Excerpt: ... asserting it was untimely filed. Plaintiff cites no authority which addresses the timing of such Motions. Nonetheless, the Court finds the Motion was reasonably brought, within a month and a half of Defendants' Answer and prior to any significant litigation in this action. (Global financial Distributors Inc. v. Superior Court (2019) 35 Cal.App.5 th 179, 192-193). Additionally, Maryland is a suitable forum for this action, given Defendants' conse...

Excerpt: ...panish, was provided to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff signed the agreement. (Mercado Decl. at ¶¶ 4, 5, Exhs. A, B.) The agreement is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act and is broadly-worded to apply “to any dispute arising from or relating to the Employee's [] application for employment, employment, or termination of employment.” (Taylor Decl. at p. 3.) At the outset, the Court notes that Defendant's objection to the entirety of Plaintiff's...

Excerpt: ...ed to the “four corners” of the pleading (which includes exhibits attached and incorporated therein) or from matters outside the pleading which are judicially noticeable under Evidence Code §§ 451 or 452. Although California courts take a liberal view of inartfully drawn complaints, it remains essential that a complaint set forth the actionable facts relied upon with sufficient precision to inform the defendant of what plaintiff is complain...

Excerpt: ...equesting production in connection with this deposition). Plaintiffs may renew this motion after the deposition, with a separate statement and a record of (i) what Sunbelt has and has not produced and (ii) meet and confer attempts for the specific requests. Plaintiffs are awarded monetary sanctions of $7,785.00. The court declines to award greater sanctions at this time as does not appear that lesser sanctions will be futile. Should they prove to...

Excerpt: ...e defective. The proof of service for the motion was filed on December 6, 2019, but it was dated and executed on December 8, 2019. (ROA 67.) The proof of service for the declaration accompanying the motion was also filed on December 6, 2019 but dated and executed on December 9, 2019. (ROA 68.) These are not sufficient proofs of service. The proof of service could not possibly have been executed on 12/8/19 or 12/9/19. Nor could the declarant truth...

Excerpt: ...equest, or receive, the Court's permission to exceed the page limit. Cal. R. Ct. Rule 3.1113(e). Additionally, the Court declines to rule on Defendants' objections to Plaintiff's evidence, as they are not dispositive of the ruling on the motion. Merits Plaintiff brings three causes of action against Defendants, including: (1) retaliation (Labor Code § 1102.5); (2) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (3) unfair business practi...

Excerpt: ... the FAC alleges Connie and Lisa made sexual comments “almost daily” but stops short of alleging those comments continued “almost daily” from 2012 up until the date Plaintiff resigned in 2019. The court does not read the FAC in such a limiting way. The FAC, at a minimum, implies that the harassing conduct continued. The continuing violation doctrine may be implicated as well. The Court “will not sustain a demurrer unless the basis for t...

Excerpt: ...es: (1) what application was previously made; (2) when and to what judge; (3) what order was made; and (4) what new or different facts, circumstances or law are claimed to be shown. Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a). A party seeking reconsideration also must provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce the evidence at an earlier time. New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal. App. 4th 206, 213. Separately, Code Civ. Proc. § ...

Excerpt: ...ged. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.15(e) [defining protected activity]; Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore (2010) 49 Cal.4th 12, 21; Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 66–67.) If the defendant carries its burden, the plaintiff must then demonstrate its claims have at least “minimal merit.” (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 89; Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 384.) Plaintiff alleges a number of cl...

Excerpt: ...t's disposition of the motion. In order to move for summary adjudication, the party moving must specify in its notice of motion and motion the claim, causes of action, or issues it is moving on. CRC 3.1350. The court has no power to adjudicate others. Maryland Cas. Co. v. Reeder (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 961, 974 n. 4; Homestead Savings v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal. App. 3d 494, 498. The noticed issues for summary adjudication must then be stat...

Excerpt: ...the trial for this case was continued roughly 30 days before it was to commence. But for this fortuitous continuance, this case would have proceeded to trial without the corporate defendant who would have likely been dismissed at the inception. Court also notes that $250 sanction remains unpaid and outstanding against Plaintiff's counsel for failure to appear at the MSC. The Court orders this sanction paid within 10 days. Court is inclined to dis...

Excerpt: ...cation for an order sealing the record. The motion or application “must” be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” Cal. R. Ct. Rule 2.551(b)(1). The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish that: there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; the overriding interest supports seali...

Excerpt: ...efendant's second supplemental responses to the interrogatories. Pursuant to Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409, it is within the Court's discretion as to whether to provide a ruling on the motion based on the further responses. Given the time and effort that has been put into the briefings and recent meet and confer efforts by the parties, the Court exercises its discretion and p...

Excerpt: ...he reasons set forth below. DEF Equaltox, LLC, Cranford L. Scott, MD and Cranford L. Scott, MD, Inc. 2. Motion to Strike Defendants Equaltox, LLC, erroneously sued as Equaltox, Inc., Cranford L. Scott, MD, Cranford L. Scott, MD, Inc., and Smensa seek an order striking paragraphs 53, 60, 68, 84, and 91 from the TAC and paragraph 6 from the prayer in the TAC. Defendants contend Plaintiffs have not shown they are entitled to attorney's fees pursuant...

Excerpt: ... Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.320(a). “Good cause” generally means there is a showing of both “relevancy to the subject matter” and “specific facts justifying discovery.” Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial at ¶ 8:1557 (original emphasis) (citing Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840). Here, moving defendants have shown “good cause” for an order for leave to take a neuropsychological examination of plaintiff. Plaintif...

Excerpt: ...g on. CRC 3.1350. The court has no power to adjudicate others. Maryland Cas. Co. v. Reeder (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 961, 974 n. 4; Homestead Savings v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal. App. 3d 494, 498. The noticed issues for summary adjudication must then be stated, verbatim, in the separate statement. CRC 3.1350(b). The court did not consider new evidence submitted on reply. Generally speaking, new evidence may not be submitted on reply in support...

Excerpt: ...ontractor, to install the fire sprinkler system for the tower. (See SSUF No. 2). Further, it is undisputed that Plaintiff “only took directions regarding his work on the Project including safety protocols, directly from his supervisor at APEX, Paul.” (See SSUF No. 13). It is similarly undisputed that “[m]oving defendants were not the employers of Plaintiff Losey [and] [m]oving defendants had no part in training, equipping or directing the m...

Excerpt: .... Ninth cause of action – Derivative – Conversion; 7. Tenth cause of action - Derivative – Declaratory Relief; 8. Eleventh cause of action – Derivative – Unjust Enrichment; and 9. Twelfth cause of action – Derivative – Constructive Trust. The demurrer by SC&P is sustained in full with 20 days leave to amend. The demurrer by Park is overruled as to the 7 th cause of action for fraud, and sustained with 20 days leave to amend as to th...

Excerpt: ... under section 391.7 is granted. Defendant's request for Plaintiff to furnish security under section 391.3 is denied. Defendant's request for judicial notice of Exhibits B through S is denied, because the copies of these exhibits filed by Defendant are illegible. Evid. Code § 453(b). However, the Court exercises its discretion to take judicial notices of the matters specified therein, i.e., the dockets sheets from this Court, in ruling on this m...

Excerpt: ...ard prejudgment interest in all noncontract cases “and in every case of oppression, fraud or malice” … hence in all unliquidated tort actions. This has been characterized as a “necessary element of compensatory damages to insure a plaintiff is made whole” and hence part of plaintiff's “actual damages”; it represents the accretion of wealth that money or particular property could have produced during a period of loss (between the tim...

Excerpt: ... the CDC's website about preventing construction falls. The court overrules Plaintiffs' objection nos. 1-29 to RDO's evidence. The court sustains objection nos. 1, 2, 4-7, 9-18 to the Declaration of Brad Avrit and overrules objection nos. 3, 8, The Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 line of cases modifies the general tort rules under Civil Code section 1714. Plaintiffs' argument that a duty of care exists under Biakanja v. Irving (19...

Excerpt: ...event involves an additional egregious component— ‘oppression, fraud, or malice.' (Civ.Code, § 3294, subd. (a).)” College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 712. “[T]he Legislature has made it more difficult for plaintiffs to plead and prove such claims,” (id. at p. 712) including by amending section 3294 in 1987 “by increasing the plaintiff's burden of proving punitive damages at trial to ‘clear and convincing ...

Excerpt: ...larly, Objection No. 2 to the Declaration of Michael Overturf is SUSTAINED, for lack of foundation. Mr. Melendes offers insufficient foundation to testify to the conduct of all Maranatha employees, at the Del Amo Project site: While Mr. Melendes declares he is the “individual principally involved on behalf of Maranatha….regarding the Del Amo Motorsports project,” as noted by Plaintiff, he does not declare that he managed the work performed,...

Excerpt: ...., goods sold, work done, etc., and (3) nonpayment.'” Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 460. To state a cause of action for money had and received, Plaintiff must allege Defendants “are indebted to the plaintiff in a certain sum ‘for money had and received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff.'” Id. “Th[e] common count [of money had and received] is available in a great variety of situations and lie...

Excerpt: ... attached and incorporated therein) or from matters outside the pleading which are judicially noticeable under Evidence Code §§ 451 or 452. Although California courts take a liberal view of inartfully drawn complaints, it remains essential that a complaint set forth the actionable facts relied upon with sufficient precision to inform the defendant of what plaintiff is complaining, and what remedies are being sought. (Leek v. Cooper(2011) 194 Ca...