Excerpt: ...LM”) (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of a dispute concerning the foreclosure sales of two real properties (collectively, the “Properties”). The operative second amended complaint (the “SAC”) alleges: (1) set aside trustee sale; (2) cancellation and rescission of instruments; (3) quiet title; (4) wrongfu...

Excerpt: ...millo (“Jaramillo”) The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. Plaintiff's supplemental Request for Judicial Notice is DENIED. EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS Plaintiff's evidentiary objections are OVERRULED. BACKGROUND Plaintiff's complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges violations of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act (the “Bane Act”). On August 10, ...

Excerpt: ... (“CPS”) The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of an employment relationship. The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges: (1) Private Attorneys General Act; (2) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Labor Code section 510; (3) failure to reimburse and indemnify for expenditures; (4) failure to provide meal and rest periods or compensation in lie...

Excerpt: ...olloway”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed. Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b). BACKGROUND The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges ten causes of action arising out of an employ...

Excerpt: ...position and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises from the lease of an allegedly defective vehicle (the “Vehicle”) which was manufactured by Moving Defendant. Plaintiff's complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of express warranty; (2) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of implied warranty; (3) violation of Song-Beverly Act – Section 1793.2; and (4) negligent repair. In relevant par...

Excerpt: ...ired to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b). BACKGROUND Plaintiff's complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges two causes of action for breach of contract. On August 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement indicating that Plaintiff and Defendant had entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) to reso...

Excerpt: ...d Seung Jae Baek (“Baek”) (collectively, “Defendants”) The Court has considered the moving and opposition papers. No reply papers were filed. Any reply papers were required to have been filed and served at least five court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b). BACKGROUND The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges 24 causes of action arising ...

Excerpt: ...g, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of an employment relationship. The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges: (1) common law and statutory fraud and deceit; (2) promissory estoppel; and (3) negligent misrepresentation In relevant part, the FAC alleges: Moving Defendant's vice president of construction, Sam Sapp (“Sapp”) began recruiting Plaintiff for a project manager position on or ...

Excerpt: ...ng Defendants”) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs' complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) defamation per se; (2) defamation per quod; and (3) violation of California Business & Professions Code section 17200. In relevant part, the Complaint alleges: Plaintiffs and Moving Defendants operate competing cannabis businesses. (See Complaint ¶ 24.) Moving Defenda...

Excerpt: ... has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action, which arises out of an employment relationship, was initiated on July 15, 2022. The currently operative second amended complaint (the “SAC”) alleges: (1) workplace disparate treatment; (2) hostile work harassment; (3) retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (4) failure to prevent FEHA discrimination; (5) whistle blower retaliation; (6)...

Excerpt: ...pers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of the purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle (the “Vehicle”) that was manufactured by Defendant. The complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges four causes of action for violations of the Song-Beverly Act. On June 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to the Requests for Production (“RFPs”), Set 1 that were served on Defendant (the “Motion”). DISCUSSION Meet and Confer ...

Excerpt: ..., D.O. (collectively, “Defendants”) The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of an employment relationship. The currently operative second amended complaint (the “SAC”), alleges: (1) invasion of privacy; (2) sexual battery; (3) negligent hiring and retention; and (4) premises liability. On July 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint (the “...

Excerpt: ... to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b). BACKGROUND Plaintiff's complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges two causes of action for breach of contract. On August 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement indicating that Plaintiff and Defendant had entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) to resolve ...

Excerpt: ...ani, VIP Tours of California, Inc., and LAX Cafe & Convenience Store, Inc. (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) RESPONDING PARTIES: (1) Defendant LRW Investment Company (“LRW”); (2) lien claimant Michael Luparello (“Luparello”) The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.[1] REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Moving Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. BACKGROUND On April 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complai...

Excerpt: ...NG PARTY: Plaintiff The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud and deceit – intentional misrepresentation; (3) fraud and deceit – negligent misrepresentation; (4) fraud and deceit – promise made without intention to perform; (5) cancellation of instrument; and (6) declaratory relief. In relevant part, ...

Excerpt: ...his action arises out of a dispute over the abatement of a public nuisance on real property owned by Plaintiff. The currently operative second amended complaint (the “SAC”) alleges: (1) declaratory relief; (2) breach of contract – Development Agreement; (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing – Development Agreement; (4) breach of contract – Settlement Agreement; (5) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fai...

Excerpt: ... (collectively, the B&K Defendants”); and (2) Defendants Soon Han Pak, Chung Hyuk Pak, and 3855 Wilshire Blvd Property, LLC (collectively, the “3855 Wilshire Defendants”) [1] RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of a sublease arrangement. The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges: (1) breach of oral agreement; (2) breach ...

Excerpt: ... has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of a dispute over the assessment of a municipal tax. Plaintiffs' complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges a claim for refund of illegally assessed taxes paid/damages. In relevant part, the Complaint alleges: In 2017, City voters approved “Measure C,” a tax proposal that imposes a business tax on businesses that operate oil refineries or facilities that s...

Excerpt: ...rties, Inc.; Pama Management, Inc.; Golden Management Services Inc.; Swaranjit S. Nijjar; and Daljit K. Kler (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff The Court has reviewed the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of an alleged public nuisance caused by gang-related activity at an apartment complex located in North Hollywood. On July 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed the currently operative fir...

Excerpt: ...PFI”) and Wander and Ponder, LLC (“WPL”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action was initiated by Plaintiffs on April 2, 2021 and arises out of a business relationship. The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges: (1 ) breach of contract; (2) fraud by misrepresentation; (3) fraud in the inducement; (4) negligent misrepresentation; (...

Excerpt: ...dered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of an employment relationship. The currently operative second amended complaint (the “SAC”) alleges: (1) discrimination; (2) harassment; (3) retaliation; (4) failure to prevent retaliation/harassment/discrimination; (5) violation of the Family Medical Leave Act; (6) failure to accommodate; and (7) failure to engage in good faith interactive process. In relevant p...

Excerpt: ... have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b). BACKGROUND Plaintiff's complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) fraudulent concealment; (2) fraud; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; and (5) accounting. On March 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed a stipulation (the “Stipulation”) providing that Plaintiff and Defenda...

Excerpt: ... moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of an employment relationship. On February 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) alleging: (1) sexual harassment; (2) failure to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment; (3) retaliation; (4) wrongful termination; (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (6) failure to pay overtime wages; (7) failure to pay minimum wages; (8) failure to...

Excerpt: ...ng, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of the lease of an allegedly defective 2021 Chevrolet Bolt EV (the “Vehicle”) which was manufactured by Moving Defendant. Plaintiff's complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) fraud (concealment and misrepresentation); (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) business & Professions Code section 17200; (4) breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Act; (5) breach of impl...

Excerpt: ...to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b). BACKGROUND This action arises out of an attorney/client relationship. Plaintiff's complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) professional negligence/legal malpractice. On February 1, 2023, Moving Defendant filed: (1) a motion to compel further responses to Requests for Admissions, Se...

Excerpt: ...Paul Humenik (“Humenik”) The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of a dispute concerning the purchase of real property (the “Property”). Goodlaw's complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) breach of contract; (2) violation of Civil Code section 2943; (3) quiet title to real property; (4) injunctive relief; (5) specific performance; (6) conversion; (7) trespass to chattels; (8)...

Excerpt: ...”) The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed. Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005 subdivision (b). BACKGROUND This action arises out of alleged damage to Plaintiff's condominium unit caused by a neighboring unit located in a common interest community for which Moving Defend...

Excerpt: ...moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND On June 20, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) alleging: (1) defamation per se; (2) defamation per quod; and (3) violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200. On July 17, 2023, Moving Defendant filed a motion to disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel (the “Motion”). The Motion argues that Plaintiffs' counsel, Venable LLP (“Venable”) should be disqualified...

Excerpt: ...dant”)[1] RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship. On February 17, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) alleging: (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (2) breach of statutory warranty of habitability; (3) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (4) negligence; (5) violation of Civil Code se...

Excerpt: ...file a second amended complaint (the “SAC Motion”) filed by Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Matthew Mark (“Mark”); and (2) a motion for trial preference (the “Trial Motion”) filed by Defendant/Cross-Complainant Betty Sue Weitkamp (“Weitkamp”). MOVING PARTIES: (1) Mark; (2) Weitkamp RESPONDING PARTIES: (1) Weitkamp; (2) Mark BACKGROUND This action arises out of a dispute over the use of neighboring properties located in Malibu. Mark's cu...

Excerpt: ...ed the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND Plaintiff's first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges ten causes of action arising from a landlord/tenant relationship. On May 5, 2023, the Court issued an order continuing the trial start date from June 19, 2023 to November 27, 2023. The Court's May 5, 2023 order specified that discovery cut-off dates would not be extended to correspond with the new trial date. On July 11, 2023, Moving...

Excerpt: ...ving Defendant”) The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of an employment relationship. The currently operative second amended complaint (the “SAC”) alleges: (1) discrimination; (2) harassment; (3) retaliation; (4) failure to prevent, investigate and remedy harassment and discrimination; (5) whistleblower retaliation; and (6) reprisal/retaliation. On July 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed ...

Excerpt: ...CKGROUND This action arises out of the purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle that was manufactured by Defendant. The operative second amended complaint (the “SAC”) alleges: (1) violations of the Song-Beverly Act; (2) violations of the Magnuson-Moss Act; (3) violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (4) violations of the unfair competition law; (5) violations of Vehicle Code sections 11713 and 11713.18; and (6) bond liability.[1] On...

Excerpt: ...s considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND On January 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) alleging: (1) legal malpractice; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; and (3) breach of contract. On January 29, 2019, the Court granted Defendants' motion to compel arbitration on the grounds that the parties had entered into a binding arbitration agreement (the “Agreement”) and stayed the action pending the conclu...

Excerpt: ...t has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of an employment relationship. Plaintiff's complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) discrimination; (2) failure to prevent discrimination; (3) failure to engage in a timely good faith interactive process; (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodation; (5) retaliation; (6) harassment; and (7) failure to prevent harassment. In relevant part, the Compla...

Excerpt: ...s”) (collectively, “Defendants”) The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.[1] BACKGROUND Plaintiff's complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges violations of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act (the “Bane Act”). In relevant part, the Complaint alleges that Defendants have mistreated Plaintiff, who is an elected official serving on the governing board of CBMWD, in numerous ways, including by preventing her from speaking du...

Excerpt: ...BACKGROUND This action arises out of an attorney/client relationship. Plaintiff's complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) breach of written contract; and (2) common count – services rendered. On June 20, 2023, Defendant filed an answer (the “Answer”) to the Complaint that asserts 19 affirmative defenses. On June 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a demurrer (the “Demurrer”) to the Answer on the grounds that the Answer fails to state suffici...

Excerpt: ...opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b). BACKGROUND The currently operative third amended complaint (the “TAC”) alleges nine causes of action arising out of an employment relationship. On July 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of Private Attorneys General Act (“PA...

Excerpt: ...s”) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges 10 causes of action arising out of an employment relationship. On December 28, 2022, the Court granted Moving Defendants five days leave to file a cross-complaint (the “XC”). Moving Defendants filed the XC on April 12, 2023, and filed a first amended cross compla...

Excerpt: ...o strike/tax costs (the “Costs Motion”) filed by Defendant Mercedes- Benz USA, LLC (“Defendant”). MOVING PARTIES: (1) Plaintiff; (2) Defendant RESPONDING PARTIES: (1) Defendant; (2) Plaintiff The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. No reply papers were filed in connection with the Costs Motion. Any reply papers were required to have been filed and served at least five court days before the hearing under Californi...

Excerpt: ... PARTY: Plaintiff The Court has considered the moving and opposition papers. No reply papers were filed. Any reply papers were required to have been filed and served at least five court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b). BACKGROUND This action arises out of an employment relationship. Plaintiff's complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) civil penalties under the Private ...

Excerpt: ...apers were filed. Any reply papers were required to have been filed and served at least five court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b). BACKGROUND This action arises out of the purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle (the “Vehicle”) manufactured by Defendant. Plaintiff's complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the...

Excerpt: ...osition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b). BACKGROUND This action arises out of an employment relationship. On October 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) individually and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees asserting a cause of action for civil penalties pursuant to t...

Excerpt: ...diocese of Los Angeles Education and Welfare Corporation (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed. Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b). BACKGROUND The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges...

Excerpt: ...led. Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b). BACKGROUND The currently operative second amended complaint (the “SAC”) alleges seven causes of action arising out of an employment relationship. On May 19, 2023 Moving Defendant filed four motions to compel Plaintiff's responses to discovery prop...

Excerpt: ...ving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND The currently operative second amended complaint (the “SAC”) alleges defamation per se. In relevant part, the SAC alleges: Plaintiff purchased property (the “Property”) in 2007 that he planned to rehabilitate and improve. (SAC ¶ 15.) In 2008, Moving Defendant, a Deputy District Attorney, filed a six- count criminal complaint against Plaintiff alleging land use violations. (SAC ¶ 22.) Years l...

Excerpt: ...ely, “Moving Defendants”) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND On May 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint (the “TAC”) alleging: (1) invasion of privacy; (2) sexual battery; (3) negligent hiring and retention; and (4) premises liability. In relevant part, the TAC alleges: on or around January 11, 2022, Plaintiff applied to work at Michelson Laboratories, Inc...

Excerpt: ...el B. Schwab, Big Sky Venture Capital III, LLC, and Big Sky Real Estate, LLC (“collectively, “Cross-Complainants”) The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of a business relationship. Cross-Complainants' cross-complaint (the “CX”) alleges: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of contract; (4) fraud; (5) fraud; (6) breach of fiduciary duty; (7) accounting; (...

Excerpt: ...”), Uriel Juarez, and Grejur CO LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) [1] The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND Plaintiff's complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges 22 causes of action arising out of an employment relationship. On December 12, 2022, Defendants filed a cross-complaint (the “XC”) alleging” battery; and (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress. In relevant part, the XC alleges: be...

Excerpt: ...rs. BACKGROUND This action arises out of the purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle (the “Vehicle”) manufactured by Moving Defendant. On November 2, 2022, the Court entered a judgment (the “Judgment”) which provided that Defendants would pay Plaintiff $170,475.60 in restitution and other damages. The Judgment also provides for Plaintiff's return of the Vehicle to Defendants. On April 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Costs Aft...