Excerpt: ... First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed by Plaintiff Mario Vasquez Gallegos (“Plaintiff”). The Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to strike WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Background This action concerns Plaintiff's employment relationship with Defendant. The following facts are taken from the allegations in the FAC. Defendant hired Plaintiff as a cook on September 21, 2012. On June 26, 2020, Plaintiff tested positive for Covid -19. Around June 28, 2...

Excerpt: ...NTS Plaintiff leave to file the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) which Plaintiff has previously submitted to the Court. Background Plaintiff filed this action on April 30, 2024, raising claims for (1) discriminatory practices in public accommodations; and (2) violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code, section 51. Defendants moved to strike the Complaint on January 17, 2024, contending that the Complaint must be verified because it a...

Excerpt: ... Devin Davis (collectively, “Responding Plaintiffs”). In the alternative, Defendants request summary adjudication. The Court DENIES Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Court DENIES Defendants' motion for summary adjudication. Background This is a landlord- tenant case. Danielle Diab, Harley Lally, Devin Davis, Karin Neuman, Laura Ramanei, and Claire Johnson (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) are tenants at real property located at 201 ...

Excerpt: ... strike portions of the Complaint. The Court SUSTAINS the demurrer WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiffs must amend within 20 days. Background This is a landlord- tenant case. The following facts are taken from the allegations in the Complaint. On April 9, 2021, Plaintiffs Nasser Eshraghi and Khashayar Eshragi (collectively, the “Eshraghis”) leased an apartment located at 600 S. Spring Street (the “Property”), Unit 703, Los Angeles, California,...

Excerpt: ..., 57, 69, 73, 74, 75, and 76. Plaintiff also requests as a discovery sanction attorney's fees in the total amount of $6,120.00 in connection with the motion to compel. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion with respect to Requests Number 57 and 69. The remainder of the motion to compel in the original motion is moot as Repligen responded after the filing of this motion. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for sanctions. Background This is an emplo...

Excerpt: ...evidence, argument, and comment concerning plaintiff's subjective opinion on the ultimate issue of retaliation. The Court denies the motion. The Court will not micromanage the manner in which Yang testifies about the basis for his claim that he was retaliated against. However, the Court will deal with objections as to relevance and foundation on a question -by - question basis. 2. MIL #2 : GWCC moves to exclude testimony, evidence, argument, and ...

Excerpt: ...ontract action. Plaintiff alleges that he found and returned Defendant's lost dog and filed this action to recover the promised reward. The facts stated here are taken from the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint. In July 2019, Defendant announced on social media that he had been burglarized and his dog was stolen. Defendant offered a reward of $30,000.00 for the return of his dog. Plaintiff found and returned Defendant's dog, but Defendant did ...

Excerpt: ...ntiff”) and moves for an order reducing the jury's verdict for noneconomic damages in favor of Plaintiff. The Court has considered all the parties' filings on this issue, including the unauthorized sur -opposition by Plaintiff and the unauthorized response to the sur- opposition by Defendant. It appears based on the authorities cited by the parties that Defendant is correct. Based on these authorities, the Court tentatively concludes that the n...

Excerpt: ...) (collectively, (“Defendants”) move for judg ment on the pleadings as to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Morgan Bottehsazan (“Plaintiff”). The Court DENIES the motion as to the first and fourth claims. The Court GRANTS the motion WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to the second, third, and fifth claims. Background This case relates to a real estate transaction. The following facts are taken from the allegations of the Complaint, which the Court acc...

Excerpt: ...ded Complaint (“FAC”) filed by Plaintiffs David Sanchez and Apple Ma rkets, Inc. (“Apple Markets”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). The Court OVERRULES the demurrer. Background This is an insurance case. The following facts are taken from the FAC. In January 2017, Infinity Select issued a commercial auto liability policy (the “Policy”) to “David Sanchez dba Apple Market.” While the Policy was in effect, an employee of Apple Marke...

Excerpt: ...t filed by Plaintiff Fallon Seaborn (“Plaintiff”). The Court SUSTAINS the demurrer WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff shall amend the Complaint within 20 days. Background This is a breach of contract case. Defendant is a lender that makes small, secured cash loans. Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an agreement on June 5, 2019. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant makes loans at a very high interest rate. Plaintiff alleges t...

Excerpt: ...tiff's Form Interrogatories (“FROG”), Set Four; Special Interrogatories (“SROG”), Set Five; and Requests for Production of Documents (“RFP”), Set Four Plaintiff also seeks over $18,000 ($6,600 per motion) in sanctions against Defendant and its attorneys. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motions. Background Plaintiff filed this action on September 8, 2022 against Defendant, her former employer, alleging (1) discrimination under FEHA; (2) r...

Excerpt: ... for Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiff also seeks $4,215 in sanctions against CMC and its attorneys. CBC in its opposition seeks sanctions in the amount of $16,940. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion in part. CBC shall only be required to respond as to discrimination against external organizations or individuals. CBC shall redact confidential information of employees. The Court DENIES both Plaintiff's and CBC's respective requests for ...

Excerpt: ...ction of Documents (“RFP”), Set Four, Nos. 1 -11 and 16- 19. Plaintiff also seeks $6,300 in sanctions against Defendant and his attorneys. In its opposition, Defendant seeks $2,213 in sanctions. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion IN PART as to RFP Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, and 19. Defendant shall be required to produce only responsive documents that reference Plaintiff. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion as to RFP Nos. 1 an...

Excerpt: ...n as to each of Plaintiff's causes of action. The Court DENIES Freshman's motion for summary judgment. The Court DENIES Freshman's motion for summary adjudication. Background This is a landlord- tenant case. Plaintiff lived at 404 N. Maple Drive, Unit 302 (the “Property”) for roughly nine years. Plaintiff alleges that the Property suffered a number of issues including mold growth, asbestos exposure, and inadequate flooring and soundproofing, ...

Excerpt: ...Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The Court OVERRULES the demurrer. Background This is a landlord- tenant case. The following facts are taken from the allegations in the FAC. Defendants owned or managed (it is unclear which) a four -unit residential rental property located at 720 -722 West 79th Street, Los Angeles, California 90044 (the “Property”). Plaintiffs were tenants at the Property during various time periods. Plaintiffs allege that Defen...

Excerpt: ... summary adjudication as to Pithawalla but not as to his fellow plaintiff B&S Ventures Inc. (“BSV”). The Court DENIES Pithawalla's motion to strike. The Court GRANTS Pithawalla's motion to tax costs. The Court awards AmGuard costs in the amount of $921.05. Background Plaintiff B&S Ventures Inc. (“BSV”) is a Wingstop franchisee that owns and operates several Wingstop restaurants, including one located at 1685 Pacific Coast Highway, Unit D,...

Excerpt: ...session, custody, or control since July 8, 2021 and have b een used to access certain email accounts. The specific discovery items at issue are Request for Production Nos. 7 -10. The Court GRANTS Defendant's motion. Plaintiff shall make the laptop available within ten days of this order. Defendant may instruct the third -party to conduct searches limited to the search terms proposed by Defendant on March 29, 2024. The Court DENIES Defendant's req...

Excerpt: ...st Cross -Defendants Brad Hakala and The Hakala Law Group (“Hakala Law”) (co llectively, “Cross-Defendants”). The Court GRANTS Defendants' motion. Background This case relates to a failed transaction for the purchase of CBD isolate. Plaintiffs The Englander Group, f/k/a Tower Marketing and Investments, LLC (“Englander Group”) and Harvey Englander allege that Defendants entered into a contract with Plaintiffs to deliver CBD isolate pur...

Excerpt: ...gs. Plaintiff moves to amend the complaint. Defendants' motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. Defendants' motion to stay proceedings is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint is DENIED as moot. This action is hereby STAYED pending resolution of the arbitration. The Court sets a Status Conference Re: Arbitration for January 29, 2025 at 8:30 AM. Defendants to give notice. Background Plaintiff Matthew Chidez (“Plaintiff”) filed th...

Excerpt: ...Artiaga appears to seek summary adjudication in the alternative. Defendant City of Los Angeles (“City”) joins in Artiaga's motions. The Court DENIES the motion for summary judgment. The Court does not issue a tentative on the summary adjudication motion but invites argument as to whether summary adjudication of any particular claim should be granted in light of the Court's ruling on the summary judgment motion. Background This case concerns p...

Excerpt: ...mmary judgment. Background The following facts are taken from the parties' separate statements except where otherwise noted. The Court does not consider the parties' reply separate statements, which are not authorized by statute. ( Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 252.) This case is an insurance coverage dispute under an environmental liability policy which Admiral issued to Canyon Country. The policy for “Cleanup Cost...

Excerpt: ...lobal Win”). The Court DENIES the motion for summary adjudication. Background Plaintiff is Global Win's former Chief Financial Officer. Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated in retaliation for his whistleblower complaints. Defendant alleges that it terminated Plaintiff for incurring unapproved unreasonable business expenses. On November 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Global Win Xiaobei Ellis Liu, Shanying International Holdin...

Excerpt: ...or attorney's fees in the amount of $63,981.25. Plaintiff shall pay this amount to Defendant's counsel within thirty days. Background The following facts are taken from the allegations in the FAC. The Court accepts them as true on demurrer. This action arises out of the termination of Jonathan Dortch's employment relationship with Part Four, LLC (“Part Four”) and its effects on Plaintiff's interest in Part Four. Part Four is a digital marketi...

Excerpt: ...g this action. The Court DENIES Defendant's motion. Background This is an employment case. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a general manager of the Luminarias Restaurant beginning in June 2023 and ending when Defendant terminated him on August 11, 2023. Plaintiff filed this action on November 15, 2023. The complaint raises claims for (1) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (2) failure to prevent retaliation; (3) retaliation in violation of Labor ...