Excerpt: ... meet its initial burden to show the trivial defect rule bars plaintiff's claim. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850-851.) Defendant failed to show a six-inch drop is trivial as a matter of law. (Cf. Strathoulis v. City of Montebello (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 559, 568 [“height differentials of up to one and one-half inches”].) Even if it did, plaintiff raised triable issues of...

Excerpt: ... the delay, and plaintiff fails to show what specific discovery would now be necessary. Defendants are just adding a statutory subdivision to their existing statute of limitations affirmative defense. Defendants shall give notice. OSC re Compliance and Attorney Fees The court finds plaintiff has SATISFIED Conditions #1-4 of the 4/20/18 order and shall satisfy Condition #5 by PAYING $10,280 to defendants within 15 days. The parties agree plaintiff...

Excerpt: ...hanged plaintiff's claims by adding the 4th and 5th causes of action. Defendants may now respond to the new claims. Fourth cause of action, Bane Act. The FAC states facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. (See Civ. Code, § 52.1; see also FAC ¶¶ 21-27, 43-57.) In “‘Bane Act cases . . . “[w]here Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure or excessive force claims are raised and intentional conduct is at issue, there is no need for ...

Excerpt: ...ith the court.” (Ibid.) The claim of exemption has not been filed with the court. Thus, the court concludes plaintiff failed to give written notice to the levying officer. Plaintiff's proof of service of the notice of hearing does not show service on the levying officer. And if plaintiff had actually given written notice to the levying officer, the court presumes the levying officer would have filed the claim with the court. (Civ. Code, §§ 35...

Excerpt: ...will prevail on the merits and the relative interim harm to the parties from the issuance or nonissuance of the injunction.'” (Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1449.) Plaintiffs have shown some probability of prevailing on their first cause of action. (See Civ. Code, § 2924i; see also M. Zanetis decl. ¶¶ 3, 9, 11-12; D. Zanetis decl. ¶¶ 3, 9, 11-12; Pl. Ex. A [promissory note]; Def. Ex. G [settlement agreement].) Whil...

Excerpt: ... 10 days. Cross-complainant Wavell Showcase shall pay $1,766 in discovery sanctions to cross- defendant Aurora within 30 days. Cross-complainant Wavell Showcase's general objections are improper. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.210, subds. (a)(3), (c).) In any event, it fails to substantiate its objections. It has not shown the interrogatory is vague or would impose an undue burden. To the extent it is asserting privilege regarding documents, it mu...

Excerpt: ...ided. (See 7/24/17 substitution of attorney.) For that matter, cross-defendants fail to show address was actually invalid, let alone that cross-complainant knew that. Cross-defendants also failed to show cross-complainant prevented them from participating in the case by scheduling mediation sessions. Cross-defendants have not moved for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 (or any other ground). They expressly disclaim any reliance on ...

Excerpt: ...im -- not the FAC that did. To respect substance over form and disregard trifling errors (Civ. Code §§ 3528, 3533), the court construes this record as showing (1) plaintiff served the FAC on defendant Nguyen on 8/2/17, and (2) defendant Nguyen moved on 1/11/18 to strike the FAC. The motion is thus untimely. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (f) [60 days].) Even if the court exercised its discretion to consider an untimely motion, defendant...

Excerpt: ...ubd. (g); see also SAC ¶ 12 & Ex. A.) The SAC alleges defendants Lee and Deng are the alter egos of the contracting party, defendant Mayturn. (See SAC ¶¶ 7, 23.) 2nd cause of action, fraud. The SAC states facts sufficient to constitute this claim. (See Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638 [elements], 645 [particularity]; see also SAC ¶¶ 11-15, 17-22.) Again, the SAC alleges defendants Lee and Deng are the alter egos of defendan...

Excerpt: ... for a shoulder fracture despite documented shoulder pain. 3rd Cause of Action, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: The SAC states facts sufficient to constitute this claim. (See Bird v. Saenz (2002) 28 Cal.4th 910, 915 [elements], 916-917 [contemporaneous sensory perception]; see also SAC ¶¶ 20-21, 39- 43.) In particular, the SAC alleges plaintiff Cheryl Baggs “was physically present and witnessed” a physical therapy assistant “a...

Excerpt: ...trike and continue the CMC. Ivy Ann Helman and Bradley Israel Helman's demurrer Defendants Ivy Ann Helman and Bradley Israel Helman's demurrer is:  SUSTAINED as to the 2nd-9th causes of action without leave to amend,  SUSTAINED as to the 10th causes of action with leave to amend, and  OVERRULED as to the 11th cause of action. Plaintiff David Mark Albin shall have leave to file and serve a second amended complaint within 14 days. 2nd-3rd ...

Excerpt: ...“‘[A]n unsuccessful personal injury suit by the physically injured spouse acts as an estoppel that bars the spouse who would claim damages for loss of consortium.'” (Id. at p. 1316.) But plaintiff James Manry's claims against defendant were dismissed after the court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend. (See Def. SSUF #1-4.) Out of an abundance of caution, the court has considered plaintiff's untimely opposition, which fails to raise...

Excerpt: ...complainants have failed to meet their burden to show a reasonable possibility of curing the defect. (See Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318). The FAXC failed to correct the inadequate allegations of the original cross-complaint. And cross-complainants have not attempted to show how they would amend the FAXC. Cross-defendants shall give notice. ...

Excerpt: ...s the invasion of a primary right. (See Crowley v. Katleman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 666, 681-682.) The complaint should separately state and number each cause of action. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.112.) Plaintiff improperly combined two causes of action under one heading in the FAC. The “1st cause of action” asserts violations of 2 primary rights: the right to be free from fraud regarding auto sales, and the right to be free from fraud regarding t...

Excerpt: ...t shall give notice. ...

Excerpt: ...so Compl. ¶¶ 19-21, 30, 39, 42 & Exs. 1-2.) “In an action based on a written contract, a plaintiff may plead the legal effect of the contract rather than its precise language.” (Construction Protective Services, Inc. v. TIG Specialty Ins. Co. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 189, 198-199.) “There is no need to require specificity in the pleadings.” (Ludgate Ins. Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 592, 608.) The contract allegations are...

Excerpt: ...arties that have already appeared within 10 days. Plaintiff shall have leave to e-file and serve his proposed first amended complaint on any new defendant who has not already appeared within 30 days. Plaintiff shall give notice. Demurrer Cross-defendant Mike Clements' demurrer is OVERRULED as to the 1st causes of action and SUSTAINED with leave to amend as to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th causes of action. Cross-complainant Jodie Campbell shall have leav...

Excerpt: ... Park Rental Review Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1429 [leave denied where amended complaint was “subject to demurrer”].) Plaintiff's proposed amendment improperly revives allegations that have been stricken in response to defendant's anti-SLAPP motion. (Compare Proposed 3rd Am. Compl. ¶¶ 10 & 35 with 2nd Am. Compl. ¶¶ 17-26, 29, 31.) “Allowing a SLAPP plaintiff leave to amend the complaint . . . would completely undermine the statute...

Excerpt: ... action. After a cause of action is amended, the court may rule in favor of the defendant if, upon subsequent motion, or perhaps renewal of the earlier motion if appropriately framed, it is shown ... there are no triable material issues of fact which would permit recovery on that theory.'” (State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1131.) Last week, the court granted plaintiffs leave to file a first amended com...

Excerpt: ... (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283.) Courts do not seal documents on the parties' agreement ”without a specific showing of serious injury.” (Id. at p. 1282.) Defendants have not shown how disclosure of “a routine settlement document” will “prejudice any legitimate confidential business practice” or anything else. (Id. at p. 1284.) Motion to Transfer Venue Defendants motion to transfer venue is GRANTED. The clerk of the court shall tra...

Excerpt: ...-7, 11-22, & 24-25 within 30 days. The parties shall thereafter meet and confer in a good faith attempt to resolve any remaining disputes. As to document demands #2, 4-7, 11-22, & 24-25 and plaintiffs' sanctions request, the hearing is continued to 7/9/18 at 2 pm in Dept. C12. Plaintiffs may file and serve a supplemental 8-page brief and supporting declarations no later than 6/22/18. Deponent may file and serve a supplemental 8-page brief and sup...

Excerpt: ...� 761.020.) He alleges the series of transfers from “decedent as trustee” to decedent to EDC are void due to undue influence and that, absent the void transfers, he would hold title as successor trustee or executor. “The rule which requires allegations of facts where undue influence is the issue does not require the allegation of evidentiary facts but only that ultimate facts be pleaded.” (Krug v. Meehan (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 274, 277.) D...

Excerpt: ...counsels' emails is that defendant agreed to extend plaintiff's time to respond only to other written discovery. The parties agreed to “a reciprocal extension regarding Plaintiff's responses to Defendants' Third Set of Discovery.” (Stone Decl. Ex. 2, emphasis added.) They “agreed Plaintiff's deadline to respond to the subject discovery is continued from Aug. 15th to Aug. 23rd.” (Ibid., emphasis added.) On August 23, plaintiff's counsel so...

Excerpt: ...15 Cal.App.4th 874, 893.) The court declines the invitation to review the un-redacted document in camera. (Cf. Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 767.) Symphony's unopposed request to seal is GRANTED. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(a)(3). Exhibits A, E, & N of the Kao declaration shall be SEALED. Sanctions were not noticed or requested. None are imposed. Symphony shall give notice. Motion to Compel Cross-defenda...

Excerpt: ..., Alice Haddadin, Theresa Messersmith, and Franco Olmedo's motion to expunge lis pendens is DENIED. The substantive request is moot. Plaintiff removed the disputed notice of lis pendens after defendants filed this motion. The attorney fee request is not moot. But it is DENIED. The court will not allow "recovery of attorney fees for work performed by out-of-state counsel who represented [defendants] in California but who had not been admitted pro ...