Excerpt: ... to be something else. Nor are the causes of action separately stated in compliance with Rule 2.112 of the California Rules of Court. The property at issue in the pleading is also not identified or described. Plaintiff(s) alleges that the property is located at the SE Corner of Carpenter and Second Ave, Carmel by the Sea, California. To the extent that it is, it appears to be in Monterey County, California - not Orange County, California. In addi...

Excerpt: ...estate. See 8:14-bk-13999. On 02/22/16, Hon. Lewis sustained Kinum's demurrer to the original fraudulent conveyance complaint, observing that the underlying debt upon which the claim rested (default judgment against Frank) had been vacated. On 08/29/16, Hon. Lewis again sustained Kinum's demurrer to the operative pleading, observing that the underlying bankruptcy court judgment upon which the debt rested had been vacated. On 03/30/17, this Court ...

Excerpt: ...ntional interference on the basis that it arises from protected activity. Before drilling down into the claim itself, it is necessary to briefly revisit other lawsuits touching upon 21411 Vista Drive in Rancho Santa Margarita. The home is owned in trust by Jennifer Loeffler (hereinafter “Loeffler”), who previously lived there with her common law husband Attorney Steven Radar (hereinafter “Radar”). The home is now leased as a sober living ...

Excerpt: ...s pendens can be recorded and the serious consequences flowing from it.” (Campbell v. Superior Court (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 904, 913.) A number of cases have expressed the following principle: “a claim that seeks an interest in real property merely for the purpose of securing a money damage judgment does not support the recording of a lis pendens.” (Campbell v. Superior Court (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 904, 912; Wardley Development Inc. v. Supe...

Excerpt: ...rty” 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 party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.” Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761. Declaration: Cal. Rules of Court, R...

Excerpt: ...Doe v. United States Youth Soccer Association, Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1118, 1140; in accord, Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 526. Although some courts of appeal have treated it as a separate cause of action, those cases involved statutes employing the term itself. See, e.g., Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 412; Manuel v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 927, 945-946. Our ...

Excerpt: ...usiness or marijuana dispensary at the Property, or at any other location, fixed or mobile, in the City of Brea;  Selling, providing, or otherwise making marijuana available, or permitting the same, to any person at the Property, or at any other location, fixed or mobile, in the City of Brea;  Operating any business at the Property, or permitting the same, without a valid business license issued by the City of Brea; and  Maintaining a pu...

Excerpt: .... The court finds that the second cause is duplicative of the first for negligence. Requests for Judicial Notice: The Defendant Planet Home Housing Pool 1, LLC's request that this Court take Judicial Notice of the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for personal injury filed January 28, 2019 is GRANTED. The Defendant Planet Home Development, Inc. request that this Court take Judicial Notice of the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for personal ...

Excerpt: ...ne prevailing party status only upon final resolution of the contract claims. (Hsu v. Abbara (1995) 9 Cal.4th 863, 876.) It is not enough to have prevailed on an “interim step” in the case. (DisputeSuite.com, LLC v. Scoreinc.com (2017) 2 Cal.5th 968, 977; Presley of Southern California v. Whelan (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 959, 961.) Here, the appeal at issue was not a final resolution of the contract claims. Therefore, even though the Motion is un...

Excerpt: ...or Production/Inspection seeks entry onto the actual land to conduct non- invasive, expert testing of the subject stairs where this accident allegedly occurred, at a time with similar atmospheric conditions. Request for Production/Inspection seeks further responses and production of documents in response to document production requests for witness information and other documents. Authorities: Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300, (3)(d) provides t...

Excerpt: ...roperty.” When the condition of property lies at the heart of litigation, the party in control of the premises should assume good cause for the request and not obstruct discovery. See, e.g., Manzetti v. Superior Court (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 373, 379. Here, on 09/10/18, defendants served upon plaintiff a demand to permit an inspection of her yard in order to assess the degree of nuisance caused by defendants' allegedly-overgrown shrubbery. Althou...

Excerpt: ...Authorities, and the portions of the Declaration of Michelle L. Buxton sought to be sealed by Defendants involve protected information related to mental health treatment and diagnoses of Plaintiffs' and R.C., as well as highly private information related to R.C. and A.C. There is a high probability that if these records are not sealed, the respective Plaintiffs' and non-party witnesses' privacy will be able to be invaded by the general public, ne...

Excerpt: ...egin the action in Riverside County when considering the mechanic's lien claim involved there. However, the Greenfield defendant's contract-claims were probably compulsory cross-claims for the present case in Orange Country. (See CCP §428.10(a). CCP § 426.10(c). Align Technology, Inc. v. Bao Tran (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 949, 967.) Even local claims can be transferred to another county, when the circumstances warrant this. (See CCP § 392; 61 Cal...

Excerpt: ... to Pfieffer Fitzgibbon & Ziontz; Apex Law; Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Rudd & Roma; Buchalter, Nemer, Fields & Younger; and Freeman Freeman & Smiley are void. Where employee or consumer records are subpoenaed from a third party, notice must be served on the employee/consumer 5 days before the subpoena is served on the custodian of records and at least 10 days before the production date. Code Civ. Proc. § 1985.6(b)(3). Proof of service on the “c...

Excerpt: ...lished opinions. The party asserting the FAA applies, has the evidentiary burden of establishing a relevant nexus to interstate commerce. What the Moad Decl. ¶ 8 does not provide is something to show that the distributorship of Defendant Stewart and Plaintiff, in particular, was involved with interstate commerce rather than SeneGence's business overall. (See Moad Dec. ¶ 8 and compare Nguyen v. Applied Medical Resources Corp. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5t...

Excerpt: ...ify the specific causes of action in the complaint for which adjudication is sought. (CRC 3.1350(b), (c)(1), (d)(1); see also Homestead Savings v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 494, 498.) The separate statement serves a due process function. (Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 251.) For due process reasons, when a motion seeks summary judgment only, a trial court cannot summarily adjudicate individual causes of acti...

Excerpt: ...has taken judicial notice of the Plaintiff's sec. 998 offer which was filed in her concurrent 1/18/19 motion to augment her costs. [See ROA 782, Boskovich Decl. and exhibits; Evid. Code § 452(d), (h).] Plaintiff offered to compromise for $250,000 in October of 2014, the offer was not accepted, and the Defendant did not fare better at trial. (See Judgment f. 8/12/16 and Order of 1/17/19.) Therefore, augmenting the costs is properly invoked. Exper...

Excerpt: ...rd Postrel, Icahn Associated Holdings, LLC and CSGP, Inc. The motion to quash is denied as to the subpoenas served upon Yucaipa Companies, LLC, Maria Sefarian, Jeffrey Gordon, and TGS Management Co., LLC but the subpoenas are modified and limited to include documents going only as far back as January 2014. The Defendants' request sanctions in the amount of $4,937.50 is denied. Out of State Subpoenas: A California subpoena is only valid within Cal...

Excerpt: ...ode §51.9. Pursuant thereto, plaintiff may sue any person with whom she is in a “business, service or professional relationship” if the latter “has made sexual advances, solicitations, sexual requests, demands for sexual compliance by the plaintiff, or engaged in other verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a sexu a nature or of a hostile nature based on gender, that were unwelcome and pervasive or severe” and “there is an inability by...

Excerpt: ...y, education and employment information, although considered private information, may be relevant as to the veracity of R.C./A.C.'s statements at their respective depositions. This information is to be marked “Attorney's Eyes Only,” and is not to be shared with the any of the parties or the general public. Although Plaintiffs contend that they only seek answers to five questions, these questions seek to invade R.C.'s privacy in her mental hea...

Excerpt: ...t, Third Cause of Action for Account Stated, Fourth Cause of Action for Money Had and Received, and Fifth Cause of Action for Fraud. Materialness of Separate Statement Facts Defined by Moving Party: “Material facts” are facts that relate to the cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion and that could make a difference in the disposition of the motion. CRC 3.1350(a)(2). A moving...

Excerpt: ...tion was then served for that date. On 01/03/19, Frank served objections to the deposition notice. The objections were procedural only, relating to the selected date and the presumed duration. That same day, referee Balmages conducted a telephone conference with all parties. It is unclear if the topic of Frank's deposition was actually discussed, as the conference came to a halt over a retainer fee dispute. On 01/16/19, plaintiff filed an ex part...

Excerpt: ...cility has refused to comply with a subpoena absent such a release. However, Dr. Saran has not shown why a motion to compel compliance with the subpoena was not thus sought, rather than this motion. Nor has he demonstrated that the types of “sensitive” information which may have thus been withheld should be discoverable here. Therefore, although Plaintiff has not filed opposition to the Motion, it fails on its own merits. However, defendants ...

Excerpt: ... v. La Casa Dana Apartments (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1267; Monastero v. Los Angeles Transit Co. (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 156, 161.) The Court may decline to consider papers that are not filed in conformity with the Code. (Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Association v. Hazelbaker (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 252, 266; Cal. Rule Ct. 3.1300 (d).) The Court requests that the Plaintiff consider the guidelines below. A “Motion” is generally one set ...

Excerpt: ...her costs, which are therefore allowed. (See CRC 3.1700(b).) The Court does not have discretion to deny a party who “fits” one of the four definitions of a prevailing party in CCP §1032(a)(4), the entitlement to receive costs of suit. Here, Defendant Certified Auto does “fit” one the definitions, it is a defendant in whose favor a dismissal was entered. Hence, it is entitled to costs as a matter of right. (See CCP §1032(a)(4); Charton v...