Excerpt: ...om claims from non-settling parties for equitable indemnity or contribution. CCP §877.6(c). There is no precise yardstick for measuring “good faith” of a settlement, but it must harmonize the public policy favoring settlements with the competing public policy favoring equitable sharing of costs among tortfeasors or co-obligors. At a minimum, the settlement must be within the reasonable range (aka “ballpark”) of the settling party's share...

Excerpt: ...the parties' respective motions. A) Motion for Sanctions Plaintiffs Yan Sui and Pei-Yu Yang's (“Plaintiffs” together) Motion for Sanctions (“Motion”) is DENIED. Once again Plaintiffs filed an overly lengthy pleading, this time one of approximately 44-pages. This is well above the 15-page maximum permitted in filing a motion pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1113(d). The Court will not consider any portion of the Motion in excess of the 15-page limit...

Excerpt: ... not base this ruling upon Mission Hill's corporate status or suspension of such status. The court finds that Mission Hill lacks standing to bring any of the pled causes of action against the cross defendant. Therefore, a determination regarding the suspension argument is not relevant. First, Third and Fourth Causes of Action - Statute of Limitations: Cross-Defendant demurs to the First, Third and Fourth Causes of Action of the First Amended Cros...

Excerpt: ...h inherent and statutory. For example, CCP § 1048(b) authorizes a trial court to try separately proceedings to avoid prejudice, for convenience, or to permit greater expedience and economy: "The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separ...

Excerpt: ...is adequate need shown for the relief sought, in light of prior discovery delays, including delays in document productions, and Plaintiffs appear to have acted with reasonable diligence. (Weisberg Decl. Exs. 12, 24 -28.) No undue prejudice to the defense is shown, and Plaintiffs have not unduly delayed in seeking this relief. (Weisberg Decl. Ex. 28; Weisberg Reply Decl., ¶¶ 2-6.) The discovery cut-off will thus be continued to correspond to the...

Excerpt: ...s. CCP §§ 2030.300(c) [Interrogatories], 2031.310(c) [Requests for Production] and 2033.290(c) [Requests for Admission.] The demanding party waives the right to compel any further responses if the Motion is not served within 45 days of a verified response. Sperber v. Robinson (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 736, 745. Application: It is undisputed that the Plaintiffs served their discovery requests on September 20, 2018. It is also undisputed that the Def...

Excerpt: ...plemental responses. (Moore Decl. ¶ 6; Pick Decl. ¶ 3.) In the opposition, Ms. Gjested states that she did not learn of any issues regarding these supplemental responses until the motion came in. (Gjested Decl. ¶ 7.) However, she does not claim that no discussions occurred with any of her colleagues, and the opposition otherwise demonstrates that there is indeed an impasse as to the responses at issue. The Court thus finds that the meet and co...

Excerpt: ...ss was conducted by co-defendant Alisson Rosales, and operated out of a gym owned by co-defendant OC All Stars. The class started at 5:30am, and was well-attended. Following a quick warm-up, participants engaged in an exercise called the farmer's carry in which they walked a straight line, arms by their side, holding 20-lb dumbbells. Because participants had to stagger and space themselves, it was common for participants to actually walk right pa...

Excerpt: ...e is shown to the adverse party....” . . . A different result is indicated “[w]here inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party” is shown.” Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487. Where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party, the liberal rule of allowance prevails.” Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564. “[I]t is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing...

Excerpt: ...of-state resident to secure costs in light of the difficulty of enforcing a judgment for costs against a person who is not within this court's jurisdiction and (2) prevent out-of-state residents from filing frivolous lawsuits against California residents. Alshafie v. Lallande (2009) 171 Cal.App.4 th 421, 428; Yao v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4 th 327, 329. The motion must be supported with evidence demonstrating “a reasonable possibilit...

Excerpt: ...ease”) between Plaintiff and Esports Arena Seattle, LLC, contains a choice of law clause requires venue for any action on the Lease to be in King County, Washington (Complaint, Ex. B, p. 31), the present matter is not based upon the Lease, but rather it is based upon the Personal Guaranty of Defendant (“Guaranty”). The Guaranty is a separate contract between Plaintiff and Defendant, and contains a separate choice of law clause that pertains...

Excerpt: ....) The motion as to this cause of action is DENIED. Defendant argues that the cause of action fails, because Plaintiff did not perform substantially similar work as other directors. The test is “substantially similar work” “when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility” (Lab Code §1197.5(a)). This description suggests a pretty factual inquiry to begin with. The Motion itself does not present enough information about the...

Excerpt: ...tals LLC to sit for deposition pursuant to the 11/5/18 deposition notice. The plaintiff shall produce documents at the deposition as well. This plaintiff must appear for its deposition within the next 30 days. The Court awards the Defendant a reasonable monetary sanction of $480 payable by Plaintiff Creative Plant Rentals LLC within 60 days. The movant's additional request for terminating or evidentiary sanctions is DENIED. There has been no cour...

Excerpt: ... without regard to the laws of those particular states. (McKenzie Decl., Exs. A & B.) But a non- party resident of a foreign state can be compelled for deposition only under the law of the place where the deposition is to be taken. (See C.C.P. § 2026.010 et seq., 2029.100 et seq, and Rutter Group, Civil Procedure Before Trial §8:637 – 8:640.) Plaintiff here has failed to show that its subpoenas complied. The Motion is therefore GRANTED as to ...

Excerpt: ... action when it believes that the action may be more appropriately and justly tried elsewhere. Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751. A trial court considering a forum non conveniens issue engages in a two-step process: First, the court must determine whether a suitable alternative forum exists. An alternative forum is suitable if it has jurisdiction and the action in that forum will not be barred by the statute of limitations. It is ...

Excerpt: ...ion that conforms with the page requirements of the Rules of Court. The amended opposition must be filed and served, pursuant to code, no later than 03/12/19. Defendants will may file and serve their own amended reply brief responding to Plaintiffs' amended opposition, no later than 03/18/19. The amended reply brief must also be filed and served pursuant to code. Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiffs filed what appears to be a Sur-Reply to Def...

Excerpt: ..., 892–893 (the term pain and suffering includes the mental component); Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840–842, 847; Acuna v. Regents of University of California (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 639, 653; Whitfield v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 81, 82.) In Capelouto, the Supreme Court said that a child is entitled to recover for pain and suffering on the same basis as an adult. The court recognized that a ...

Excerpt: ...C on the basis that it contains little more than conclusory statements and conjecture. It does not plead specific facts supporting fraud, malice, or oppression as required by Civ. Code § 3294; ‐ TAC ¶¶ 48-50 – These paragraphs merely parrot the law of Civ. Code § 3294(b), and provide no specific facts to support the allegations; ‐ TAC ¶¶ 89, 91, 92, and 97 – As pled, these paragraphs appear to argue a class action, which has not bee...

Excerpt: ...., the pre-printed dates on the Notice and Motion are approximately three months apart, and there is no date on the Korff Decl. It appears that this motion may have been filed in error or may be incomplete. Cross- Complainants may serve and re-file this motion at a later date should they so choose. B) Motion for Leave to File Amended Cross-Complaint Cross-Complainants unopposed Motion to File a First Amended Cross- Complaint (“Motion”) is DEN...

Excerpt: ...ted deposition officer on or before 11/02/18. No response occurred by that date, nor did Epoxy2U object, seek an extension or move for a protective order. The production date passed without so much as a whisper. However, all is not so clear. The individual responsible for making personal service upon Epoxy2U included with the subpoena a “service packet” containing a cover letter from the deposition officer, a letter from plaintiff's counsel, ...

Excerpt: ...to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production, and to Deem Facts in the Requests for Admission as Admitted is GRANTED IN PART, AND DENIED IN PART. On 11/19/18, Defendant personally served plaintiff Shakeel Ahmed (“Plaintiff”) through his then attorney of record with written discovery requests. Goldstein Decls. Exs. A. Plaintiff's responses to these requests were due to be served no later than 12/19/18. CCP §§...

Excerpt: ...es of Court, Rule 3.1324, the moving party must: a) Specify in the moving papers by page, paragraph, and line number the allegations proposed to be added and/or deleted; and b) Include with the moving papers:  a copy of the proposed amended pleading; and  a declaration specifying: (1) the effect of the amendment(s); (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and ...

Excerpt: ...act claim. MPs argue that the agreement on its face was to serve solely as a backup for any refusal by the insurer to pay. But that is not self-evident from the face of the agreement. (XC Ex. 1.) And the XC at ¶ 12 specifically asserts that Advance was told not to bill the insurer. Where a pleading is based on an attached written contract, a general demurrer admits not only the contents of the instrument but also any pleaded meaning to which it ...

Excerpt: ...efendants, Jason Askenaze and Roger Urroz, on the FEHA Discrimination Claims, to the 11 th to 13 th C/A: In prior rulings, it was noted that FEHA does not provide for personal liability of individual supervisors, co-workers, or nonemploying individuals, for discrimination claims. FEHA makes the individual employer, or organizational employer liable. (See Minutes of 4/30/18, p. 2. SeeGovt Code §12940(a), §12926(d); Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines...

Excerpt: ...s (1967) 66 Cal.2d 435, 437; Knoell v. Petrovich (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 164, 168); two years for interference with prospective economic advantage (CCP § 339(1); Augusta v. United Service Automobile Assn. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 4, 10); also two years for negligence (CCP § 335.1); and four years for a violation of §17200. (B&P § 17208; Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc. (2013) 55 Cal.4th 1185, 1193.) Generally, a cause of action accrues when...