Excerpt: ....App.2d 798, 805); Batte v. Bandy (1958) 165 Cal.App.2d 527, 533 (“Affidavits devoid of averments of facts showing that due diligence was exercised to make service have consistently been held to be insufficient…”). Plaintiff's declaration, paragraph 5, does not provide enough information about what was found at the registered address for the agent for service of process for Creek Systems Inc. (Kevin M. Daly) at 8105 Irvine Center Drive, Sui...

Excerpt: ...court GRANTS the Petition for the reasons set forth below. This litigation is stayed pending resolution of the arbitration. A. Basic Procedure In Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 412-414, the California Supreme Court explained the procedure a trial court must follow when a party files a petition to compel arbitration. The only question is whether the trial court should specifically enforce the arbitrati...

Excerpt: ...Agreement is illusory. However, the Court has located no authority that addresses facts the same as or similar to the facts presented here. Given the public policy that arbitration agreements should be enforced wherever possible, the Court concludes that a valid arbitration agreement has been shown here. There is no showing that the 2016 Agreement is void due to fraud in the inception or is procedurally unconscionable. Plaintiff has forthrightly ...

Excerpt: ...usiness practices was now one for declaratory relief based on the lots yet to have flooring ordered and installed. At the very least there are 352 “remaining lots” which plaintiff claims entitlement to commissions (even though defendant has not necessarily even determined any profit margin). ...

Excerpt: ...e party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or la...

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: ...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: ...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: ... demonstrate inadvertence , mistake, surprise or excusable neglect. Here, defendant explains that he is self-represented, and unfamiliar with ho w to respond to a lawsuit. He explains that he did come to court on two prio r hearing dates, and appears to be participating as best he can. He was unawar e of the risk of default, despite already making what amounts to a genera appearance in the action. See City of Riverside v. Horspool (2014) 22 3 Cal...

Excerpt: ... because Outsourcing is without counsel, and a corporate entity is not able t o represent itself in general litigation. (See Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 9 1 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284 n.5; CLD C o n s t . , I n c . v . C i t y o f S a n R a m on (2004) 12 0 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145-1150.) The cross-defendants, Sanders Engineering Co. and Craig Jackson, hav e objected to this, via their demurrer to the operative pleading. (See Docke t #153). Outsourcing w...

Excerpt: ...v. Williams (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 238, 246 Plaintiff has not shown the harsh, time-consuming, expensive and potentially unjust remedy of a receivership is “absolutely essential” in this case. See, City & County of San Francisco v. Daley (1993) 16 CA4th 734, 745 Plaintiff's evidence supporting “insolvency” under CCP §654(b)(6) is insufficient to show that a receivership is warranted. At most, the evidence is equivocal. If believed, it sho...

Excerpt: ...ring is continued for the limited purpose of serving any omitted parties , their opposition will be due to the Court, at least 9 court days before the nex t hearing. This is not an authorization for the parties who were served with th e moving papers, to submit their oppositions at this time. Also, the MP's Notice of motion [see ROA 296] does not comply with CR C 3.1382 by identifying each party, each pleading or portion of pleading affecte d by ...

Excerpt: ...dmission, Set One, as Nissa n had failed to respond thereto. Motion 1 is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff asserts that Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatorie s (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One), were propounded to Plaintif f on 7/31/17. (Babbitt Decl., ¶ 3.) Nissan concedes that it failed to timel y respond thereto. (Leonard Decl. ¶ 2.) As responses were not timely provided , all objections were waived. (SeeC.C.P. §§2...

Excerpt: ...djudication as to all four issues and also DENIES the motion for summary judgment. A. 1st COA: Legal Malpractice DENIED as to Issues 1 and 2. Issue 1. Reid's cause of action for Legal Malpractice against Defendants is without merit as a matter of law because Reid is unable to establish any breach by Defendants of their duty of care. Issue 2. Reid's cause of action for Legal Malpractice against Defendants is without merit as a matter of law becaus...

Excerpt: ...dmission, Set One, as Nissa n had failed to respond thereto. Motion 1 is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff asserts that Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatorie s (Set One), and Requests for Production (Set One), were propounded to Plaintif f on 7/31/17. (Babbitt Decl., ¶ 3.) Nissan concedes that it failed to timel y respond thereto. (Leonard Decl. ¶ 2.) As responses were not timely provided , all objections were waived. (SeeC.C.P. §§2...

Excerpt: ...ssuance or nonissuance of the injunction. “The trial court's determinatio n must be guided by a mix of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; th e greater the plaintiff's showing on one, the less must be shown on the other t o support an injunction. Of course, the scope of available preliminary relief i s necessarily limited by the scope of the relief likely to be obtained at trial on th e merits. A trial court may not grant a preliminar...

Excerpt: ...oving papers, was a letter from the Defendant's counsel, dated 10/5/17, expressing that a response to this motion was unlikely. (See ROA 28, Ex. C.) Because of the harmful effect that admissions can have on the case, the RP can serve verified, substantially-compliant responses to RFAs, before the hearing, and if so, then the Court must deny the motion to deem them admitted. [See CCP §2033.280(c); St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th...

Excerpt: ...arvig requests from this Court an order relieving it from further participation in this case. An attorney may withdraw as counsel of record if the client breaches the agreement to pay fees, insists on pursuing invalid claims or an illegal course of conduct, or when other conduct by the client renders it unreasonably difficult for the attorney to do his job, including when there is a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. California Rules ...

Excerpt: ...ng averment for punitive damages. Initially, there continues to be a concern over standing. Although defendants have not raised the issue, this lingers on from the prior unsuccessful application for appointment of a guardian ad litem. As indicated in the operative pleading and opposition papers, it appears this litigation is being handled by plaintiff's daughter, Dellia Montgomery. The “authorization” presented by her to this Court specifies ...

Excerpt: ...ode of Regulations for the subject premises. Evidence Code § 669 codifies the “negligence per se” doctrine as a presumption affecting the burden of proof: i.e., defendant's failure to exercise due care is presumed if: • Defendant violated a statute, ordinance or safety regulation of a public entity; • The violation legally caused injury or death; • The occurrence resulting in the injury or death was of a nature that the statute, ordina...

Excerpt: ...895671) filed 1/05/17 5. Palatinus v. Casa Apts. (2017-932144) filed 7/18/17 CCP 1048 (a) provides that: “When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” The court DENI...

Excerpt: ...f action for Malicious Prosecution and new allegations regarding the express written release currently pled in the Cross Complaint. The court finds no prejudice to Cross Defendants resulting from Cross Complainant's delay from July to January in seeking this leave. If delay in seeking the amendment has not misled or prejudiced the other side, the liberal policy of allowing amendments prevails. Indeed, it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave in...

Excerpt: ...the prevailing party, and award costs of suit and statutory attorney fees, at the conclusion of a litigation, after all the claims are resolved. [See CCP §1033.5(a)(10), (c)(5)); Cal.R.Ct. 3.1702(a),(b), 8.104(a); Civ. Trials & Evid. §§ 17:151-52, 17:166 (Rutter Group 2017); P R Burke Corp. v. Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1052.] Here, the case is not over, and Plaintiff still has one undisposed-of ...

Excerpt: ...C does allege facts to support its claim as to her “creditor” status. (FAC ¶¶ 9 & 10.) Nor is the TILA claim clearly time-barred. Buyers argue that even if she is a creditor, there is a 3-year limitation on the right to rescind. But a demurrer on statute of limitations grounds will not lie where the action is not necessarily barred – the defect must appear clearly and affirmatively upon the face of the complaint. (Lee v. Hanley(2015) 61 C...

Excerpt: ...ause it might be required to satisfy the judgment against its insured. The moving party has attached a copy of the proposed answer to th e motion. Colfer Dec. ¶ 2, Exhibit A. The default was enters on July 5, 2017 and default judgment was entered o n July 14, 2017. Rodriguez Dec. ¶¶ 16. This motion was filed on October 10 , 2017. Therefore, it is timely under CCP § 473(b). The moving party has established its insured's default and de-fault ju...