Excerpt: ...pp.3d 29, 32. Mr. Russell has not demonstrated any prejudice resulting from the late filing. He has filed a reply which the court has considered. Personal service of the summons and complaint and related documents on the moving party was purportedly accomplished on 2/9/19 at 4735 Sepulveda Blvd PH410, Sherman Oaks Calif, 91403. Motion, Ex. A. Mr. Russell declares he did not live at the Sherman Oaks address on 2/9/19, nor has he conducted business...

Excerpt: ... SP Plus Corporation or the City of Los Angeles. The Reply declaration of Peter P. Salomone establishes that while the proof of service of the opposition indicates service by mail and facsimile to the City of Los Angeles and moving party, SP Plus, Mr. Salomone declares he never received the opposition papers. Salomone Declaration, ¶5. Neither has the City of Attorney's office. Salomone Declaration ¶ 7, Ex. A. Consistent with this assertion is t...

Excerpt: ... whether Peggs owes a duty to defend by way of summary adjudication. Linden Partners v. Wilshire Linden Associates (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 508, 519. A motion for summary adjudication may properly be based on a determination of whether a duty is owed. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 437c(f)(1). 2. Peggs' objections to Superior's Evidence Declaration of Magda Prado-Isas (Manager of Facilities for Superior) #1. Overruled. #2-3. Sustained. 3. The undispute...

Excerpt: ...mbH v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1232, 254 Cal.Rptr. 410).” International Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (Rhone‐ Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co.) (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 784, 786. Motion by Defendants, Adil Aquita and Khadija Aquita, for Reconsideration of the Court's May 2, 2018 Order, filed on 5/15/18 is GRANTED. Under the circumstances, the court reconsiders its ruling of 5/2/18 deeming the Requests for Admission admitted. Defendant...

Excerpt: ...endants served a supplemental exchange on 4/27/18, Plaintiff did not. Motion, Ex. D. On 5/1/18, the parties submitted a stipulation to continue trial to 7/24/18. All discovery and motion cut-offs were to be based on the new trial date. The stipulation does not discuss expert-related deadlines. Opposition, Ex. D. On 5/7/18, the court issued an order to continue trial to 7/24/18. The order is silent on the continuance of any expert-related deadline...

Excerpt: ...s from unreasonable or oppressive demands including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1987.1. 1. The parties do not appear to dispute production of the billing records pertaining to the treatment of Plaintiff by Olympia for injury relating to this action. Motion, Ex. A, Paragraph 1 of Attachment 3 to the subpoena. Olympia discloses it has already produced the UB-04 Claim Form and its itemized bill for the ser...

Excerpt: ...owing elements: “(1) a duty to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of the duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the injury; and (4) resulting loss or damage.” Johnson v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 297, 305. Proof of the standard of care, whether Defendant breached it, and the element of causation all require expert...

Excerpt: ...ull on the property. UF 1-2. About a month and a half later, Vera Gaertner moved into the apartment over the garage. UF 3. She was not allowed to have a dog, and did not have one for approximately two months. UF 4. There is no dispute that Defendants became aware of the presence of Gaertner's dog, Clutch, and told her to remove the dog. UF 5. Plaintiff does not dispute that Clutch never appeared to show any aggressive tendencies, only behaving ti...

Excerpt: ...ions, but they are objections to the purported facts, not specific evidence. Evidentiary objections must be separately filed and must conform to one of two formats. The objections must quote the objectionable material. Cal Rules of Court 3.1354. 2. The undisputed facts establish the following: Plaintiffs filed a complaint for damages asserting medical negligence and loss of consortium against Mary <008b00960083008e01f302 00030013008e0083008b>ntif...

Excerpt: ...Code Civil Procedure § 437c(p)(2). 1. The court has discretion to consider the Plaintiffs' opposition. While it was timely served on 5/30/18, Defendant did not receive it the next business day. Any prejudice to Defendant has been mitigated since the court continued the hearing from 6/13/18 since the court had not received the Opposition, which also had not been uploaded to the court's website in a timely manner. Defendant has been able to file a...

Excerpt: ...apitanski v. Von's (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 29, 32. Defendant has not shown any prejudice resulting from the late Opposition. Defendant was able to file a Reply brief, which has been considered. Ordinarily, if there is any prejudice resulting therefrom, the court can continue the hearing, but Defendant does not ask for a continuance. Mann v. Crachiolo (1985) 38 Cal.3d 18, 30. 3. The Motion for Transfer of Venue by Defendant, Signature Painting and C...

Excerpt: ... from unreasonable or oppressive demands including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1987.1. 1. The parties do not appear to dispute production of the billing records pertaining to the treatment of Plaintiff by Olympia for injury relating to this action. Motion, Ex. A, Paragraph 1 of Attachment 3 to the subpoena. Olympia discloses it has already produced the UB-04 Claim Form and its itemized bill for the serv...

Excerpt: ...icial Notice, Ex. 1. Defendants do not dispute the Plaintiff's age. Preference is mandatory under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 36(b) under these circumstances. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §36(b). Accordingly the court is to set trial for no sooner than six months and no later than nine months from the date the motion is granted, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 36(g). Nine months from the date of this motion hearing is Friday, April 12, 2019. Moving party is ordered...

Excerpt: ...ions, but they are objections to the purported facts, not specific evidence. Evidentiary objections must be separately filed and must conform to one of two formats. The objections must quote the objectionable material. Cal Rules of Court 3.1354. 2. The undisputed facts establish the following: Plaintiffs filed a complaint for damages asserting medical negligence and loss of consortium against Mary <008b00960083008e01f302 00030013008e0083008b>ntif...

Excerpt: ...s other members of the profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of the duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the injury; and (4) resulting loss or damage.” Johnson v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 297, 305. Defendant challenges the second and third elements. Proof of the standard of care, whether Defendant breached it, and the element of causation all require expert testimony.Landeros v....

Excerpt: ...#5-6 Overruled. b. Defendant's objections to evidence Declaration of Brad Avrit #1 and #2. Overruled. #3. Overruled. #4-5 Sustained. #6. Sustained. #7-8. Overruled. #9. Overruled. #10-11. Overruled #12. Sustained. #13-16. Overruled. 2. Defendant's duty as a store owner includes an obligation to make reasonable inspections of the property. Howard v. Omni Hotels Management Corp. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 403, 431. a. Notice of the condition is require...

Excerpt: ...1, 2. In support of the first cause of action for negligence, Plaintiff specifically alleges that Defendant, Hubbell, Inc. (“Hubbell”) negligently repaired, remodeled, installed, and modified the area at the Club so as to cause the floor boxes to be installed where invitees would traverse. UF 6. In support of the 2 nd cause of action for products liability, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to warn purchasers, installers, and end users ...