Excerpt: ...ntic Richfi eld Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “A party may move for summary judgment in an action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(1).) “Th e motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to ...

Excerpt: ...Act”] aff ords certain protections to elders and dependent adults.” (Winn v. Pioneer Medical Group, Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 148, 152 (Winn).) “‘The purpose of the [Act was] essentially to protect a particularly vulnerable portion of the population from gross mistre atment in the form of abuse and custodial neglect.' [Citation.]” (Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 787 (Covenant Care).). The acts proscribed by th...

Excerpt: ...for b rea c h of implied- in-fact con tract and breach of implied -in -law contract. The Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot. As to the 1st cause of action for breach of oral contract, this claim is not sufficiently pled. “An oral contract may be pleaded generally as to its effect, because it i s rarely possible to allege the exact words.” (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Nevertheless, “[t]he elements of...

Excerpt: ... trial court concluded that Plaintiffs were entitled to recover attorney fees, but awarded only $198,445. Plaintiffs appealed, and the court of appeal reversed the order on Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees for three reasons. The court of appeal held: “First, the court erred by concluding that not all Plaintiffs were entitled to recover fees. Second, the court set an hourly rate for Plaintiffs' lead counsel that was far lower than the market...

Excerpt: ...ses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions Plaintiff Colleen Curtin's unopposed Motion to Compel Defendant Alexandra Mendoza's Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED. A party's failure to timely respond to interrogatories results in a waiver of any objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories fails to s...

Excerpt: ...ecificity as to the element s of active concealment and existence of a defect. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff has not alleged when or where the alleged omitted information should or could have been revealed by Ford. Defendants further argue that the allegations fail to demonstr ate any duty to disclose because there was no transactional relationship between Plaintiff and Ford and that the claim is barred by the economic loss rule. The Cour...

Excerpt: ...er now but admonishes Defendant that the future failure to comply with all applicable rules and statutes may result in a motion being denied or taken off calendar, and sanctions, where appropriate. First Cause of Action for Inducing Breach of Contract and Second Cause of Actio n for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations Defendant argues that the first cause of action fails to plead sufficient facts showing that Plaintiff had an ong...

Excerpt: ...a motion pursuan t to Section 391.1 is filed prior to trial the litigation is stayed, and the moving defendant need not plead, until 10 days after the motion shall have been denied, or if granted, until 10 days after the required security has been furnished and the moving defendant given written notice thereof. When a motion pursuant to Section 391.1 is made at any time thereafter, the litigation shall be stayed for such period after the denial ...

Excerpt: ...an element of the claim, or that it has a complete defense entitling it to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850- 851 (Aguilar).) If the defendant fails to meet this initial b urden, the plaintiff need not oppose the motion and the motion must be denied. (Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 840.) If the defendant meets its initial bu...

Excerpt: ...establishe s an affirmative defense to that cause of action. (p) For purposes of motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication: (1) A plaintiff or cross -complainant has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that par ty has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. Once the plaintiff or crosscomplainant has met that burden, the burden shif...

Excerpt: ...el arbitration und er Section 1281.2 must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) The parties entered into a written agreement to arbitrate; and (2) one or more of the claims at issue are covered by that agreement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; Villacreses v. Molina ri (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1230.) If the moving party meets this burden, the burden shifts to the resisting party to prove by a preponderance of evidence a defense to e...

Excerpt: ...of ruling. Plaintiff Randell Young is ORDERED to pay to Defendants Seabreeze Management Company, Inc., Estela Alday, Heidi Speare, Eric James, Fred Olsen, and Todd Hunter sanctions in the amount of $925 (5 hours x $185 per hour in reasonable attorney's fees) within 30 days of service of the notice of ruling. Defendants Seabreeze Management Company, Inc.; Estela Alday; Heidi Speare; Eric James; Fred Olsen; and Todd Hunter are ORDERED to serve all ...

Excerpt: ... The Court further granted 252 5 Main summary adjudication of Issue 9, which sought judgment on the second cause of action for disgorgement in 2525 Main's crosscomplaint as to Pacific LLC. (ROA 207.) The first cause of action of 2525 Main's cross -complaint was dismissed on 07/14/23. (RO A 300.) Thus, the only remaining claim is 2525 Main's second cause of action against Pacific INC. On 09/28/23, the Court signed an order releasing Pacific LL...

Excerpt: ...;s injuries.' [Citation.] ” (PacifiCare of California v. Bright Medical Associates, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1451, 1464 (PacifiCare.) The California Supreme Court in Tech -Bilt v. Woodward -Clyde & Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal. 3d 488 (Tech- Bilt), set forth the factors to consider. The fa ctors are: (1) a rough approximation of plaintiffs' total recovery and the settlor's proportionate liability; (2) the amount paid in settlement; (3) the allocat...

Excerpt: ...GRANTED as follows. Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides, in pertinent part: If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce...

Excerpt: ...lenged in post -trial proceedings on appeal.” (Motion; 4:8 -9.) Plaintiff's (Wen Yu Zheng) Opposition to Motion to Stay Enforcement of Judgment (Opposition), filed on 4 -10 - 24 under ROA No. 1164, states, “Gene's Motion is incomplete in that it provides no substantive reaso ns or evidence as to why the Court should take the extraordinary step of staying enforcement of judgment.” (Opposition; 3:1415.) Code of Civil Procedure section 918 st...

Excerpt: ...hree causes of action. Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 permits a special motion to strike Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”) lawsuits. A SLAPP suit is “a meritless suit filed primarily to chill the defendant's exercise of First Amendmen t rights.” (Finton Construction, Inc. v. Bidna & Keys, APLC (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 200, 208.) The purpose of the anti - SLAPP law is “not [to] insulate defendants fro...

Excerpt: ...st Calhoon, bu t both the underlying discovery requests were served on Thomas's behalf only.] Initially, the court notes Thomas timely filed a proof of service relating to both motions, but the proof is for electronic service only. Gary II is selfrepresented, and theref ore may be served electronically only if he has expressly consented to electronic service, and electronic filing does not constitute express consent to electronic service. (Code...

Excerpt: ... be true. Blakemore v. Superior Court, 129 Cal. App. 4th 36, 53 (2005). “If facts appearing in the exhibits contradict those alleged, the facts in the exhibits take precedence.” Holland v. Morse Diesel Intern., Inc., 86 Cal. App. 4th 1443, 1447 (2001). Defendant argues that the challenged allegations must be stricken because they are inconsistent and/or contradictory to the terms of the Agreement attached to the Complaint, which do not eviden...

Excerpt: ... Code of Civil Procedure § 410.30. Said section states: (a) When a court upon motion of a party or its own motion finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall stay or dismiss the action in who le or in part on any conditions that may be just. (b) The provisions of Section 418.10 do not apply to a motion to stay or dismiss the action by a defendant who has made a gener...

Excerpt: ...23 Order requiring Wilshire and its former counsel, Jaime Kim, to jointly and severally pay Cross -Defendants Zenbu USA, Inc., Time Escrow, Inc., Paramount Realty and Omni Realty (collectively, “Cross -Defendants”) $5,300 in monetary sanctions related to several discovery mot ions filed by Cross- Defendants against Wilshire. As an initial matter, it is noted Wilshire did not submit an attorney affidavit of fault. Thus, relief under the manda...

Excerpt: ...s required by the San Deigo County Superior Court. Plaintiffs HTL Hotel Advisors, Inc. and Yatish Natraj are ORDERED to pay to Defendants Shivam Patel and Kherva, LLC sanctions in the amount of $2,760 (6 hours x $450 per hour in reasonable attorney's fees and $60 in motion filing fees) within 60 days of service of the notice of ruling. Plaintiffs' counsel is ordered to pay sanctions of $2,360 (5 hours at $450 per hour + $60 filing fee and $50 t...

Excerpt: ...nd Robert Cayton, also known as Orange County Superior Court Case Number 30 - 2012 - 00593016 -CUOE -CJC) ("Cayton Matter"). During the pendency of the Cayton Matter, but entirely unrelated to it, Plaintiff assisted the Chief Executive Officer of Defendant, Edward Clark ("Clark"), in a case involving the State Lands Commission. As a professional courtesy, any services Plaintiff provided to Clark related to Clark's case with th...

Excerpt: ... by the insp ection demand. To establish “good cause,” the burden is on the moving party to show both: (1) relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the document would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case); and (2) specific facts justif ying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial). Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (National Union Fire In...

Excerpt: ...) Plaintiff argues that the arbitration agreement is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. (See Armendariz v. Foundation Heath Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal 4th 83). Unconscionability is a contract defens e used to invalidate arbitration agreements without contravening the Federal Arbitration Act or California law. (See OTO, LLC v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 125.) The evidence does reflect some level of procedural unconscio...