Excerpt: ...ion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication The motion for summary judgment brought by defendant Culligan International Company is granted. “California law permits third party beneficiaries to enforce the terms of a contract made for their benefit.” (Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4 th 1004, 1021; See also Civil Code §1559). “The test for determining whether a contract was made for the benefit of a third per...

Excerpt: ...ad not belatedly found the paper courtesy copy, it would not have known about the supplemental brief prior to the hearing. Because the court was not aware a supplemental opposition had been filed until the day before the hearing, the court may not be able to post a tentative ruling in this motion and indeed, it may need to continue the hearing of this motion. Motion to Augment Expert Witness List This Motion to Augment is brought by Plaintiff Ale...

Excerpt: ... no changes to the underlying factual allegations,” within the amended pleading. (¶5 of De Castro Declaration). The Motion is granted, as Plaintiff maintains the right to dismiss his individual claims pursuant to C.C.P. §581(b)(1) and C.C.P. §581(c), given that trial has not commenced, either within this action or within any pending arbitration. The evidence indicates Plaintiff declined to proceed with arbitration and, instead, has opted to ...

Excerpt: ...oduction, brought by Plaintiff Mostafa Gad against Defendants St. George Auto Sales, Inc. and St. George Auto Center, Inc. are GRANTED, with the limitation that the Court orders a production of a 25% sampling of the records sought by Requests Nos. 3 and 5. This order is without prejudice to Plaintiff returning to Court, should the sample prove insufficient. Additionally, consistent with Plaintiff's proposal, Defendant is ordered to redact the rec...

Excerpt: ...egards them as there was no demurrer to that claim. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading within 10 days. Class Allegations: It is “settled” that courts may weed out legally meritless class action suits prior to certification by demurrer. (Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 440.) A demurrer to class action allegations may be sustained without leave only if court concludes as matter of law that, assuming truth of factual al...

Excerpt: ...ng the complaint, plaintiff not only must have been genuinely ignorant of defendant's identity, but also ignorant of the facts giving rise to the cause of action against that defendant. (San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v. California Coastal Commission (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 563, 579.) A motion to quash service on a purported “Doe” defendant may be brought where the terms of CCP § 474 have not been met. (See Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v...

Excerpt: ... lodged in connection with that discovery motion. CRC rule 2.550 regarding sealed records does not apply to discovery motions and records filed or lodged in connection with discovery motions or proceedings. Ford makes this application out of an abundance of caution. Ford argues that its CO Requirement, the rationale for developing the requirement, the testing Ford has conducted to set the CO standard, and any other discussion of the actual requir...

Excerpt: ...ay permit amendments at any stage in the proceedings, up to and including trial, so long there is no prejudice to the adverse party. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.) That it would make defending the case more difficult or expensive to defend is not sufficient. (Landis v. Superior Court (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 548, 557.) Defendants have not described any prejudice of the type courts typically consider in denying leave to amen...

Excerpt: ...rst Set of Special Interrogatories is granted as to #1 and #17, but only for the time period from December 16, 2017 to April 27, 2018, and is otherwise deemed withdrawn based on an apparently successful meet and confer. The other four discovery motions set for today are deemed withdrawn in full based on an apparently successful meet and confer. Both sides' Requests for Judicial Notice are granted. Plaintiff Evangelista is entitled to equitable to...

Excerpt: ...1) Failure to Reimburse for Necessary Work Expenditures (Cal. Labor Code Section 2802); (2) Unfair Competition under Business & Professions Code Section 17200; and (3) Violation of Cal. Labor Code §§ 2699 et seq. Defendant seeks an order compelling some or all of plaintiff's claims to arbitration and staying whatever remains. Plaintiff does not dispute agreeing to arbitration, so the first issue to be addressed is what the court can decide unde...

Excerpt: ...fy the “aggrieved” employees. In Khan, the plaintiff's LWDA notice “expressly applied only to him” and “suggested only an individual violation”. Khan, 19 Cal.App.5th 804 at 809. Here, plaintiff's notice was not so limited. The cover letter sent to the LWDA (attached as Exhibit A to plaintiff's First Amended Complaint) specifies that counsel represents plaintiff “and other aggrieved employees” and states that defendant failed to pa...

Excerpt: ... 7-11); 8:7-8 and 9-10; 9:28 and 10:5-6 and 15-16  The following page and line references from the Anwandter Declaration filed in opposition to the motion to enforce (ROA 154): 2:8-20; 3:24-28; Exhibit A at i:12- 14, 2:11-14 and 21-28, 3:1-3, 5:11-23, 8:15-27, 14:16-17 and 20-26, pp.15-18, 19:13-28, 20:1-3, 22:15-17; Exhibit B at i:12-14, 2:12-14 and 22-28, 3:1-4, 5:14- 24, 8:23-28, 9:1-7, 14:23-28, pp.15-19, 20:1-5 and 18-23, 21:1-10, 24:3-5;...

Excerpt: ...lable penalties. Attorneys' fees and costs, class representative enhancements, settlement administration costs (excluding employer's share of withholding taxes) shall be paid out of the GSA to calculate the Net Settlement Amount (NSA) to be distributed to the class.” The MOU stated that plaintiff would file an amended complaint including a PAGA claim. Under the terms of the MOU, “in addition to the GSA”, plaintiff was to receive a specified...

Excerpt: ...  the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs  recognition that the settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable at trial  the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants  the existence of collusion, fraud or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of non-settling defendants.  These factors are not exhaustive and may not apply in every case. Dole Food Comp...

Excerpt: ... Worksite Employee Notice & Acknowledgements” and will be referred to as “Section 3” in this order. Because it is entitled “Section 3”, the court presumes it is part of a larger document including at least Sections 1 and 2. The larger document was not provided for the court's review. Further, there is no supporting declaration authenticating Section 3. Shelton does not, however, deny that his signature appears on the document. According...

Excerpt: ...stayed, pending arbitration. C.C.P. §1281.4. The uncontested evidence demonstrates the existence of an implied-in-fact agreement to arbitrate all “claims, disputes, or controversies” relating to Plaintiff's employment. This agreement is enforceable by either Defendant Resource or Defendant Houdini as a “customer/client” of Resource. Brown Declaration Exhibit A and Perez Declaration, ¶3. Defendants offer uncontested testimony which prove...

Excerpt: ...hibits 1-10. Responses were due on May 4, 2018. As of December 7, 2018 (the date the motions were filed), the Summers had not provided responses or asked for additional time. Defendant filed a motion to compel responses and to have the requests deemed admitted. On January 18, 2019, the court issued a minute order granting the requested relief. However, after the order was issued, defendant learned that the Summers had not been properly served wit...

Excerpt: ...s ruling on this motion will apply to the Fifth Amended Complaint. Defendant Residential Fire Systems (“RFS”) identifies itself as a “privately-owned small business that installs fire sprinkler systems for residential community developments and custom homes throughout Southern California.” Motion at 2:7-8. Plaintiffs were/are employees of RFS and brought this action alleging several wage and hour violations on behalf of a class of RFS emp...

Excerpt: ...es from respondents in the amount of $126,600. This matter is currently on appeal. The notices of appeal automatically stayed proceedings on the judgment. Hayworth v. City of Oakland (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 723, 727 (perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment granting a writ of mandate].) However, that stay does not divest the court of jurisdiction to consider these motions for fees. Robertson v. Rodriguez (1995)...

Excerpt: ...eek fees in the following amounts: Baldwin Park ($45,875); Rancho Palos Verde ($17,763.50); Signal Hill ($14,968); Carson ($8,122.50); and West Covina, Lakewood, Santa Fe Springs and Clarement (total of $363,180). This matter is currently on appeal. The notices of appeal automatically stayed proceedings on the judgment. Hayworth v. City of Oakland (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 723, 727 (perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon th...

Excerpt: ...n the alternative, summary adjudication of the 1st-4th c/a against Plaintiffs William and Louise Debnam on the ground that in connection with a separate case relating to the servicing of the loan which forms the basis of the claims in this action, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. YC072073, the Debnams waived all claims against Defendant. Exhibit 9 submitted in support of the motion establishes that on 11/8/17, William and Louise Debnam entered...

Excerpt: ...nctions pursuant to CCP § 128.7. This petition arises out of a Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) relating to a development in Laguna Beach. The CDP has already been the subject of various challenges and litigation by Petitioner, including two prior petitions in Orange County Superior Court. Amended Petition, ¶¶ 15-30. The underlying CDP was approved, with conditions, on August 9, 2017. Amended Petition, ¶¶ 2, 10-23, 29 and 36. The condi...

Excerpt: ...ed the phrase “INCIDENT”. The form interrogatories direct the propounding party to provide a definition of “INCIDENT”. Plaintiff may have done so when propounding the interrogatories, but the definition is not included in the separate statement in violation of Rule 31.345(c)(5) (the separate statement must include, “[i]f necessary, the text of all definitions, instructions, and other matters required to understand each discovery request...

Excerpt: ... not oppose the motion, it is granted as to Avila and judgment will be entered in CRH's behalf on Avila's complaint. CRH's request for judicial notice of Exhibit E to McDermed declaration re recommended standards of hygiene in dental clinics, is denied as irrelevant to the court's determination of the motion. At the outset, the court notes that CRH's motion does not address any claim of the CDG defendants' cross-complaint. Indeed, the Notice of M...

Excerpt: ...action on behalf of an individual or in the public interest, and a private person lacks an independent legal right to bring the action, a person who is not a party but who is represented by the agency is bound by the judgment as though the person were a party.”) Accordingly, the trial court must “review and approve” a PAGA settlement. Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(l)(2). As the California Supreme Court explained: “PAGA settlements are subject to...