Excerpt: ...ation of the Federal Fair Housing Amendments (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.); 3. Violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code § 12900, et seq.); and 4. Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code §§ 51 & 52, subd. (a)). On May 31, 2019, the Court sustained Defendant's demurrer to the first and fourth causes of action without leave to amend. On June 20, 2019, the Court denied Defendant's special motion to strike as ...

Excerpt: ...efendant”) seeks summary adjudication of the following issue: Defendant is limited to statutory liability of $7,500.00 on Plaintiff's complaint, because as stated in the contract between Plaintiff and Defendant, Plaintiff's value of the property stored in the storage unit was not to exceed $7,500.00. Legal Standard In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, courts must apply a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the plead...

Excerpt: ...(Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.); 3. Failure to Prevent Harassment (Govt. Code § 12940(k)); 4. Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.); 5. Whistleblower Retaliation (Lab. Code § 1102.5); 6. Sexual Battery (Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.5); 7. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; 8. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; and 9. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy. Specially Appearing Defendant Rancho S...

Excerpt: ... 2020, Defendants filed the instant demurrer with motion to strike. Defendants demur to the entire FAC and move to strike allegations related to punitive and exemplary damages. On August 26, 2020, Plaintiff, without leave of court, attempted to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), which was rejected. Legal Standard on Demurrer A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App...

Excerpt: ...presentation; 5. Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200; and 6. Violation of Vehicle Code § 11711. The matter proceeded to arbitration pursuant to a stipulation by the parties entered by the Court on May 31, 2016. On March 14, 2018, the arbitrator issued a Final Arbitration Award against K-Kars, Inc.; Casa MBZ, Inc., and California Republic Bank. On September 24, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff's Petition to Confirm Contractual Ar...

Excerpt: ...nteractive Process in Violation of Govt. Code § 12940(n); 4. Retaliation in Violation of Govt. Code § 12940(h); 5. Violation of California Family Rights Act – Retaliation for Requesting CFRA Leave (Gov. Code § 12945.2); 6. Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of Govt. Code § 12940(k); 7. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; and 8. Failure to Produce Personnel and Payroll Records (Labor Code §§ 226,...

Excerpt: ...y – Civil Code § 1794; 3. Fraud & Deceit; 4. Negligent Misrepresentation; 5. Violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.; and 6. Violation of Vehicle Code § 11711. Defendant GGM Automotive moves for an order compelling arbitration in this matter and dismissing the action or, alternatively, staying proceedings pending the competition of arbitration. Legal Standard California law incorporates many of t...

Excerpt: ...Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 3. Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; 4. Common Counts: Money Had and Received; 5. Breach of Contract; and 6. Accounting. Plaintiff now moves for summary adjudication of the fifth cause of action for breach of contract. Legal Standard In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, courts must apply a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party h...

Excerpt: ...Design & Development, Inc. (“BC Design”); and Does 1 through 10. The Complaint asserts causes of action for: 1. Money Due on Contract; 2. Foreclose Mechanic's Lien; 3. Open Book Account; 4. Reasonable Value of Labor and Materials Furnished; and 5. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Faith Dealing. On March 24, 2020, Cross-Defendant Boswell Construction, Inc. filed a Cross-Complaint against 1617 Viewmont. The Cross-Complaint asserts c...

Excerpt: ...ure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment; 8. Retaliation; 9. Wrongful Termination; 10. Negligent Hiring and Supervision; 11. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and 12. Failure to Pay Wages. On May 28, 2020 Defendant Collabera filed the instant Motion to Transfer seeking an order to transfer venue to Orange County Superior Court and to reimburse Defendant for costs and expenses incurred in drafting the instant motion in the amount o...

Excerpt: ... adverse to the Plaintiffs' or any cloud on Plaintiffs' title to that property; and Does 1 to 10. The action concerns property located at 1654 East Altadena Drive, Altadena, California 91001. On May 14, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) substituting 1654 E. Altadena LLC as Doe 1. On November 27, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the Verified Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). The SAC asserts causes of action for...

Excerpt: ...ngful Termination – Constructive Discharge; and 5. Harassment in Violation of FEHA (Gender/Sexual Harassment). Defendant University of Southern California (hereinafter “Defendant” or “USC”) moves for summary adjudication of the fourth cause of action for wrongful termination – constructive discharge and the claim for punitive damages. Legal Standard In reviewing a motion for summary judgment or adjudication, courts must apply a three-...

Excerpt: ... September 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) without leave of Court. On December 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), also without leave of Court. On January 24, 2020, the Court rejected Plaintiff's Request for Entry of Default against Defendant Aveo, Inc. stating that the TAC filed on December 3, 2019 required leave of court to file. Plaintiff now seeks leave to file the TAC. Legal Sta...

Excerpt: ... 12940; 4. Violation of Civil Code § 51 and Civil Code § 52.1(b); 5. Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policy; 6. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and 7. Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention. Defendants Doug Mockett & Company, Inc. (“Employer Defendant”); Mockett (“Individual Defendant”); and Carrillo (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) move for an order compelling arbitration of al...

Excerpt: ...for: 1. Declaratory Judgment; 2. Judicial Recission based upon Fraud or, in the alternative, Damages for Breach of Contract; 3. Quiet Title; 4. Conversion; 5. Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 6. Fraud and Deceit; 7. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; 8. Infliction of Emotional Distress; 9. Elder Abuse; and 10. Accounting. Plaintiff seeks an order bifurcating the issue of liability as it relates to Plaintiff's verbal contract w...

Excerpt: ...Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(a)); 3. Sexual Battery (against Newman); 4. Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(a)); 5. Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(h)); 6. Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy; 7. Whistleblower Retaliation (Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5); 8. Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Sexual Harassment (Violat...

Excerpt: ...f Civil Code section 1793.2; 3. Violation of Subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code section 1793.2 (against FCA); 4. Breach of Express Written Warranty (Civ. Code § 1791.2, subd. (a); § 1794) (against FCA); 5. Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Civ. Code § 1791.1; § 1794; § 1795.5); 6. Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment (against FCA); and 7. Negligent Repair (against McKeep's). Defendant McKeep's seeks an order compelling arbitratio...

Excerpt: ...iff filed the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). The SAC asserts causes of action for: 1. Discrimination in Violation of Gov't Code §§ 12940, et seq.; 2. Retaliation in Violation of Gov't Code §§ 12940, et seq.; 3. Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of Gov't Code § 12940(k); 4. Declaratory Judgment; and 5. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy. Defendant Pyramid (hereinafter referred to as “Defen...

Excerpt: ...ntire complaint and moves to strike allegations in the FAC related to punitive damages. Legal Standard on Demurrer A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747. When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Wilson v. Transit Authority of City of Sacramento (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 716, 720-21.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects ...

Excerpt: ...v. Code § 12940(a)]; 2. Harassment on the Basis of Race in Violation of FEHA [Gov. Code § 12940(j)]; 3. Retaliation for Exercising Rights under FEHA [Gov. Code § 12940(k)]; 4. Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, & Retaliation [Gov. Code § 12940(k)]; 5. Whistleblower Retaliation [Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5]; 6. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages [Cal. Lab. Code § 1197]; 7. Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation [Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510, 1194...

Excerpt: ...o Arturo Rodriguez. On May 29, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication of the first cause of action for partition by sale. On August 20, 2019, the Court held an OSC re: Appointment of Referee. At the hearing, Plaintiff informed the Court that the case was close to settling. On October 17, 2019, a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case was filed. On February 10, 2020 the Court granted the Stipulation and Order re: Dismissa...

Excerpt: ...r: 1. Declaratory Judgment; 2. Judicial Recission based upon Fraud or, in the alternative, Damages for Breach of Contract; 3. Quiet Title; 4. Conversion; 5. Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 6. Fraud and Deceit; 7. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; 8. Infliction of Emotional Distress; 9. Elder Abuse; and 10. Accounting. Plaintiff seeks an order bifurcating the issue of liability as it relates to Plaintiff's verbal contract wit...

Excerpt: ...s causes of action for: 1. Defamation; 2. False Light Invasion of Privacy; 3. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Fundamental Public Policy; 4. Discrimination Based on Race in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act; 5. Retaliation in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act; 6. Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation; and 7. Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code section 6310. On February ...

Excerpt: ...to Prevent Discrimination; 4. Retaliation under FEHA; and 5. Wrongful Termination. Defendant demurs to the first cause of action for disability discrimination, the third cause of action for failure to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination, and the fifth cause of action for wrongful termination. Legal Standard A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4...

Excerpt: ...reach of Contract; 2. Accounting; and 3. Declaratory Relief. Defendant moves for summary judgment of the Complaint filed by Plaintiff and summary adjudication of its third cause of action for declaratory relief in its Cross-Complaint. Legal Standard The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties' pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegat...

Excerpt: ...auses of action for: 1. Strict Products Liability; 2. Negligence; 3. Breach of Contract; 4. Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; 5. Declaratory Relief; 6. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; 7. Violation of California Unfair Competition Law; and 8. Quasi-Contract/Unjust Enrichment. On March 6, 2017, the Court granted Defendant U-Haul International, Inc.'s (hereinafter “Defendant”) motion to compel arbitration...

Excerpt: ...0(k); 4. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Violation of Gov't Code § 12940, et seq.; 5. Failure to Engage in a Good Faith Interactive Process in Violation of Gov't Code §§ 12940, et seq.; 6. Declaratory Judgment; and 7. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy. Plaintiff moves to quash the deposition subpoena for production of business records served on Select Staffing, Inc. on March 2, 2020. Legal Standard California C...

Excerpt: ...or: 1. Open Book Account; 2. Open Book Account; 3. Open Book Account; 4. Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract. Defendants Gen Alhambra, LLC and Gen Torrance, LLC (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”) demur to the entire SAC arguing that it fails to set forth facts sufficient to support any cause of action by Plaintiff. Legal Standard A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn ...

Excerpt: ...esentation. On June 5, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer. On December 27, 2019, Defendant filed an Amended Answer. The Amended Answer asserts the following affirmative defenses: 1. Plaintiffs have failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; 2. The Complaint is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel; 3. Each and every cause of action in the Complaint is barred by the provisions of Sections 335 throug...

Excerpt: ...of Remand from Federal Court was filed. Specially Appearing Defendants RLG, Rawls, and Maryan (collectively referred to herein as “Defendants”) move to quash service of the summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. Legal Standard In California, courts are authorized to “exercise jurisdiction over parties on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of [California] or the United States.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10.) “Personal ju...

Excerpt: ...y Investments and Alvarado Auto Sales, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendants”) demur to the entire complaint on the ground that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Legal Standard on Demurrer A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747. When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Wilson v. ...

Excerpt: ...iscrimination and/or Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (against Cal Closets); 4. Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (against Cal Closets); and 5. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (against Cal Closets). Defendant Lane (hereinafter “Defendant”) moves for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of the second cause of action for harassment based on race in violation of FEHA and the request for punitive damages...

Excerpt: ... (“TAC”), which includes Defendant General Motors, LLC. The TAC asserts causes of action for: 1. Violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act; 2. Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; 3. Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.; 4. Fraud and Deceit; 5. Negligent Misrepresentation; and 6. Violation of Vehicle Code § 11711, et seq. Defendant General Motors, LLC (hereinafter “Defendant” or “GM”) demur...

Excerpt: ...ection 1793.2 (against Volvo NA); 2. Violation of Subdivision (b) of Civil Code Section 1793.2 (against Volvo NA); 3. Violation of Subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code Section 1793.2 (against Volvo NA); 4. Breach of Express Written Warranty (Civ. Code § 1791.2, subd. (a); § 1794) (against Volvo NA); 5. Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Civ. Code § 1791.1; § 1794; § 1795.5) (against Volvo NA); 6. Fraud by Omission (against Volvo ...

Excerpt: ... Defendant moves for an order requiring Plaintiff to file an undertaking to secure an award of costs and fees in the amount of $120,000. Legal Standard Where a plaintiff in an action resides out of the state, the defendant may, at any time, apply to the court for an order requiring the plaintiff to file an undertaking to secure an award of costs and attorney's fees which may be awarded in the action. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1030, subd. (a).) The ...

Excerpt: ...tive damages. Legal Standard on Demurrer A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747. When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Wilson v. Transit Authority of City of Sacramento (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 716, 720-21.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice...

Excerpt: ...t – Injunctive Relief. Defendants WB Simi Valley and Chrysler Capital (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”) move for an order compelling Plaintiff to arbitrate his claims and staying the instant action. Legal Standard California law incorporates many of the basic policy objectives contained in the Federal Arbitration Act, including a presumption in favor of arbitrability. (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15...

Excerpt: ...ection 1793.2; 2. Violation of Subdivision (b) of Civil Code section 1793.2; 3. Violation of Subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code section 1793.2; 4. Breach of Express Written Warranty (Civ. Code § 1791.2, Subd. (a); § 1794); 5. Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Civ. Code § 1791.1; § 1794; § 1795.5); and 6. Fraud by Omission. On November 26, 2019, Defendant filed a demurrer with motion to strike as to the FAC. On February 3, 2020...

Excerpt: ...seq; 4. Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation in Violation of Gov't Code § 12940(k); 5. Hostile Work Environment in Violation of Gov't Code §§ 12940 et seq.; 6. Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code §§ 98.6 and 1102.5; 7. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; 8. Battery; 9. Assault 10. Sexual Battery in Violation of Civil Code § 1708.5; 11. Violation of the Ralph Civil Rights Act (Civil Code § 51.7);...

Excerpt: ...rty. Plaintiffs also claim that FATIC, which provided Plaintiffs' title insurance, acted in bad faith by improperly favoring Plaintiffs' neighbors, “Shih/Ko,” in the dispute over the alleged encroachment and failed to pay Plaintiffs adequate damages to compensate for the diminution in value of their property caused by the encroachment. In the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), Plaintiffs assert causes of action for: 1. Breach of ...

Excerpt: ...Code §§ 12940 et seq.); 3. Harassment in Violation of FEHA (Gov't Code §§ 12940 et seq.); 4. Failure to Prevent Unlawful Discrimination (Gov't Code §§ 12940 et seq.); 5. Violation of Constitutional Right to Privacy (Const., Art. 1, § 1); and 6. Violation of Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill (Gov't Code §§ 330 et seq.). On December 26, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed with prejudice the cause of action for Violation of Constitutional Right ...

Excerpt: ...r any cloud on Plaintiffs' title to that property; and Does 1 to 10. The action concerns property located at 1654 East Altadena Drive, Altadena, California 91001. On May 14, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) substituting 1654 E. Altadena LLC as Doe 1. On November 27, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the Verified Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). The SAC asserts causes of action for: 1. Wrongful Foreclosure; 2....

Excerpt: ...bed in the complaint adverse to the Plaintiffs' or any cloud on Plaintiffs' title to that property; and Does 1 to 10. The action concerns property located at 1654 East Altadena Drive, Altadena, California 91001. On May 14, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) substituting 1654 E. Altadena LLC as Doe 1. On November 27, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the Verified Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). The SAC asserts ...

Excerpt: ...inafter “Defendant”) filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff and Roes 1 through 10. The Cross-Complaint asserts causes of action for: 1. Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 2. Constructive Fraud; 3. Constructive Trust; 4. Unjust Enrichment; 5. Unfair Competition; and 6. Declaratory Relief. Defendant Century City Medical Plaza, L.P. (hereinafter “Defendant”) demurs to the entire FAC on the grounds that it fails to state causes of action against De...

Excerpt: ... of Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code § 1770 et seq.); and 2. Deceit. Defendant Johnson Ford, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant”) demurs to the first cause of action for Violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Legal Standard A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747. When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Wilson ...

Excerpt: ... 2. Fraud in the Inducement (against Foxpoint and Neumann); 3. Fraudulent Concealment (against Foxpoint and Neumann); 4. Breach of Fiduciary Duty (against Foxpoint and Neumann); 5. Declaratory Relief (against Foxpoint and Neumann); 6. Declaratory Relief (against Netflix). Defendants demur to the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of faction on the grounds that the FAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a viable cause of act...

Excerpt: ...oes 1 through 100. The Complaint asserts causes of action for: 1. Elder Abuse and Neglect (pursuant to the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act – Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 15600, et seq.); 2. Negligence/Willful Misconduct; 3. Wrongful Death; and 4. Violation of Patients' Bill of Rights (pursuant to Health & Safety Code § 1430). Plaintiff moves for an order compelling the deposition of Sumyat McGrath, LVN, who is purported to be r...

Excerpt: ...t Samsung – Res Ipsa Loquitur; 2. Specific Negligent Product Liability against Samsung; 3. General Negligence against Samsung – Res Ipsa Loquitur; 4. Specific Negligence against Samsung; 5. General Negligent Product Liability against Best Buy – Res Ipsa Loquitur; 6. Specific Negligent Product Liability against Best Buy; 7. General Negligence against Best Buy – Res Ipsa Loquitur; and 8. Specific Negligence against Best Buy. On February 5, ...

Excerpt: ...; 2. Breach of Contract; 3. Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; 4. Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability; 5. Tortious Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability; 6. Negligence; 7. Private Nuisance; 8. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; 9. Violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code section 151.04; 10. Violation of California Civil Code section 1942.4; 11. Violation of California Civil Code section 1942.5; and 12. Violation of U...

Excerpt: ...f Express Written Warranty (Civ. Code § 1791.2(a); § 1794); 5. Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Civ. Code § 1791.1; § 1794; § 1795.5); 6. Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; and 7. Fraud by Omission. Defendant demurs to the seventh cause of action for fraud by omission and moves to strike the prayer for and allegations related to punitive damages. Legal Standard on Demurrer A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether ...

Excerpt: ...AGA, for Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; 3. Enforcement of PAGA, for Failure to Provide Meal Periods; 4. Enforcement of PAGA, for Failure to Permit Rest Breaks; 5. Enforcement of PAGA, for Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; 6. Enforcement of PAGA, for Failure to Maintain Accurate Records; 7. Enforcement of PAGA, for Failure to Timely Pay All Wages Earned During Employment; 8. Enforcement of PAGA, for Failure to Pay All Wages Due...

Excerpt: ...ff filed an Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) substituting Robb McDaniels for Doe 1. Specially Appearing Defendant Robb McDaniels (hereinafter “McDaniels”) moves to quash service of the summons and complaint by Plaintiff. Legal Standard on Motion to Quash “[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. [Citation.]” (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994...

Excerpt: ...ion of Labor Code § 1102.5; 2. Whistle-Blower Retaliation in Violation of Government Code § 8547.10, et seq.; 3. Whistle-Blower Retaliation in Violation of Health and Safety Code § 1278.4; 4. Violation of FEHA; 5. Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA; 6. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of FEHA; 7. Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; 8. Violat...

Excerpt: ... et seq.). The FAC alleges the following violations:  Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7 and 512; IWC Wage Order No. 7-2001, § 11)  Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods (Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7; IWC Wage Order No. 7- 2001, § 12)  Failure to Pay Overtime Wages (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510, 1194, 1198; IWC Wage Order No. 7- 2001, § 3)  Failure to Pay Minimum Wages (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1197; IWC ...

Excerpt: ...ntiffs' property. Plaintiffs also claim that FATIC, which provided Plaintiffs' title insurance, acted in bad faith by improperly favoring Plaintiffs' neighbors, “Shih/Ko,” in the dispute over the alleged encroachment and failed to pay Plaintiffs adequate damages to compensate for the diminution in value of their property caused by the encroachment. In the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), Plaintiffs assert causes of action for: ...

Excerpt: ...oes 1 through 100. The Complaint asserts causes of action for: 1. Elder Abuse and Neglect (pursuant to the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act – Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 15600, et seq.); 2. Negligence/Willful Misconduct; 3. Wrongful Death; and 4. Violation of Patients' Bill of Rights (pursuant to Health & Safety Code § 1430). Defendant Citrus (hereinafter “Defendant”) demurs to the first, second, and third causes of action ...

Excerpt: ...inst Great West); 2. Constructive Trust; 3. Breach of Contract, Quantum Meruit, and Unjust Enrichment (against Olivo & Associates and Maalik); 4. Breach of Fiduciary Duty (against Olivo & Associates); 5. Declaratory Relief; and 6. Conversion (against Olivo & Associates). Defendant Great West (hereinafter “Defendant”) demurs to the entirety of the FAC, arguing that it is barred by the statute of limitations and, in the alternative, the first, ...

Excerpt: ...rty described in the complaint adverse to the Plaintiffs' or any cloud on Plaintiffs' title to that property; and Does 1 to 10. The action concerns property located at 1654 East Altadena Drive, Altadena, California 91001. On May 14, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) substituting 1654 E. Altadena LLC as Doe 1. On November 27, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the Verified Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). The SA...

Excerpt: ...st Charles); 2. Intentional Misrepresentation (against Charles, Patrick, Vaillancourt Development, Westward, and Does 1-10); 3. Intentional Misrepresentation (against Clark, Compass, and Does 21-30); 4. Negligent Misrepresentation (against Clark, Compass, and Does 21-30); 5. Negligence (against Charles, Patrick, Vaillancourt Development, Westward, and Does 1-10); 6. Breach of Express Warranty (against Charles, Patrick, Vaillancourt Development, W...

Excerpt: ...r (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”) demur to the entire Complaint on the grounds that it is uncertain and to the third cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress on the grounds that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Legal Standard on Demurrer A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747. ...

Excerpt: ...et seq.); 2. Harassment Based on Race and/or Color (Government Code § 12940 et seq.); 3. Sexual Harassment (Government Code § 12940 et seq.); 4. Failure to Prevent Harassment and Hostile Work Environment (Government Code § 12940 et seq.); 5. Retaliation (Government Code § 12940 et seq.); and 6. Constructive Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy. On October 25, 2019, the Court granted Defendants' motion to compel Plaintiff to prod...

Excerpt: ...ants filed an Answer and Cross-Complaint. The Cross- Complaint asserts causes of action for: 1. Negligence; 2. Breach of Construction Contract; 3. Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; 4. Breach of Implied Warranty; 5. Breach of Express Warranty; 6. Unfair Business Practices; 7. Fraud; and 8. Declaratory Relief. On June 25, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for terminating sanctions. Defendants' Answer and Cross-...

Excerpt: ...s causes of action for: 1. Elder Abuse and Neglect (pursuant to the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act – Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 15600, et seq.); 2. Negligence/Willful Misconduct; 3. Wrongful Death; and 4. Violation of Patients' Bill of Rights (pursuant to Health & Safety Code § 1430). Defendant Oakpark (hereinafter “Defendant”) demurs to the first, second, and fourth causes of action in the Complaint and moves to strike ...

Excerpt: ...n of the Song-Beverly Act section 1793.2; and 4. Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment. Defendant demurs to the fourth cause of action for fraudulent inducement – concealment. Legal Standard on Demurrer A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747. When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Wilson v. Transit Authority of Cit...

Excerpt: ...to Engage in the Interactive Process; 6. Failure to Take Reasonable Steps to Prevent Discrimination; 7. Retaliation; 8. Violation of Unfair Business Practices Act; 9. CFRA Violations; 10. Denial of Pregnancy Leave; and 11. Interference with Pregnancy Rights. Defendants Hartford and Newcomb (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) move for an order (1) compelling Plaintiff to submit her claims to binding arbitration, and (2) dismissing the a...

Excerpt: ...to Engage in the Interactive Process; 6. Failure to Take Reasonable Steps to Prevent Discrimination; 7. Retaliation; 8. Violation of Unfair Business Practices Act; 9. CFRA Violations; 10. Denial of Pregnancy Leave; and 11. Interference with Pregnancy Rights. Defendants Hartford and Newcomb (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) move for an order (1) compelling Plaintiff to submit her claims to binding arbitration, and (2) dismissing the a...

Excerpt: ...ase was filed. On January 9, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees without prejudice. Legal Standard Attorneys' fees are allowed as costs when authorized by contract, statute, or law. (Code Civ. Proc, § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(B).) In a lemon law action, costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, may be recovered by a prevailing buyer under the Song-Beverly Act. (See Civ. Code, § 1794(d).) Section 1794 provides: If the b...

Excerpt: ...or leave to file a supplemental exhibit. Defendants move for an order (1) compelling arbitration and (2) dismissing Plaintiff's lawsuit or, in the alternative, staying all court proceedings against Defendants pending the resolution of arbitration. Legal Standard California law incorporates many of the basic policy objectives contained in the Federal Arbitration Act, including a presumption in favor of arbitrability. (Engalla v. Permanente Medical...

Excerpt: ...n (b) of Civil Code section 1793.2; 3. Violation of Subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code section 1793.2; 4. Breach of Express Written Warranty (Civ. Code § 1791.2, 1794(a)); and 5. Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Civ. Code § 1791.1, 1794). Plaintiff Azoulay (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling responses without objections to Plaintiff's Demand for Inspection and Copying, Set One; Demand for Inspection and C...

Excerpt: ...against Community). The Complaint arises out of the alleged failure to effect a sale of the property located at 522-524 N. Avalon Blvd., Wilmington, CA 90744 pursuant to an Agreement to Lease Commercial Property with Option to Purchase during or at the end of Lease Term. On May 24, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed Defendant Community without prejudice. Defendant Iglesia (hereinafter “Defendant”) moves to expunge the Notice of Pending Action (Lis Pen...

Excerpt: ...to constitute a cause of action upon which relief may be granted and are barred as a matter of law. Legal Standard A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Wilson v. Transit Authority of City of Sacramento (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 716, 720-21.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defect...

Excerpt: ...f the FEHA (Cal. Gov't Code §§ 1240(a) and 12926(o)); 3. Failure to Prevent Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA (Cal. Gov't Code § 12940(k)); 4. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Violation of the FEHA (Gov't Code § 12940(m)); 5. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; 6. Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA (Cal. Gov't Code §§ 12940(h) and 12940(m)(2)); and 7. Failure to Indemnify (Labor Code § 2802). Plaintif...

Excerpt: ...SMCCD); 5. Retaliation; 6. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; and 7. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. On November 5, 2018, the Court sustained the demurrer to the fifth cause of action as to only Defendant Myrow without leave to amend. On February 8, 2019, the Court ordered Does 1 through 500 dismissed without prejudice. Defendants move for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of the first through se...

Excerpt: ...uses of action for: 1. Civil Penalties pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(e) (against Hyundai Motor); 2. Civil Penalties pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(c) (against Hyundai Motor); 3. Breach of Express Warranty (against Hyundai Motor); and 4. Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability. On December 11, 2019, Defendant Hyundai Motor (hereinafter “Defendant”) filed the instant demurrer. Defendant demurs to the first cause of action for c...

Excerpt: ... Gov't Code § 12940(k); 4. Declaratory Judgment; 5. Retaliation (Lab. Code §§ 98.6, 1030, et seq.); and 6. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy. Plaintiff moves for an order compelling the deposition of Defendant's Person(s) Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) and for an award of monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, Leslie McAfee and the Law Offices of Leslie McAfee in the amount of $7,820.10. Legal Standard...

Excerpt: ... 4. Declaratory Relief; 5. Unfair Competition; and 6. Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage. Defendants move to strike paragraphs 1(a), (b), (d), 13, 20-25, 27, and 29(a)-(d) of the FAC. Legal Standard Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1322(b).) The cou...

Excerpt: ...y Act (Civ. Code § 1791.1; § 1794); and 3. Violation of Subdivision (b) of Civil Code section 1793.2. Plaintiff initially filed the instant motion on May 28, 2019. On June 19, 2019, the Court advanced and vacated the hearing on the motion, ordering that the parties attend an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) in advance of hearing the motions to compel further discovery. On July 24, 2019, the Court convened an IDC. On January 9, 2020, Pl...

Excerpt: ...Discrimination, and Retaliation; 7. Labor Code §§ 98.6 and 1102.5; and 8. Adverse Action in Violation of Public Policy. On September 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Request for Dismissal, dismissing without prejudice Defendant Whole Foods Market, Inc. and the second cause of action for Harassment. Defendant Mrs. Gooch's Natural Food Markets, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant”) moves for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication o...

Excerpt: ...rts causes of action for: 1. Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability; 2. Negligence; 3. Retaliation; and 4. Harassment. On January 10, 2020, Defendant Fonseca filed the instant demurrer with motion to strike. On January 13, 2020, Defendant Howard Management Group filed a Notice of Joinder and Joinder to Defendant Fonseca's demurrer with motion to strike. Defendants demur to the first, third, and fourth causes of action in the SAC. Legal Standa...

Excerpt: ...id Overtime); 3. Violation of California Labor Code § 226.7 (Unpaid Meal Period Premiums); 4. Violation of California Labor Code § 226.7 (Unpaid Rest Period Premiums); 5. Violation of California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 (Final Wages Not Timely Paid); 6. Violation of California Labor Code § 226(a) (Non-Compliant Wage Statements); 7. Violation of California Labor Code § 2802 (Unreimbursed Business Expenses); 8. Violation of California Busine...

Excerpt: ...Plaintiffs Aimee Hernandez by and through her guardian ad litem Claudia C. Vasquez-Moran, Isabelle Hernandez by and through her guardian ad litem Claudia C. Vasquez-Moran, and Dora Moran de Vasquez (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action against Defendants Annette Green (“Green”), the City of Los Angeles (“City”), the County of Los Angeles (“County”), LAUSD, and Does 1 to 50. On September 4, 2018, the City filed a Cross-Complaint ...

Excerpt: ...arassment on the Basis of Disability in Violation of FEHA; 5. Discrimination on the Basis of Gender in Violation of FEHA; 6. Harassment on the Basis of Gender in Violation of FEHA; 7. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Violation of FEHA; 8. Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process; 9. Retaliation for Engaging in a Protected Activity in Violation of FEHA; 10. Retaliation for Taking FMLA/CRFA; 11. Failure to Prevent Discrimination,...

Excerpt: ...ntional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage (against Great West); 2. Constructive Trust; 3. Breach of Contract, Quantum Meruit, and Unjust Enrichment (against Olivo & Associates and Maalik); 4. Breach of Fiduciary Duty (against Olivo & Associates); 5. Declaratory Relief; and 6. Conversion (against Olivo & Associates). On January 3, 2020, Eduardo Olivo (erroneously sued as Olivo & Associates, hereinafter “Defendant”) filed the ins...

Excerpt: ...issed without prejudice the first cause of action as to CyberSource. On November 18, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). The SAC asserts causes of action for: 1. Malicious Prosecution; 2. Setting Aside Fraudulent Transfer; 3. Conspiracy to Defraud; and 4. Declaratory Relief. The second, third, and fourth causes of action are asserted against Defendant CyberSource. Defendant demurs to the second, third, and fourth caus...

Excerpt: ...egligence Per Se; 3. Cancellation of Voidable Contract under Rev. & Tax Code §§ 22304.1, 23305A and Violation of Cali. Corp. Code §§ 191(c)(7); 4. Violation of California Homeowner Bill of Rights (HBOR); 5. Treble Damages; 6. To Void or Cancel Assignment of Deed of Trust, Notice of Default and Notice of Trustee's Sale; 7. Intentional Misrepresentation; 8. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; 9. Slander of Title 10. Quiet Title; and 1...

Excerpt: ...ation; 2. FEHA – Retaliation; 3. FEHA – Failure to Take All Steps Necessary to Stop Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation; 4. FEHA – Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation; 5. FEHA – Failure to Engage in a Timely Good-Faith Interactive Process; 6. CFRA Retaliation; and 7. Retaliation – Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5. Plaintiff moves to quash the deposition subpoena for production of business records served on Comcast Corporation on...

Excerpt: ... Code section 1793.2; 3. Violation of Subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code section 1793.2; 4. Breach of Express Written Warranty (Civ. Code § 1791.2, Subd. (a); § 1794); 5. Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Civ. Code § 1791.1; § 1794; § 1795.5); and 6. Fraud by Omission. Defendant demurs to the sixth cause of action for fraud by omission. Legal Standard on Demurrer A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a ...

Excerpt: ... property. Plaintiffs also claim that FATIC, which provided Plaintiffs' title insurance, acted in bad faith by improperly favoring Plaintiffs' neighbors, “Shih/Ko,” in the dispute over the alleged encroachment and failed to pay Plaintiffs adequate damages to compensate for the diminution in value of their property caused by the encroachment. In the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), Plaintiffs assert causes of action for: 1. Brea...

Excerpt: ...t granted Defendant Cynergy Data, LLC's (hereinafter “Defendant”) Anti-SLAPP Motion. On February 8, 2018, the Court granted Defendant's motion for attorney fees and costs associated with the Anti-SLAPP, awarding $53,915.50 in attorney fees and $3,567.77 in costs. Plaintiffs appealed the award and on August 29, 2019, the Court of Appeal entered its order, affirming the attorney fees award and reversing the order awarding costs. Defendant moves...

Excerpt: ...s – Failure to Return Security Deposit (Civ. Code § 1950.5); 2. Negligent Maintenance of Premises; 3. Constructive Eviction; 4. Retaliatory Eviction (Civ. Code § 1942.5); 5. Violations of the Los Angeles Municipal Code; 6. Breach of Written Contract; 7. Breach of Oral Contract; 8. Negligent Misrepresentation; and 9. Fraud and Intentional and Deceit. On November 22, 2019, Cross-Defendant Neman filed a Substitution of Attorney indicating that h...

Excerpt: ...(3) of Civil Code section 1793.2; 4. Breach of Express Written Warranty (Civ. Code § 1791.2, subd. (a); § 1794); 5. Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Civ. Code § 1791.1; § 1794; § 1795.5); 6. Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; andFraud by Omission. Legal Standard on Demurrer A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747. When consideri...

Excerpt: ... Stralberg and M. Zeffren); 2. Breach of Written Contract (against Akopnik); 3. Breach of Written Contract (against D. Zeffren and M. Zeffren); 4. Unjust Enrichment (against all Defendants); 5. False Promises (against Stralberg and M. Zeffren); 6. False Promises (against Akopnik); and 7. False Promises (against D. Zeffren and M. Zeffren). On May 22, 2019, the Court sustained with leave to amend Defendants' demurrer to the fourth cause of action f...

Excerpt: ...ve further briefing from Plaintiff. Background On July 10, 2019, Plaintiff Yvonne Tillman (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Granite Construction Company (“Defendant”) alleging causes of action for: 1. discrimination in violation of Government Code §§ 12940 et seq.; 2. retaliation in violation of Government Code §§ 12940 et seq.; 3. failure provide [sic] reasonable accommodation in violation of Government Code §§ 1294...

Excerpt: ...n for Exercising Rights Under FEHA [Gov. Code § 12940(h)]; 4. Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, & Retaliation [Gov. Code § 12940(k)]; 5. Whistleblower Retaliation [Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5]; 6. Failure to Pay Earned Wages [Cal. Lab. Code § 204]; 7. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages [Cal. Lab. Code § 1197]; 8. Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation [Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510, 1194, 1198; IWC Wage Order No. 4- 2001]; 9. Failure to Pay Meal ...

Excerpt: ...4. Violations of Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(k); 5. Violations of Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(h); 6. Violations of Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(j); 7. Violations of Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5; 8. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; 9. Violations of Cal. Labor Code § 1198.5; 10. Violations of Cal. Labor Code § 226(c); and 11. Unfair Business Practices in Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. On December 23, 2019, Defendants SK Market, Inc. (...

Excerpt: ...n of Song-Beverly Act; 3. Violation of the Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2; and 4. Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment. On August 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case and has filed this motion for fees. Legal Standard Attorneys' fees are allowed as costs when authorized by contract, statute, or law. (Code Civ. Proc, § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(B).) In a lemon law action, costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, may ...

Excerpt: ...d Class (against BFI, Republic, and Does 1-100); 2. Age Discrimination (against BFI, Republic, and Does 1-100); 3. Disability Discrimination (against BFI, Republic, and Does 1-100); 4. Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment (against BFI, Republic, and Does 1-100); 5. Harassment – Gov. Code § 12940(j) (against all Defendants); 6. Retaliation – Gov. Code § 12940(h) (against BFI, Republic, and Does 1-100); 7. Retaliation – Labor Co...

Excerpt: ...Beverly Act Section 1793.2; 4. Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment; 5. Fraudulent Inducement – Intentional Misrepresentation. KMA has filed the instant Demurrer. Legal Standard on Demurrer A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747. When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Wilson v. Transit Authority of City of Sacrame...

Excerpt: ...olicy; 4. Violation of California Constitution; 5. Violation of California Government Code § 12900, et seq.; 6. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; 7. Violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200; 8. Violation of Consumers Legal Remedy Act; 9. Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation, Concealment; and 10. Violation of California Labor Code – Protection of Whistleblower. On September 20, 2019, Defendants Whole Body Research, LLC and On...

Excerpt: ...i, and Sabrina Schalk as Plaintiffs and EMC Concord, LLC; EMC Irvine, LLC; and EMC Santa Row, LLC as Does 1-3. It asserts causes of action for: 1. Civil Penalties under PAGA [Cal. Lab. Code § 2699, et seq.]; 2. Fair Labor Standards Act [29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.]; 3. Failure to Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages [Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1194.2, and 1197]; 4. Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation [Cal Lab. Code § 1194 and 1198]; 5. Failure to ...