Excerpt: ...keeping services (Comp., ¶21); (2) Crowell Industries, Inc. invested $4,000,000 in Tritec Americas (Comp., ¶ 21); (3) the Crowell Entities (or one/some of them) obtained $55,000,000 in loans from TriState Capital Bank (Comp., ¶ 21); and (4) Plaintiff sought to review the Crowell Entities books, records and documents, but they were withheld from Plaintiff (Comp., ¶¶ 22, 24). On or about 10/21/22, Plaintiff served a business records subpoena o...

Excerpt: ...intiffs allege they entered into a warranty contract with FCA. Id. Plaintiffs allege the Vehicle constitutes consumer goods under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the “Act”); Plaintiffs are buyers of consumer goods under the Act; and Defendant FCA is a manufacturer and/or distributor under the Act. Complaint ¶ 10. Plaintiffs allege the Vehicle has defects and nonconformities to warranty, which manifested during the warranty period; th...

Excerpt: ...mproper. Written objections must be served and filed separately from papers supporting or opposing the motion. (CRC 3.1354(b). Accordingly, the Court declines to consider any of Plaintiffs' purported objections. Hodjat v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1, 8-9, (court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider objections not filed separately as required by rule.) Defendant filed evidentiary objections with its Repl...

Excerpt: ...Arbitration and Stay Action is granted. This is a “lemon law” case arising out of Plaintiff's purchase, on or about February 15, 2014, of a 2014 Dodge Ram 3500 Chrysler Pacifica, vehicle identification number 3C63R3JL5EG108931 (the “Vehicle”). Plaintiff alleges his Vehicle was “manufactured and or distributed by Defendant FCA.” Complaint ¶ 10. In connection with that purchase, Plaintiff alleges he entered into a warranty contract wit...

Excerpt: ... to Confirm the final arbitration award issued by the arbitrator on 10/7/22. [ROA #160, referred to hereafter as “Petition to Confirm”]. However, it appears Defendants' Petition to Confirm may have been filed prematurely, fewer than 10 days after the final award was served. Code Civ. Proc. § 1288.4. The Court will hear from Defendants at the hearing regarding the date on which the final arbitration award was served, and whether Defendants' P...

Excerpt: ...ULED. A demurrer presents an issue of law regarding the sufficiency of the allegations set forth in the complaint. (Lambert v. Carneghi (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1126.) The challenge is limited to the “four corners” of the pleading (which includes exhibits attached and incorporated therein) or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable under Evidence Code §§ 451 or 452. Although California courts take a liberal view...

Excerpt: ...o. 2: Defendant's response is not Code Compliant. Defendant shall provide a further, fully-Code compliant response within 20 days. If Defendant is attempting to convey that it has no documents supporting any of its affirmative defenses, it must say so; it may not avoid responding as the Code requires by suggesting that its assertion of defenses was just “a precaution.” Request No. 3: Motion denied. Defendant's response says it will “comply ...

Excerpt: ...st that Harry Crowell filed in Orange County Superior Court, probate division, case no. 2022-01279223. [ROA #54, Ex. A.] Both requests are granted. The Court takes judicial notice of the existence and legal effect of these documents. However, judicial notice does not include taking the contents of the documents as true. Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4 th 987, 881-87 (and cases cited there) (ov...

Excerpt: ...tiffs Michael Doutt and Amber Kriens-Doutt (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). Seller's Agents also move to strike the punitive damages allegations and the prayer for punitive damages and attorneys' fees from Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint (“4thAC”). As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiffs untimely served (on 2/13/2023) and filed (on 2/14/2023) their oppositions to Seller's Agents' demurrer and motion to strike. (Code Civ. P...

Excerpt: ...his case. “[A]ll that is necessary is to call the court's attention to such papers.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2018) ¶ 9.53.1a.) The request is granted as to the Notice of Entry of Dismissal filed in Sacramento Superior Court on 2/11/16 in the matter of Dina C. Felisilda, et al, v. FCA US LLC, et al. (34-2015-00183668. Plaintiff filed this “lemon law” action against Defendant alleg...

Excerpt: ...TED; TRF's Motion is DENIED. Before turning to the merits of the Motion, the Court notes that Plaintiffs' opposition to the Motion was extremely untimely. It was filed on January 23, 2023 – the date on which the Motion originally was scheduled to be heard (although Defendants state it was not served until the next day, January 24, 2023). The Opposition makes no effort to explain the lateness of the filing or seek relief from the tardy filing. O...

Excerpt: ...cally, the Court asked for further briefing on: (1) Defendant's argument that the FERPA provision allowing records to be disclosed “to comply with a judicial order” applies only to a judicial order issued by a federal court, not a state court; and (2) Defendant's argument that redacting records subject to FERPA to eliminate all students' personally-identifying information is not feasible because, to comply with FERPA, literally all of the inf...

Excerpt: ... to “Felicia Macyyszyn: Innovus Consulting Group.” For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED as to both subpoenas. The recipient of both subpoenas is Felicia Macyszyn (“Mrs. Macyszyn”). She is not a party to the action, a percipient witness, or a retained expert. She is the wife of Defendant's retained medical expert, Dr. Luke Macyszyn (“Dr. Macyszyn”). Dr. Macyszyn was retained by Defendant to review Plaintiff's medical ...

Excerpt: ... properly served. Defendant only served Plaintiffs' counsel and one Co-Defendant, Ali Tabatabai, with this Motion. Defendant The Covington was required serve all parties that have appeared in this action at the time of the filing of the Motion. (CCP §1010.) Defendant Nimish R. Kadakia, MD (Doe 1) first appeared in this case on 5/18/23, well before this Motion to Seal was filed. Kenneth Lynn, MD (Doe 2) first appeared in this case on 5/31/22, wel...

Excerpt: ...r originally was heard on January 30, 2023, but based on the parties' stipulation at the hearing – and their agreement that the TRO would continue to remain in effect until the Court ruled on the OSC re preliminary injunction) – the Court continued the hearing to February 27, 2023. See ROA #67. The Court grants the Motion to the extent set forth below. Plaintiffs' unnumbered evidentiary objections are all overruled. Legal Standard Code of Civ...

Excerpt: ...order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exist…” "The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence, and a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense.” (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc...

Excerpt: ...upervise compliance with the statutory mandates.” For the reason set forth below, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied. Requests for Judicial Notice Petitioner's Requests for Judicial Notice: The Court denies Petitioners' request for judicial notice in support of the moving papers. None of these documents are relevant based on the allegations of the Petition, which puts at issue post-2020 conduct, a change of administration at the OC...

Excerpt: ...ursuant to CCP section 426.50 and 428.50(c). Defendants are ordered to separately file and serve their Proposed Cross-Complaint within 10 days-notice of this order. Additionally, the parties are ordered to appear at this hearing prepared to discuss the upcoming trial date and whether a continuance is necessary or appropriate. As an initial mater, review of the relevant complaints demonstrates that the cross-claims asserted against Plaintiff Wenqi...

Excerpt: ...'s Complaint [ROA #28] is SUSTAINED with 21 days leave to amend. The unopposed general and special Demurrer of Defendants Erik Messinger and Golden Ticket Real Estate, Inc. dba. Keller Williams Realty to Plaintiff's Complaint [ROA #35] is SUSTAINED with 21 days leave to amend. The demurrers and supporting briefs are essentially the same. Each of the demurring Defendants argues that Plaintiff fails to state a quiet title claim against him/her/it b...

Excerpt: ... 1126.) The challenge is limited to the “four corners” of the pleading (which includes exhibits attached and incorporated therein) or from matters outside the pleading which are judicially noticeable under Evidence Code sections 451 or 452. Although California courts take a liberal view of inartfully drawn complaints, it remains essential that a complaint set forth the actionable facts relied upon with sufficient precision to inform the defen...

Excerpt: ...grants the Motion to the extent set forth below. Plaintiffs' unnumbered evidentiary objections are all overruled. Legal Standard Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 526(a)(3) provides that an injunction may be granted “[w]hen it appears, during the litigation, that a party to the action is doing, or threatens, or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act in violation of the rights of another party to the action r...

Excerpt: ...rder. Defendants' request for sanctions is DENIED. Initially, the instant motion cites only to CCP §2031 and CCP §2023, statutes which were repealed nearly 20 years ago, on July 1, 2005. Given the inclusion of only outdated citations, Defendants' intentions are less than crystal clear. The Court was initially inclined to interpret this motion as a motion to compel compliance, brought pursuant to CCP §2031.320, given the notice of motion seeks ...

Excerpt: ... an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact…” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4 th 826, 850.) “A prima facie showing is one that is sufficient to support the position of the party in question.” (Id. at 851.) A defendant seeking summary judgment meets the burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit by showing that one or more elements o...

Excerpt: ...efendants later attempt to remedy this defect in their reply. Additionally, the opposition filed and served by Plaintiff, on 1/18/23, (ROA 57), was untimely. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) There is also nothing in the record that confirms Defendants, as self-represented litigants, may be served by electronic means. (Cal. R. Ct. Rule 2.251, subd. (c)(3)(B).) Further, Defendants deny that any such documents were received by electronic servi...

Excerpt: ...of each month, and will continue until the conclusion of the action. This action (Case No. 2022- 01275636) shall be designated the lead case. Additionally, pursuant to CRC 3.350(c), Plaintiff is ordered to file this order in Case No. 2022- 01274239. When there are actions involving common questions of law or fact pending, a court may order a joint trial of any or all of the matters in issue in the actions or may order all the actions consolidated...