Excerpt: ...ted by any evidence. While the court could grant the summary judgment motion given that opposing parties have not supported their arguments with any evidence that might create triable issues of fact, the court will provide plaintiffs with an opportunity to supplement their papers. The hearing on this matter is continued to January 31, 2020 at 1:30PM in CX 101 so that plaintiffs can, if they wish, supplement their papers appropriately. Any supplem...

Excerpt: ...es that Lutsky and other defendants engaged in the “illegal unlicensed practice of dentistry, in violation of Business and Professions Code sections 1625(a) and (e), 1629, 1630, 1701.1, and 1807.” Long Form Master Complaint, ¶¶ 120- 121. Based on the allegations, Plaintiffs seek to recover damages, including punitive damages. Long Form Master Complaint, ¶¶ 122-127. The Tenth Cause of Action seeks a declaration as to whether Lutsky and oth...

Excerpt: ...s settlement. However, Kirby v. Kindred, Case No. 5:19-cv-00833 is still active and might be impacted by this settlement. The First Amended Complaint in this matter alleges overtime, minimum wage, meal period, rest period, wage statement and waiting time penalties under both class and PAGA theories. The alleged classes include “all of Defendants' current and former non-exempt employees” who were subject to certain alleged violations, e.g. an ...

Excerpt: .../12/19, the Court adopted the recommendation and ordered Plaintiff to provide supplemental responses to those form interrogatories within 30 days. Exhibit K. Defendants now move for terminating sanctions or evidentiary sanctions or an order compelling further responses, based on the assertion that Plaintiff's responses to Form Interrogatories 2.6 and 17.1 remain deficient. In addition, Defendants ask this Court to designate Plaintiffs' responses ...

Excerpt: ...y “the CDG Defendants”) argue that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring the Ninth Cause of Action for Illegal Ownership and Operation of Dental Clinics and the Tenth Cause of action for Declaratory Relief because there is no private right of action under the California Dental Practice Act, Business & Professions Code § 1600 et seq. Defendant Jerry Minsky, D.D.S. joins in the motion. The Ninth Cause of Action alleges that the CDG Defendants and ...

Excerpt: ...vide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; (5) Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon Separation of Employment; (6) Violation of Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.; and (7) Enforcement of Labor Code § 2698, et seq. (“PAGA”). Defendant Woodbridge demurs to the entire complaint and the 1st through 6th causes of action on the ground that they are fatally uncertain because Plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege the employment relationship...

Excerpt: ...time. However, the mediator did not “require” in person attendance. Rather, as shown in Exhibit C to the Hanle Dec., it was “strongly recommend[ed] that the principal parties” attend in person. Defendants also argue that the Plaintiffs' counsel promised that Plaintiffs would appear in person. However, the email exchange between counsel does not include either a specific request for in-person attendance or a specific representation that Pl...

Excerpt: ...the Company, or its officers, agents or other employees . . . [¶] includ[ing] but [] not limited to . . . claims for wages and other compensation, . . . and claims for violation of any of the federal, state, or other government law, statute, regulation, or ordinance . . .” Plaintiff's complaint alleges claims which fall within the arbitration provision. Plaintiff alleges that the provision cannot be enforced because it is both procedurally and...

Excerpt: ...tions against Plaintiffs in connection with discovery. Plaintiffs argue that the order must be “clarified” because it was based on misinformation provided by Defendants at the hearing of the matter. Plaintiffs also argue that pursuant to a private agreement between the parties, the motions to compel which were the basis of the sanctions were to have been taken off- calendar. The Court's original order does not require clarification. Defendant...

Excerpt: ...rge batch of documents produced on March 20, 2019 and clawed back late on March 21, 2019, the night before the Jacks deposition. Moriarty used the document the following day at the deposition. Then, in August at the deposition of Jay Lutsky, Moriarty used a different privileged document. That document had been included in a production made many months earlier. However, Defendants hadn't identified it as privileged or requested its return until it...

Excerpt: ...sion included at the conclusion of its handbook. According to Defendant, the provision covers “any dispute or aspect of the terms and conditions.” (Emphasis added.) MPA at 1:8-10. The provision does not include that specific phrase. It reads, in full: “I agree that any dispute involving discharge that is left unresolved by the company and is covered under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1...

Excerpt: ...ies Act. As one of the requested remedies, Plaintiffs seek public injunctive relief. Complaint, ¶¶ 2, 82, 84, 86, 89- 91 and Prayer for Relief. By its motion, Defendant seeks to compel arbitration of the claims pursuant to an arbitration provision included in the “Loan Agreement[s] and Promissory Note[s]” signed by the Plaintiffs. The arbitration provision (¶ 14 or ¶ 16, depending upon the year of the agreement) includes a class action wa...

Excerpt: ... Temenoujka Marinov, Maria Martinez, and Rosa Islas as time-barred under CCP § 583.360 (5-year statute). As a preliminary matter, the Court takes judicial notice of the pleadings attached to the Declaration of Simren K. Gill. The motion is opposed only by Casas. Pursuant to CCP § 583.340, a case which has not been brought to trial within five years of its filing must be dismissed. The statute dictates that the five-year period is tolled during ...

Excerpt: ...1-800”). Defendant Marc Lazo sold the property on 1-800's behalf. Plaintiff alleges he did so without permission or authority. Sunset Escrow was the escrow company on the sale. Defendant Shirley Thompson owned Sunset Escrow and Defendant Jessica Sarpong was her assistant on the sale. At some time prior to the sale, Lazo, an attorney, represented Sunset Escrow and a small amount remained on unpaid for legal services. 1-800 alleges that because o...

Excerpt: ...tion Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348. Epic Systems does not alter the ruling of Iskanian. The FLSA claims addressed in Epic Systems are fundamentally different from PAGA claims: (1) The FLSA does not require a pre-litigation demand on the agency/employer nor any of the other devices designed to keep the agency apprised of the private action; (2) FLSA plaintiffs must “opt in” while all “aggrieved employees” are bound by a PAGA actio...

Excerpt: ...ionable in the following ways:  It was a contract of adhesion.  The font size is too small and Plaintiff wasn't given much time to review (about ten minutes).  It includes an illegal PAGA waiver.  It does not include any discovery rules. A court may refuse to enforce an unconscionable arbitration provision. Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 122. Whether a provision is unconscionable is a qu...

Excerpt: ...personal information to third parties who used it for their direct marketing purposes.  Plaintiff's claim fails because Tillys satisfied the STL by adopting and disclosing ‘a policy of not disclosing person information of customers to third parties for the third parties' direct marketing purposes unless the customer first affirmatively agrees to that disclosure.'” CC § 1798.83(c)(2). Each of those grounds is briefly addressed below. Plain...

Excerpt: ...s.” Citing Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 1052, defendant refused to answer the interrogatory because plaintiff did not have standing to continue the action because she had settled her claims. Defendant relies on Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 1052 to supports its refusal to provide the information. In that case, the plaintiff accepted a § 998 offer and, pursuant to that off...

Excerpt: ...on of Robert Thompson. Evid. Code §§ 1202 and 1220. The court does not rule on plaintiffs' objections to the Declaration of Lorilyn Hayes as the objections were not material to the court's disposition of the motion. Defendants move for summary judgment on the following theories: 1. The loans were not usurious because they were arranged by Hayes, a licensed real estate broker. 2. Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue a § 17200 claim because he can...

Excerpt: ... The Ninth Circuit allowed him to proceed “holding that the reasoning of American Pipe extends to successive class claims.” The Supreme Court disagreed. The China Agritech opinion addresses only class action plaintiffs. That is clear from the very outset when the court frames the issue to be decided as follows: “The question presented in this case is whether American Pipe tolling applies not only to individual claims, but to successive clas...

Excerpt: ...rprises, LLC, C.D. Dal., Case No. 17-cv-00603 has a preclusive effect. However, defendant fails to provide this court with a judgment. Instead, defendant provides a June 5, 2018 order granting partial summary judgment in defendant's favor. An order granting partial summary judgment is not a judgment and is not a final decision on the merits. Further, because the order was entered only two months ago, it is unclear whether there will be an appeal....

Excerpt: .... App. 3d 22 and Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864. Those cases do not impose a heightened standard of pleading, and neither limits the general rule that factual allegations in pleadings must be liberally construed. The punitive damage allegations in Searle failed because the plaintiff's allegations were “egregiously uncertain” and did not allege any intentional wrongdoing. As the Court explained: “When the plaintiff alleges an ...

Excerpt: ...tected by privacy rights. Defendant further argues that the requests are “limitless.” As set forth below, the Court does not find Defendants' arguments persuasive. The parameters of discovery under California law are very broad. As the California Supreme Court explained in Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 548: “In the absence of privilege, the right to discovery in this state is a broad one, to be construed liberally so that...

Excerpt: .../18 ruling as to the issues of notice and prejudice.) Petitioner (“Friends”) amended its writ to allege that it had filed the objections and motion for amended supplemental writ rather than filing a new writ because it had believed those procedures to be appropriate under County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185 and City of Caramel-by-the-Sea v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 964. Amended Petition, ¶¶ 24 an...

Excerpt: ...Oxnard Harbor Dist. (2007) 146 Cal. App. 4th 511, 514; Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1064; and Pomona College v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal. App. 4th 1716, 1727-28; Defendant's demurrer is overruled. Defendant demurs to the sole cause of action on the ground that Plaintiffs, who sold their shares in response to the Second Repurchase Offer, cannot represent those shareholders who sold their shares in response to the First...