Excerpt: ..., 12.7, 15.1, 16.1-16.8, 17.1, 50.1, and 50.3-50.5; and for monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,800 pursuant to CCP § 2031.310, 2023.010, 2030.300 The Motion by Plaintiffs Parkash Pabla and Jaswinder Kaur to Compel Defendant Dual Arch International, Inc. to Provide Further Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Admission Nos. 5, 6, 11- 13, 15-21, 24-32, 35, 37, 40-42, 44, 46, 49, 55-58, and 60-63 is GRANTED. Objections by Defendant Dual Arch I...

Excerpt: ...ld: “Damages for fear of cancer may be recovered only if the plaintiff pleads and proves that (1) as a result of Defendant's negligent breach of a duty owed to the Plaintiff, the plaintiff is exposed to a toxic substance which threatens cancer; and (2) the plaintiff's fear stems from a knowledge, corroborated by reliable medical or scientific opinion, that it is more likely than not that the plaintiff will develop the cancer in the future due t...

Excerpt: ...to judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff as submitted general evidentiary objections along with specific evidentiary objections to Exhibit 3, the Declaration of Jake Farmer, Exhibit 5, Exhibit 6, Exhibit 7, and Exhibit 8 on the grounds of failure to lay proper foundation, improper authentication, failure to qualify expert testimony, hearsay and lack of personal knowledge. Those objections are OVERRULED. This Court finds that an adequate foundati...

Excerpt: ...llowing tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives notice of intention to appear as follows: 1. You must call (209) 725‐4111 to notify the court of your intent to appear. 2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear. Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral argument. To limit the spread of the COVID‐19 vi...

Excerpt: ...AMEND. The Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED and this Court, on its own motion, take Judicial Notice of its order granting summary judgment on the Complaint in this action. This Court finds that Cross‐Complainant 4‐S Ranch Partners, LLC has failed to allege facts establishing tender or a judicially recognized exception to requirement for tender. (See Arnolds Management Corp. v. Eischen (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 575, 578). As a general rule, ...

Excerpt: ...ven the contention by Cross‐Defendant Altenergy Power Systems USA that a declaration of necessity conforming CCP § 2030.050 was not provided. There can be no dispute that a party who has propounded an interrogatory has the right to withdraw that interrogatory at any time before it is answered. Valley Unique Electic, Inc. asserts that no response was received to an initial set of interrogatires and that Valley Unique Electric elected to withdra...

Excerpt: ...irst Cause of Action for Adverse Possession. This shifts the burden to to Plaintiffs to provide admissible evidence establishing a triable issue of material fact. The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives notice of intention to appear as follows: 1. You must call (209) 725‐ 4240 to notify the court of your intent to appear. 2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your inte...

Excerpt: ...ed, Israel Rosales, Imelda Vivero, and Kenneth Calderon have joined is DENIED. While CCP § 583.310 and CCP § 583.360 provide for mandatory dismissal if an action is not brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced, CCP § 583.340 provides three conditions which “shall be excluded” from the computation of time to which the mandatory dismissal is required if the matter is not brought to trial: (a) the Jurisdiction of the C...

Excerpt: ...rnative Summary Adjudication on the grounds that Civil Code Section 1009 bars claims by Plaintiff Anthony Silva and Plaintiff Daniel Silva for (1) Quiet Title to Easement by Prescription, (2) Declaratory Relief, and (3) Interference with Easement because Plaintiffs are members of the general public and not adjacent landowners is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. While it is possible that facts exist that would cause Civil Code Section 1009 to bar Plainti...

Excerpt: ...ion of Documents Set No. 1, and for Monetary Sanctions of $2,169.00 Against Plaintiff's Counsel Harry B. Gill Pursuant to CCP § 2031.280(a) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Request 16: [Documents Supporting Contentions that Flagstar Bank Loan as been paid] The original objections to Request 16 by Plaintiff Jaswinder Kaur on the grounds of overly broad, oppressive, unduly burdensome, harassing, vague and ambiguous, unlikely to lead to the d...

Excerpt: ...native Summary Adjudication on the grounds that Civil Code Section 1009 bars claims by Plaintiff Anthony Silva and Plaintiff Daniel Silva for (1) Quiet Title to Easement by Prescription, (2) Declaratory Relief, and (3) Interference with Easement because Plaintiffs are members of the general public and not adjacent landowners is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. While it is possible that facts exist that would cause Civil Code Section 1009 to bar Plaintif...

Excerpt: ...ons of $5,419.71 pursuant to CCP § 2023.010 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Request No. 5 [Documents Relating to Quality Control of Microinverter models including model number APS YC‐500A]: The Objections by Cross‐Defendant Altenergy Power Systems USA Inc., on the grounds of relevance, not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, unduly burdensome, oppressive, seeking confidential proprietary trade secret informatio...

Excerpt: ...by January 13, 2023, a Supplemental Verified Response omitting the objections overruled above and containing a privilege log listing each responsive document withheld on grounds of work product doctrine or attorney‐client privilege. Such supplemental verified response shall include a representation that Defendant has made a diligent search and conducted reasonable inquiry, and that all responsive documents in Defendant's possession or control, ...

Excerpt: ...anger to the contract, i.e., a defendant who is neither a party or an agent of a party. (Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 513‐514; Redfearn v. Trader Joe's Co. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 989, 1001‐1003.) The Second Amended Complaint alleges in Paragraphs 2 and 11 that Defendant Armando Diaz was a principal and agent of Defendant Soldavi which was in turn agent for the Sellers, the Lakireddys, who were parti...

Excerpt: ...a and Dustin Oliveira to Quash Subpoena to Third Party San Joaquin Valley Hay Growers Association for Production of Documents concerning financial information concerning Defendants Frank Oliveira and Dustin Oliveira, specifically Requests 1‐3, and 5‐16, and for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,969.40 against Plaintiff Caetano Custom Tractor and its Counsel.pursuant to CCP § 1987.2 is GRANTED. First, there is no showing of good cause ju...

Excerpt: ... Greenman v. Yuba Power Prods., Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57, 60‐61 [California Law].) The Agreement on which the action against Ford Motor Company is based expressly states in Pagaraph 14 that the Dealer is not an agent of the company and may not, in “any manner assume or create any obligation on behalf or or in the name of the Company.” Since Defendant Ford Motor Company was not bound by the arbitration agreement between Plaintiff and Defenda...

Excerpt: ...rown, and harvested and sold or are in the process of being grown, harvested and sold. There appears to be no dispute that Mr. Chillara has declined to pay for the farming expenses necessary to grow and harvest such almonds and there appears to be no dispute that Mr. Khera has not turned over the sales proceed to Mr. Chillara, but there is no evidence that the sales proceeds have been misappropriated. It appears that the purpose of the proposed i...

Excerpt: ...nd Does 1‐25 as Defendants and alleging causes of action for (1) Trespass to Land, (2) Private Nuisance, Elder Abuse, Violations of Penal Code § 496c, Negligence, and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress based on allegations that Defendant Ramirez entered land owned by Plaintiff and installed water pipes transmitting water from Plaintiff's land to Defendant's land. Defendant Ramirez filed an answer on September 14, 2020. On August 3, 202...

Excerpt: ...ossesses independently, and the Non‐Individual claim that can be brought in a representative action, and held that when an employee signs an arbitration claim, his individual claim subject to the agreement. Thus, the sole issue before this court is whether the instant Plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement that covered his Individual Claim. The evidence before this Court is that Defendant has a policy of requiring employees to sign arbitrati...

Excerpt: ... counsel for Defendant Trinidad pursuant to CCP § 2031.320(b) and 2023.030(f)(i) is GRANTED. Defendant Trinidad's objections to the following Requests for Admission are OVERRULED and Defendant Trinidad is ordered, by November 18, 2022, to serve verified supplemental responses, without objections that unambiguously admit or deny the following Requests for Admission: Request 30, 32, 36, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 47. Counsel for Defendant Trinidad sh...

Excerpt: ...age in Interactive Process pursuant to Government Code § 12940, Fourth Cause of Action for Failure to Accommodate Disaiblity pursuant to Government Code § 12940, and Fifth Cause of Action for Retaliation pursuant to Government Code § 12940 are without merit is GRANTED. Each of the Five Motions for Summary Adjudication are based on the same, identical, 54 Undisputed Facts, i.e. Undisputed Facts 1‐54 with regard to the Motion for Summary Adjud...

Excerpt: ...ential creation of a settlement contract if rejected. The fact that the form of offer may not have successfully achieved those benefits if rejected is irrelevant because the offer was in fact delivered to Defendants and was accepted by The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives notice of intention to appear as follows: 1. You must call (209) 725‐4240 to notify the court of your intent to appear. 2....

Excerpt: ...rty tax. (Government Code § 5898.31; Silicon Valley Taxpayers' Assn. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (2008) 44 Cal.4th 431, 443) and are therefore subject to the “pay first litigate later rule.” (See e.g. California Department of Tax and Fee Administration v. Superior Court (2020 48 Cal.App.5th 922, 932.) Declaratory Relief is not available when there is a plain, complete, speedy and adequate remedy at law. (Flying Dutchman Park, ...

Excerpt: ...tion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication, the moving party must submit a separate statement supported by admissible evidence that establishes a prima facie case that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiffs and Cross‐Defendants Sandton Credit Solutions Master Fund IV LP and Sandton Agriculture Investments, LLC filed the requisite separate statement and supporting evidence, including a request for judicial...

Excerpt: ...ential creation of a settlement contract if rejected. The fact that the form of offer may not have successfully achieved those benefits if rejected is irrelevant because the offer was in fact delivered to Defendants and was accepted by Defendants thereby creating a contract. The fact that Plaintiff may have misunderstood lien law when extending the law or the fact that Plaintiff's attorney did not sign the offer pursuant to CCP § 998 does not pr...