Excerpt: ...t amended complaint (FAC) was filed on February 10, 2022. The answers were filed March 17, 2022. The trial date initially set for May 2, 2023 was continued to October 24, 2023. On May 19, 2023, Defendants moved for summary judgment with a hearing date of May 20, 2024, the earliest available date. Defendants now move to continue trial so that their motion for summary judgment can be heard before trial. In the alternative, Defendants ask the Court ...

Excerpt: ...ven Jagoda Co. Tr.; Justin K. Jagoda; Steven D Co. Tr and Justin Jagoda Trust; and Does 1 to 50, claiming the assault took place on Defendants' property (“the Property”). On April 18, 2023 Plaintiff took the deposition of Justin Jagoda (Defendant) and asserts that Defendant improperly refused to answer certain questions about the owners of the property by his counsel's direction. Plaintiff now moves to Compel Answers to Questions Not Answered...

Excerpt: ...ion for Summary Judgment 2. Declaration of David K. Dorenfeld and Exhibits 3. Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Genuine Issues of Disputed Material Facts REPLY PAPERS 1. Reply Brief 2. Evidentiary Objections to Plaintiff's Evidence 3. Reply to Opposition to Defendant's Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Supporting Evidence; Response to Plaintiff's Additional Facts BACKGROUND On October 12, 2021, Plaintiff Clayton Hosmann filed a ...

Excerpt: ...intiff's complaint. Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for the following: - First Cause of Action for Battery - Third Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - Fourth Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment - Fifth Cause of Action for Private Nuisance - Sixth Cause of Action for Public Nuisance - Seventh Cause of Action for Breach of Contract Defendants ...

Excerpt: ...ortions of the complaint: 1) Page 2 lines 24-25: “UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF A SUBSTANCE, (despicable conduct)” 2) Page 2, line 27: “UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF A SUBSTANCE, (despicable conduct)” 3) Page 2, line 28: “be under” and page 3 lines 1: “the influence and” 4) Page 5, line 8: “6. For punitive damages” No opposition has been filed. LEGAL STANDARD California law authorizes a party's motion to strike matter from an opposing party...

Excerpt: ...laintiff argues the subpoena for his employment records is (1) an invasion of his privacy; (2) or in the alternative, overly broad in scope. LEGAL STANDARD Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.1(a) provides: If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon mot...

Excerpt: ...omplaint was filed on August 4, 2022. On March 15, 2023, LACMTA was served with the summons and complaint. On June 14, 2023, LACMTA filed an answer. On June 15, 2023, LACMTA filed a cross-complaint against the City of Los Angeles (the City). On June 28, 2023, the City filed a cross-complaint against LACMTA. On July 18, 2023, LACMTA filed an answer to the cross-complaint. On August 18, 2023, LACMTA brought this motion to continue trial. The City d...

Excerpt: ...oved to continue trial, arguing that Defendant had not been served. On June 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed proof service of the summons and complaint on Defendant. On June 27, 2023, Defendant filed their answer. Trial is set for December 15, 2023. Plaintiff moves to continue the trial to at least December 27, 2024 in order for discovery to occur. ANALYSIS Legal Standard “Continuances are granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring...

Excerpt: ...aint was filed on January 29, 2021. The first amended complaint (FAC) was filed on July 14, 2021 against the City of Los Angeles (the City) and Does 1 to 100. On July 22, 2021, Defendants were substituted for Does 51 and 52. On September 3, 2021, the City filed a cross-complaint against ROES 1 to 20. On September 21, 2021, Defendants filed an answer to the FAC and a cross- complaint against the City and ROES 1 to 100. The City filed an answer to ...

Excerpt: ...pposition was filed. ANALYSIS A demurrer is a pleading used to test the legal sufficiency of other pleadings. It raises issues of law, not fact, regarding the form or content of the opposing party's pleading (complaint, answer or cross-complaint). (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 422.10, 589; see Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint; and for pur...

Excerpt: ...1, Plaintiff's daughter, Dorothea Johnson, was shot and killed on Defendants' premises, an apartment complex. The FAC alleges that Defendants' agents and employees knew that people carrying dangerous firearms gathered in their parking lot, and that Defendants did nothing to prevent these gatherings. She also alleges the gatherings posed a threat to the residents of the apartment complex and that Defendants negligently hired and/or supervised secu...

Excerpt: ...nilla allegedly drove over Plaintiff Larry Chavez Jr.'s foot at Port D of the Port of Long Beach. (Complaint ¶ 1.) Plaintiff was employed by Curtin at the time, and Bonilla was employed by the Ventura Transfer Company. (Complaint ¶ 9.) Plaintiff was guiding a container to Curtin's barge when the incident occurred. (Complaint ¶ 8–10.) Plaintiff filed an action against Bonilla and Ventura. Then, on April 21, 2023, Ventura filed a cross-complai...

Excerpt: ...PERS 1. Opposition to Motion for Summary Adjudication; Memorandum of Points and Authorities 2. Cross-Defendant's Response to Defendant's Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts 3. Declaration of Frederick J. Ufkes with Attached Exhibits REPLY PAPERS 1. Reply Brief 2. Request for Judicial Notice BACKGROUND On August 20, 2019, Plaintiffs Winnie Cheung and Michael Cheung (Plaintiffs) filed a motor vehicle/pedestrian wrongful death action against Vann...

Excerpt: ...o compel Plaintiff to submit to a mental examination at 9 a.m. on October 16, 2023 with Charles Hinkin, PhD, a neuropsychologist. Plaintiff opposes and Defendant replies. LEGAL STANDARD Except for defense physical examinations in personal injury cases (in which one examination is permitted as a matter of course) and examinations arranged by stipulation, a court order is required for a physical or mental examination. Such order may be made only af...

Excerpt: ... Plaintiff filed their First Amended Complaint. On August 2, 2023, Plaintiff moved to compel the deposition of Non-Party Google LLC's (Google) Person Most Knowledgeable. Plaintiff asserts that he properly served a valid deposition subpoena for personal appearance with production of records on Google LLC, who refused to appear. LEGAL STANDARD Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450(a) provides, “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to t...

Excerpt: ...seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel. This motion is unopposed. LEGAL STANDARD Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party or party-affiliated deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection an...

Excerpt: ...Support OPPOSITION PAPERS 1. Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment 2. Declaration of Omid Khorshidi 3. Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts; Plaintiff's Additional Undisputed Facts 4. Index of Exhibits in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition REPLY PAPERS 1. Reply Brief 2. Declaration of Marjorie E. Motooka 3. Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Additional Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts BACKG...

Excerpt: ... the motion. ANALYSIS Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a motion to strike the whole pleading or any part thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322(b).) On a motion to strike, the court may: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with th...

Excerpt: ...usly moved the Court for an order compelling Defendant E&S Management Ring Corp. (“Defendant”) to serve further responses to Plaintiff's Supplemental Interrogatories (Set One), Demand for Production of Documents (Set One), and Request for Production (Set Two) Nos. 61, 62, 64, and 65. On June 27, 2023, Defendant filed a consolidated opposition regarding the document requests. Plaintiff filed a reply on June 28, 2023. An information discovery c...

Excerpt: ..., Jorge Rene Salguero, and Colich & Sons, LP., for negligence. Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Defendant Jorge Rene Salguero and Defendant Colich & Sons, L.P.'s Person Most Knowledgeable. LEGAL STANDARD Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a part...

Excerpt: ...tly rear-ended Plaintiff on the freeway. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Olga Felix co-owned the vehicle Brenda was driving and entrusted it to her. (See Complaint at MV-2.) Defendant Olga Felix now moves for summary judgment. Any opposition was due on or before August 24, 2023. To date, no opposition has been filed. LEGAL STANDARD Summary judgment is proper “if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any materi...

Excerpt: ...d Susan Fitzgerald on September 7, 2000 (LASC Case No. BC236431). The initial action was voluntarily dismissed in 2002. John died on August 1, 2012. Plaintiff refiled the action on July 17, 2018 against John and Slavko. On September 6, 2018, Slavko filed his Answer, along with his Cross-Complaint against Gerald and Susan Fitzgerald. Slavko died on November 13, 2018. Slavko's estate was substituted in as a defendant on July 22, 2022. [1] On July 2...

Excerpt: ...Litem) (4) Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication (Tentative Ruling below) MOVING PARTIES (1) Nonparty Antoine Montini (2) Nonparty Antoine Montini (3) Plaintiff Marz Holden-Montini, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Beth Holden (4) Defendant Benjamin Reininger OPPOSING PARTIES (1) Plaintiff Marz Holden-Montini, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Beth Holden (2) None (3) None (4) Plaintiff Marz Holden-Montin...

Excerpt: ...and enforceable arbitration agreement; (2) Plaintiff's claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and (3) the parties delegated to the arbitrator issues of arbitrability. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE The court may take judicial notice of “facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indispu...

Excerpt: ...y 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On August 10, 2023, Defendant filed a reply. LEGAL STANDARD “If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (CCP § 664.6(a).) “We note that even if the terms of the judgment...