Excerpt: ...uch counsel is acting an advocate before a jury. As reflected in the Court's May 9, 2017 Minute Order, both sides waived jury on that date. The “Discussion” of Cal. Rule Prof. Conduct, Rule 5-210 states in part: “This Rule is not intended to encompass situations in which the member is representing the client in an adversarial proceeding and is testifying in front of a judge.” As the potential for attorney Recchia to testify as a witness i...

Excerpt: ...evidence is put forward, the burden shifting analysis in circumstantial evidence cases is not utilized. Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 138. With direct evidence, a triable issue as to the actual motivation of the employer is created even if the evidence is not substantial. Cordova v. State Farm Ins. Companies (9th Cir. 1997) 124 F.3d 1145, 1150; Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc. (9th Cir. 1998) 150 F.3d 1217, 1221 (“This comme...

Excerpt: ...a proceeding has been duly assigned for hearing and determination to one department of the superior court ..., and the proceeding so assigned has not been finally disposed of therein or legally removed therefrom, it is beyond the jurisdictional authority of another department of the same court to interfere with the exercise of the power of the department to which the proceeding has been so assigned.” In re Marriage of Schenck (1991) 228 Cal.App...

Excerpt: ... seventh cause of action for fraud still does not plead sufficient facts to show the alleged representations. At best, the plaintiffs ask the court to assume that Eggert made misrepresentations to Progressive Insurance in order to be placed on the list of approved repair facilities. But it is unknown whether any fraudulent statements were made, what they were, or whether Progressive even relied on them in designating Central Valley RV Repair as a...

Excerpt: ...vative or individual claims is debatable. But the Cross-Complaint contains allegations of individual harm, and the court must accept those as true for purposes of a demurrer. As the court has previously noted (see Minute Order of October 19, 2017), this is a small, close-held corporation run by immediate family members. Allegations of harm to the corporation can also constitute harm to the individual cross-complainants. (See, e.g., Goles v. Sawhn...

Excerpt: ...evelopment. The project included seventy-eight (78) residential units and six (2) two-story structures. Although there was already a Condominium Act in California, the governing decision-makers of Manor elected to operate the development as a non-profit stock cooperative. While similar to a condominium, the biggest difference is that in a co-op the resident members do not own the unit they occupy; instead, they enjoy an exclusive leasehold of the...

Excerpt: ...lled legal training and ability in trying the cause, and the time consumed. (Stokus v. Marsh(1990) 217 CA3d 647, 657.) Here, Defendants wish to cap the fee award at no more than $70,548.00. There are 5 challenged items. Three items (dates of 11/19/14, 8/29/17, and 10/16/17) list the task of “legal research.” Another item (dated 1/21/16) lists the task of “analyze account history.” The last item (dated 10/13/16) lists the task “review an...

Excerpt: ...enforced.” (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37, citing Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 305.) The settlement agreement here names six parties, including Lucy Garcia. Plaintiff submits no evidence Lucy Garcia executed the agreement. Defendants to give notice. ...

Excerpt: ...018, defendant/cross-complainant Rudolph & Sletten filed its “Response” on February 13, 2018, and Black Diamond filed its Reply on February 14, 2018. CCP section 877.6(d) provides that “the party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue." Rudolph & Sletten's Response attempts to discharge this burden only with respect to one issue, namely the Court's ability to determine the reasonableness of the propose...

Excerpt: ...ance. Defense counsel has provided no authority in support of its opposition to this motion. The court need not consider points unsupported by legal analysis or authority and such points are deemed waived. (Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784- 785; Walters v. Boosinger (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 421, 433, fn. 16.) Plaintiff's request for judicial notice is GRANTED. Plaintiff to give notice. Future Hearings: CMC: 3/14/18 8:30 am ...

Excerpt: ...btor's substantive rights by depriving it of property. Thus, the Landstar decision is applicable and the Convention does not authorize the issuance of a Letters Rogatory to enforce the Judgment. The Landstar opinion impliedly limits the court's inherent authority on this issue. This scenario is similar to the issue of awarding costs for copies, which are not helpful at trial. “Because the Legislature has expressly stated in subdivision (a)(12) ...

Excerpt: ...en settlement agreement is denied. The proposed written settlement agreement (Ex. D to moving papers) contains multiple terms which were not part of the parties' oral settlement agreement on the record, as reflected in the transcript of the Mandatory Settlement Conference (Ex. A to moving papers). CCP 664.6 does not authorize the court to order a party to sign a written settlement agreement which “rewrite[s] the oral settlement agreement or add...

Excerpt: ...does not add “M.D.” or anything similar after his name. In response, the defendant presented evidence from the Board that Mr. Reeder is not a physician licensed to practice in the State of California. Without any competent evidence of medical malpractice the plaintiffs have no claim. (The court further notes that the plaintiffs' opposition did not comply with the applicable Rules of Court.) The objections of the defendant are SUSTAINED. The d...

Excerpt: ...sts for Admission, Set One (the “RFAs”) were propounded to Plaintiff on 10/19/17, and that despite an extension to 12/7/17, no responses were ever provided. (Kruppe Decl. at ¶¶ 2-4 and Ex. A.) The arguments presented in the Opposition do not warrant a continuance: unless responses in substantial compliance with C.C.P. § 2033.220 are provided before the hearing, the matters specified in those RFAs shall be deemed admitted. Sanctions are imp...

Excerpt: ...on within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for [punitive] damages, or one or more issues of duty”]; McCaskey v. California State Auto. Assn. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 947, 975 [court cannot grant summary adjudication “‘to the extent' a cause of action rests on this or that premise”].) With respect to defendant's first contention that the first amended complaint is a sham pleading, the sham pleading doctrine is ...

Excerpt: ...intiff also asserts the agreement is uncertain because it requires the plaintiff to send any claim to an unnamed vice-president by registered or certified mail. But she fails to show how this is critically uncertain or how she was in any way prejudiced by the alleged uncertainty. Finally, the plaintiff asserts the agreement violates element five of the holding in Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83. But s...

Excerpt: ...se by Monday, 2-26-18, by fax or overnight delivery to counsel for plaintiff Perez. Plaintiff Perez's request for monetary sanctions against defendant Pho Hoa Soan, Inc. is GRANTED in the sum of $3,120.00, pursuant to C.C.P. § 2031.320(b), payable by defendant Pho Hoa Soan, Inc. within 21 days. Finally, plaintiff Perez's request for issue and/or evidentiary sanctions is DENIED as defendant Pho Hoa Soan, Inc. has not violated any prior discovery ...

Excerpt: ...ive, Suite 100, Santa Ana, California, 92707. The parties may, at their discretion, meet and confer to schedule a different date/time/place for the deposition. However, the deposition shall occur no later than March 15, 2018. Defendants are awarded sanctions against plaintiff in the amount of $976.00, not the entire amount of $2,588.50. Defendant knew the day before the deposition that plaintiff was not going to show up. There was no need for him...

Excerpt: ...et profits of her law firm for the years 2010 through 2014. Plaintiff responded to each of these interrogatories by referring to tax documents that Plaintiff would produce reflecting the law firm's profits on an annual basis. Special Interrogatory Nos. 39 through 42 ask Plaintiff to provide the business expenses for her law firm for the years 2010 through 2013. Plaintiff responded to each of these interrogatories by referring to tax documents tha...

Excerpt: ... while these motions were pending, Defendant served supplemental responses to these requests. As described below, Plaintiff's motions are granted in part and denied in part. The court has reviewed all of the materials submitted in support of and in opposition to these motions, including Defendant's supplemental responses. Defendant is ordered to send a letter to Plaintiff by February 22, 2018 stating whether Defendant has withheld any documents o...

Excerpt: ... special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and requests for admission. See, Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4 th 424, 433 to 435 and Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4 th 1431, 1435. New counsel for plaintiffs Hamid Hojati, et al. has represented that a further meet and confer might assist in resolving all or some of these pending discovery matters. Defendant Portales to file a supplemental declaration nine (9) court ...

Excerpt: ...ndant. The court finds that the objections raised in the response and amended response are without merit. The arguments as to attorney client privilege are also without merit, and have been waived by failing to assert the same in the initial response to the interrogatory. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a). A party to litigation can obtain contact information for an opposing party even if that party is represented by legal counsel without involving a...

Excerpt: ... ordered to serve verified, non-evasive responses to the interrogatories without objections within ten days. Motion No. 3. Plaintiff's Motion Compelling Defendant Mindy Kennedy Alvarez to Serve Verified Responses Without Objections to Plaintiff's Inspection Demand, Set No. 1, is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve verified, non-evasive responses to the inspection demands without objections and all responsive documents and things within ten day...

Excerpt: ...cause for a continuance. “Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: (1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only wher...

Excerpt: ...ord Bernstein, M.D., and Newport Coast Surgery Center, Inc. (NCSC) (collectively, cross-complainants) do not lack standing to sue on the subject lien agreements (see XC at ¶¶ 20-22, Exhs. 1, 3, 5; see also Complaint at ¶ 23, pp. 6-7), and nothing in the cross-complaint or judicially noticed documents affirmatively demonstrate cross-complainants lack the capacity to sue pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17918. As for the demurre...