Excerpt: ...er 2, 2014, almost four years ago, noted that construction of the underground parking structure, a planned mitigation measure, was no longer an available or realistic option. The court therefore ruled that plaintiff's construction of the surface parking lot would not be admissible at trial as a mitigation measure. Defendants thus will be entitled to recover their eminent domain damages based on no mitigation having taken place. The court even obs...

Excerpt: ...f $10,000 plus $12,500 in adjudicated reasonable costs” to “the total amount of $24,827.29, consisting of an agreed amount to Claimant of $10,000 plus $12,500 in adjudicated reasonable attorney fees and $2,327.29 in adjudicated reasonable costs”. The award may be corrected pursuant to CCP §1286.6 because the arbitrator exceeded his powers but the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submi...

Excerpt: ...ot to demur to it even though other defendants did so, and successfully. This court is not interested in having a pleading challenge motion granted with leave to amend (since these defendants have never demurred, and the prior court of appeal decision doesn't address causes of action challenged here), and then going through one or more further rounds of demurrers. Indeed, now the Thompson defendants say they want to move for judgment on the plead...

Excerpt: ...judice along with the entry of final Judgment, which is expressly prohibited by CRC Rule 3.769(h). The Administrator Declaration of Chris Pikus (at p. 3, para. 12) reflects that one out of four disputes was denied. However, the revised Notice of Estimated Individual Settlement Payment attached to the December 1, 2017 Supplemental Declaration of Jared Hague, which the court approved, reflected (at p. 1, para. 5) that the court would address any di...

Excerpt: ...nd denied as to #4-5 and 10. Plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient facts to state causes of action against these moving defendants. Plaintiffs must allege actual facts, not conclusions, which would establish liability against each of the defendants. Plaintiffs should keep in mind that entities cannot act except through persons, even if through persons employed by other entities, if appropriate. It is not enough to vaguely assert that four or more ...

Excerpt: ...using a party leave to amend his pleadings so that he may properly present his case”. Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal. App. 2d 527, 530. Plaintiffs are not changing the nature of this case, and their new claims are based on the same nucleus of operative facts. Plaintiffs' proposed new cause of action appears to be based on the same overall transaction and course of events. The amendment would not result in any undue prejudice to defenda...

Excerpt: ..., “it is a rare case in which a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his pleadings so that he may properly present his case”. Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal. App. 2d 527, 530. For ACIC to seek to interplead a $15,000 bond does not change the nature of this case, and ACIC's new claims are based on the same nucleus of operative facts existing in this case. ACIC's proposed new causes of action appear to be based on...

Excerpt: ...llege sufficient facts that would establish an oral contract, or the terms of the contract. The only alleged misrepresentations of a past or existing fact in Patel's 3rd cause of action for negligent misrepresentation are that plan participants were covered beneficiaries and that treatment was covered by the plan, but Patel alleges the contrary in paragraph 5, that plan participants were in fact covered beneficiaries. Further, Patel's factual all...

Excerpt: ...reakdown whatsoever of their claimed costs. Plaintiffs seek 1.8 hours for needlessly appearing at the Default Prove-Up Hearing on December 1, 2017, but an MSC was also set for that date, requiring plaintiffs' appearance even if there had been no Default Prove-Up Hearing. Plaintiffs also want 7.3 hours in preparing both counsel and a witness for the prove-up hearing, but default prove-ups are done on the papers, not with live testimony, and plaint...

Excerpt: ...terrogatories seek information that is relevant to the subject matter of the action, and defendant has not justified any of its objections. Plaintiff may seek information that could justify class action allegations. Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal. App. 3d 1, 10-11. The discovery sought does not come close to invading anyone's privacy, even if follow-up discovery might trigger discovery concerns. Defendant has not prese...

Excerpt: ...a trial. Defendants made modifications to their lighting system both before trial and during the one and then two month break the court afforded the parties to resolve the lighting issue before closing argument and the ruling. The court even informally advised the parties there would be no money damages awarded, but there was no agreement, the parties wanted a ruling at trial, and the ruling was in plaintiffs' favor. The settlement of plaintiffs'...

Excerpt: ...onfer before the hearing). Plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions is denied. Defendant has shown that plaintiff did not serve a formal response to the demand, waiving his objections. Defendant must nonetheless show good cause, and it has done so. Plaintiff appears to have no objection to a second inspection of his treadmill. Although plaintiff has concerns as to defendant inspecting his home's computers, which would be legitimate if defendant...

Excerpt: ...l cures these deficiencies before the hearing date, the hearing will be continued. Moving parties are ordered to give notice of the ruling. ...

Excerpt: ... court cannot reach a determination as to whether the settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable absent fully updated information on the efforts to locate class members and obtain class claims, along with final opt-out and objection figures. Plaintiffs must file an updated Administrator declaration with the final numbers. Detailed hourly billing breakdowns are required from each of plaintiffs' law firms to permit this court to complete an inform...

Excerpt: ...ase in which a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his pleadings so that he may properly present his case”. Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal. App. 2d 527, 530. The amendment would not result in any undue prejudice to plaintiffs, since both sides have operated under the premise that defendant already asserted the administrative exemption defense. Plaintiffs even filed a Motion for Summary Adjudication as to that def...

Excerpt: ...uld be fine. (1) On p. 4, line 24, change “Class Notice” to “revised Notice of Settlement of Class Action Lawsuit (Class Notice)”; (2) On p. 4, line 25, change “Request for Exclusion form” to “revised Request for Exclusion Form (Request for Exclusion)”; (3) On p. 5, line 18, the Administrator's declaration is due at least 16 court days before the Final Approval Hearing, just like all other papers for that hearing; and (4) On p. 6,...

Excerpt: ...d his powers under CCP 1286.2(a)(4) and 9 U.S.C. §10(a)(4). In Luckey v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal. App. 4th 81, the court held that a retired judge sitting as a temporary judge had no authority to approve the settlement of a class action. The court noted that the California Constitution provides that for a stipulation to a temporary judge to be effective, the stipulation must be made by the parties litigant, but in a pre-certification class...

Excerpt: ... to the Castro declaration are overruled as to #1 and sustained as to #2. Defendant's Motion for Protective Order is denied as moot. The OSC re Dismissal and Status Conference set for today will have to be discussed to see if they are moot and should go off calendar. The ADP defendants have shown that they were employers of plaintiffs under all applicable legal definitions. If they weren't, there would be no basis for their liability. They did a ...

Excerpt: ...proval moving papers (p. 3) reference one opt-out, as do the fees and costs moving papers (p. 4, line 18), but the moving papers consistently represent elsewhere that there are no opt-outs. The moving papers (p. 5) reference a class size of 180, but also (p. 6) a class size of 198, while the Makarem declaration (p. 8, para. 33) references a class size of 25. The moving papers (p. 7) explain that a Class Member who worked the entire Class Period w...

Excerpt: ...essed the fact that the release of class claim language on p. 8 of the settlement agreement and in paragraph 3 of the proposed Order and Judgment is too broad, since it applies to claims that were or could have been litigated in the operative Complaint, rather than claims based on the facts alleged in the First Amended Class Action Complaint. Plaintiff has failed to adequately show that class members are not entitled to notice of the proposed set...

Excerpt: ...Dorman v. DWLC Corp. (1995) 35 Cal. App. 4th 1808, 1813-15. CCP §1033(b) has a similar provision for Limited Civil cases that could have been brought in Small Claims Court. Here, plaintiff obtained a Verdict and Judgment for only $2,000 after using court resources to the extent of a 12½ day jury trial. Plaintiffs were the prevailing parties only technically, but not as a practical matter. The rationale behind CCP §1033(a) is fully at play here...

Excerpt: ...provided this court with any response by plaintiff. Nor has defendant fashioned this motion as one where plaintiff did not respond, under CCP §2031.300. Defendant also has not filed any Separate Statement under CRC Rule 3.1345. Thus, this motion is not procedurally proper and must be denied. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the ruling unless notice is waived. ...

Excerpt: ...ised papers, including the notice of settlement to the class. The revised class notice on p. 2, section 3 references the old four-part payment schedule, and on p. 4, section 5, references annual distribution checks to Class Members even though the supplemental papers now describe a bi-annual distribution plan. The revised class notice must be corrected. Moreover, bi-annual means twice a year, while plaintiffs presumably intend payments to be made...

Excerpt: ...notice to the class. Ambiguity exists as to whether the $500,000 for plaintiffs' attorneys is only for attorneys' fees or for both attorneys' fees and costs. The settlement agreement (p. 21, l. 16) and notice to class (p. 3) suggest costs are not included in the $500,000, but the Nathan declaration (p. 8, l. 28) and the Baker declaration (p. 8, l. 17) are ambiguous. Clarification is needed. Further ambiguity exists as to the court ultimately reso...

Excerpt: ... debtor for money or property that is the subject of the action or proceeding.” Thus, the court is baffled by plaintiff's argument that the settlement in this case does not constitute “income” as defined in Family Code §4058, an issue that has nothing to do with any exemption issues. Plaintiff makes no other arguments as to why his settlement proceeds should be exempt, and his procedural arguments lack merit. The lien is timely since no ju...