Excerpt: ... would have standing to bring the motion as to the Cross-Complaint, but that is what the notice of motion says. The motion could probably be denied on this ground alone—i.e., the wrong parties (the “plaintiffs”) are bringing the motion. The Cross-Complaint is equally confusing. It lists only one cross-defendant; i.e., “Jaswinder Singh Grover as Trustee of the Grover Family Trust dated March 22, 2004.” He is listed that way in the captio...

Excerpt: ... to tax costs is GRANTED in part, striking a total of $14,689.43. The Court finds the total allowable costs are $2,157.74. The plaintiff does not oppose taxing item Nos. 2, 8, 11, 12, and 14. Thus, they are STRICKEN. As to item No. 1, the Court STRIKES $210 on the ground the plaintiff posted jury fees after the defendant's 998 offer had expired and allows only $435. As to item No. 4, deposition costs, the Court STRIKES $2,815.81 and allows only $...

Excerpt: ...iffs; but the court consolidated them into one, so there is only one complaint) is based on two separate factual situations: The first and second causes of actions allege the plaintiffs were stalked and harassed by staffers of the Hertzberg campaign at the direction of the Hertzberg and Fukushima; and the third cause of action seeks damages because Fukushima filed a complaint against them with the FPPC and it was done with malice. The plaintiffs ...

Excerpt: ... governmental agency denies a government tort claim the timely filing of anything other than the actual lawsuit renders the action time-barred. Orr is not helpful. In that case, the plaintiff filed a motion to preserve testimony and then, after the six months had run, filed the lawsuit. The appellate court reviewed the language of the statute and concluded that a motion to preserve testimony was not a “suit.” Here, on the other hand, the cros...

Excerpt: ...hey contain objections that have been waived, and they are not in substantial compliance with the Discovery Act, the Court “has no discretion and must grant the motions.” (Reply, 6:24-25; italics added.) The plaintiff cites Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390 for the proposition that the Court must hear the motions precisely because the responses are conclusory and not code-complian...

Excerpt: ...der the employer's liability provisions. Further, if he had alleged employee status, his claims would have been covered under Worker's Compensation laws, and thus would have been excluded under the policy. From this, the defendant concludes it had no duty to defend and thus no liability in this action. The plaintiff suggests there was extrinsic evidence of Remeyer's employment status available to the defendant at the time the prior lawsuit was fi...

Excerpt: ...was timely served on the defendant. The opposition finally reached this Court the day before the hearing, and the Court issued a corrected tentative suggesting it intended to continue the hearing to allow the matter to be fully briefed. Counsel for the moving party did not show at the scheduled hearing. Thus, and with the concurrence of plaintiff's counsel who did appear, the Court took the matter under submission to review the late-filed opposit...

Excerpt: ...s not entered into freely and voluntarily with knowledge of the venue provision. In short, the defendant did not meet its burden. The defendant then suggests the Reseller Agreement does not apply because, it alleges, the goods were stolen by a former employee of the third-party buyer. That goes to the merits of the action, which is inconsistent with the specially-appearing stance position of the defendant. Further, theft by a third person, even i...

Excerpt: ... were made within the scope of the function of the peer review body. This same argument was rejected by the Court of Appeal in Chundu v. Cork (Nov. 19, 2018), G055362, albeit in response to an anti-SLAPP motion. At that time, the Court of Appeal stated that Cork had not produced any evidence that her comments were made as part of an official peer review proceeding, in part because she denied there was a peer review investigation. (See ROA 238.) T...

Excerpt: ... facts are alleged. Demurrer to Cross-Complaint The demurrer of cross-defendants Summerset Mobile Estates and Mobile Modular Development, Inc., to the First Amended Cross-Complaint is SUSTAINED as to First Cause of Action, and OVERRULED as to the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Causes of Action with ten days leave to amend. Motion to Strike/Demurrer The motion of cross-defendant Deborah Fernandez to strike the First Amended Cross-Complai...

Excerpt: .... The Second Amended Complaint substitutes out the minors and introduces a new party—a trustee of a newly-created trust that claims it is a non-contingent beneficiary based on a new transfer. The order granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings with leave did not allow the substitution of a new party plaintiff. Whether to allow the substitution of a party plaintiff is discretionary with the Court and must be made by separate application....

Excerpt: ...ness. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.) Because the discovery is proper, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify its objection or failure to respond fully. The opposition to the motion tells the Court the electronic records were destroyed by an unnamed outside vendor at an unspecified time in response to an unspecified federal mandate to upgrade business computers. It further asserts it searched an attic and another document reposi...

Excerpt: ...s of the demurrer, the Court must accept those allegations as true. It is further alleged these defendants had been made aware of prior conduct by defendant Thomas. (See Paras. 22, 23, and 29.) Second Cause of Action (Negligence Per Se): OVERRULED. These defendants are mandatory reporters who were on notice of the actions of Thomas, both from the prior report from a different party and the earlier report from the plaintiff. (See Paras. 46-47.) Th...

Excerpt: ...urt, rule 3.1350(b). Thus, the presence of any triable issue of material fact requires denial of the motion. (Zavala v. Arce (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 915, 926; Weil & Brown, Cal.Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2018) § 10:88.) Had notice been properly given, the defendants might be entitled to summary adjudication of issues as to the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action. But there is a triable issue of material fact as to...

Excerpt: ...rial date. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).) Motion to Modify/Quash Deposition Subpoenas The motions of defendants Susan Su Chun Wu and Samuel Wu, and cross-complainant SC Enterprises Investment, LLC, to modify or quash certain deposition subpoenas are, at the request of the parties, OFF CALENDAR. (See ROAs 307, 310.) Motion of Non-Party Witness Charles Ting The motion of non-party witness Charles Ting for a protective order for himself ...

Excerpt: ...intiff's agent in trying to save his properties from foreclosure. He gave the defendants over $100,000 and instead of using this money to pay the lender the defendants converted it to their own use and the properties were lost. It does not allege that the defendants were acting in any professional capacity. An attorney cannot convert an otherwise timely action into one that is time-barred under section 340.6 simply by saying in the text of a demu...

Excerpt: ... that the arbitrator “granted leave” to allow the plaintiff to file this motion. But any motion to compel the deposition of a third party must first be heard by the arbitrator. (Berglund v. Arthroscopic & Laser Center of San Diego, L.P. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 528, 533-538; see Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Google LLC (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 953, 959.) The role of the superior court, on the other hand, is to review the arbitrator's ruling. Nothing in th...

Excerpt: ...mitations had not really run, is little more than an attempt to re-argue the first demurrer. Because the motion was brought more than five months after service of the Notice of Ruling on the demurrer, it is untimely. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (b).) Even if the Court were to consider the motion on the merits, it would be denied. Motion to Compel Deposition The motion of defendant Steven C. Dennis, M.D., to compel the deposition of the Perso...

Excerpt: ...conjecture based apparently on a very broad reading of a part of defendant Huerta's apology letter. The same is true of plaintiff counsel's representation that the title of these documents is “code” for something defendant Stater Bros. wishes to hide. There is no evidence to support that claim, either. On the other hand, the submission by the defendant of declarations by the Person Most Knowledgeable in opposition to the discovery motion, ess...

Excerpt: ...added in order to defeat the defendants' pending summary judgment motion. But the plaintiff asserts, and the declaration of attorney Mark Simowitz underscores, that the additional facts—including allegations that the defendant attorneys hid pertinent facts from the plaintiff—were only discovered as part of 11,194 pages of discovery produced January 22, 2019, well after the summary judgment motion was filed. None of the authorities cited by th...

Excerpt: ... therein. Because the plaintiffs did not meet their burden to show in the motion for summary judgment that the matter was at issue and there was no triable issue of material fact, the motion must be denied. Thus, the Court does not address the affirmative or other defenses raised. The belated attempt by the plaintiffs to address the affirmative defenses in their reply is procedurally improper and must be rejected. Merits Even if the Court were to...

Excerpt: ...es a claim for loss of consortium. The defendants do not cite any case that addresses that specific issue. Both Leonard v. John Crane, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1274 and Lantis v. Condon (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 152 simply hold that this cause of action is not derivative to the other spouse's injury and damages. The plaintiff shall give notice. ...

Excerpt: ...reasonable fee altogether”].) The fee declaration by attorney Hailyn Chen states that this matter was handled pursuant to an “alternative fee arrangement,” but that her standard hourly rate in 2018 while this matter was pending was $850 per hour. Is there any evidence that that is a reasonable hourly fee for like work in Orange County? In his opposition to the motion for attorney fees, the plaintiff suggests the defendants are not obligated...

Excerpt: ...is evidence the harassment occurred on a “daily basis while [she] was at work.” (See Paragraph 7 of the Plaintiff's Declaration; Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Productions (2006) 38 Cal.4th 264, 278-279.) The defendant relies heavily on evidence Plaintiff had pre- existing mental health issues. (See Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts Nos. 39-40.) However, evidence of pre- existing conditions does not establish, as a matter of law, a lack...

Excerpt: ...ved for the jury if reasonable men could differ (see Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 499), and particularly when it is combined with a claim for breach of implied warranty of habitability (see Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 922). Here, the failure to repair knowingly harmful mold may reasonably be found to qualify as “outrageous.” 2. Fifth Cause of Action for Nuisance Because this claim is not being as...