Excerpt: .... Next came Phase 2 ‐‐ collection of the judgment ‐‐ with Plaintiffs propounding Post Judgment Interrogatories, separate Sets #1 to each of the three judgment debtors, and Request for Production of Documents, Sets #1 on 2/25/16, which were never responded to. Thereafter, Plaintiffs obtained Orders of Examination on 8/5/16 for appearance of Sharon Hinchman and Henry Amado on 9/8/16, but since there had been no effective service, the hearin...

Excerpt: ...tate a cause of action, and has again failed to do so. The demurrer as to the only remaining cause of action, negligence, is sustained without leave to amend. ...

Excerpt: ...ts respective issues. There is no reason why discovery cannot proceed in this civil case, as the two actions are not dependent on each other. (See Scott v. Industrial Accident Commission (1956) 46 Cal.2d 76, 83.) Defendant's cited authority (Contractors State License Board v. Superior Court (1960) 187 Cal.App.2d 557, 562‐563) is inapplicable since it was to prevent the administrative board from taking further action in a disciplinary proceeding...

Excerpt: ...ntion improperly includes a claim for punitive damages. Defendants argue that leaving the scene of an accident is not malicious under Civil Code Section 3294. However, this argument must be brought by way of a motion. The Rules of Civil Procedure do not allow an attack on a part of a cause of action by demurrer or by an opposition to a motion for leave to file a pleading, which is conceded. See Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (2016) 2...

Excerpt: ...en done in this case. The only discovery initiated was by Plaintiff's first counsel, Mark Corrinet, Esq., approximately two months after the initial lawsuit was filed almost five years ago. Mr. Corrinet propounded a first set of form interrogatories and a first document request. Following a disqualification motion, Mr. Corrinet withdrew as counsel, and Grover Perrigue substituted into the case on July 2, 2014. Mr. Perrigue did even less than Mr. ...

Excerpt: ...f escrow. And Paragraph 19 of the subject purchase agreement requires the arbitration of all such pre‐closure disputes, “whether or not arising from CONTRA COSTA SUPERIOR COURT MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT: 09 HEARING DATE: 01/24/18 ‐ 4 ‐ a Buyer default.” There is no reasonable interpretation of the pre‐closure arbitration provisions that simply ignores the language “whether or not arising from a Buyer default.” The CDI defend...

Excerpt: ...e No. N17‐1856, the City likewise filed its opposition three days late. The City's conduct has caused prejudice in at least two ways. First, it has prevented Petitioner from having the statutorily‐ prescribed amount of time to file a reply brief. Second, it has prevented the Court from having the statutorily‐mandated amount of time to consider this matter on the merits. It is unacceptable; particularly so in a case where the City asks the C...

Excerpt: ...in the First Amended Complaint and First Amended Cross‐Complaint, Cross‐Complainants cannot get indemnity, contribution or apportionment of fault. Rock Bottom correctly points out the CrossComplainants' theory of recovery is based on Rock Bottom acting negligently. Relevant Factual Allegations The Court accepts all the factual matters alleged as true for purposes of deciding the Motion. However, the Court accepts as true only the factual matt...

Excerpt: ...f the following: (1) the claim is one upon which an attachment may be issued; (2) the probable validity of the claim is established; (3) the attachment is not sought for a purpose other than the recovery on the claim upon which the application is based; (4) the amount to be secured by the attachment is greater than zero, and (5) the defendant has failed to prove that all of the property sought to be attached is exempt. The requirements for when a...

Excerpt: ...n on February 25, 2015, naming two defendants, Raymond Smith CONTRA COSTA SUPERIOR COURT MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT: 09 HEARING DATE: 01/10/18 ‐ 2 ‐ and Raymond Smith, Inc. On October 2, 2016, Raymond Smith alone filed a Cross‐Complaint. At the time, and until December 5, 2016, both defendants were represented by attorney Timothy Hyden. On February 24, 2017, defendants filed a Substitution of Attorney, naming Thomas McCormick as their ...

Excerpt: ...n on February 25, 2015, naming two defendants, Raymond Smith CONTRA COSTA SUPERIOR COURT MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT: 09 HEARING DATE: 01/10/18 ‐ 2 ‐ and Raymond Smith, Inc. On October 2, 2016, Raymond Smith alone filed a Cross‐Complaint. At the time, and until December 5, 2016, both defendants were represented by attorney Timothy Hyden. On February 24, 2017, defendants filed a Substitution of Attorney, naming Thomas McCormick as their ...