Excerpt: ... (See Carlton v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group Inc. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1211; accord Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2020) ¶¶ 7:140-7:143.) But it shouldn't be surprising if the court comes to the same result. These causes of action remain predicated in part on defendant Grubb's conduct during his employment with plaintiff. (See SAC ¶¶ 11, 13, 17.) Section 16600 “does not affect limitations...

Excerpt: ...r memorandum of points and authorities and request for judicial notice on 12/16/20. Second, the notice of motion mentions only the 2nd cause of action, but the memorandum of points and authorities addresses the 2nd and 3rd causes of action. The court will address the merits of the motion because the District does not object. But all moving papers must accompany the notice of motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1010; Weinstein v. Blumberg (2018) 25 C...

Excerpt: ...th 274; Soni v. Wellmike Enterprise Co. Ltd. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1477, 1490; Carpenter & Zuckerman, LLP v. Cohen (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 373; Witte v. Kaufman (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1201.) This has not drawn condemnation. Defendants have not shown the advocate-witness rule was intended to deny the right of self-representation to law firms and lawyers. To the contrary, the rule expressly allows a lawyer to “act as advocate in a trial in which ...

Excerpt: ...most of the issues raised herein, such as plaintiffs' standing, the business judgment rule, and the sufficiency of the allegations against defendant Whitford. (See, e.g., 1/27/20 order.) Nothing has materially changed. Defendants have not shown any demurrable defect in the 3rd amended complaint except as stated below. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 472d.) Plaintiffs have had 4 opportunities to state their causes of action. In their opposition they do n...

Excerpt: ...cause of action. It adequately alleges the factual basis for the underlying claim, compliance with Chinese law, and the existence of a money judgment against defendants that is final, conclusive, and enforceable under Chinese law. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1715, subd. (a); see also Compl. ¶¶ 19-34.) While defendants challenge the sufficiency of the alleged Chinese judgment, the plaintiff's factual allegations and its alleged construction of the ...

Excerpt: ...otect, inter alia, direct petitioning of the government . . . .'” (Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 61.) “[C]ommunications to an official agency intended to induce the agency to initiate action are part of an ‘official proceeding,' protected by . . . the anti-SLAPP statute.” (Lee v. Fink (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 89, 96.) Plaintiff has [not] met its shifted burden to “provide the court with sufficient evidence to...

Excerpt: ...al court may sill vacate a default on equitable grounds . . . .” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 981.) Defendant has not shown equity requires relief. Defendant has not shown any extrinsic mistake or fraud prevented him from participating in the case. (See Rappleyea, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 983; Sporn v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (2005) 126 CalApp.4th 1294, 1300-1301.) To the contrary, defendant filed an answer – which the court str...

Excerpt: ...[they] communicated . . . were false.” (Wilhelm v. Pray, Price, Williams & Russell (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1324, 1331; see SAC 31-32 [alleging other defendants provided false information to these defendants].) While these defendants' knowledge is alleged on “information and belief,” the SAC must explain the basis for plaintiff's belief. (See Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 551, fn. 5; see also SAC ¶ 48.) Alleging that plain...

Excerpt: ... (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821 [elements]; see also Compl. ¶¶ 9-14 & Attach. 1.) It also adequately alleges Yarandi's alter ego and agency liability. (See Rutherford Holdings, LLC v. Plaza Del Rey (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 221, 236; Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 858, 886; see also Compl. ¶¶ 6-7.) 2nd cause of action, WSRCR Act. The complaint states facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. It ad...

Excerpt: ...show the allegedly defamatory cartoon was made “in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (e)(4); accord FilmOn.com, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 149.) The law firm's management and its partnership and employment disputes do not fall under the public eye, affect people beyond the participants, or arise in any ongoing public controversy. (Id. at pp. 145-146.) “To extrapolate a series of p...

Excerpt: ...ee also Teselle v. McLoughlin (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 156, 173 [MSJ's failure to address material allegation is a “fatal flaw”]; Hawkins v. Wilton (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 936, 942 [MSJ must “refute tenable pleaded theories”]; Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 523, 538-539 [alter ego factors].) Issue #2. Cross-Defendants fail to show the breach of contract claim lacks merit, cannot be established, or is barred by a...

Excerpt: ...ond the claim's label.” (Peterson v. Cellco Partnership (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1583, 1595.) “If the complaint states a cause of action under any theory, regardless of the title under which the factual basis for relief is stated, that aspect of the complaint is good against a demurrer.” (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38.) This cause of action states facts sufficient to constitute some cause of action – n...

Excerpt: ...failed to show the cross-complaint is exempt from the anti-SLAPP statute. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 425.17; see also People ex rel. Strathmann v. Acacia Research Corp. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 487, 498 [exemption is a threshold issue]; Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore (2010) 49 Cal.4th 12, 26 [burden].) Cross-Complainants seek “relief greater than or different from the relief sought for the general public or a class of which plaintiff is a mem...

Excerpt: ...he provisions of the Act”; a party “cannot rely upon the provisions of section 473.” (Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 274–275.) In any event, it's not clear what's happening with the Glenwood PMK deposition or that defendant still seeks to assert any specific objection. Motion for Protective Order Defendants Brookdale Senior Living Inc., Brookdale Senior Living Communities Inc., BLC Glenwood-Gardens SNF -L...

Excerpt: ...uction Nos. 95, 97, 113, and 115. Defendant may limit its responses and production to communications between defendant and the carrier relating to coverage for plaintiff's malpractice, acts, or omissions under any policy issued on or after 1/1/18; and 3. Request for production No. 124 in its entirety. Defendant may assert attorney-client privilege or work product protection for documents dated on or after 1/1/19 and withhold them from production,...

Excerpt: ...mplete defense. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850-851.) Defendant contends he could not have caused plaintiff's harm because others called the police. (See Mot. at 5-6, 12-14.) When there are concurrent independent causes, causation is governed by the substantial factor test. (See Viner v. Sweet (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1232, 1235, 1240.) “The substantial factor standard is a rela...

Excerpt: ...2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 384, 391 [elements]; see also Compl. ¶¶ 14, 21, 30-31 & Exs. A, E.) Defendants cannot support their demurrer with issues outside the face of the complaint. (See Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318). In any event, defendants' curing a default by bringing the loan current would not preclude plaintiff from alleging damages under the acceleration clause, which he adequately does. 2nd cause of action against Powernet, breac...

Excerpt: ... subpoena ROA #478, Plaintiffs' motion to quash subpoena ROA #483, Employees' motion re RPDs ROA #491, Plaintiffs' motion for protective order ROA #564, Directors' motion re Warwick RPDs ROA #569, Directors' motion re Ibbetson RPDs ROA #512, Motion to Stay Directors' motion to stay is denied. The trial court retains jurisdiction to determine anti-SLAPP attorney fees while the anti- SLAPP appeal is pending. (See Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Del...

Excerpt: ...e because this claim nearly encompasses the entire lawsuit. The Charter Schools identify 9 disputes (or so) regarding the District's responsibility to ensure the Charter Schools “contribute[] an equitable share of its . . . block grant funding to support districtwide special education instruction and services.” (Ed. Code, § 47646, subd. (c).) The disputes circle around whether (1) the District may still invoice the Charter Schools now for eq...

Excerpt: ...5/20 minute order.) Plaintiff Souzan Baaj's request for a preliminary injunction is denied. Plaintiff has not shown an injunction is warranted after weighing both “the likelihood [she] ultimately 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.) Most notably, plaintiff failed to show a sufficiently probabi...

Excerpt: ...nded complaint states facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. (See CACI No. 2430 [elements]; see also SAC ¶¶ 5, 6, 12-34.) 2nd cause of action, FEHA violation. The second amended complaint states facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. (See Deschene v. Pinole Point Steel Co. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 33, 44 [elements]; see also SAC ¶¶ 5, 6, 12-34, 29-31, 36-40.) 6th cause of action, declaratory relief. This is functional...

Excerpt: ...) 138 S.Ct. 1612, 1622.) [FAA preserves “‘generally applicable contract defenses,” including unconscionability]; Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services (2000) 24 Cal.4 th 83, 114 [same]; Ramos v. Superior Court of San Francisco County (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 1042, 1055, 1063 [same].) Plaintiff showed the agreement is procedurally unconscionable as an adhesion contract and condition of employment. (See Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th...

Excerpt: ...ccord Gaggero v. Yura (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 884, 891.) That second path to summary adjudication requires plaintiff to show 2 things: (1) defendant does not possess the evidence, and (2) defendant cannot reasonably obtain it. Plaintiff met the first requirement. It offered defendant Community Care Rehab Center LLC's “factually devoid” discovery responses, showing defendant does not possess evidence needed to support its defenses. (Union Bank ...

Excerpt: ...ng unit,” and not a “transient” hotel occupant. (See Civ. Code, § 1940, subds. (a), (b).) 2nd cause of action, battery. The complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. It fails to allege facts showing defendant's intent to offend. (See Kaplan v. Mamelak (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 637, 645.) A demurrer does not admit the truth of “conclusions of fact or law.” (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) 4th...

Excerpt: ...alnoki v. First American Trustee Servicing Solutions, LLC (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 23, 40 [beneficiary may substitute trustee through its agent].) These exhibits trump inconsistent, conclusory allegations to the contrary. (See Holland v. Morse Diesel International (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1447; see also Barnett v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 500, 505.) 2nd-3rd causes of action, Civ. Code §§ 2923.5, 2923.55, 2924.17. The complai...