Excerpt: ...nal Health 301, Inc. v. Tyco Electronics Corp. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 116, 133-134 (Cardinal Health) [tolling during repairs generally rests on same legal basis as estoppel]; Superior Dispatch, Inc. v. Insurance Corp. of New York (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 175, 186 (Superior Dispatch) [“A defendant may be equitably estopped from asserting a statutory or contractual limitations period as a defense if the defendant's act or omission caused the plaint...

Excerpt: ...tinue to employ a worker known to be ineligible (8 U.S.C. §1324a(a)(2)), any state law award that compensates an unauthorized alien worker for loss of employment during the post-discovery period directly conflicts with the federal immigration law prohibition against continuing to employ workers whom the employer knows are unauthorized aliens.” (Id. at 424). “Such an award would impose liability on the employer for not performing an act (cont...

Excerpt: ...ction is sustained without leave to amend. The demurrer as to the first cause of action is overruled. Request for Judicial Notice Defendants request judicial notice of the District Court's July 30, 2019 Order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants in a prior federal case brought by Plaintiff arising from the same events. The court grants the request only to establish the contents of the judicial orders, findings, conclusions and judgmen...

Excerpt: ...1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985; Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.) A self-represented litigant is not entitled to any greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Petrosyan v. Prince Corp. (2013) 223 Cal.App.4th 587, 594 [self-represented litigants are entitled to same treatment as represented parties].) Requests for Judicial Notice The court grants Plaintiff's request for judicial notice (“RJN”) of the opinion ...

Excerpt: ...FAC pleads in conclusory fashion that he was an employee at the time of his interviews. Conclusory allegations are permitted if they are supported by other factual allegations in the complaint. (Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6.) However, Defendants contend that this conclusion is not supported by any other factual allegation in the FAC. The Court finds that the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 7, 8, 14-21 of the FAC are su...

Excerpt: ...ation provided, and the estimated lodestar. In approving these amounts and examining the billing records provided, the Court is not approving the hourly billing rates proposed by class counsel. 2. Litigation costs of $24,273.36, representing the full amount sought. 3. Administration costs in the amount of $9,500, per the administrator's declaration. 4. Enhancements of $5,000 to Aranda and $2,500 to Michel. In making these awards, the Court has co...

Excerpt: ...Los Alamitos Medical Center, Inc.; and (3) Defendants' motion for protective order. Plaintiff's two motions to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, respectively, are CONTINUED to 1/21/22 at 9:30 a.m. in this department. Defendants' Motion for Protective Order actually consists of a motion for protective order relating to twenty-nine different sets of discovery relating to discovery served by...

Excerpt: ...a. Plaintiffs are appointed class representatives. Setareh Law Group and Robinson Calcagnie, Inc. are appointed class counsel. GROUNDS FOR RULING Remaining at issue is the geographic scope of the class. Walmart contends the class must be limited to Californians (more properly, persons who suffered alleged FCRA violations in California), while Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a nationwide class. Walmart argues that because the Court has decided...

Excerpt: ...2009) 180 Cal.App.4 th 932, 938), Plaintiff has an express written contract for the development and delivery of the prototype machine. Defendant failed to meet its initial evidentiary burden for noticed issue No. 2 by establishing that Plaintiff waived its right to performance. Defendant met its initial burden to show the action has no merit as to Noticed Issues No. 1, 3-4, and 6-8. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (a), (p)(2) [burden]; Agui...

Excerpt: ...bson (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1, 15.) Defendant has failed to meet this burden. First, contrary to defendant's contentions, plaintiff did not expressly agree to arbitrate her claims against FMC. The arbitration agreement explicitly requires only plaintiff and the nonparty seller to resolve “any dispute between us”—i.e., any disputes between plaintiff and the seller (including the seller's employees, agents, successors, and assigns)—by bindi...

Excerpt: ...vice of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing,” or “the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (C.C.P. §2030.300(c)). The statutes outlining the time requirements for filing a Motion to Compel Further Responses are “mandatory and the court may not ...

Excerpt: ... the court on April 16, 2021, and therefore relevant for the court to consider in ruling on defendants' Motions to Quash, set for hearing on October 15, 2021. Contrary to plaintiffs' contentions, however, whether Northwood Investors operated as an advisor or manager to three entities that funded a Joint Venture known as NW Congress Center, LLC, which itself was based in California, is irrelevant to the jurisdictional analysis. Nor are plaintiffs ...

Excerpt: ... the plume emanating from the 2040 Site where both entities operated. These Defendants contend that this information is material to the trial since it potentially affects both the declaratory relief action and the reasonableness of the District's investigatory costs. In response, the District points out, among other things, that this new data does not differ materially from Defendants' existing evidence regarding the distal end of the plume. (Opp...

Excerpt: ...rporate Status A corporation whose powers have been suspended for nonpayment of the corporate franchise tax lacks capacity to sue in California courts; and, if sued, it lacks capacity to defend. (Rev. & Tax Code, § 23301; Reed v. Norman (1957) 48 Cal.2d 338, 342; see Bourhis v. Lord (2013) 56 Cal.4th 320, 324; Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1603-1604 [“suspension of corporate powers results in a lack of capacity to sue, ...

Excerpt: ...nd which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product”. Thus, the portion of the City of Anaheim's Electric Utility fees that represents the reasonable cost to the City of providing the service is not a tax. But the City's Electric Utility also pays to the City's general fund an amount of up to 4% of the Electric Utility's gross revenue earned during the previous fiscal year. Plaintiff contend...

Excerpt: ...t to a subpoena served on February 19, 2021. Bowermaster moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 and 2025.480. Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 states, in part, “(a) If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonab...

Excerpt: ...dants may have had in the property was extinguished by payment in full of the underlying debt. This motion was originally calendared for August 12, 2021, but the court questioned whether a quiet title action could be determined on a summary judgment motion given that a quiet title action could not be determined on default by way of a 585 packet; a hearing was required. (ROA 707.) The parties were given the opportunity to file additional points an...

Excerpt: ...RRULED. Defendants' objections (ROA 1251 and 1254) to Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice are OVERRULED. Plaintiff's request for judicial notice (ROA 1192) is GRANTED. The Court SUSTAINS Plaintiff's Objection No. 1 (ROA 1264) to the entirety of the Philips Declarations and exhibits thereto (ROA 1251 and 1256) for noncompliance with CCP § 2015.5 for failing to state they were signed under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Cali...

Excerpt: ...he dangerous condition; and (4) the entity either created the condition, or had actual notice or constructive notice of its existence, and there was sufficient time before the injury for it to have taken remedial action.” (People ex rel. Dep't of Transportation v. Superior Ct. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1480, 1484–1485 [citing Gov. Code § 835; Dominguez v. Solano Irrigation Dist. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1098, 1102].) The City first argues that the s...

Excerpt: ...isdiction founded on the defendant's minimum contacts with the forum. (Ziller Electronics Lab GmbH v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1229; Bank of America v. Jennett (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 104, 115.) On a motion challenging the assertion of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the burden of proof. (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413; Burdick v. Superior Court (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 8, 17.) The plaintiff must meet...

Excerpt: ...20; February 22, 2021; and March 16, 2021, without substantial justification despite Lone Oak's efforts to meet and confer in good faith; that Z-Wang cancelled the agreed-upon depositions for February 22, 2021 and March 16, 2021, at the last minute, and that Z-Wang's high blood pressure is an insufficient excuse to avoid deposition as he is in possession of information important to the issues in the lawsuit. Lone Oak also contends that monetary s...

Excerpt: ... tracking the prevalence of the TIPM (Totally Integrated Power Module), Engine, and Transmission Defects plaguing Plaintiffs' vehicle, establishing that FCA previously knew of said defects but nevertheless refused to repurchase the vehicle. Plaintiffs claim the responses consist of pure, boilerplate objections and utterly non- responsive statements and that FCA has failed to provide any e-mails and other electronically stored information or searc...

Excerpt: ...nses to those requests within 15 days of this order. The motion is DENIED as to RFAs 10-14, 34 and 36. Both parties' requests for sanctions are DENIED. As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff's separate statement fails to comply with CRC, Rule 3.1345(c). The RFAs responses in question each incorporate Defendant's response to RFA 1. Plaintiff did not include that response in the separate statement. Rule 3.1345(c) requires that the ...

Excerpt: ...ormerly known as California Creationz, Inc. Notwithstanding Plaintiff's failure to comply with the meet and confer requirements under Code of Civil Procedures sections 435.5 (motion to strike) and 439 (motion for judgment on the pleadings), the merits are discussed below. Plaintiff argues that California Creationz, Inc. was suspended, its name was taken by a third party, and now a California corporation under certificate number C4710227. Plaintif...

Excerpt: ...ent to the Settlement, an amended proposed Notice and preliminary approval order are submitted, redlined versions showing all changes, deletions, and additions must also be submitted electronically to the Court, else they will not be reviewed. 1. There is a place in the Settlement for Defendant's authorized representative to print a name, but that has not been completed. 2. The operative Complaint (FAC ¶ 20) contains a limitation to “Janitoria...