Excerpt: ...Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes Only” by Defendants under the SPO, and thus those documents and any quotations or references thereto may not be publically disseminated.” (Notice of Motion at 2:27‐3:2.) The motion continues, “[t]he parties have an overriding interest in complying with the terms of the May 23, 2019 SPO….” (Id. at 3:2‐3.) Based on this reference, the Court deduces that “SPO” refers to ...

Excerpt: ...e moving party/counsel shall appear at the hearing by Zoom, unless it is confirmed that no party requests oral argument. Defendant and Cross‐Complainant Laura Young moves the court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 for an order compelling Plaintiff and Cross‐ Defendant Martha Kongsgaard to provide further answers to certain form interrogatories on the grounds that the answers given are evasive or incomplete. The Court rules...

Excerpt: ...ocedures set forth in Local Rule 2.9, the moving party/counsel shall appear at the hearing, in person or by CourtCall, unless it is confirmed that no party requests oral argument. Plaintiff and Cross‐Defendant Martha Kongsgaard, and Cross‐Defendants John Kongsgaard and Mary Kongsgaard (collectively Cross‐Defendants) move to quash the business records subpoena issued by Defendants and Cross‐Claimants Francis Wang and Laura Young (collectiv...

Excerpt: ...and Cross‐Complainant V2 Wine Group, LLC (V2), on the ground that said sixth cause of action fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. A. Legal Analysis A complaint must contain “facts constituting the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.10, subd. (a)(1).) A demurrer is treated as “admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Blank v. Kirwan...

Excerpt: ...the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” In Taylor v. Super. Ct. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 896, the Supreme Court held that punitive damages may be sought where the gravamen of the complaint is that the “[d]efendant became intoxicated and thereafter drove a car while in that condition, despite...

Excerpt: ...ll parties, including JMC with notice of the continued hearing. JMC may file and serve, no later than August 10, 2020, an opposition or notice of non‐opposition. Petitioner and Defendant and Cross‐ Complainant Bay Area Surgical Specialists, Inc. (BASS) may each file and serve, no later than August 14, 2020, a reply memorandum addressing any issues raised in JMC's opposition. Plaintiff and Cross‐ Defendant Mindy Marquez, M.D. (Dr. Marquez), ...

Excerpt: .... 19PR000060. Constantine states in her declaration that she communicated through her former attorney that she would hand over to McMullen all vehicle titles and keys in her possession, and upon doing so, she believed “this matter would be over.” As a result, Constantine did not file an answer. The Court understands McMullen's position that the attorney may never actually have represented Constantine, but a belief she was being represented an...

Excerpt: ...d by Local Rule 2.9. Moving party/counsel is directed to contact the opposing party/ies forthwith and advise of Local Rule 2.9 and the Court's tentative ruling procedure. Notwithstanding the procedures set forth in Local Rule 2.9, the moving party/counsel shall appear at the hearing, in person or by Zoom, unless it is confirmed that no party requests oral argument. A. Request for Judicial Notice Having considered Damron's request papers and Doe's...

Excerpt: ...or the reasons set forth herein below, the motion is DENIED. A. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 1. CB's Request for Judicial Notice The Court rules on CB's Requests for Judicial Notice as follows: Request Nos. 1 and 2: DENIED. The subject of this request is not relevant to the matters raised by this motion. Request No. 3: GRANTED. The Court takes judicial notice of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: Motion for Summary Judgment filed June...

Excerpt: ...reasons set forth herein below, the motion is DENIED. A. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 1. CB's Request for Judicial Notice The Court rules on CB's Requests for Judicial Notice as follows: Request No. 1: DENIED. The subject of this request is not relevant to the matters raised by this motion. Request No. 2: GRANTED. The Court takes judicial notice of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: Motion for Summary Judgment filed June 28, 2016, wit...

Excerpt: ...aims against CB. For the reasons set forth herein below, the motion is DENIED. A. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 1. CB's Request for Judicial Notice The Court rules on CB's Requests for Judicial Notice as follows: Request No. 1: GRANTED. The Court takes judicial notice of the Order Confirming Debtor's and Creditor's Committee's Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation, filed November 6, 2014, with the United States Bankruptcy Court, Central Dist...

Excerpt: ...e demurrer must be overruled. (Wise v. S. Pac. Co. (1963) 223 Cal.App.2d 50, 76, overruled on other grounds in Applied Equip. Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 510, 521.) The rule regarding overruling complaints that are good as to any defendant does not apply to a general demurrer because a defendant may raise at any time the defect that a plaintiff has not stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Majestic ...

Excerpt: ...tion and Plaintiff's motion to seal re: reply in support of motion to change designation of various records, Plaintiff is encouraged to file a single set of supplementary documents addressing both motions. Plaintiff Merryvale Vineyards LLC moves for an order sealing certain portions of the moving papers filed in support of its Motion to Change Designation of Various Records, on the grounds that, “the documents attached to the Vorhis declaration...

Excerpt: ... alternative, for summary adjudication of each of the five causes of action asserted through the Complaint on the ground that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and each cause of action lacks merit. For the reasons set forth herein below, the motion is DENIED. A. Background This case arises out of a so‐called business‐divorce dispute between Defendant wine producer and Plaintiff wine wholesaler. The parties are in accord that, ...

Excerpt: ...otion at 1:22‐24.) “Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 2.550, subd. (c).) “The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish: (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists ...

Excerpt: ...sponses. The initial responses were instead verified by her counsel. Plaintiff's counsel provides in his declaration in opposition to the current motion that defendants subsequently were served with plaintiff's verifications. (Spohn Decl., ¶ 4.) The court anticipated there might be issues with the initial responses when it noted in its February 27, 2020 Order that because it had “no information as to the adequacy of the responses, it believe[d...

Excerpt: ...l notice of that certain Complaint, filed October 17, 2016, with the United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, Santa Ana Division in Case No. 8:16‐bk‐14186, but not for the truth of matters asserted therein. Request No. 6: GRANTED. The Court takes judicial notice of the Request for Dismissal filed December 20, 2017, in the instant action. Request No. 7: GRANTED. The Court takes judicial notice of the Second Amended Compl...

Excerpt: ...cedures set forth in Local Rule 2.9, the moving party/counsel shall appear at the hearing, in person or by CourtCall, unless it is confirmed that no party requests oral argument. Plaintiff and Cross‐Defendant Martha Kongsgaard, and Cross‐Defendants John Kongsgaard and Mary Kongsgaard (collectively Cross‐Defendants) move to quash the business records subpoena issued by Defendants and Cross‐Claimants Francis Wang and Laura Young (collective...

Excerpt: ...ision (d). (Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer at 2:2‐4.) Respondents next assert that decisions made by Harris and Sandoval are not final administrative orders or decisions for purposes of a writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. (Id. at 2:5‐8.) Finally, Respondents assert that decisions made by Harris and Sandoval are subject to other plain, speedy and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law, precluding the...

Excerpt: ...hree calendar days after the submission of Hellman's counsel's trial to the jury or a date thereafter agreeable to the parties. Hellman shall appear, provide testimony, and produce documents at that time. If after taking the deposition more time is needed for discovery related to information learned at the deposition, the parties can discuss whether entering into a stipulation to extend the discovery cut‐off date would be appropriate. The Court...

Excerpt: ...ief, filed February 07, 2020, that “[t]he practice of law should not be considered a game or a mere battle of wits but should be regarded as a means to promote justice.” (Airline Transport Carriers v. Batchelor (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 241, 246 (Airline Transport).) While the Court has concerns that the procedural contours of the instant case may be dangerously close to violating this foundational principle highlighted in the Airline Transport c...

Excerpt: ...dentified prior to December 23, 2019. The preliminary injunction is conditioned on Plaintiff obtaining an undertaking in the amount of $1,000. The application is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's request for an order enjoining Defendants from making distributions to Members of DBR Enterprises, LLC except as distributions had been made on a monthly basis prior to December 23, 2019. A. Factual and Procedural Background The following facts appear t...

Excerpt: ...ll appear at the hearing, in person or by CourtCall, unless it is confirmed that no party requests oral argument. Real‐Party‐In‐Interest Napa County's demurrer to the second cause of action for declaratory relief and writ of mandate (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1085 and Gov. Code, §§ 53723 and 53728) on the grounds of failure to state sufficient facts and uncertainty is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiffs Raja Development Co., Inc., C...

Excerpt: ...ants Jackson Street Wine Warehouse, LLC (JSWW) and Randall Callahan's amended motion to compel initial responses to form interrogatories (employment set one), form interrogatories (general set two), requests for production of documents (set two), special interrogatories (set two), and supplemental interrogatory number 1 is GRANTED. Plaintiff Stacee Cootes shall serve verified code‐compliant initial responses, without objections, and documents w...

Excerpt: ...n Decl., Ex. A, ¶ 7.) However, the purported agreement attached to the Spohn declaration is not signed or dated. Thus, there is no evidence before the Court that the parties agreed to resolve any disputes under the purported agreement via arbitration. Even if the agreement was signed and dated, and there were no foundational issues as to the contract, the terms and obligations of the agreement expired before any dispute arose between the parties...