Excerpt: ...laintiff is granted 15 days leave to amend. The demurrers to the 4 th, 5 th, 6 th, and 7 th, causes of action are OVERRULED. As to the 1 st [Breach of Implied Contract] and 2 nd [Intentional Interference with Existing Contractual Relations] causes of action, no legally cognizable implied contract has been alleged. Exhibit A to the First Amended Complaint, the Offer Decision Form, expressly states it is not a contract and that employment is at wil...

Excerpt: ...state Services, Inc. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1219- 20; WA Southwest 2, LLC v. First American Title Insurance Company (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 148, 151.) Facts appearing in the exhibits take precedence over contrary allegations about them, in the pleading. (See Sarale v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 225, 245.) Demurrers to the 1 st through 5 th causes of action in the First Amended Complaint are SUSTAINED with leave to amend. ...

Excerpt: ...s never received? A 998 offer does not have to have a proof of service attached to it to be valid (see Berg v. Darden (2004) 120 Cal.App.4 th 721-732-33), but it must be “made” as an offer, and must be “served” (CCP §998(b), (c)). Here, the person who prepared the proof of service of the offer, did not actually serve the document. According to the proof of service, she merely gave the document to someone else to serve. That does not prov...

Excerpt: ...17/17. Despite a robust meet and confer effort, neither party sought judicial intervention. On 06/12/17, plaintiff caused to be served upon Oracle a second subpoena. This new subpoena sought only five categories of documents. The new subpoena carried over categories 3, 4, 5, 6, and 13 from the earlier subpoena. Oracle once again objected to the subpoena on burden grounds (citing Calcor, which will be discuss infra). During the meet and confer eff...

Excerpt: ...10 days after service of notice of this ruling. The request for sanctions is also GRANTED, as LAFMC has evidently ignored a valid subpoena and has failed to provide any explanation for such conduct in response to this motion. Sanctions are thus imposed against LAFMC under C.C.P. § 2023.030(a) in the amount of $1,260.00, to be paid to Defendants, through their counsel of record, within 20 days after service of notice of this ruling. Defendants ar...

Excerpt: ...; Advance Transformer Co. v. Super.Ct. (1974) 44 Cal.App.3d 127, 144, and Security Pac. Nat. Bank v. Matek (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 1071, 1077.) But here, the claim is based on an employment contract, and concerns money paid to Ms. Barrie as a bonus, which was to be treated as income and reported on her W-2. (McCarthy Decl., ¶¶ 2-14, Exs. A-E.) The claim at issue is thus effectively one to recover wages paid to a former employee - which is not a c...

Excerpt: ...nent is a non-party, CRC Rule 3.1346 requires that the motion to compel be personally served upon him or her. The POS attached to the motion does not show such required service (nor does it show authority to accept by another). Second, assuming Mr. Guerra is indeed the current president of cross- complainant Roof RX, Inc., service of a notice of deposition is effective to require a party or party-affiliated witness to attend and to testify. CCP �...

Excerpt: ...away, February 26 th. The Court does not grant the request for a terminating sanction at this time as an incremental approach is warranted. (See Lopez v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 572, 604; Doppes, 174 Cal.App.4 th 967, 993-4). The alternative request for evidentiary sanctions is not sufficiently supported as the papers fail to specify the particular matters that the Defendant would be prohib...

Excerpt: ...oticed only two depositions, failed to seek relief from the Court when a dispute arose over the location, and then proposed new dates that were after the Opposition for this Motion was due. (Mirabel Decl. ¶ 10.) She also fails to explain when the document requests that she now claims to need responses for were served. (Mirabel Decl. ¶ 17.) And although she claims that Jokar refused to produce Ms. Martinez in September, without cause (Id. at ¶ ...

Excerpt: ...les of Professional Conduct, Rule 3- 700(c); Estate of Falco v. Decker (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1014. If withdrawal is by client consent, the attorney need only submit Judicial Council form MC-050: Substitution of Counsel – Civil. See CCP §284(1). If the attorney does not have the client's consent, he or she must proceed by way of noticed motion consistent with CCP §§ 284 and 1005, CRPC 3-700 and CRC, Rule 3.1362. Here, counsel informs th...

Excerpt: ...for trial on 10/24/16 without a biomechanic (see ROA 97, 100), further showing the absence of good cause for the late request. Plaintiff is here now seeking permission to once again add an expert to discuss forces associated with the impact (by way of an accident reconstructionist). Plaintiff also wants to include four additional treating physicians and expand the scope of testimony from economist Enrique Vega. This request is an expansion of pla...

Excerpt: ... argues that decedent “died instantly,” but this appears to be a mischaracterization of Plaintiff's pleadings, as discussed more fully below under the third point. (Motion to Strike at p. 2, lines 5-6 [citing Complaint at ¶¶ 4-10. 17].) Defendant's argument tacitly imples that decedent's surviving spouse may maintain a wrongful death action, but cannot not bring a survival action because decedent's death was instantaneous. Where a decedent ...

Excerpt: ... regarding the use of Doe pseudonyms in court proceedings. “[F]ederal courts “have permitted plaintiffs to use pseudonyms in three situations: (1) when identification creates a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm [citations] ; (2) when anonymity is necessary ‘to preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature,' [citations]; and (3) when the anonymous party is ‘compelled to admit [his or her] intention to engag...

Excerpt: ... above reason and because defendant's/cross-complainant's Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts does not comply with California Rule of Court Rule 3.1350(b). The issues specifically stated in the Notice of Motion are not repeated verbatim in the Separate Statement. Moving party to give notice. ...

Excerpt: ...erent facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” CCP § 1008 CCP § 1008 allows the trial court to reconsider and modify, amend, or revoke its prior order where the moving party show different facts exist. Mink v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.app. 4th 1338, 1342. The moving party "'must provide not only new evidence but also a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce that evidence at an earlier time." Id. Application: Prio...

Excerpt: ...rt further ORDERS plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE why the action should not be dismissed due to its apparent suspended status. The OSC is set for March 12, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. Plaintiff shall file its papers in opposition to dismissal no later than February 20; defendant shall file any papers in response thereto no later than February 17; plaintiff may file any reply to defendant's papers no later than March 5. I. Demurrer A. Suspended Corporate Status In ...