Excerpt: ...aintiff Dirk Adams (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Kira Fiumi Gissell ("Kira").[1] Motion to Compel Deposition MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff RESPONDING PARTY: Kira Motion for Protective Order MOVING PARTY: Kira RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff The Court has considered the moving, opposition,[2] and reply papers. Kira did not file a reply for her motion for a protective order. BACKGROUND This is a tortious interference and conversion action. On August 3, 202...

Excerpt: ...ition and reply papers. [1] BACKGROUND Moving Defendant filed a motion for an order deeming the Requests for Admissions, Set One (the “RFAs”) it served on Plaintiff to be admitted (the “Motion”). The Motion also seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and counsel in the amount of $1,310. DISCUSSION Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2033.280, subdivision (a), where requests for admission are propounded on a pa...

Excerpt: ...a motion to disqualify counsel (the “DQ Motion”). MOVING PARTIES 1. Arbitration Motion: Defendant Herman Shamalta (“Shamalta”) 2. DQ Motion: Plaintiff Monica Barkley (“Plaintiff”) RESPONDING PARTIES: 1. Arbitration Motion: Plaintiff 2. DQ Motion: Shamalta The Court has reviewed the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This case arises out of an alleged breach of a partnership agreement (the “Agreement”) concerning real ...

Excerpt: ... Rene Engel The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of alleged wrongful conduct associated with a homeowner's insurance policy (the “Policy”) issued by Moving Defendant to Plaintiff. Plaintiff's complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (2) bad faith breach of the contractual duty to pay a covered claim; and (3) financial elde...

Excerpt: ... Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND On February 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed a representative action under the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees of Defendant. Plaintiff's complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) civil penalties under Labor Code section 210; (2) civil penalties under Labor Code section 226.3; (3) violation of Labor Code section 558; (4...

Excerpt: ...�Motion”) and a demurrer (the “Demurrer”). MOVING PARTIES: 1. Motion: Plaintiff 2. Demurrer: Defendants State of California (erroneously sued as Metropolitan State Hospital) (the “State”), Eunmee Lee and Maybel Manlagnit (“Defendants”) RESPONDING PARTIES: 1. Motion: Defendants 2. Demurrer: Plaintiff The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. [1] REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Moving Defendant's and Plaintiff's Re...

Excerpt: ...affic Corporation (“Southwest”) (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.[1] BACKGROUND On September 28, 2021, this Court granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave (the “Motion for Leave”) to file a third amended complaint (the “TAC”) that added the names of Moving Defendants, three previously unknown “Doe” defendants whose identities had been ascertained to the ...

Excerpt: ...and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of Plaintiff's tenancy at real property owned by Defendants (the “Property”). The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges: (1) nuisance; (2) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (3) unlawful influence of a tenant to vacate pursuant to Civil Code section 1940.2; (4) unlawful retaliation under Civil Code section 1942.5; (5) intentional infliction of emotional ...

Excerpt: ...RTY: Plaintiff Martha Gamez The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of the sale of an allegedly defective 2011 Ford Fusion vehicle (the “Vehicle”) and subsequent allegedly negligent repair efforts. Plaintiff filed the original complaint (the “Complaint”) on June 19, 2020. On October 27, 2021, this Court ruled on Moving Defendants' demurrer to Plaintiff's first amended complaint (...

Excerpt: ...ndants”) The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed this survivor action alleging misconduct in a nursing facility at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic that resulted in the death of Vincent Paul Martin (“Vincent Martin”). Plaintiffs filed a motion for trial preference (the “Motion”) requesting that the Court issue an order of trial preference that requires that the trial in this matte...

Excerpt: ... de Costa (“de Costa”) (collectively, “Defendants”) The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.[1] BACKGROUND This action arises out of an ongoing dispute concerning the trust of Harriet Schwartz (the “Trust”). In 2016, Plaintiff filed a petition against Norma Zuckerman (“Zuckerman”) and Martin Godin (“Godin”) seeking to invalidate a May 2015 Restatement of the Trust (the “2015 Restatement”) and alleg...

Excerpt: ...g Defendant”) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of alleged wrongful conduct that occurred during Plaintiffs' residential tenancy at a building located at 859 North Orange Drive, Los Angeles, California 90038 (the “Property”). The currently operative fourth amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges: (1) breach of contract; (2) negligence; (3) negli...

Excerpt: ...TY: Plaintiff The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of alleged wrongful conduct that occurred in connection with Plaintiff's lease of three vehicles: (1) a BMW SUV (the “BMW”); (2) a Kia sedan (the “Kia”); and (3) an Infinity SUV (the “Infinity”) (collectively, the “Vehicles”). The currently operative second amended complaint (the “SAC”) alleges: (1) intentional mis...

Excerpt: ...�Moving Defendants”) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Rooke Corp. The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This case arises out of the alleged breaches of two agreements between Plaintiff and Moving Defendants: (1) the Royalty and Option Agreement (the “ROA”); and (2) the Consulting Agreement. Plaintiff filed its original complaint (the “Complaint) on April 2, 2018. On April 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed its fir...

Excerpt: ...ly papers. [1] BACKGROUND On August 11, 2020, this Court issued an order that awarded Plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $560 against Defendants Kang, NIW and Rex Counselor, USA, Inc. On February 25, 2021, Plaintiff served Kang and NIW with judgment debtor interrogatories, set one. Because neither Kang nor NIW submitted responses to Plainitff's interrogatory requests, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to judgment debtor interrogatori...

Excerpt: ...ollectively, “Defendants”) The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of alleged wrongful conduct in connection to the purchase and sale of real property in which Plaintiff was the buyer and Defendants were the sellers. The currently operative second amended complaint (the “SAC”) alleges: (1) intentional misrepresentation; (2) fraudulent deceit; (3) constructive fraud; (4) negligent...

Excerpt: ... Plaintiff The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship. Plaintiff's complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) negligence; (2) premises liability; (3) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (4) maintenance of nuisance; and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Moving Defendants filed a demurrer (the “Demurrer”) to the fifth cause of ac...

Excerpt: ...position papers were filed. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed the two discovery motions: (1) a motion to compel Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's form interrogatories (set one) (the “Interrogatories Motion”) and for monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $3,064.25; and (2) a motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff's request for admissions (set one) (the “RFA Motion”) and for monetary sanctions against Defendant in the a...

Excerpt: ...ctively, “Plaintiffs”) RESPONDING PARTIES: Defendants Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”); Marat Grigorian and Armen Grigorian (the “Grigorians”) (collectively, “Defendants”)[1] The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs initiated this action on March 14, 2019 based on injuries they allegedly suffered in an automobile accident that occurred on February 19, 2018. On December 21, 2020, Plaintiffs filed t...

Excerpt: ...oving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action concerns the alleged wrongdoing of Defendant and her mother, Miki Cardone Gissell (“Gissell”). Gissell is currently undergoing divorce proceedings with Plaintiff.[1] The currently operative Complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) intentional interference with contractual relations; (2) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; (3) intentional infliction of emo...

Excerpt: ...oving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship and concerns the conditions of the property (the “Property”) rented by Plaintiffs from Defendants. Plaintiffs' complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) breach of warranty of habitability; (2) negligent maintenance of premises; (3) nuisance; (4) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress. ...

Excerpt: ...ed the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of the purchase of an allegedly defective 2018 Kia Optima vehicle (the “Vehicle”). The currently operative second amended complaint (the “SAC”) alleges various violations of the Song-Beverly Act and fraud by omission against Moving Defendant. The SAC alleges that on or about April 11, 2018, Plaintiff purchased the Vehicle from an unnamed seller. (SAC ¶ 9.) When...

Excerpt: ...“Defendants”) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Yun H. Liao The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. [1] BACKGROUND This case arises out of an employee/employer relationship. The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges causes of action for: (1) unpaid wages; (2) unpaid overtime; (3) waiting time penalties; (4) failure to provide required meal periods; (5) failure to provide required rest periods;...

Excerpt: ... sued as Kaiser Foundation Hospital – Woodland Hills) (“Moving Defendant”) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Jeremy Vitug The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. The Court notes that Plaintiff's opposition (the “Opposition”) to the demurrer (the “Demurrer”) was not timely filed. Plaintiff filed the Opposition on November 24, 2021. Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine cou...

Excerpt: ... opposition was filed. BACKGROUND This is a class and representative action arising out of alleged unlawful employment practices. Plaintiff filed this action on behalf of herself as an individual and all other aggrieved employees employed by Defendant Cha Hollywood Medical Center, L.P (“Defendant”). On July 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint (the “Complaint”) alleging causes of action based on Defendant's alleged failure t...

Excerpt: ...ales The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises under the Song-Beverly Act. Plaintiff's complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges various warranty breaches concerning an allegedly defective 2013 Hyundai Genesis (the “Vehicle”) manufactured by Moving Defendant. Plaintiff purchased the Vehicle from a dealer (the “Dealer”), who is not a party to this action. When Plaintiff purchased the Vehi...

Excerpt: ...am Chang (the “Chang Motion”); and (2) Defendant GJY Property Investment, LC (the “GJY Motion”) (collectively, “Moving Defendants”). MOVING PARTIES: Keum Nam Chang (“Chang”) and GJY Property Investment, LC (“GJY”) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Erik Kitter (“Kitter”) and Nicholas Hartstein (“Hartstein”) (Collectively, “Plaintiffs”) The Court has considered the moving and opposition papers. [1] No reply papers were fi...

Excerpt: ...2021, this Court entered judgment against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant. On May 25, 2021, Defendant filed a Memorandum of Costs (the “MOC”) breaking down the fees and costs it seeks to recover from Plaintiff. The MOC claims total costs of $22,224.12. Of the total amount sought, $3,415.00 are sought in connection with expert witness fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 998. Plaintiff filed a Motion to T...

Excerpt: ...ire”) RESPONDING PARTY: Cross-Complainant/Judgment Debtor Kusum Mehta (“Mehta”) The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND On November 6, 2020, this Court entered judgment (the “Judgment”) in favor of Devonshire and against Mehta and Cross-Complainant John Gupta (“Gupta”). On October 14, 2021, Devonshire filed a motion pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) sections 708.310-708.3...

Excerpt: ... and Benjamin Landa (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Emma Martin (“Ms. Martin”), Elizabeth Gagliano and Kathryn Sessinghaus (“Sessinghaus”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed this survivor action alleging misconduct in a nursing facility at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic that resulted in the death of Vincent...

Excerpt: ...lectively, “Moving Defendants”) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Lauren Flores The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of an employment relationship between Plaintiff and Moving Defendants. Plaintiff filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) alleging: (1) sexual harassment; (2) failure to prevent harassment; (3) retaliation; (4) wrongful constructive termination; (5) intentional infliction ...

Excerpt: ...ndants”) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of a dispute concerning real property located at 542-544 N. Orange Dr., Los Angeles, California 90036 (the “Property”). The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges: (1) tortious interference with contractual relations; (2) intentional interference with prospective economic adva...

Excerpt: ...an (collectively, “Defendants”) The Court has considered the supplemental brief and its opposition in addition to the moving, opposition and reply papers to Defendants' motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication (the “MSJ”). BACKGROUND This case arises out of alleged breaches of two agreements between Plaintiff and Defendants: (1) the Royalty and Option Agreement (the “ROA”); and (2) the Consulting Agreement (the “Consultin...

Excerpt: ... This action arises out of Plaintiff's former employment relationship with Defendants. The currently operative First Amended Complaint Plaintiff asserts 12 causes of action alleging various discrimination and harassment claims, wrongful termination and retaliation. On July 29, 2021, after conducting an Informal Discovery Conference (an “IDC”) with Plaintiff and Defendants (the “Parties”), this Court issued an order requiring Defendants to...

Excerpt: ...S: Plaintiffs Ara Kiupelian and Vardan Kiupelian On October 29, 2021, after considering the moving, opposition and reply papers, this Court continued the hearing on Defendants' Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs (the “Motion”) to provide Plaintiffs the opportunity to respond to evidence and legal arguments introduced in Defendants' reply brief (the “Reply”). The Court has now additionally considered Plaintiffs' sur- reply (the “SR”)...

Excerpt: ...ff Adam Hall Moving Defendant asserts that it was not served with Plaintiff's opposition papers. Moving Defendant has filed a Reply to the Opposition, which indicates that Plaintiff's opposition papers contain no substantive response to the moving papers. The Court exercises its discretion in considering the opposition as well as the moving and reply papers. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Moving Defendant's Requests for Judicial Notice are granted. ...

Excerpt: ...action arises out of a dispute relating to ownership and control of a bar in downtown Los Angeles named The Wolves (the “Bar”). This action is related to the case styled as Exposition Bar Group, LLC v. Daniel Salin, Case No. 20STCV33773. The currently operative third amended complaint (the “TAC”) alleges: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) intentional interference with prospective ec...

Excerpt: ...mon and Marion Solomon (“Moving Defendants”) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This case concerns a four-unit apartment building located at 336-338 North Ogden Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90036 (the “Property”). On March 2, 2019, a fire broke out at the Property and the premises were vacated. After the fire and while the Property remained vacant, Moving Defendants, the Pro...

Excerpt: ...Daniel Brocca (“Mr. Brocca”), Ida Brocca (“Mrs. Brocca") and Jerry Guzman (“Defendants”) The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action commenced in 2014 in the wake of a contract (the “Contract”) entered by Plaintiffs and Brocca Custom Finish Carpentry (“BCFC”), a sole proprietorship owned by Mr. Brocca, under which BCFC was to perform carpentry work, including building cabinets, at Pla...

Excerpt: ...ng Defendants”) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Jorge Guzman, Jr. The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. [1] BACKGROUND Plaintiff was injured on January 11, 2014 while working on a food truck. This case was brought pursuant to Labor Code section 3706 and was tried in two phases: the first phase determined whether an employer/employee relationship existed between Plaintiff and Moving Defendants and the second phase determi...

Excerpt: ...llectively, “Moving Defendants”) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Robert Munoz The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of a dispute over the ownership of real property located at 3822 Grand Avenue, Huntington Park, California 90255 (the “Property”). Plaintiff commenced this action against Moving Defendants, who are his sister, Mrs. Jimenez, and her husband Mr. Jimenez. The currently o...

Excerpt: ...e Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of an attorney-client relationship wherein Moving Defendants, as Plaintiff's attorneys, provided allegedly negligent representation. Plaintiff filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) on July 15, 2021, alleging professional negligence. The Complaint alleges that Moving Defendants filed a bankruptcy petition (the “Petition”) on Plaintiff's behalf a...

Excerpt: ...nd reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of the Song-Beverly Act and concerns an allegedly defective 2019 Kia Forte (the “Vehicle”), manufactured by Defendant, purchased by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs purchased the Vehicle from a dealer (the “Dealer”), who is not a party to the present lawsuit. When Plaintiffs purchased the Vehicle from the Dealer, they signed a sales contract containing an arbitration provision (the “Agreement”)...

Excerpt: ...efendants The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. This order concerns hearings on: (1) a motion for summary adjudication (the “MSA”); (2) an application for an order to show cause: re preliminary injunction (the “Application”). MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Plaintiff's MSA was not filed with the required period of notice and is therefore untimely. As required under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”)...

Excerpt: ...tion for leave to file a first amended complaint (the “Motion for Leave”) (Collectively, the “Motions”). MOVING PARTY: 1. Sanctions Motion: Defendant 2. Motion for Leave: Plaintiff RESPONDING PARTY: 1. Sanctions Motion: Plaintiff 2. Motion for Leave: Defendant The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.[1] BACKGROUND This action concerns the alleged wrongdoing of Defendant and her mother, Miki Cardone Gissell (“Ms....

Excerpt: ...ng, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of the acrimonious breakdown of the business relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant relating to ownership and control issues of a bar in downtown Los Angeles named The Wolves (the “Bar). This action (the “EBG Action”) is related to the case styled as Daniel Salin v. Exposition Bar Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 20STCV35819 (the “Salin Action”). On July 8, 2021, this ...

Excerpt: ... Bagby The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of the lease of an allegedly defective 2019 Honda Pilot vehicle (the “Vehicle”). (Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (“the FAC”) ¶ 8.) In relevant part, the FAC alleges that on or about December 29, 2018, Plaintiff leased the Vehicle from an unnamed dealership that is licensed by Moving Defendant to sell and lease the vehicles it m...

Excerpt: ...onsidered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of the sale of a 2017 Toyota Sienna (the “Vehicle”), manufactured by Moving Defendant, that Plaintiff purchased used from Defendant Sonic Harbor City H, Inc. (“Retailer”), a third- party retailer. (Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) ¶ 25.) The FAC alleges that when Moving Defendant originally sold the Vehicle, it provided an express limi...

Excerpt: ...SPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Everloving Home Health Inc. The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of a former employer/employee relationship. Plaintiff hired Moving Defendant to work as a registered nurse in 2018. (Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) ¶ 5.) The FAC alleges that Moving Defendant submitted inaccurate timecards during her employment. (FAC ¶ 12.) It also alleges...

Excerpt: ...Plaintiff Jeffery Kyler Anderson The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of injuries Plaintiff allegedly suffered after being exposed to mold in his residence located at 725 South Hindry Avenue Apartment 333, Inglewood, California 90301 (the “Property”). On August 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed the currently operative third amended complaint (the “TAC”) alleging causes of action for: (...

Excerpt: ... summary adjudication filed by Defendant Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) and a motion for trial setting preference filed by Plaintiffs Raffaello Santi (“Santi”) and Serena Cenni-Santi (“Cenni-Santi”) (Collectively, “Plaintiffs”) MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION MOVING PARTY: Lyft RESPONDING PARTIES: Plaintiffs MOTION FOR TRIAL SETTING PREFERENCE MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs RESPONDING PARTIES: Lyft The Court has considered the moving, opposition a...

Excerpt: ...“Plaintiffs”) 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 On December 22, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) common counts; (3) declaratory rel...

Excerpt: ...Ara Kiupelian and Vardan Kiupelian The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action commenced on June 19, 2019. Plaintiffs' second amended complaint (the “SAC”) alleged causes of action for: (1) fraud; and (2) negligence against Defendants. On August 5, 2020, this Court sustained Defendants' motion to strike and demurrer to the SAC without leave to amend on the grounds that Plaintiffs' claims are barred...

Excerpt: ...ng 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 section 1005, subdivision (b). BACKGROUND This action arises out of a dispute over reimbursement for allegedly unlawfully collected property taxes at a property owned by Plaintiff located in West Hollywood, California (the “Property”). On May 25,...

Excerpt: ...g Plaintiff's deposition filed by Defendants (“Defendants' Motion”); and (2) a motion for a protective order filed by Plaintiff (“Plaintiff's Motion”). MOVING PARTIES Defendants' Motion: Defendants County of Los Angeles, Sergeant Stacie M. Dobine (erroneously sued and served as Sergeant Dobine), Sergeant Joseph Esqueda (erroneously served and sued as Sergeant Esqueda), Andrew Faraimo (erroneously sued and served as Corrections Officer Fer...

Excerpt: ...�Szalavitz”) (Collectively, “Moving Cross-Defendants”) RESPONDING PARTY: Cross-Complainant Diane Fingado (“Cross-Complainant”) The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of a landlord/tenant/subtenant relationship. Moving Cross- Defendants filed the currently operative second amended complaint alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied warranty of habitability/tenanta...

Excerpt: ...led. Plaintiff R.D. (“Claimant”) and Petitioner, individually and as guardian ad litem for minor child Claimant, brought this action, alleging: (1) violations of Civil Code sections 51 and 52; (2) violations of Civil Code section 52.1; (3) negligence; (4) negligent hiring, supervision or retention; (5) violations of Government Code section 11135.6; (6) violations of Title II of the ADA; (7) Title III of the ADA; (8) assault; (9) battery; (10)...

Excerpt: ... BACKGROUND This action was filed on December 18, 2009. After Summary Judgment followed by a reversal by the Court of Appeal, the case was tried before the Court and Judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant on all three causes of action alleged in the First Amended Complaint in the amount of $69,636,784.60. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Recover Attorney's Fees (the “Motion”) in the amount of $26,609.822.72 and expenses in th...

Excerpt: ...itter and Nicholas Hartstein (“Plaintiffs”) The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This case (the “Lead Case”) and two related cases (collectively, the “Related Cases”) arise out of a landlord/tenant relationship with Moving Defendants at a residence with the address 1324 S. Westlake Avenue, Los Angeles, California (the “Property”). Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint states causes of action a...

Excerpt: ...viinth Wave, Inc. (“SW”) (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) RESPONDING PARTIES: Plaintiffs James H. Jannard (“Jannard”) and Red Hydrogen, LLC (“RH”) The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This case arises out of allegations of unfulfilled business promises and alleges various wrongdoing on the part of Moving Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Nguyen and Bradstreet repeatedly lie...

Excerpt: ...: Plaintiff Tri Citrus, Inc. The court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND Plaintiff's Complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges that Plaintiff entered into a limited partnership agreement (the “Agreement”) in 2005 with Moving Defendants. (Complaint ¶ 1.) The Agreement allows any of the partners to access the financial records of the partnership at any time. (Complaint ¶ 16.) In 2020, Plaintiff requested financi...

Excerpt: ...yd's, London Subscribing to Policy Number B1333ECB190291 (“Moving Defendant”) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Frantic, Inc. The Court has reviewed the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This case arises out of a dispute over the interpretation of the language of an insurance policy. Plaintiff scheduled an eight-show tour beginning on September 6, 2019. (Complaint ¶ 2.) The final six shows were scheduled to take place in South Americ...

Excerpt: ... Management (“Moving Defendant”) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Luis Antonio Belmonte The Court has reviewed the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND Plaintiff is a former employee who alleges various unlawful employment practices against the named defendants. The Complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges that on or around January 15, 2019, he cut his left finger with a grinder at work, which required stitches. (Complaint ¶ 21.) The fi...

Excerpt: ... Honda Motor Co., Inc. RESPONDING PARTIES: Plaintiffs Tim Truong and Jamie Truong The Court has reviewed the moving and opposition papers. No reply papers were filed. BACKGROUND This is a lemon law case arising out of the sale of a 2020 Honda Odyssey (the “Vehicle”) with an allegedly defective infotainment system. The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) states causes of action alleging: (1) violation of Civil Code sect...

Excerpt: ...achel Billington[1] RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff John Doe The Court has considered the moving and opposition papers. No reply papers were filed. 1. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) on July 7, 2021 alleging a cause of action for defamation against Rachel Billington (“Defendant”).[2] In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges the following: (1) he and Defendant were in a dating relationship from mid-January 202...

Excerpt: ...ross-Defendant Don Lee Farms and Cross-Defendants Donald Goodman, Daniel Goodman and Brand Goodman (collectively, “DLF”) The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This case arises out of the alleged breach of an exclusive supply agreement (the “Contract”). On August 9, 2021, when Beyond Meat, Inc. and DLF exchanged expert witness disclosures, Beyond Meat learned that DLF had retained and identified Dr. D...

Excerpt: ...fendant”) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Matevos Papyan The Court has reviewed the moving and opposition papers. No reply papers were filed. BACKGROUND This case arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship. Plaintiff's Complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges that on or around September 1, 2018, Plaintiff and Moving Defendant entered a month-to-month lease agreement whereby Plaintiff rented a living space that had been converted from a garage in a...

Excerpt: ...e moving, opposition, and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action alleges various breaches of warranty against the seller and manufacturer of a 2016 Dodge Charger (the “Subject Vehicle”). Plaintiffs filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) alleging the following causes of action: (1) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d); (2) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b); (3) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, sub...

Excerpt: ...e for MFRA Trust 2016-1 (“Moving Defendants”) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Abderrahmane Ferhat The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. JURISDICTION On September 7, 2021, Plaintiff voluntarily moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (the “SAC”). This Court retains jurisdiction over the hearing on this motion because Moving Defendants filed this motion pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”...

Excerpt: ... OF BUSINESS RECORDS Date: September 27, 2021 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 MOVING PARTIES: Centinela Car Wash, Inc., Centinela Gas Station, Inc., Hooman Nissani and Keyvan Shamshoni (“Moving Defendants”) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Lilia Garcia-Brower The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND Plaintiff's operative First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) alleges causes of action against Moving Defendants for: (1)...

Excerpt: ...fendant”) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Matevos Papyan The Court has reviewed the moving and opposition papers. No reply papers were filed. BACKGROUND This case arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship. Plaintiff's Complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges that on or around September 1, 2018, Plaintiff and Moving Defendant entered a month-to-month lease agreement whereby Plaintiff rented a living space that had been converted from a garage in a...

Excerpt: ...ROUND On March 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint alleging causes of action for: (1) fraud; (2) undue influence; (3) financial abuse; (4) quiet title; (5) cancellation of instruments; (6) return of real property to elder/dependent adult; and (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Moving Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration (the “Motion”) on August 6, 2021 on the grounds that Plaintiff and Defendant (the “...

Excerpt: ...t has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. BACKGROUND This case arises from alleged breaches of two agreements between Plaintiff and Defendants: (1) the Royalty and Option Agreement (the “Royalty Agreement”); and (2) the Consulting Agreement. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) alleged causes of action against Defendants for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair deal...

Excerpt: ... (sued as Cecelia Funk), Michael Theodore (as an individual and as trustee of the Michael Theodore Revocable Trust dated July 21, 2008), Casa Theodore, LLC, Casa Theodore, Inc., Rosalind Funk and Charles Funk (collectively, “Defendants”) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Kyle Madison, as an individual and as assignee of Marjan Madison (“Plaintiff”) The Court has reviewed the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND Plaintiff's First Amen...

Excerpt: ...pposition papers were filed. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) after the Court sustained the demurrers of Defendants Cedars Sinai Medical Center and Vinod Pullarkat, M.D. on the grounds that his claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The FAC states causes of action for: (1) wrongful death; (2) professional negligence; (3) negligence; and (4) loss of consortium. Moving Defendant filed a demurrer (the...

Excerpt: ..., 2013, a judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant on causes of action for trespass to chattel and conversion (the “Judgment”). The Judgment: (1) awarded judgment to Plaintiff and against Defendant in the sum of $3,150,000.00 with interest; and (2) followed the jury's recommendation that Plaintiff be entitled to the return of his personal property proved to be at a property with the address 6150 Shenandoah Avenue (the ...

Excerpt: ...ving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises out of an outstanding debt owed by Defendant to Plaintiff. Defendant filed a motion to enforce settlement and to receive monetary sanctions from Plaintiff (the “Motion”) along with the declaration of Defendant's counsel, Nichelle D. Jordan (“Decl. Jordan”), and supporting exhibits. The Motion argues that: (1) Defendant and Plaintiff (the “Parties”) entered into a settlem...

Excerpt: ...ion papers were filed. BACKGROUND This Order concerns four motions (the “Motions”) filed by Plaintiff, all of which are unopposed: 1. A motion to compel responses to Plaintiff's request for identification, production, inspection and copying of documents and other tangible things (set one) and for monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $1,877.85 (the “Requests for Production Motion”); 2. A motion to compel responses to form ...

Excerpt: ...ving papers. No opposition papers were filed. Plaintiff filed the present Motion for Terminating or Evidence Sanctions on Defendants Moka Auto Show Inc.'s and Mohammed Kazemi's (“Defendants”) Answer and Cross-Complaint and request for monetary sanctions of $3,960.00 against Moka Auto Show Inc. (the “Motion”). Plaintiff concurrently filed the declaration of Liliuokalani H. Martin (“Decl. Martin”) and supporting exhibits. BACKGROUND Pla...

Excerpt: ... Plaintiff Ronald Clark The Court has considered the moving papers (Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication) (the “Motion”), Plaintiff's evidentiary objections (“Plaintiff's Objections”) and separate statement (“Plaintiff's Separate Statement”) and Defendant's Reply (the “Reply”). Plaintiff did not file a formal opposition to the Motion; as such, with the exception of the submitted objections, the Motio...

Excerpt: ...te Farm”) RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Claimant Robert Salazar (“Salazar”) The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This cross-action arises out of an underlying lawsuit filed by Fortunato Barragan, Ma. Guadalupe Morales and Elizabeth Barragan (“Plaintiffs”) alleging: (1) breach of the warranty of habitability; (2) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (3) negligence; (4) and breach of contr...

Excerpt: ...Plaintiff”) The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises from the sale of real property (the “Property”). The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges: (1) breach of agreement providing exclusive right to sell or lease property; (2) fraud in the inducement; and (3) tortious interference with contract. On November 12, 2020, this Court granted in part Plaintiff's Motion for Summa...

Excerpt: ...“Defendant”) The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. JUDICIAL NOTICE The Court GRANTS Defendant's request for judicial notice. BACKGROUND Plaintiff's case arises out of alleged violations that took place when he tried to modify his mortgages. The currently operative First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) pleads five causes of action against Defendant: (1) negligence; (2) promissory estoppel; (3) to set aside trustee...

Excerpt: ...nt”) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Felicia Smith-James and Phillip James The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises from alleged conduct that occurred during Plaintiffs' residential tenancy at a building located at 859 North Orange Drive, Los Angeles, California 90038 (the “Property”). The currently operative Second Amended Complaint (the “SAC”) alleges: (1) breach of contract; (2) ne...

Excerpt: ...�), Elky Barajas and Heather Hogge (collectively, “Defendants”) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Jessica Servin The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS Plaintiff's Objections to Defendants' Evidence:  The following objections are overruled: 1 through 12, inclusive Defendants' Objections to Plaintiff's Evidence:  The following objections are overruled: 1 through 6, inclusive BACKGROUND Plaintif...

Excerpt: ..., and reply papers. JUDICIAL NOTICE Defendants' request for judicial notice is granted. Plaintiff's request for judicial notice is granted. EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS Plaintiff's Objections to Defendants' Evidence  The following objections are overruled: 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45  The following objections are sustained: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10...

Excerpt: ... MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Daniel Salin RESPONDING PARTIES: Defendants Exposition Bar Group, LLC et al. The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. BACKGROUND Plaintiff's case arises out of the acrimonious dissolution of his business relationship with Defendants. Plaintiff filed the currently operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on July 26, 2021. The SAC alleges causes of action against Defendants for: (1) breach of...

Excerpt: ...BACKGROUND Plaintiff Sushi KJ Corporation initiated this action by filing its complaint on October 27, 2020. Plaintiff filed its operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on May 13, 2021, asserting causes of action for (1) breach of written contract; (2) fraud; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) conspiracy to defraud; (5) professional negligence; (6) breach of written contract; (7) breach of fiduciary duty; and (8) negligent misrepresentati...

Excerpt: ...TION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Dept. 56 8:30 a.m. August 27, 2021 MOVING PARTY: Defendant-Cross-Complainant Beyond Meat, Inc. d/b/a Beyond Meat RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff-Cross-Defendant Don Lee Farms, a division of Goodman Food Products, Inc. The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. BACKGROUND On May 25, 2017, Plaintiff Don Lee Farms, a division of Goodman Food Products, Inc. filed this action against Defendants Beyond ...

Excerpt: ...RE: MOTION TO STAY ACTION PENDING COMPLETION OF ARBITRATION Date: August 26, 2021 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Dura Art Stone Construction Co., Inc. (“DASC”) RESPONDING PARTY: None. The Court has considered the moving papers. The parties have not filed an opposition or reply. BACKGROUND On February 27, 2018, DASC entered into a written contract with Defendant Winegardner Masonry, Inc. (“Winegardner”), the purpose of wh...

Excerpt: ... and Jesus Camarena RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant FCA US, LLC The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises from an allegedly defective electrical system, i.e., the PowerNet defect, in a 2017 Dodge Ram 1500 VIN 1C6RR7LM4HS875898 (the “Subject Vehicle”) that was purchased by Plaintiffs on or about February 19, 2018. Plaintiffs filed the operative Complaint against Defendants FCA US, LLC (“FCA�...

Excerpt: ...DING PARTY: Plaintiff Michelle Vasquez The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action arises from allegations of unlawful employment practices by a state government agency against Plaintiff, its employee, as to discrimination based on said employee's physical disability or medical condition and her national origin, in violation of the State of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). On...

Excerpt: ...filed an opposition or reply. BACKGROUND On January 30, 2020, Constantino Miranda (“Petitioner”) was involved in a vehicle accident with an uninsured motorist. Petitioner maintains he suffered bodily injury as a result of the accident. On June 30, 2021, Petitioner filed a Petition to Compel Arbitration against his insurer, Progressive Insurance Company (“Respondent”). Petitioner alleges that, sometime before the subject vehicle accident, ...

Excerpt: ...considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Maria E. Duarte Juarez initiated this action by filing her Request that Clerk Enter Judgment and Judgment on Final Order, Decision, or Award of Labor Commissioner on June 25, 2020. The underlying award was entered in favor of Plaintiff against David S. Ward. On September 17, 2020, the Court signed an Order to Appear for Examination (“ORAP”) under Code of Civil Procedure...

Excerpt: ... Power and (2) defendant Kevin Rodriguez RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Anthony Johnson The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Anthony Johnson filed his complaint against City of Los Angeles and its Department of Water and Power (“City”) and Kevin Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) (collectively, “Defendants”) asserting 5 causes of action: 1. Unlawful harassment and abusive working conditions; 2. Rac...

Excerpt: ...as considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. BACKGROUND Kyle Henderson (“Plaintiff”) filed his original complaint in this action against Distilled CA, LLA, d/b/a Sourced Craft Cocktail (“Defendant”) on April 16, 2019. Default was entered against Defendant on July 3, 2019. On February 5, 2020, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff's default judgment package on the ground that Plaintiff did not seek any relief against Defe...

Excerpt: ...nt Wood Partners and WP West Builders California, LP The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Jose Guevara filed his complaint asserting one cause of action for negligence against The Architects Collective, Inc., and Wood Partners on August 21, 2018. This action arises from Plaintiff's fall off a steel beam while working in construction. The Architects Collective, Inc. was dismissed without prejudice...

Excerpt: ..., opposition, and reply papers. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2018, Plaintiff Rooke Corp filed a Complaint. The Operative pleading is the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) which alleges causes of action for (1) breach of written contract, (2) breach of implied of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) open book account, (4) goods sold and delivered at agreed price, (5) fraud and deceit, (6) negligent misrepresentation, (7) negligence, (8) unjust...

Excerpt: ...y papers. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleging the following causes of action: (1) nonpayment of overtime compensation; (2) failure to provide meal and rest breaks; (3) discrimination in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to reasonably accommodate; (5) failure to engage in an interactive process; (6) harassment in violation of FEHA; (7) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (8) failure to prevent harassme...

Excerpt: ...”) (collectively, “Defendants”) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Judith Godessoff (“Plaintiff”) The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. BACKGROUND Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (the “SAC”), filed June 11, 2021, alleges causes of action for: (1) elder abuse under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610 et seq.; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) breach of written contract; and (4) c...