Excerpt: ...Eagle Mist. (The two previous motions were heard on June 11 and June 26.) The Court already commented on the similarity of the motions – and hence the similarity of the Court's rulings. (See “Preliminary Comments, Minute Order, June 26, 2018.) Given that the Court has already twice ruled on these issues, the Court is surprised that counsel have not been able to agree upon a resolution of this third discovery motion. BACKGROUND: Plaintiff Defe...

Excerpt: ... First Amended Complaint which will add a cause of action for fraudulent concealment and new factual allegations to support that claim. (See Notice of Motion, p. 1:6-12.) A. Relevant Law Under California Rules of Court rule 3.1324(a): (a) A motion to amend a pleading before trial must: [¶] (1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; [...

Excerpt: ...sel had not yet served defendants – despite the fact that the case had been filed 4 months previously – and failed to file a Case Management Statement. At the hearing, counsel stated that the complaint was “out for service” and that she “will have everything in. I promise you.” On May 9, 2016, the Court granted defendants' motion to quash service. Plaintiffs had not opposed the motion. At that hearing, Plaintiffs' counsel appeared by ...

Excerpt: ...against defendants for: (1) violation of professional standards; (2) fraud; (3) conspiracy to commit fraud; (4) securities fraud pursuant to California Corporations Code section 25401; (5) negligence; and (6) securities fraud pursuant to California Corporations Code section 25401. On 08/14/17 defendants Moody National Lyndhurst, S, LLC and Moody National CY Lyndhurst MT, LLC filed a Cross-Complaint against plaintiffs for: (1) breach of contract. ...

Excerpt: ...ended Complaint against defendants for: (1) violation of professional standards; (2) fraud; (3) conspiracy to commit fraud; (4) securities fraud pursuant to California Corporations Code section 25401; (5) negligence; and (6) securities fraud pursuant to California Corporations Code section 25401. On 08/14/17 defendants Moody National Lyndhurst, S, LLC and Moody National CY Lyndhurst MT, LLC filed a Cross-Complaint against plaintiffs for: (1) brea...

Excerpt: ...morandum of Points an [sic] Auhoriies [sic]” The Caption to this pleading is incomprehensible. The pleading itself does not contain a notice. It is not a demurrer or amended demurrer, nor could it be: Defendant has not filed either a complaint or an amended complaint. The Court cannot determine whether this document is intended to act as an opposition to the demurrer or whether it is intended as an amended complaint. Either way, the document is...

Excerpt: ...pon on June 11, 2016. The pleadings are virtually identical and it should come as no surprise that the Court's decision is virtually the same as the one issued two weeks ago. Given that nothing has changed, the Court wonders why counsel have not agreed between themselves how this motion should be settled, and saved themselves and the Court the time and expense of this motion practice. BACKGROUND: Plaintiff Defense Nutrition LLC commenced this act...

Excerpt: ... warranty of habitability; (2) breach of statutory warranty of habitability; (3) negligence; and (4) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4.) ANALYSIS: Petitioner includes a proposed order for the petition. (Scruton v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd.(1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1596, 1603 05; see also Edmon & Karnow, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 12:572 [stating that a petition for court approval must comply with Cal. Ru...

Excerpt: ...anty of habitability; (2) breach of statutory warranty of habitability; (3) negligence; and (4) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4.) ANALYSIS: Petitioner includes a proposed order for the petition. (Scruton v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd.(1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1596, 1603 05; see also Edmon & Karnow, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 12:572 [stating that a petition for court approval must comply with Cal. Rules o...

Excerpt: ...” are “baffling devices.” (Bruno v. Superior Court (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1359, 1363, quoting Burley v. Stein (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 752, 755, fn. 3.) Nonetheless, the Court expects that plaintiff will either get advice of counsel, or will herself respond to future pleadings filed in this case. Although not raised in this demurrer, the Court questions whether this is the proper court for plaintiff's lawsuit. If indeed she is requesting damages...

Excerpt: ...RULED. BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced this PAGA action on 6/19/17 against Defendants alleging that Defendants engaged in systematic and widespread violations of the Labor Code. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on 11/09/17. ANALYSIS: First Grounds for Overruling the Demurrer: the Demurrer is Moot. On June 18, 2018, the court granted plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. Hence, this demurrer is moot. Second Grounds for Ove...

Excerpt: ...the applicable statutes. (See Motion, p. 3:3-8.) A. Relevant Law “A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10(a).) “The motion to quash must be...

Excerpt: ...te/engage in an interactive process in violation of FEHA; (5) retaliation for requesting accommodation in violation of FEHA; (6) hostile work environment in violation of FEHA; (7) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (8) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (9) negligent hiring and retention; (10) non-payment of wages in violation of DLSE; (11) failure to pay all money owed at time of...

Excerpt: ...d, and the Court entered, a stipulation for entry of judgment. The stipulation provides that judgment will be entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendants in the amount of $89,750.21 and that plaintiff may make a subsequent motion for attorney fees and costs. (See Stipulation and Judgment of 04/24/18.) ANALYSIS: Plaintiff moves the Court for an order to amend the judgment to add attorney fees in the amount of $16,415.00 and costs in the a...

Excerpt: ...parties until December 3, 2018. When the Court continued the trial, it told all parties that there would be no further continuances. BACKGROUND: Plaintiffs commenced this action on 04/12/17 against defendants for: (1) breach of contract; and (2) intentional interference with contractual relations. On 08/25/17, defendant Golden Land Investment & Financial, Inc. filed a Cross-Complaint against plaintiffs for: (1) inducing breach of contract; and (2...

Excerpt: ...iff moves the Court for an order compelling defendant to produce additional documents responsive to Request for Production (Set Four) Number 64. (Motion, p. 14:18-20.) A. Relevant Law A motion to compel further responses to requests for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(1).) “To establish ‘good cause,' the burden is on th...

Excerpt: ...t or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of plaintiff's second cause of action. (See Notice of Motion, p. 2:4-8.) The basic facts of this case are undisputed. On 03/19/13, Villa Nova Developing, Inc. opened a business checking account with Bank of America. (DMF/PMF 1.) Around April 2015, Villa Nova agreed to purchase certain real property and plaintiff Ace Escrow, Inc. was engaged to act as the escrow agent for the transaction. (DMF/PMF 3.)...

Excerpt: ...ntract between plaintiff Daneshrad Law Firm, APC and defendant, Joe Klein, concerning three properties. The properties at issue are 3548 Multiview Drive, 3548½ Multiview Drive (jointly referred to as the "Multiview Properties"), and 14745 Mulholland Drive (referred to as the "Mulholland Property"). According to the terms of the agreement, plaintiff was to be the assignor of the three properties, and defendant was to issue promissory notes, secur...

Excerpt: ...D: Plaintiff commenced this action on 02/22/18. On 02/26/18, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against defendants for: (1) sexual battery; (2) violation of civil rights; (3) negligent retention and supervision; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff alleges that she had made multiple complaints to the Sheriff's department about her ex- husband's continuou...

Excerpt: ...ion of Bane Act; (4) violation of Government Code sections 8547.3 and 8547.8; (5) violation of Education Code sections 44113 and 44114; (6) violation of Government Code section 12653(a); and (7) injunctive relief. Plaintiff Contreras Smith was employed as Superintendent of Schools for MUSD and Pell was MUSD's Chief Financial and Operations Officer. Plaintiffs allege that they discovered that Ruben J. Rojas, MUSD's Chief Business Officer, had obta...

Excerpt: ...hich defendant challenges every entry in plaintiff's billing records. Defendant does not cite any authority that establishes that an opposition to a motion for attorney fees may include a separate list of objections to the requested fees. It appears that the separate objections may be an attempt to evade the statutory page limit on an opposition motion. Accordingly, the Court will consider only the specific objections raised by defendant in its o...

Excerpt: ...e to furnish wage and hour statements; (6) failure to maintain employee records; (7) failure to pay all wages earned for labor no later than payday for next regular payroll period; (8) waiting time penalties; (9) retaliation; (10) violations of Business & Professions Code section 17200; and (11) conversion. On 03/14/18, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 4 th, 6 th, 7 th, 9 th, 10 th, and 11 th causes of action. (See Judgment of 04/12/18, p. 2:6...

Excerpt: ...olecular Diagnostics, LLC demurs to plaintiff's Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (“IFPA”) claim on the grounds that it fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action under the IFPA, that the FAC fails to allege a cause of action with the required specificity, and that the IFPA itself is unconstitutional for several reasons. (See Notice of Demurrer, p. 2:16-3:8.) A. Relevant Law The Insurance Frauds Prevention Act was enacted ...

Excerpt: ...eal and rest break penalties. Defendant filed an answer to the complaint on 03/29/18. Defendant filed a First Amended Answer on 05/18/18. ANALYSIS: Plaintiff filed his demurrer to the answer on 04/25/18. On 05/18/18, defendant filed an amended answer to the complaint. Accordingly, the demurrer is taken OFF-CALENDAR. (See Edmon & Karnow, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 7:122.16.) However, even if the Court were...

Excerpt: ...mplaint on 05/29/15. On 05/02/17, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against defendant for: (1) negligence. Plaintiff alleges that he purchased a bicycle from defendant's store on or about 04/21/12 and that he was subsequently injured because the bicycle was negligently assembled. On 04/06/18, the Court granted plaintiff leave to file a Third Amended Complaint to allege a new cause of action for strict product liability. On 04...