Excerpt: ...le supplement expert witness list. This is not a medical malpractice action and, under the facts and law of this case, the court finds that Nossaman cannot be said to have necessarily anticipated that Plaintiff would designate an accident reconstructionist and neurosurgeon as retained expert witnesses. Unlike Fairfax v. Lords (2006) 138 Cal. App. 4th 1019, this is not a medical malpractice case. In a medical malpractice case, negligence must be s...

Excerpt: ...w that there was no possibility that [Plaintiffs] could win at trial, but only that it was reasonably possible that [Defendants] would win. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1030, subd. (b).)” Baltayan v. Estate of Getemyan (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1427, 1432. Corp. Code, § 25504 provides, “Every person who directly or indirectly controls a person liable under Section 25501 or 25503, every partner in a firm so liable, every principal executive officer or di...

Excerpt: ...es to form interrogatories and special interrogatories are GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.) Plaintiff shall serve a verified response, without objections, to Form Interrogatories, Set Two and Special Interrogatories, Set Two within 14 days of service of a notice of ruling by Defendant. The motion to deem admitted Requests for Admission, Set Two is also GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2033.290.) However, in the event that Plaintiff Jane...

Excerpt: ...ed May 29, 1986; Victoria Lee Roy, individually; Victoria L. Roy in her capacity as Trustee of The Roy Family Trust; Don B. Roy in his capacity as Trustee of The Roy Family Trust; Patrick Wurthman; George Wurthman; and Beachwalk, Inc., dba Management One Burr White's Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED. Defendants did not timely serve the notice of motion and supporting papers. Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(a)(2); McMahon v. Superior Court (2003...

Excerpt: ...SA, Inc. v. uPI Semiconductor Corp. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 651, 659-660.) Plaintiffs' eighth cause of action for intentional misrepresentation and their ninth cause of action for negligent misrepresentation allege that Serna falsely represented that Premier One installed the door to the manufacturer's specifications even though Serna had no knowledge of the specifications and referred Plaintiffs to the manufacturer's website. (Compl., ¶¶ 68, 95...

Excerpt: ... Ammerman's Motion for Attorney's Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $84,945. Assignee Mitchell Ammerman has established entitlement to an award and documented the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates. (ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 1020.) The court has reviewed the declarations of Jeremy S. Johnson and find the hourly rates as set forth in Exhibit B of the Supplemental Declaration to be reasonable and consistent...

Excerpt: ...stered the salesperson. Plaintiff has not alleged that as a home improvement salesperson met an exception under Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7157 (d). Plaintiff failed to allege that it was properly licensed or entitled to an exception to the licensure requirement. This requirement is similar to Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7031. “Where applicable, section 7031(a) bars a person from suing to recover compensation for any work he or she did under an agreement ...

Excerpt: ...on for Negligent Retention, Supervision, and Management Neither a bank's internal policies nor standard industry practices for verifying the identity and authority of a party opening an account create a duty to a noncustomer. (Software Design & Application, Ltd. v. Hoefer & Arnett, Inc.(1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 472, 481-82.) Additonally, a bank does not owe a duty of care to a noncustomer “absent extraordinary circumstances” in accepting funds fo...

Excerpt: ...injury or one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury, whichever occurs first.” Plaintiffs did not allege all of the relevant dates in the FAC. Taken from the FAC and the Points and Authorities, the following chronology is evident: 9/28/14: Dr. Cheng treated decedent 10/7/14: Decedent passed away. 12/29/15: First Suit v. Sheriff 7/17: Expert opinion re: Dr. Cheng 9/25/17:...

Excerpt: ...ery referee. If no one is not selected within that time, the court will appoint a Discovery Referee. “When the court in any pending action determines that it is necessary for the court to appoint a referee to hear and determine any and all discovery motions and disputes relevant to discovery in the action and to report findings and make a recommendation thereon.” Civ. Proc. Code § 639 (a) (5). California Rules of Court, Rule 3.920 (c) requir...

Excerpt: ... no more than 5 pages, to address whether the automatic stay imposed by Code of Civil Procedure section 916(a) applies to the instant motion. The supplemental briefs shall be filed no later than 9 court days before the continued hearing date. Code of Civil Procedure section 916(a) imposes an automatic stay on certain trial court proceedings pending appeal. (Quiles v. Parent (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 130, 136; Cunningham v. Magidow (2013) 219 Cal.App....

Excerpt: ...ff Carl R. Cain, Sr., individually and as Trustee of the Cain Family Trust u/t/d 07/09/91. Ruling Motions 1-2: Defendants' demurrers to the First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED. Plaintiff shall have 15 days leave to amend. Defendants demur to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and all of its stated causes of action on the ground they are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. Defendants contend that Plaintiff failed to allege suffi...

Excerpt: ...teen (15) days leave to amend. The Demurrer of Intervenor Bohm Matsen Kegel & Aguilera LLP to the First Amended Complaint is moot, based on the sustaining of the Demurrer. In order to dissolve the partnership, Plaintiff must seek that relief under Corp. Code, § 16801. Corp. Code, § 16801 provides, “A partnership is dissolved, and its business shall be wound up, only upon the occurrence of any of [six] events. . .” Plaintiff did not make thi...

Excerpt: ... no more than 5 pages, to address whether the automatic stay imposed by Code of Civil Procedure section 916(a) applies to the instant motion. The supplemental briefs shall be filed no later than 9 court days before the continued hearing date. Code of Civil Procedure section 916(a) imposes an automatic stay on certain trial court proceedings pending appeal. (Quiles v. Parent (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 130, 136; Cunningham v. Magidow (2013) 219 Cal.App....

Excerpt: ...after reversal of a judgment on appeal, the last date for completing discovery is 15 days before the date initially set for the new trial of the action.” Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 247. (Emphasis added). The fact that this case was remanded from the Federal Courts does not justify failing to apply the rule in Fairmont. “Reopening discovery may serve to clarify facts and eliminate gaps in the evidence that resul...

Excerpt: ... amount of $1,000.00. On receipt of a response to discovery, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if it finds the response deficient. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(c).) Plaintiff has failed to provide complete responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 6.4, 6.7, 8.7, 11.1, 14.1, 17.1, 50.1, 50.2, and 50.3 and did not file an Opposition to justify her failure to provide information reasonably known to her or which sh...

Excerpt: ...ication instead of the original should be deemed admitted. Moreover, Defendant's responses consist of both timely objections and answers and there is no need to verify that portion containing the objections. (Mtn., Ex. B; see also Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 657.) Accordingly, the instant motion is also denied on the grounds that Plaintiff did not comply with the procedural prerequisites for a motio...

Excerpt: ...the contents, had actual notice of the 998 offer, and took no action to accept it or to discuss it with Karimi's counsel. Berg v. Darden (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 721, 732; Mackay Decl., ¶ 9. Plaintiff's motion is untimely. Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1700(b)(1). However, the Court exercises its discretion to extend the time for serving and filing the notice of motion to strike or tax costs. Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1700(b)(3). “If an offer made b...

Excerpt: .... Co. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1209; Wilson v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 713, 720; Complaint, ¶¶ 5, 13-20, and 23-24. The effective date of the policy attached as Exhibit 1 to plaintiff's complaint does not contradict plaintiff's allegation that “[a]t the time of the accident, there was in effect an automobile insurance policy (Policy No. G4792475) that Stedt had purchased from Defendant INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMO...

Excerpt: ...9, 40, 41, and 42 to the Hamilton Declaration; and (4) objection No. 1 to the Nguyen Declaration. The remaining objections are overruled. Plaintiff has established she is entitled to an award of attorney's fees. The Settlement Agreement provides that the prevailing party in any litigation or proceeding arising out of the agreement will be entitled to his or her attorney's fees. Plaintiff is the prevailing party. The February 28, 2018 judgment on ...

Excerpt: ...f Jurisdiction: Plaintiff filed a Complaint with the Division of Apprenticeship Standards (DAS). Plaintiff failed to challenge the DAS decision by appeal or by petition writ of mandate. Therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this action. Failure to Comply with Claims Requirement: Plaintiff failed to file the required claim to seek damages against the State. “[A] plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with...

Excerpt: ...ters of which the Court takes judicial notice does not show that plaintiffs' claims are time barred by CCP section 340.6. Code Civ. Proc., § 438(d). Although Nossaman provided legal services in 2014, there is no allegation in the SAC that shows when the invoices that didn't honor the monthly maximum fee caps were presented to Plaintiffs. The SAC only alleges that Nossaman “initially honored the maximum caps, as reflected on the billings in its...

Excerpt: ...rty Plaintiffs Jonathan Borsuk & JB1 Partners LLC. Motion 4: Strike or Tax Costs. Moving Party Plaintiffs Jonathan Borsuk & JB1 Partners LLC. Responding Party Defendants Farmers Group, Inc., Farmers Ins. Exchange & David Rebsch Motion 5: Strike or Tax Costs. Plaintiffs Jonathan Borsuk & JB1 Partners LLC. Responding Party Defendants Farmers Group, Inc., Farmers Ins. Exchange & David Rebsch. Ruling Motion 1-5: Defendants' Motion to Compel Further R...

Excerpt: ...cript of the deposition that are relevant to the motion” no less than five days before the hearing. Plaintiff also has not shown that she is entitled to production of the documents at issue. Evidence Code section 771(a) requires a document be produced “if a witness, either while testifying or prior thereto, uses a writing to refresh his memory with respect to any matter about which he testifies.” In International Insurance Co. v. Montrose C...

Excerpt: ... Cal.4th 599, 622.) Plaintiff filed suit alleging Defendants had breached the parties' earlier settlement agreement, which required Defendants to remove Plaintiff from all loan obligations encumbering the property at 8681 Enloe Circle, Garden Grove, California (the “Property”). Plaintiff achieved her underlying litigation objective by having her name removed from those loans. While Plaintiff did not recover any portion of the $800,000+ in mon...

Excerpt: ...c., § 473 (b): “'To warrant relief under section 473 a litigant's neglect must have been such as might have been the act of a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances.” Henderson v. Pacific Gas and Elec. Co. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 215, 230. Defendants failed to show that they acted with excusable, much less any neglect. The motion for summary judgment was properly granted. Defendants were entitled to the court's ruling. Defense...

Excerpt: ...ning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” “Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 grants discretion to the trial courts to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact. The trial court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.” Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978–979. “Consolidation under Code of Civi...

Excerpt: ...n, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616. “Generally, demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored. Ambiguities can be clarified with discovery. However, a demurrer for uncertainty can be sustained if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” Lickiss v. Fin. Indus. Regulatory Auth. (2012) 208 Cal. App. 4t...

Excerpt: ...ts forth the grounds of good faith and is accompanied by a declaration setting forth a brief background of the case is sufficient. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.) Defendant Wesco Insurance Company, Inc. has satisfied its minimal burden to set forth the grounds of good faith and a brief background of the case. Together, its moving papers and supporting declaration adequately set forth the nature of the c...

Excerpt: ...2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 523, 529-530. Defendant's responses to request for admission numbers 1, 2, 3, 9, and 32 were identical and included objections. Defendant's responses were based on Defendant's knowledge at the time and were not flat denials. After receiving these responses, Plaintiff did not move to compel further responses. Plaintiff is not entitled to an award of fees. Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 618, 636-637. Defen...

Excerpt: ...a. Sullivan and Hargreaves Court Reporters (“The Sullivan Group”), Michael Sullivan, and Susan G. Sullivan. Ruling Motion 1: Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted as to Issue Nos. 1(a); 2(a); and 3(a) and denied as to all remaining issues. Defendants' request for judicial notice is granted in its entirety. Plaintiffs' objections are overruled. Defendants' objections are sustained...

Excerpt: ...the individual and the trust records. Standing: As to the individual's banking records, Defendant Jeffrey Williams lacked standing to quash the subpoena. As to the Trust records, Jeffrey Williams, has standing to challenge the subpoena for concerning the trust's account. He was the successor trustee. Scope of Discovery: “Under the discovery statutes, information is discoverable if it is unprivileged and is either relevant to the subject matter ...

Excerpt: ...ponding Party Plaintiff Eduardo Segui. Ruling Motion 1-3: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Jonathan Segui's (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, from Eduardo Segui and for Sanctions against Eduardo Segui and His Counsel, (2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, from Eduardo Segui and for Sanctions against Eduardo Segui and His Counsel, and (3) Motion to Compel Further Responses to ...

Excerpt: ...at Plaintiff violated Penal Code section 502. Cross-Complaint, ¶¶ 18-22, 26- 32. Plaintiff's contention that the damages are speculative, conjectural and remote is not a ground for demurrer set forth in CCP section 430.10. Alliance alleged sufficient facts to show it was damaged as a result of Plaintiff's actions. Cross-Complaint, ¶¶ 21, 32. Plaintiff's demurrer to this cause of action is overruled. Second cause of action for violation of the...

Excerpt: ...f contract are “the existence of the contract, performance by the plaintiff or excuse for nonperformance, breach by the defendant and damages.” First Commercial Mortgage Co. v. Reece(2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 731, 745. Plaintiff did not show Plaintiff performed or was excused from performing. Plaintiff's memorandum states, “According to the terms of the Agreement, State Fund notified Tantuwaya of his breach and allowed him time to cure. State Fu...

Excerpt: ....” (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.) Specifically, Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides, in pertinent part: “If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” Here, Plaintiff has established the ...

Excerpt: ...odriguez v. Botros, this court declines to the transfer the Orange County case to Los Angeles. Justice would be better serve to have the two cases continue on their separate tracks. The key issue concerns the status of discovery and trial setting. The Orange County case, Botros v. Crisanti, is set for trial on 6/25/18. The Los Angeles case, Rodriguez v. Botros, is set for 2/15/19. The Rodriguez is just starting discovery, where the Botros case ha...

Excerpt: ...le Responsibility of Defendants is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court's November 6, 2017 order staying the instant case is vacated. Jurisdiction of all proceedings in this civil action shall return to the Orange County Superior Court. The Status Conference scheduled for 5/21/18 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. C26 is VACATED. A Case Management Conference shall be set for June 18, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. in Department C-26. Plaintiff's request for an or...

Excerpt: ...to June 4, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. in Dept. C26. Moving party did not show plaintiff refused to arbitrate. Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2. Moving party did not comply with the Court's 3/19/2018 Order requiring moving party to serve and file, no later than 4/2/2018, a supplemental declaration showing whether plaintiff agrees to arbitrate these claims. Moving party shall serve and file a supplemental declaration showing whether plaintiff agrees to arbitrate...

Excerpt: ...Section 2923.5). The first and second causes of action are barred by the statute of limitations. (CCP § 338(a).) Here, the Complaint alleges Defendants improperly recorded the Notice of Default without contacting Plaintiff. The NOD was recorded 03/24/2014. The Complaint was filed over three and a half years later, in 12/2017. 3rd Cause of Action (Negligence). The Complaint fails to allege facts to support any breach of Defendants' duty of care. ...

Excerpt: ...in Limine No. 1; Exclusion of Trial Exhibits 201 and 202 Defendants argue that it was an error not to admit Trial Exhibits 201 and 202 for non-parol evidence reasons. Defendants contend that the documents were relevant to the basis of Defendants' good-faith beliefs and actions regarding the triple net CAMs charges. Plaintiff put Defendants' mindset at issue by suing for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Defendants argue that ...

Excerpt: ...t as to the truth and legal interpretation of the document. Request for Judicial Notice: The initial issue is to what extent should the court take judicial notice of the prenuptial agreement? Since the agreement was recorded, the court will take judicial notice of its existence. However, the court cannot take judicial notice of the truth of the contents and the legal interpretation of the agreement. “Judicial notice may not be taken of any matt...

Excerpt: ... to state a cause of action. (Para. 10). “Complaints in actions against multiple defendants commonly include conclusory allegations that all of the defendants were each other's agents or employees and were acting within the scope of their agency or employment. Prominent treatises, while recognizing that the Supreme Court has described such allegations as ‘egregious examples of generic boilerplate' . . . still advise that ‘such allegations m...

Excerpt: ...and the Regents as a state record. Wage and Hour Claims: In Kim v. Regents (2002) 80 Cal.App.4th 160, 166,the court held that the Re “Regents are nonetheless exempt from its mandate by virtue of their constitutional status.” The relationship between Plaintiff and the Regents is governed by the union contract. (First to Fifth Causes of Action). Wrongful Termination: As a public entity, the Regents may not be sued for common law torts. Governme...

Excerpt: ...ial matter that the Second Amended Complaint on file with this Court does not include a copy of “Exhibit 1.” Defendants seek to strike 11 paragraphs from the SAC, but fail to show how these entire paragraphs are irrelevant, false, or improper. Defendants also seek to strike the claim for punitive damages. “In order to state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a complaint must set forth the elements as stated in the general punitive da...

Excerpt: ...effective. (Appleton v. Super. Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Here, Plaintiff fails to justify any objection or failure to fully respond to the interrogatories at issue. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(c); Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) The interrogatories at issue request information regarding Plaintiff's calculation of alleged damages. Plaintiff has a duty to make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain th...

Excerpt: ...tions within 20 days of service of this ruling. Defendants failed to serve timely responses to the discovery requests, served July 28, 2017. Ruling Motion 2: Plaintiff's unopposed Motion to Compel Responses and Documents in Response to Requests for Production is GRANTED. (CCP § 2031.300(b).) Defendants Parimal Shah and Bipin Morari esa Bipin Jay Bharat shall serve verified responses without objections and make available for inspection all respon...

Excerpt: ...s, specifically cross-complainant Jessica Rios and Samuels, Green & Steele. CRC, Rule 3.1300(c) (“Proof of service of the moving papers must be filed no later than five court days before the time appointed for the hearing.”) If Abdoun has not served Rios and/or Samuels, Green & Steele, Abdoun shall serve a copy of all papers he filed that are related to this motion on Rios and Sameuls, Green & Steele no later than 4/20/2018. Abdoun shall file...

Excerpt: ...to Tax Costs is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Paramount's costs are taxed in the total amount of $75,269.11. Trial Graphic Designer Litigation support fees, such as a trial graphic designer, do not fall within the defined allowable costs and are also not specifically barred cost items under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(b). Thus, Paramount has the burden to demonstrate that the cost was reasonably necessary to the conduct of the li...

Excerpt: ...e by the attachment. Code Civ. Proc., § 484.020(b). In addition, plaintiff has not submitted any evidence to show that attachment is proper against the alleged guarantors. Advance Transformer Co. v. Superior Court (1974) 44 Cal.App.3d 127, 144. Plaintiff may serve and file an amended application stating the amount plaintiff seeks to attach and a supplemental declaration showing attachment is proper against the guarantors no later than 4/20/2018....