Excerpt: ...e Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1206-1211 [“[w]hether a dangerous condition has existed long enough for a reasonably prudent person to have discovered it is a question of fact for the jury”]; Scott v. Alpha Beta Co. (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 305, 308-309 [notice shown where defendant “knew that it was raining, that water from the customers' shoes and clothing or umbrellas would inevitably be deposited on the floor as they entere...

Excerpt: ...uments showing state engineers approved the 1969, 2004, and 2015 plans. (See Gov. Code, §830.6 [“appropriate discretionary approval”; Dobbs v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 159, 161 [plans bore city engineer's stamp; approval shown by expert opinion on agency custom and practice]; see also Def. SSUF # 1, 11, 13-16, 19-21, 23, 31-38.) Defendant showed the disputed third element of design immunity – design reasonableness – thro...

Excerpt: ... reports by 5/29/23. Defendant met its burden to show a written arbitration agreement exists that covers plaintiff's claims. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; see also Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413 [elements]; see also Nguyen decl. ¶¶ 5-7 & Ex. 2.) To be sure, plaintiff has shown procedural unconscionability. The arbitration agreement is a contract of adhesion, presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basi...

Excerpt: ... to constitute these causes of action. In their briefs, the parties dispute what the CC&Rs require and whether defendant actually complied with the CC&Rs. But the 2nd cause of action already alleges defendant breached the CC&Rs by failing to maintain the common area in “good . . . and attractive condition” by not trimming the trees. (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 14, 29.) Defendant has not demurred to this claim. Thus, because the complaint already states ...

Excerpt: ...titute this cause of action. (See Civ. Code, § 51, subd. (b) [Unruh Act]; Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club (2005) 36 Cal.4th 824, 854 [elements]; Koire v. Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal.3d 24, 33 [Unruh Act violations are injurious per se]; Minton v. Dignity Health (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1155, 1164-1165 [denying health care due to protected status violates Unruh Act]; see also TAC ¶¶ 14-30, 32, 37, 38.) This claim is not governed by the MI...

Excerpt: ...ant to statute. Plaintiff may also depose defendant about facts supporting the following statements in the Nguyen declaration supporting his anti-SLAPP motion, including defendant's knowledge thereof, and reasonable follow-up questions:  “I traveled to Vietnam and Thailand to meet with numerous refugees who were allegedly ‘passed on' by VOICE.” (Nguyen decl. ¶ 16.)  “it came to my attention through first-hand conversations with rea...

Excerpt: ...e this cause of action. (See 2/24/23 order.) While the SAC now alleges oral promises made before and after the leases (see SAC ¶¶ 24, 28), the integration clauses at Section 19.01 of the leases supersede prior oral promises and preclude future oral modifications. Plaintiff has not opposed the demurrer to explain how the oral promises are enforceable. 2nd cause of action, breach of written contract. The SAC now states facts sufficient to constit...

Excerpt: ...1281.4.) The court sets a status conference re: binding arbitration for 4/11/24 at 2 pm. Defendants have shown a written arbitration agreement exists that covers plaintiffs' claims. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; see also Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413 [elements]; Ex. A, § 10, subd. (g).) All of plaintiffs' causes of action “involv[e] the parties (or their affiliated persons or entities) directly or i...

Excerpt: ...arty in this case, defendants are entitled to recover their attorney fees. The parties agreed that “[s]hould either party institute suit . . . to enforce any of the provisions of the Subcontract, to protect its interests in any manner arising under the Subcontract . . . the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, charges, and expenses (including expert fees and testing) expended or incurred.” Plaintiff...

Excerpt: ...ijin Inc. “are members of [USFR] owning a 50% interest in [USFR]”].) United Studio's tax filings do not affirmatively show otherwise. While the court may take judicial notice of documents filed with government agencies, “the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the documents [remain] disputable.” (StorMedia Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, 457, fn. 9.) Res judicata/claim preclusion. Defendant have not shown the FAC is ba...

Excerpt: ...� (BFGC Architects Planners, Inc. v. Forcum/Mackey Construction, Inc. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 848, 852.) As Roofing Warehouse correctly notes, the SAXC contains “myriad allegations” asserting the parties' contractual relationship. (Reply at p. 4.) As Linnert has not shown a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. 2nd-3rd causes of action, apportionment/declaratory relief. T...

Excerpt: ...airmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 [burden]). The gist of the term "INCIDENT" is reasonably discernable. (See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783 [requiring response where "the nature of the information sought is apparent"].) Defendant has neither made "a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations," such as the dealership (Code Civ. Proc., ...

Excerpt: ...ytoDyn of New Mexico, Inc. v. Amerimmune Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 288, 297 [elements); Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 836 [reasonable particularity; more detail needed only in "highly specialized technical field"); see also FAC SITI 10 ["proprietary management tools, such as business analytics and productivity metrics . . . "J, 9-11, 21-30.) While Dowel/ "doubtCed] the continued...

Excerpt: ...laintiff to occupy the Property after the Closing Date." (Comp'. 14.) It is undisputed defendant sold the property to plaintiff and the sale closed, yet defendant remains in the property and has not let plaintiff occupy it. (See Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821 [elements]; see also Tchaghlassian decl. 2-14 & Ex. A; Suppl. Tchaghlassian decl. 3-12.) Contrary to defendant's contention (see Opp. at pp. 2-3), the unconsumm...

Excerpt: ...6 [elements for medical negligence]. ) First, defendant's SSUF #2-12 rely on (1) medical records that have not been properly authenticated, and (2) expert declarations that impermissibly recounts case-specific hearsay from unauthenticated medical records. (See People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 676- 677; see also Deane decl. Ex. B, Brown decl. 10-20; Ferrante decl. 3-20.) After plaintiffs filed their opposition — and after the court denie...

Excerpt: ...ff may limit its responses and production as follows. Request #20: 1/1/18 to present. Request #21: documents or plans relating to roofing only f17)m 1/1/17 through 12/31/18. Request No. 22: communications between plaintiff and Robert McCarthy regarding the premises (excluding communications with the homeowner or other contractors) Motion to compel re RFAs Defendant's motion to compel is granted as to RFAs & 11-12 and otherwise denied. (See Code C...

Excerpt: ...under modern discovery procedures." (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.) 7th cause of action. negligent misrepresentation {buyer's agent communication). The complaint states facts sufficient to state this cause of action by plaintiff April Arisian. (See Small v. Fritz Cos Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 167, 173-174 [elements]; see also compl. 28, 79 [misrepresentation that "industrial zoning 'allows' a p...

Excerpt: ...ays. 1st cause of actiom breach of written partnership agreement. The FAC states facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. It adequately alleges "the legal effect of the contract," including the terms that were allegedly breached. (Construction Protective services, Inc. v. TIG specialty Ins. co. (2002) 29 cal.4th 189, 198-199; see also FAC 17-22, 67.) The complaint does not show "'on its face that the action was barred by a statute of ...

Excerpt: ...nancial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.) 1st cause of action. negligence. Defendants Thomas Courtney Dubar and Skyler Lambert do not demur to this cause of action. As to demurring defendants Ella Dubar, David Skorheim, and Eric Michael Massimo, the FAC states facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. (See Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 cal.4th 913, 917 [elements]; FAC 74 [duty], 36, 38, 40, 41, 4...

Excerpt: ...fer, referring the court to "the Declaration of Tyson R. Smith dated February 14, 2023 . 32-41, Exs. 10-15." (Reply at unnumbered p. 2.) The cited exhibits address defendants' 12/15/22 objections in one sentence: "Defendant inappropriately objected to every single one of Plaintiff's matters of examination claiming Plaintiff's defect definitions are vague and ambiguous, yet they are the same definitions used in Plaintiff's requests for production ...

Excerpt: ...aordinary writ constitutes a final judgment for purposes of an appeal, even if the order is not accompanied by a separate formal judgment." (Molloy v. vu (2019) 42 cal.App.5th 746, 753, fn. 6.) There is no point in amending the superfluous 9/12/22 judgment, which does not materially modify the g/ 1/22 judgment. (See Civ. Code, S 3532.) Both adopt Option B. There is no material difference between (1) finding for petitioner in part and (2) finding ...

Excerpt: ...p.4th 1316, 1324 [addressing demurrer).) (Flores Defendants have shown the complaint alleges facts showing they have statutory immunity under the EMS Act (Health & Saf. Code, SS 1797 et seq.), which "created a comprehensive system to govern virtually every aspect of prehospital emergency medical services." (Canister v. Emergency Ambulance Service, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 388, 398.) The EMS Act provides statutory immunity for personnel providi...

Excerpt: ...sentation. The SAC still fails to state facts showing plaintiff complied with or is exempt from the Government Claims Act. (See 8/12/22 order [sustaining demurrer to FAC, citing authorities]; see also SAC 35-38, 42, 43, 48, 55 [seeking restoration of all consideration "advanced" to defendants], 57 [seeking "cancellation of the contracts and resulting taxes"] & Ex. C [g/ 12/16 HERO Assessment Contract requiring plaintiff to "pay for the solar pane...

Excerpt: ...responsive documents within 30 days. Within the same 20 days, defendant also shall either (1) identify which documents it produced in response to Requests #33-34 (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280, subd. (a)) or (2) serve a complete, code-compliant, verified amended response stating it is unable to comply with those requests (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.210, subd. (a)(2), 2031.230). If defendant withholds any document responsive to Request #40 for atto...

Excerpt: ...ndant met its initial burden to show a written arbitration agreement exists that covers plaintiff Sosa's claims. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; see also Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413 [elements]; Marden decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. B.) Defendant may compel arbitration although it is a “third party nonsignator[y] to the sales contract.” (Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486, 497.) In Felisilda, a...