century-National Insurance Company's Motion to Strike Punitive Damages in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is moot in light of the Court's ruling on Defendants' Demurrer. This motion is therefore not decided. Demurrer Initially, the Court notes that special demurrers are not allowed in limited jurisdiction courts. (Code Civ. Proc. § 92(c)....

Excerpt: ... that “[t]he court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.” Rule 3.1324 of the California Rules of Court sets out a number of requirements for amended pleadings. These requirements will be examined in turn. Rule 3.1324(a) requi...

Excerpt: ...ro.Before Trial (2008) Chap. 6-- Pleadings, 6:637.) The policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. . . .” (Id. at 6:639 (emphasis added).) “Although courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial [citations], this pol...

Excerpt: ... for trial on June 8, 2017. On June 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed an unconditional notice of settlement of the entire action. When the matter was called for trial on June 8, 2017, the court dismissed the action due to Plaintiff's failure to appear pursuant to CCP section 581(b)(3). Plaintiff moves to set aside the June 8, 2017 dismissal and to enter judgment pursuant to the parties' stipulated settlement. At the initial hearing on October 25, 2017, th...

Excerpt: ...dant, and compels them to appear in court. (Mannesmann <0024005300530011001600 00140014001500150011>) A defendant is under no duty to respond in any way to a defectively served summons. (Kappel v. Barlett (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1457, 1466; Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808.) It makes no difference that defendant had actual knowledge of the action, as such knowledge does not dispense with the statutory requirements for service...

Excerpt: ... and compels them to appear in court. (Mannesmann <0024005300530011001600 00140014001500150011>) A defendant is under no duty to respond in any way to a defectively served summons. (Kappel v. Barlett (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1457, 1466; Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808.) It makes no difference that defendant had actual knowledge of the action, as such knowledge does not dispense with the statutory requirements for service of s...

Excerpt: ...iff now moves to set aside the July 5, 2017 dismissal pursuant to CCP section 473, subdivision (b), based on the mistake of her attorney in failing to appear. Whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney's sworn affidavit of fault attesting to his/her mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect, the court shall vacate a resulting default, default ju...

Excerpt: ...f. Cross-Defendant filed the instant Motion on November 8, 2017. On December 18, 2017, the Honorable Elaine Lu of this Court continued this matter to allow Cross-Defendant to respond to the arguments raised in Cross-Complainant's untimely opposition. The Court ordered Cross-Complainant to re-serve its opposition on Cross-Defendant and file proof of service of such by December 21, 2017. The Court also ordered Cross-Defendant to file and serve any ...

Excerpt: ...Response Pursuant to Court's December 21, 2017 Order and to Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider, filed on January 5, 2018, it contends that the individual defendants were not served with this motion. The individual defendants have never appeared in this action and counsel for the City of Los Angeles has advised the court that it cannot accept service of the summons and complaint in this case on behalf of any of the individual defendants. However, co...

Excerpt: ... with discovery rules. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) Defendant Lincoln Transportation has not shown that any of these factors is present here. Plaintiff, however, is ordered to serve verified responses to the interrogatories and request for production of documents, without objections, within 20 days. The Court finds Plaintiff's failure to respond a misuse of the discovery process. (CCP § 2023.010(d).) Sanctions have ...

Excerpt: ...owed only on the ground that the damages or relief sought are not supported by the allegations in the complaint. CCP § 92(d). An anti-SLAPP motion pursuant to CCP § 425.16 is defined as a special motion to strike and seeks to strike the entire cause of action. For that reason, it exceeds what § 92(d) permits and thus is barred in limited civil cases. The text of § 92(d) alone thus requires the Court to deny the instant motion. Further, this r...