Excerpt: ... to pay the monthly mortgage, interest, taxes, etc., and so Plaintiff has been paying those too. Id¶16. Plaintiff also indicates he is in possession of the property as it is his family residence. As such, pursuant to Sutton v. Warner (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 415, 422, these facts are sufficient to establish part performance to enforce the oral Joint Venture Agreement, and complaint is not barred by the SOF. Tentative Ruling: Demurrer to the entire ...

Excerpt: ...rests of justice. See CCP§2019.020. Here, all parties concede there was an agreement that Plaintiff's deposition would take place after the Defendants' PMK deposition. (See ROA 20, Jacobsen Decl¶5). Furthermore, there is some evidence that at an informal discovery conference on 4-26-2021, the Court indicated the PMK deposition should go before the Plaintiff's deposition. (See Decl. of Romanini ¶¶4,15, Ex.I.) Therefore, it appears sequencing h...

Excerpt: ...alifornia recorded on September 24, 1976, in the official records of the Orange County Recorder's Office pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(c). The Court takes judicial notice of the existence of these documents and their legal effect. but the court does not take judicial notice of the truth of the matters which might be deduced therefrom. (See, Ragland v. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 182, 194.) Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial ...

Excerpt: ...s, in the court's discretion, it will rule on the CCP § 431.30(g): “The defenses shall be separately stated, and the several defenses shall refer to the causes of action which they are intended to answer, in a manner by which they may be intelligibly distinguished.” Here, the defenses are asserted to the “Unverified Complaint” rather than to a particular cause of action. On 10/3/19, the court previously sustained a demurrer to the origin...

Excerpt: ...cuments. On January 6, 2021, Plaintiff served by mail Request for Production of Documents, Set Two (“RFP2”). (Vu Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. 9.) On March 2, 2021, Defendant served by mail its unverified responses to RFP2. (Vu Decl. ¶ 15, Ex. 10.) Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's Requests consisted of boilerplate objections with no production of documents responsive to Plaintiff's Requests. (Id.). Although Moving Party indicates counsel met and conf...

Excerpt: ...or admission at issue are relevant and are not impermissibly duplicative, they are not in proper form. RFA, Set Three, Nos. 29-31 are not “full and complete in and of itself” pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.060(d) as terms are defined by reference to the Lease. Tentative Ruling: The motion as to RFA, Set Three, Nos. 29-31, and corresponding Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 is DENIED. Special Interrogatories Tenant seeks further re...

Excerpt: ... wall which Plaintiffs also contend is part of their Property. (See Complaint, ¶¶ 10-15.) These allegations merely support claims for trespass or encroachment and concern a dispute between neighbors as to where the exact boundary between their two properties exist. Welfare & Institutions Code section 15610.30(a) defines “Financial abuse” of an elder as occurring when a person or entity does, inter alia: “(1) Takes, secretes, appropriates,...

Excerpt: ... conducted surveillance of Plaintiff; if so, date/time/place; who conducted the surveillance; who has copies of such surveillance; and the number of video hours or photographs obtained. Plaintiff contends these interrogatories seek information related to sub rosa and is discoverable pursuant to Suezaki v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 166. Defendant COUNTY OF ORANGE objected on the grounds of attorney work product doctrine and Evidence Code sec...

Excerpt: ...ive, summary adjudication as to the First Cause of Action for Violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act of 1994 (“USERRA”) [Issue Nos. 1 and 2], the Second Cause of Action for Violation of the California Military and Veterans Code (“CMVC”) § 394 et seq. [Issue Nos. 3 and 4], the Third Cause of Action for Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) [Issue Nos. 5 to 8], the Four...

Excerpt: ...t testimony which MOOTS Objection Nos. 48-101. Defendant's Supplemental Declarations in support of the Reply. Defendant submitted nine supplemental declarations with the Reply. This new evidence is excluded by the Court as new evidence should not be filed with the reply papers. (See Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537-38.) Motion. Defendant failed to meet her initial burden of demonstrating that Plaintiffs Most Reverend Kevin Willia...

Excerpt: ...s to the 1 st cause of action for Private Nuisance, Defendants do not argue there are insufficient facts to constitute a cause of action, but rather, that this c/a is a “clone” of the 4 th cause of action for Negligence; and therefore, should be dismissed. However, Plaintiff cites to Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1207, 1222–1223, which provides, “When a pleader is in doubt about what ...

Excerpt: ...nd Tuan A. Nguyen (“Motion to Quash”) or the Motion to Strike the Cross-Complaint (“Motion to Strike”) (collectively, the “Motions”), or that the information he now submits could not, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered or produced before the hearing on March 1, 2021. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a); In re Marriage of Herr (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1468; New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal. App. 4th 206, 213...

Excerpt: ...nt, Houshang Jalili in the amount of $51,692.66 including estimated costs of $2,000 and allowable attorney fees of $5,000 are GRANTED. Both parties agree that Section 6201(1) of New York Civil Practice Law & Rules governs whether a writ of attachment is allowed under New York law, but disagree as to the interpretation of the statute. Plaintiff contends that Section 6201(1) allows for pre-trial writs of attachment as Defendants, Buy Insta Slim, In...

Excerpt: ...Mortgage Corp. (“FFC”) fails to demonstrate lack of actual notice. Indeed, Gene O'Bryan, chief executive officer for ResCap Solutions Inc. (“ResCap”), which is the sole owner of FFC, states in his declaration that he was informed of the instant action on 11/27/20 (O'Bryan Decl. ¶ 4) – yet default was not requested until 12/22/20. CCP § 473(b) states that “[t]he court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her ...

Excerpt: ...20. (See Jafari Decl., ¶¶ 4 and 7, Exh. B.) Although it appears disingenuous for Defendant to contend the Motion is untimely since the parties were meeting and conferring about these requests past November 29, 2020, there is no evidence that Plaintiff granted or that Defendant requested an extension beyond the 45-day time frame to move to compel further responses to the discovery. Even assuming arguendo, the Motion was timely, the Court would d...

Excerpt: ... Knowledgeable (“PMK”) to be deposed in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.230. Plaintiff further moves this Court for an order awarding monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,860.00 against Defendant and its counsel of record, Erskine Law Group. APC, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, sections, and 2025.450, subdivision (g)(1), for Defendant's willful and unjustified failure to comply with the relevant code sections of th...

Excerpt: ...icine, LLC (“Olympia”) and Bernice Natalie Mucius-Penha (“Dr. Penha”) (collectively “Cross- Complainants)'s Second Amended Cross-Complaint (“SACC”) on the ground that the third cause of action for forgery fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and it is uncertain. Specifically, Cross-Defendant contends that forgery is not a civil cause of action under California law. However, the SACC alleges adequate facts ...

Excerpt: ...by Defendant's counsel's “agent” – the insurance adjuster. Defendant contends that the statement was obtained on 6/11/19—not 4/16/19 and the Privilege Log inadvertently stated it was obtained on 4/16/19, the date of the accident. Defendant, however, failed to file a declaration attesting to these alleged facts. Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 494 only held that “a witness statement obtained through an attorney-directed in...

Excerpt: ...of contract allegations into the cause of action (see FAC, ¶ 15) and alleges that “[a]s a result of Defendant's wrongful acts and breach of contract as alleged herein, Defendant breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing…”. (See FAC, ¶ 16.) Despite Plaintiff's contention to the contrary, the First Amended Complaint does not allege that Defendant failed to cooperate with and interfered with the performance of the contract it had ...

Excerpt: ...l act or omission), whichever occurs first. The statute applies to an action for malpractice as well as a breach of fiduciary duty arising out of the performance of an attorney's professional duties. [Citation.]” (Britton v. Girardi (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 721, 732-733.) The statute of limitations may be tolled where the plaintiff has not sustained actual injury. (Code Civ. Proc. § 340.6(a)(1).) Plaintiffs have alleged facts showing that throug...

Excerpt: ... Tania filed a “Declaration of Reply to Opposition to Jahangir Baroukh's Demurrer No. 1…” on August 30, 2019. However, it appears that Defendant Tania is not an attorney licensed to practice law in California and thus, she cannot appear on behalf of Defendant Jahangir. (See Bus & Prof Code § 6125 - No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active licensee of the State Bar.) Accordingly, the reply on behalf of Defen...

Excerpt: ...th, 9 th, and 10 th Causes of Action; SUSTAINED, with 20-days leave to amend, as to the 3 rd through 5 th and 8 th Causes of Action; and OVERRULED as to the 7 th Causes of Action as follows. As to the 2 nd cause of action for breach of implied warranty of habitability, this cause of action fails as a matter of law because Defendant was the real estate broker, not owner/landlord of the subject property at issue (See FAC, ¶¶ 3 and 4.). A breach o...

Excerpt: ... Carlos Amezcua. Plaintiff Juan Carlos Amezcua filed a request for dismissal on 3/26/19, which the court entered that same day. (ROA 93.) The Motion is CONTINUED as to Plaintiff Luis Amezcua. Pursuant to CCP § 128.7(c)(1), a motion for sanctions cannot be filed until 21 days after it has been served in order to afford the party being served with the opportunity to correct the violation. Here, it is unclear whether Defendants have served the moti...

Excerpt: ...nts contained in the court's records. (Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1564.) The Court DENIES Defendant's request for judicial notice of Exhibits 2 through 6 on the grounds the exhibit are not properly authenticated and the exhibits are not relevant to the issues on demurrer. (See Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4 th 26, 45, FN9; see also Gbur v. Cohen (1979) 93 Cal. App. 3d 296, 301.) As to the 1 st cause ...

Excerpt: ...s request for judicial notice of Exhibits 1 and 2 pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d). However, the Court declines to take judicial notice of hearsay statements contained in the court's records. (Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1564.) As to the 1 st through 3 rd Causes of Action as shareholder derivative claims, the Court OVERRULES the demurrer. The Court finds that the SAC has adequately alleged demand futility in paragraph 20 ...