Excerpt: ...nces.” Defendants allegedly do not pay rent, utilities, taxes, or any other associated costs in connection with their tenancy at the subject property. On or about June 21, 2022, Defendants were served with a sixty‐day notice of termination of tenancy. Plaintiffs thereafter filed the present action after Defendants allegedly failed to vacate the property Plaintiffs, Spencer and Juliette Shure, acting in their capacity as trustees of the Spence...

Excerpt: ... below, McClain's demurrer is sustained as to all three causes of action for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Leave to amend is denied. McClain's unopposed request for judicial notice is granted and the Court will take notice of its prior ruling and order entered on June 17, 2022. Standard of Review: A demurrer is properly brought where defects appear on the face of the complaint or from a judicially noticeable m...

Excerpt: ...tated below, both motions are denied. Plaintiff's objections to Rees's evidence are sustained in part and overruled in part as discussed below. (1) Background This cases arises from a personal injury dispute involving then‐four‐year‐old Plaintiff, Julian Alvarado. Plaintiff alleges he was injured when struck by a vehicle while snow‐sledding with his family while in parking lot owned by Sugar Bowl. (Complaint ¶¶ 5‐6.) On the date in qu...

Excerpt: ...ke may be directed against an entire pleading, or, as here, to one allegation in a single cause of action. (Code of Civil procedure § 435(b).) The motion can be used to strike irrelevant matter. (See American Aeronautics Corp. v. Grand Central Aircraft Co. (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 69, 84.) In assessing the propriety of this motion, the Court considers only matters that appear on the face of the pleadings or that can otherwise be judicially noticed....

Excerpt: ...he underlying action. (See Willdan v. Sialic Contractors Corp. (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 47, 54 [good‐faith settlements under Section 877.6 preclude future contribution and equitable indemnity claims]; see also Far West Financial Corp. v. D & S Co. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 796, 817.) The protections sought by Oakview are legally available to cross‐defendants who settle with either a plaintiff or a cross‐complainant. (KAOM, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995...

Excerpt: ...imely as plead, having been filed in excess of the time authorized under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 430.40(b), 435(a)(2), and Rule 3.1322, and submitted without a declaration to explain any delay or extension authorized or otherwise agreed upon by the parties. Plaintiff has also failed to provide the required meet‐and‐confer declaration. (Code of Civil Procedure § 430.41(a) [before filing a demurrer, “the demurring party shall meet and c...

Excerpt: ...ow, the perfecting of the above‐noted appeal does not preclude the Court's consideration of Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction is, however, denied. Defendants' appeal of the denial of the motion to compel does not preclude the Court's consideration of Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction. Defendants filed an appeal of the Court's prior denial of their motion to compel arbitration in this matter. Def...

Excerpt: ...endant also demurs separately and specifically to Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages. For the reasons discussed more fully below, Defendant's demurrer is sustained as to the third cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress on the grounds that the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action. Defendant's demurrer is denied as to the defamation and negligence causes of actions. It is also denied in...

Excerpt: ...f the existence of the petition in the Sonoma County case. For the reasons discussed more fully below, Defendant's motion for change of venue is granted and the case is hereby transferred to Sonoma County. Defendant's request for attorney's fees and costs under Code of Civil Procedure § 369b(b) is denied as not timely raised in her initial moving papers. The request for fees was raised only in Defendant's reply brief and Plaintiff has not been p...

Excerpt: ...comply with Ca. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113, to wit: for counsel's failure to provide a compliant memorandum in support of her motions. Plaintiff's motions are also facially untimely as plead, having been filed in excess of the time authorized under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 430.40(b), 435(a)(2), and Rule 3.1322, and submitted without a declaration to explain any delay or extension authorized or otherwise agreed upon by the parties. Plaintiff ...

Excerpt: ...discovery referee be appointed for party and party‐ representative depositions, again with costs to be shared equally; or, as a second alternative, (3) that a referee be appointed solely for the purposes of conducting Plaintiff's deposition, even if costs must be borne exclusively by Plaintiff. For the reasons stated more fully below, Plaintiff's motion is denied as the requested relief does not appear presently to be “necessary” within the...

Excerpt: ... to 2018. For the reasons stated more fully below, the motion is denied. Defendant has failed to show that there is a violation or even a threatened violation of the relevant Rules of Professional Conduct. Court's Authority to Disqualify Counsel There is no dispute in the law that the Court has the authority to disqualify counsel. (Code of Civil Procedure § 128(a)(5); Henriksen v. Great American Savings & Loan (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 109, 113 [cou...

Excerpt: ...�Willful Failure to Warn” is hereby stricken. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend and shall file its amended pleadings within ten (10) days of the Court's order. Analysis A motion to strike may be directed against an entire pleading, or, as here, to one allegation in a single cause of action. (Code of Civil procedure § 435(b).) The motion can be used to strike irrelevant matter. (See American Aeronautics Corp. v. Grand Central Aircraft Co. (19...

Excerpt: ...ended cross‐complaint is to be filed within ten (10) days of the Court's order. Hayes's request to take judicial notice of the complaint is granted as to the document's existence, but not for the truth of its contents. Basic Standard of Review The Court's approach to a demurrer on a cross‐complaint is the same as for a demurrer to a complaint. It is raised only if the defects appear on the face of the cross‐complaint or from a judicially no...

Excerpt: ...f Civil Procedure § 382 has two minimum requirements to sustain a class action: (1) an “ascertainable” class; and (2) a well‐defined “community of interest” in questions of law and fact. (Dunk, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at 1806; see also Sav‐On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 34 Cal.4th 319, 326.) As to the first element, for a class to be “ascertainable,” it must be sufficiently numerous such that it would be impractical ...

Excerpt: ...) for monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,410.00 to be split evenly between Mr. Mann and Ms. Thandi. Contempt Orders: In reviewing Plaintiff's request for contempt orders the Court is guided by Code of Civil Procedure section 1209 et seq. Plaintiff bases his present request on Mr. Mann's and Ms. Thandi's failure to comply with this Court's discovery ordered dated May 20, 2022 (the “Discovery Order”). Such is properly designated an allegati...

Excerpt: ...request for admissions admitted is denied; his related motion for monetary sanctions is, however, granted with modification as discussed more fully below. As to Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to the form interrogatories, the Court notes that as of the posting of this tentative, it has not received any notification that compliant responses have been served by Defendant. Plaintiff's motion to compel is granted and Defendant is ordered withi...

Excerpt: ...the above‐referenced motions. The Court further notes that Plaintiff is self‐represented, his counsel having been relieved by order of the Court on or about February 18, 2022. Defendants have made the requisite showings that discovery requests were timely propounded, the time for response has elapsed, and no answers, documents, requests for extensions, or other responses have been received. All of Defendants' motions are thus granted. Monetar...

Excerpt: ...easons for the same at the hearing. (See Stern v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 223.) The parties dispute the validity of the original loan, performance of the original loan, as well as title to the property pledged as security. The interests of justice would be best served by resolving all of these issues on the merits. (See e.g., Thatcher v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1085 [recognizing the “strong policy against di...

Excerpt: ...equest for an order directing Plaintiff to immediately pay him $21,000.00 in connection with his unrelated decedent estate matter is denied as it is in excess of the Court's jurisdiction in an unlawful detainer matter. The Court also notes its concerns as to whether the summary nature of unlawful detainer proceedings would allow for damages based on theft of personal property. (See Ca. Code of Civil Procedure § 1174.) The Court has jurisdiction ...

Excerpt: ...�), Nyaco, and Summit Restaurant and Bar (“Summit”); and (2) Defendant Summit's motion for joinder in the same. For the reasons stated below, Sugar Bowl's motion for summary judgment is granted as to Plaintiff's operative complaint as well as all of the derivative cross‐complaints against it. Plaintiff's evidentiary objections are overruled in part and sustained in part. Summit's motion for joinder is denied. (1) Background This cases arise...

Excerpt: ...ain by calculation[.]” And, further, they do not dispute the date of breach or the applicable rate of interest (10%) as contained in Section 3289. Defendant's sole contention in their opposition is that accretion of pre‐ judgment interest should effectively be tolled for a fourteen and one‐half month period, between February 1, 2021, when trial was set and April 19, 2022, when jury trial commenced, due to trial delays attributable to the CO...

Excerpt: ...hreshold matter, Plaintiff claims in his opposition that the public interest exception is applicable to the present case. The Court is not persuaded. To briefly restate the doctrine, Anti‐SLAPP protections are not available for cases involving: (1) enforcement actions brought in the name of the People of the State of California; (2) actions brought solely in the public interest or on behalf of the general public; and (3) actions involving comme...

Excerpt: ...nts to a pleading. Kittredge Sports Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal. App. 3d 1045, 1047; “‘“[I]t is irrelevant that new legal theories are introduced as long as the proposed amendments 'relate to the same general set of facts….”'” Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal. App. 4th 739, 761. Here, although the trial is set in eight weeks, there is no prejudice to Defendant, as discovery has not yet closed. In addition, the Court finds that ...

Excerpt: ...etc. Trust (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 818, 824, 214; Vega v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (E.D.Cal. 2009) 654 F.Supp.2d 1104. See also generally Bernhardt, Cal. Mortgage and Deed of Trust Practice (Cont. Ed. Bar 4th ed. 2009) §§7.22‐7.34, 7.63‐7.66. “‘The granting or denial of a preliminary injunction does not amount to an adjudication of the ultimate rights in controversy. It merely determines that the court, balancing the respective equities ...