Excerpt: ...e 6th Cause of Action (Breach of Written Contract‐‐ Authorizations), the 7th Cause of Action (Breach of Implied Contract), the 8th Cause of Action (Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing), the 9th Cause of Action (Indebitatus Assumpsit), and the 10th Cause of Action (Quantum Meruit). Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice of Exhibits A‐N is denied. Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice of Exhibits O and P is grante...

Excerpt: ...sum. Given that Intertek's liability is likely zero to negligible, the proposed settlement is within the range of the moving party's proportionate share of comparative lliability under a Tech‐Bilt analysis. The settlement is in good faith. ...

Excerpt: ...lated event. ‐‐Rushton was not traveling to any worker's compensation appointments. ‐‐Rushton was traveling to the Hyperion Treatment Plant, where he worked. ‐‐Rushton performed his work at the plant. ‐‐On the day of the accident, Rushton was scheduled to do routine instrumental analysis at the lab of the plant. ‐‐Rushton was never told by the City that he was required to bring his personal vehicle to work. ‐‐Rushton w...

Excerpt: ...reach of Contract and Implied Covenant claims are sufficiently alleged. Plaintiff alleges that it properly and timely exercised the Extension Option and that it paid the increased rent to the landlord for 3 years based on the Fair Market Rent which was calculated for the Option Term under the terms set forth in the Second Amendment to Lease. See Paragraphs 31‐35 of the Fourth Amended Complaint. Further, the Fourth Amended Complaint alleges that...

Excerpt: ...ing as damages? The objections are not well taken. The Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum or to Limit the Scope of the Subpoena served on Farmers Insurance filed by Defendant Sundial is granted in part. Request for Production Nos. 4‐8 are quashed. These requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under CCP Section 2017.020. As to Request for Production Nos. 1‐3, these requests are modified and limited to those documents relating to d...

Excerpt: ...mber 26, 2015 email qualifies as extortion. Defendant does not concede that the email was extortion. The email does not demand anything in return from Plaintiff and informs Plaintiff of the investigation and intent to pursue legal remedies should the investigation reveal theft. Therefore, the exception found in the case of Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299, 320 does not apply here. Plaintiff fails to show the probability of prevailing on the...

Excerpt: ...mber 26, 2015 email qualifies as extortion. Defendant does not concede that the email was extortion. The email does not demand anything in return from Plaintiff and informs Plaintiff of the investigation and intent to pursue legal remedies should the investigation reveal theft. Therefore, the exception found in the case of Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299, 320 does not apply here. Plaintiff fails to show the probability of prevailing on the...

Excerpt: ...n Paragraph 8 of the First Amended Complaint, an essential element of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Causes of Action cannot be established as a matter of law and therefore fail. ‐‐There is no competent evidence that Escandari & Michon was Plaintiff's fictitious business name or that Plaintiff ever registered it per Business and Professions Code Section 17918. Further, even if Escandari & Michon was a proper fictitious business name, Plaintiff deni...

Excerpt: ...ndent contractors under Labor Code Sectin 2750.5. ‐‐Defendant's license was revoked at the outset of the Cadet project under Business and Professions Code Section 7125.2. ‐‐Defendant fails to show substantial compliance under Business and Professions Code Section 7031(e). ...

Excerpt: ...to Strike with leave to amend as to the treble damages, injunctive relief and punitive damages only. Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice is granted as to Exhibits 1‐7 and denied as to Exhibits 8‐11. The Declaration of Jacqueline Marcott is irrelevant. This is not an evidentiary hearing. ...

Excerpt: ...hicle during the warranty period." See Second Amended Complaint Paragraphs 26‐27. It is not clear who made the misrepresentations, to whom, what was specifically misrepresented, by what means, etc. As to the negligence claim, there is no indication how Plaintiff suffered emotional injuries. This claim is barred by the economic loss doctrine. Further, there is no separate tort of neligent infliction of emotional distress. The tort is neglieg...

Excerpt: ...Design to perform repairs at the property. See Defendant's Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts No. 1 and the Supplemental Declaration of Jay Griffith, Paragraph 1. Even if Jay Griffith was not the owner, the evidence shows that he had management and control of the property. The Privette case does not absolve the moving party from liability under the 1st Cause of Action (Premises Liability) or the 3rd Cause of Action (Negligence). ...

Excerpt: ...oods, . . . the measure of damages shall include the cost of repairs necessary to make the goods confirm." The evidence was clear at trial that Plaintiff kept the Mercedes and stored it at her husband's warehouse. The evidence was clear at trial that the cost to replace the transmission was @$9,000.00. The amount of damages is therefore within the limited civil case jurisdiction. ...

Excerpt: ...the deadline? Further, the Motion was filed on February 9, 2018 and the Separate Statement was untimely filed on March 5, 2018. At an Informal Discovery Conference, the parties agreed and the court ordered Defendants to appear for deposition on January 23, 2018. Defendants appeared. Previously, Defendants did not appear for deposition due to illness. Under these circumstances, there is no legal authority to support the award of sanctions. ...

Excerpt: ...d due to a glitch in the software. All company records were affected by the same glitch, not just records concerning the Plaintiff. It would be an abuse of discretion to impose a termination sanction in light of the fact that an evidentiary sanction is available. Even if the deletion of the records was inadvertent, it impairs Plaintiff's ability to prove his case. Therefore, Defendant may not submit any evidence challenging Plaintiff's va...

Excerpt: ...r v. Copley Press, Inc. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1559‐1560. Messenger Fees and Service of Process Fees are recoverable. See CCP Section 1033.5(c)(4), "reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation." Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 132 and Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 858. ...

Excerpt: ... qualify as a default, default judgment or dismissal. In the last hearing, the court found that the 1st prong of the analysis had been met and the burden shifted to Plaintiff to establish the probable validity of her claims against Defendant. Plaintiff failed to carry her burden. Mandatory relief is denied. However, discretionary relief is available for any "judgment, dismissal order or other proceeding," so long as the judgment, etc. was...

Excerpt: ......

Excerpt: ...rt to inspect the mail program for emails relevant to Plaintiffs and his web browser." Defendants stated they would not allow Plaintiffs' expert to copy the hard drives. Plaintiff's requests are outside of the response to the Request for Production. As to Plaintiff's Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of John Hostetler: Sustain As to Plaintiff's Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Steven Morris: Sustain all ...

Excerpt: ...ails to establish that no subcontract was formed between Tower Glass and McCormick. See Nos. 1‐10 which support a finding of a subcontract. Also, there is an allegation in the Complaint that a subcontract was formed. See Paragraph 25 of the First Amended Complaint. If the existence of a subcontract between McCormick and Tower Glass was a condition precedent for a subcontract between Tesla/Asis and Tower Glass, there is a triable issue. There is...

Excerpt: ... Defendants establish that Rojeski signed a form acknowledging that the treating doctors were independent contractors and not employees of Valley Surgical Center. Therefore, Rojeski knew that Dr. Gee and Dr. Chau were not employees of Valley Surgical Center. The burden shifts to Plaintiff to show that acknowledgment is not authentic. Plaintiff fails to submit evidence to dispute Defendants' Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts No. ...

Excerpt: ... (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 670, 684. Plaintiff's injuries were sustained in Florida and he was treated in Florida. He resides and works in Florida. Therefore, percipient witnesses to the accident, to his treatment and his loss of income are located in Florida. It would be difficult for Defendant to depose such witnesses if the case remains in California. ...

Excerpt: ...raph of the Declaration of Sheila Chesanow. 22 CCR Section 71225 requires that there by "a sufficient number of therapists to carry out the scope of services offered" and "a sufficient number of appropriate personnel shall be provided for the safety of the patients." See 22 CCR Section 71225(b) and (c). There is a triable issue of fact whether Defendant committed neglect under the Elder Abuse Act. ...

Excerpt: ...n May 17, 2013. ‐‐This action was filed on October 7, 2013. T There is a triable issues: ‐By what legal authority does the assignment of the Note and TD automatically transfer the Recognition Agremeent? ‐Was Ocean Towers excused from giving notice under Section 3 of the Recognition Agreement? ‐Did Ocean Towers reasonably comply with Section 3 of the Recognition Agreement? ‐Who was entitled to notice: First Capital Mortgage, Thornburg ...

Excerpt: ...s no cause of action in California for unjust enrichment. See Melchior v. New Line (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 779, 793. ...