Excerpt: ...or completion of discovery to permit the deposition of any expert. Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.710 On 10/19/17, the court continued trial to 5/7/18, with expert discovery to be based on the new trial date. There is still sufficient time for expert discovery. The court can permit leave for a party to submit tardy expert witness information if there is no prejudice to opposing parties, and the motion is based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excu...

Excerpt: ...ections are overruled. #1. Overrule. The depositions are properly admitted. Use of deposition transcripts are permitted, regardless of whether Plaintiff's counsel personally attended. At the trial or any other hearing in the action, any part or all of a deposition may be used against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition, or who had due notice of the deposition and did not serve a valid objection under Section 2...

Excerpt: ...e as Defendant has met its burden on the moving papers. The court has discretion to consider late papers in favor of the strong policy favoring disposition of the case on the merits. Kapitanski v. Von's(1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 29, 32. If the number of interrogatories or requests for admission exceeds 35, and where the responding party moves for a protective order, the propounding party has the burden of justifying that the number of the interrogator...

Excerpt: ...laint, in which case he must do so at least 10 court days before the date of the hearing or (b) to file a declaration concerning the parties' meet and confer efforts and briefs concerning any outstanding issues remaining after the meet and confer, which declaration and briefs must also be filed at least 10 court days before the date of the hearing. Discussion The Court finds that the declaration of Judd R. Allen fails to comply with CCP §§ 430....

Excerpt: ...allege facts and circumstances showing malice, fraud or oppression as those terms are defined by statute in order to support the claim for punitive damages. Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal. App. 3d 159, 166. Since Plaintiff has not alleged intentional conduct, and in order to recover punitive damages, Plaintiff must allege malicious conduct, defined as “despicable” conduct that is “carried on by the defendant with a willful and con...

Excerpt: ...compliance with the subpoena. Cal Rules of Court, Rule 3.1346 Regardless, Plaintiff is requesting that Defendant comply with the document request, although Plaintiff has not shown that Plaintiff served a document request requiring production of Defendant's medical records. Plaintiff argues Defendant served a Motion to Quash the deposition subpoenas (Motion 9:26‐27), however that motion has not been reserved or filed. Moving party is ordered to ...

Excerpt: ...n” pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(b)(2). The 14 th day fell on January 15, which was a holiday. Defendant has not shown any prejudice from receiving the opposition one week before filing the reply. The papers are required be delivered in a manner “reasonably calculated to ensure delivery to the other party or parties not later than the close of the next business day after the time the opposing papers or reply papers, as applicable, ...

Excerpt: ...ourt granted Defendants leave to have this motion heard on shortened notice on 12/20/17. Trial has since been continued to 2/27/18. Defendants have shown good cause for the examinations. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.320(a). Plaintiffs admit that they have been treated for pain management by Vikram Singh, M.D., Opposition, 4:19‐20. Good cause is established where “there are specific facts justifying discovery and the inquiry is relevant to the...

Excerpt: ...view and approval. Petitioner is also required to submit supporting documents with the petition: 1. A copy of doctors' reports containing a diagnosis of and prognosis for the claimant's injuries, and a report of the claimant's present condition, attached to the Petition as Ex. 9. See Petition, ¶ 9. 2. A copy of a final Medicare Demand letter or letter agreement. See Petition, ¶ 13.b.(3) and (c). 3. As Plaintiff's counsel asks for attorney's fee...

Excerpt: ...e Civ. Proc., § 2032.220. Defendants have identified the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination as well as the identity of the specialty of the physician performing the examination in compliance with Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.220(c). The Amended Demand for Physical Examination states that the examination encompasses physical and orthopedic examination of Plaintiff with respect to Plaintiff's injuries claimed in ...

Excerpt: ... cannot represent the minor since “no person who is not an attorney may represent another in a legal proceeding.” Torres v. Friedman (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 880, 887. A parent may not be permitted to act in propria persona as guardian ad litem in court proceedings as it violates the prohibition against unauthorized practice of law. J.W. v. Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 958, 969. While a parent may represent herself and serve as Guardian ...

Excerpt: ...those terms are defined by Civ Code § 3294 in order to support the claim for punitive damages. Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal. App. 3d 159, 166. The complaint alleges claims for negligence, asserting that Defendant slammed into the back of the driver's side of Plaintiff's vehicle. Complaint, page 5. Negligence, gross negligence or reckless conduct is insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages. Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 1...

Excerpt: ...made, and the granting of the motion will not result in prejudice to the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend. Morgan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal. App. 2d 527, 530. Plaintiff has complied with the procedural requirements for this motion as set forth in Cal Rules of Court 3.1324. Plaintiff proposes to add a third cause of action arising from a separate procedure allegedly performed by Defendant on th...

Excerpt: ...rofessional negligence. No leave to amend is granted as to the fourth cause of action. The Court grants fifteen days' leave to amend the fifth cause of action. Demurrer: For a demurrer, the allegations of the complaint are read liberally and plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against him. (See Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) First, Second and Third...

Excerpt: ...ction, or fails to produce documents for inspection. Cal Code Civ Procedure §2025.450. Cross‐Defendant Performance demonstrates substantial justification for failure to appear for the deposition due to a scheduling conflict, although Performance acknowledges that the objection was untimely filed. McDermed Declaration, ¶ 3‐5. However, it appears that Cross‐Defendant does not intend to proceed with the deposition given Performance's failure...

Excerpt: ...OT as it relates to Jewish Federation. Reply 1:25‐28. Therefore, the tentative addresses only the request for summary judgment by Defendant, Jewish Vocational Service (“JVS”). Plaintiff's evidentiary objections Pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(q), when the court grants or denies a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, it need rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the mo...

Excerpt: ... report of the claimant's present condition, attached as Attachment 9. See Petition, ¶ 9. 1. Counsel is required to provide a declaration in support of the fee request discussing the applicable factors under Cal Rules of Court 7.955(b). Counsel is required to provide a copy of the retainer agreement. See Petition, ¶ 14.a. 2. The total of fees and expenses of $6,474.75 is incorrect. It does not account for reimbursement of medical expenses. Peti...

Excerpt: ...Defendant may elect to limit and diminish Plaintiffs' damages pursuant to Section 3333.1. Cardin's Answer, 2:14‐20 Defendant, Banafsheh Yafeh, M.D. similarly asserted as a Second Affirmative Defense, that Defendant may elect to limit or diminish Plaintiffs' alleged damages or losses under Civil Code Section 3333.1 or 3333.2 and Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 667.7. Yafeh's Answer, 2, 12‐14. Bifurcation is appropriate if doing so promotes convenience...

Excerpt: ...spute that Plaintiff claims she tripped while walking in the middle of the sidewalk. UF 5. Defendants do not own or maintain the sidewalk where Plaintiff tripped. UF 10. Defendants do not exercise any control over the public sidewalk where Plaintiff allegedly fell. UF 13. It is undisputed that the defects in the public sidewalk were caused by root growth underneath and along the sidewalk from the mature Jacaranda tree located in the parkway north...

Excerpt: ... no evidence of where the accident occurred, however, both Defendants submit declarations affirming that at the time of the accident, they both lived in Upland California, which is located in San Bernardino County. Declarations of Bianka Sandoval and Ricardo Marquez. The case is ordered transferred to San Bernardino County Superior Court. Plaintiff is ordered to pay transfer fees because the case was filed in the wrong court. Cal. Code Civ. Proc....

Excerpt: ...ction for battery are DENIED for reasons stated below. Leave to amend is permitted at the court's discretion upon any terms that may be just. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 473(a)(1). Cal Code Civ Procedure § 473. The court's discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. Nestle v. Santa Monica, (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920. If the motion is timely made, and the granting of the motion will not result in prejudice to the opp...

Excerpt: ...tiff's property damage, which Plaintiff asserts is between $2,000 ‐ $2,500. Opposition, 3:12‐14. The court can transfer to limited jurisdiction if “it becomes clear that the matter will ‘necessarily' result in a verdict below the superior court jurisdictional amount.” Walker v. Superior Court (1992) 53 Cal. 3d 257, 262. It must appear to a “legal certainty” that Plaintiff cannot recover more than the jurisdictional amount. Maldonado...

Excerpt: ...w good cause for not seeking classification earlier. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 403.040(b)(2). The complaint was filed on 5/31/13. Defendant has filed this motion over 4 years and 6 months after the complaint was filed. Defendant's first Motion to Transfer to Limited Jurisdiction, which was not heard as the case was dismissed, was filed 3 years and 9 months after the case was filed. The Declarations of Elizabeth Lopez and Andrew Marton do not explai...

Excerpt: .... Plaintiffs Ramirez and Olivares are ordered to provide verified responses to Form Interrogatories and Demand for Production of Documents without objections within 20 days. Cal Code Civ Procedure § 2031.300, 2030.290. Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff, Eusebio Gonzalez, belatedly served responses and verifications after Defendant incurred costs to prepare and file these motions. Reply re: Gonzalez, 2:7‐15. Therefore, an order compelling r...

Excerpt: ...ff's injury and resulting damages. Merrill v. Navegar, Inc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 477. The undisputed facts establish that Defendant, Yuridia Vasquez, did not cause Plaintiff's injuries. There is no dispute that this cases arises from a multi‐vehicle automobile accident that happened on 3/14/12. UF 1. Defendant Vasquez was proceeding eastbound on the I‐ 105 when an unknown driver in a Jeep pulled in front of her vehicle and came to a stop, ca...

Excerpt: ...ice. ...

Excerpt: ...ination upon a showing of good cause. Multiple examinations are not “expressly restricted.” Shapira v. Superior Court (1990) 224 Cal. App. 3d 1249, 1250. There is good cause for a neurological and neuropsychological examination. Plaintiff claims a head injury among other physical injuries. Motion, Ex. A, 7:21. He was assessed as having mild traumatic brain injury. Motion, Ex. C, page 10. Plaintiff sought care from Robert J. Shorr, M.D., a neu...

Excerpt: ... Defendant the People of the State of California by and through the Department of Transportation (the “State”) (erroneously sued as the State of California) demurs to the complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10 et seq., on the ground that the complaint fails to allege facts with particularity as is required when alleging liability against a public entity. The State also argues that Plaintiff's exclusive basis of recovery is pu...

Excerpt: ...nd cause for premises liability on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (CCP section 430.10(e).) South Bay and Macy's demur to Count Three - Dangerous Condition of Public Property on the ground that the premises on which Plaintiff was injured is private property, not public property. Thus, a claim for dangerous condition of public property is improperly alleged since the defendants are not public ent...

Excerpt: ... P. Jacks, M.D. provided an estimate of future cost for psychiatric care totaling $118,900.00. There is no report discussing the Claimant's psychiatric‐related injury or how it was caused by the incident or a prognosis. Petition, Ex. 1. In contrast, the records provided by Kaiser Permanente for psychiatric care indicate that the Claimant's difficulty “may be related to her age and not to trauma that occurred.” See Attachment 9, page 708, In...

Excerpt: ...treatment, mental health treatment, abortion records, and genetic testing. Motion, Ex. D. Defendants rely on Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 918, which is inapposite. That case concerned a failure to obey an order for discovery and the question of jurisdiction in an uninsured motorist arbitration. The Defendant sought discovery under the Insurance Code. Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 918 ...

Excerpt: ...ted facts establish that Defendant Salas did not engage in extreme or outrageous conduct sufficient to support the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Agarwal v. Johnson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 932, 946. “Extreme and outrageous conduct” is that conduct that “is the most extremely offensive.” Yurick v. Superior Court (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1116, 1129. The undisputed facts establish that on 10/24/15, Plaintiff was in his vehicle...

Excerpt: ...tiffs to post an undertaking to secure costs that may be incurred by Defendants if Defendants can show that Plaintiffs are non‐residents and there is a reasonable possibility that Defendants will obtain judgment. Cal Code Civ Procedure §1030. The intent of the statute is to prevent out‐of state residents from filing frivolous <008e01e400030004009200 0374037901e100030375>31. Plaintiffs do not dispute that they are residents of the United King...

Excerpt: ...tiffs to post an undertaking to secure costs that may be incurred by Defendants if Defendants can show that Plaintiffs are non‐residents and there is a reasonable possibility that Defendants will obtain judgment. Cal Code Civ Procedure §1030. The intent of the statute is to prevent out‐of state residents from filing frivolous <008e01e400030004009200 0374037901e100030375>31. Plaintiffs do not dispute that they are residents of the United King...

Excerpt: ...fered any prejudice from the late receipt of the opposition. Carpenter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 249, 258. The motion is prematurely made. Defendant's reply concedes he did not serve a demand for physical examination as required by Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2032.210, instead arguing (incorrectly) that such a demand would be premature. Reply 2:26‐27. A demand for physical examination may be made without leave of court so long as the ...

Excerpt: ...perly accomplished. If personal service of the summons and complaint cannot be made with “reasonable diligence,” substituted service may be made by leaving the documents at the person's home or office or usual mailing address, in the presence of a member of person in charge. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20(b). The process servers, P. Chhay and S. Delgado, declare that personal service was diligently attempted, but could not be accomplished. Op...

Excerpt: ...tion v. Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1480, 1484 for the contention that the complaint must be alleged with specificity. That case is inapposite, as it involved a statutory claim against a governmental entity, which does require that the complaint be pled with specificity. People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1480, 1484. Defendants also rely on Esparza v. Kaweah Delta District Hospital (2016) 3 Cal.A...

Excerpt: ...itute in “Estate of Frances V. Williams, Deceased in the place of deceased Defendant, Frances V. Williams. Probate Code Sections 550‐555. Plaintiff's action against Defendant is not lost by reason of Defendant's death. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 377.20. Further proceedings shall be brought against the estate of the deceased. Prob. Code, § 552 Under the Probate Code, Plaintiff can continue the action against the estate without having to file a cred...

Excerpt: ...or the claim against him. (See Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) A motion to strike lies either (1) to strike any irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) to strike any pleading or part thereof not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule or order of court. (CCP § 436.) Uncertainty Pineda and Phillips (jointly the “Demurring Party”) demur to the complaint pursuant...

Excerpt: ...om the late filing. Carpenter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 249, 258. Defendants are asking for a neuropsychological examination. Mental examinations and those exams other than that described under Section 2032.220 require leave of court and are governed by Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2032.310. The motion must specify, time, place, manner, conditions, scope and nature of the examination, and the identity and specialty of the person who will...

Excerpt: ...ny prejudice from the late filing. Kapitanski v. Von's (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 29, 32; Mann v. Crachiolo (1985) 38 Cal.3d 18, 30. Defendants' timely exchanged their expert witness information on the due date, in compliance with Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.610(a); Motion, Ex. C. Plaintiffs have not established that this motion is untimely made. The motion may be made in a “sufficient time in advance of the time limit for the completion of discove...

Excerpt: ...The related cases arise from two different incidents, however, claims can be properly joined in one action if, as here, Plaintiff is asserting a right to relief against the same Defendant, arising from a series of occurrences. The extent of Plaintiff's injury arising from Defendant's conduct overlaps in both actions. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 378. The requirement that the right to relief arise from the “'same transaction or series of transactions...

Excerpt: ...ns of the complaint are read liberally and plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against him. (See Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) A motion to strike lies either (1) to strike any irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) to strike any pleading or part thereof not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a ...

Excerpt: ... establishing that the settlement was not made in good faith, ie., that the settlement is “out of the ballpark” in relation to the relevant factors to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6. Tech‐Bilt Inc. v. Woodward Clyde Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 501; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6(d); City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1261‐1262. The court considers a num...

Excerpt: ...obtain new dates for Defendant's deposition with each subsequent notice. Quiroga Declaration, ¶¶ 4, 8, 10. Plaintiff has shown good cause for the order. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 2025.450(b)(2). Defendant has not shown substantial justification for unilaterally cancelling Defendant's deposition set for 11/6/17, when this was the date provided by defense counsel after three months of Plaintiff's attempts to schedule the deposition. Motion, Ex. 8. Mr....

Excerpt: ... otherwise, they file motions at the last minute that may or may not arrive at the department in time for the hearing. The statute is mandatory. “Unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing. … .” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b). The motion should have been filed by 12/8/17, but was filed on 12/20/17. ...

Excerpt: ...e. Counsel does not state whether this case was particularly complex or otherwise required certain skill. While this was a contingency fee case, costs were relatively minimal. Other than commencing the case and negotiating settlement, counsel took the deposition of Defendant, defended claimant's deposition, attended a witness deposition and conducted discovery. The case was commenced on 8/22/16 and this petition was filed on 11/2/17. No appearanc...

Excerpt: ...uld pay less in settlement and the sedttlor's financial condition and insurance policy limits. Tech‐Bilt Inc. v. Woodward Clyde Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 498 However, these factors are not to be rigidly applied. North County Contractor's Assn. v. Touchstone Ins. Services (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 1085, 1090. The court is required to make an “educated guess” as to whether settlement approximates the settling Defendants' apportionmen...

Excerpt: ...signed by the parties personally, by the litigants, not their attorneys.Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 584. The only agreement signed by the Plaintiffs is dated 5/1/17 to which the parties agreed at mediation with Judicate West. Motion Ex. A. Defendant is attempting to enforce subsequent written agreements including additional terms. Motion, Exhibits B and C. The court's power is limited to determining whether the parties entered i...

Excerpt: ...icated, Defendant must show that the records sought are directly relevant to Plaintiff's claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014; Harris v. Superior Court, (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665. Defendant is not entitled to information concerning Plaintiff's entire lifetime medical history. Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864. The scope of permitted inquiry “depend...