Excerpt: ...ettlement agreement”, to avoid use of limited Court time and resources. As to the Settlement 1. The Settlement provides that the Settlement Administrator's determination of disputes will be final and non-appealable. Settlement, §13. This must be revised. The parties should file with the Court all disputes submitted by class members, the evidence submitted, and the resolution of those disputes. The Court shall have the right to review any decis...

Excerpt: ...ithholding, whether she is complying in part because of an inability to comply, and if so, the reason for the inability to comply. Plaintiff fails to disclose if documents are withheld based on privilege, or the particular privilege asserted for the documents, and she has failed to provide a privilege log. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240(a), (b), (c)(1); Standon Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 901 [objections constitute im...

Excerpt: ...ndant contends the proposed new claims are barred by res judicata based on the settlement in the related Gonzalez Action and that the additional proposed PAGA representatives waived their right to be PAGA representatives based on Releases they allegedly signed when they were terminated from their employment. However, Defendant concedes at least some of the new claims are not barred by to the Gonzales judgment, such as the failure to provide a saf...

Excerpt: ...tation of the filing date based on CRC Rule 2.259(a). An honest mistake of law is a valid ground for relief when the legal problem posed “ ‘is complex and debatable.' ” (McCormick v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 352, 360, 243 Cal.Rptr. 617; Brochtrup v. Intep (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 323, 329, 235 Cal.Rptr. 390.) The controlling factors in determining whether a mistake of law is excusable are the reasonableness of the misconcepti...

Excerpt: ...ying this action based on forum non conveniens because of a parallel earlier-filed Texas Action. Defendants NP Skyloft St, LLC and NP Skyloft JV, LLC join in Moving Defendants' Motion for Stay. For the reason set forth below, the Motion and Joinder are GRANTED. Moving Defendants bear the burden of proving that California is an inconvenient forum. (Ford Motor Co. v. Ins. Co. of North America (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 604, 610- 11.) There must be evide...

Excerpt: ...settlement agreement', to avoid use of limited Court time and resources. As to the Settlement 1. Was the Motion served on the LWDA? 2. Should the Settlement include Coolsys, Inc. since it is a named defendant in the Complaint and operative First Amended Complaint? ROA 2, Complaint, at ¶9 and ROA 50, First Amended Complaint, at ¶12. 3. The average individual PAGA settlement payment was not provided. 4. The definition of “Released Parties” is...

Excerpt: ...rder. In the event the parties cannot agree on the Belaire West notice and protective order, the Court sets a hearing on August 26, 2021, and orders the parties to file a joint statement of issues in dispute at least 5 court days prior to the continued hearing. The costs for the Belaire West notice will be shared 50/50 by the parties. With certain exceptions, parties have a right to inquire about any matter which – based on reason, logic and co...

Excerpt: ...”, to avoid use of limited Court time and resources. As to the Settlement 1. Given the scope of the settlement, the Release is overly broad and should be limited to the claims for injunctive relief asserted in the Complaint. The Release should continue to expressly state that expressly excluded from the release are any statutory monetary damages claims, punitive damages or any monetary relief of any kind. 2. The Release should specify an actual...

Excerpt: ...ment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c).) A moving defendant is entitled to summary judgment if it establishes either one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or there is a complete defense to that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437(c)(p)(2); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 849.) If the moving defendant meets its initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing that th...

Excerpt: ... to provide certain evidence to the opposing party as required by the discovery rules, preclusion of that evidence may be appropriate, even if such a sanction proves determinative in terminating the plaintiff's case. But “ ‘[t]he ratio decidendi behind such cases[ ]' ... is ‘that a persistent refusal to comply with an order for the production of evidence is tantamount to an admission that the disobedient party really has no meritorious clai...

Excerpt: ... attempts to meet and confer and EMI's repeated assurances that responses would be provided. ROA 95, Lin Decl., at ¶12; ROA 105, Lin Decl., at ¶¶8-12; ROA 118, Lin Decl. re Meet and Confer Efforts, at pp. 4-5 and Ex. 1. The motions to compel responses to RPD #1 and SI #2 are GRANTED. EMI is ordered to provide responses to RPD #1 and SI #2, without any objections, within 30 days. Plaintiff also requested to inspect and copy all documents respon...

Excerpt: ...lement agreement”, to avoid waste of limited Court time and resources. As to the Settlement 1. There is no proof of service showing the LWDA was served with this Motion. 2. The Settlement designates 80% of the settlement payment “as wages, penalties, damages and interest” and 20% to the Former Employee Settlement Fund. Settlement, at ¶55.A.i and ii. Did the parties intend to have separate percentage designated for the PAGA payment? How wil...

Excerpt: ...nal Area Emergency Operations Center Press Release #014 issued March 20, 2020 is GRANTED, as to the existence and legal effect of the records but not as to the truth of the matters asserted. (Arce v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4 th 471, 482.) A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made, and granted, on the same grounds as a general demurrer. (Stoops v. Abbassi, supra, 100 Cal. App. 4th at 650; Code Civ. Proc. § 438...

Excerpt: ...nctions against Seller Defendants and their counsel. ROA 765-768, 772-775, 779-782, 786-789. These motions were based, in part, on the Seller Defendants' failure to appear for their noticed depositions in violation of this Court's February 24, 2020 Order Authorizing Jurisdictional Discovery (ROA 632), including depositions. On August 13, 2020, at the hearing on the initial motions, the Court expressly found “no merit” in the bases for Seller ...

Excerpt: ...es shall also provide redline copies of the revised notice and proposed order. A judgment in a PAGA action “binds all those, including nonparty aggrieved employees, who would be bound by a judgment in an action brought by the government.” (Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 986.) Thus, “PAGA settlements are subject to trial court review and approval, ensuring that any negotiated resolution is fair to those affected.” (Williams...

Excerpt: ...whose interest is such that: (1) In the person's absence, complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties to the action; or (2) Any judgment rendered in the person's absence might either (a) prejudice the person's ability to protect his or her interest in later litigation; or (b) leave any of the parties before the court exposed to a risk of additional liability or inconsistent obligations. (Code Civ. Proc. § 389(a); see Olszewski...

Excerpt: ...e all or any of the issues in an action or proceeding, whether of fact or of law, and to report a statement of decision. (b) To ascertain a fact necessary to enable the court to determine an action or proceeding. CCP § 638 “authoriz[es] courts to transfer a dispute to a referee” pursuant to a written agreement between the parties. (Grafton Partners L.P. v. Sup.Ct. (PriceWaterhouseCoopers L.L.P.) (2005) 36 Cal.4th 944, 960-961.) Where the par...

Excerpt: ...tisfied their discovery obligations." Reply 6: 9-10. As the issue of discovery depends on the Court's determination of Petitioner's request to file an amended petition, leave to amend is addressed first. There is no dispute that the Arbitration Award was issued and served on August 20, 2020, that under CCP section 1288 the 100-day period to file and serve a Petition to Vacate the award ended on November 28, 2020, and that Petitioner timely filed ...

Excerpt: ... defense to that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437(c)(p)(2); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 849.) To show that a claim cannot be established, moving defendant must present affirmative evidence negating, as a matter of law, an essential element of plaintiff's claim (Guz v. Bechtel Nat'l, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334; Eriksson v. Nunnink (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 826, 849 fn. 16), or show the absence of evidence to ...

Excerpt: ...ts) seek summary judgment on Plaintiff The People of the State of California's (People) Sixth Amended Complaint (6AC), or in the alternative, summary judgment on the First Cause of Action for Violations of the False Advertising Law, Second Cause of Action for Violations of the Unfair Competition Law, and Third Cause of Action for Public Nuisance. The Motion is DENIED in its entirety. Request for Judicial Notice The Court GRANTS Defendants' reques...

Excerpt: ...he has expressly agreed to do so by entering into a valid and enforceable written contract with the party who seeks arbitration.”].) Even though the law favors agreements for arbitration of disputes, “there is no policy compelling persons to accept arbitration of controversies which they have not agreed to arbitrate …” (Victoria v. Superior Court (1985) 40 Cal.3d 734, 744 [internal quotes omitted].) When presented with a motion to compel ...

Excerpt: ...lement agreement”, to avoid unnecessary use of limited Court time and resources. As to the Settlement 1. Although Plaintiff's counsel indicates the Settlement was submitted to the LWDA (Marquez Del., at ¶8), there is no proof of service of the Settlement or the Motion for Preliminary Approval on the LWDA. The LWDA must be given notice of the Settlement and any related motions. Any supplemental brief and/or amendments made pursuant to this Orde...

Excerpt: ...lement agreement”, to avoid use of limited Court time and resources. As to the Settlement 1. There is no proof of service of this Motion on the LWDA. Confirm whether the LWDA was provided notice of this Motion. Any supplemental brief and/or amendments made pursuant to this Order should also be filed with LWDA along with notice of the continued hearing date, with a proof of service submitted to the Court. 2. The definition of “Released Parties...

Excerpt: ...f the Keefe Family 2006 Trust are GRANTED as to Trilogy, the Langenwalter Family Revocable Living Trust, and the Keefe Family 2006 Trust and CONTINUED to March 25, 2021 as to David E. Keefe, individually and Richard D. Langenwalter, individually. The remedy of attachment is wholly statutory, its scope and procedure are limited by the statutes, and these statutes are strictly construed., i.e. unless specifically provided for by the attachment law,...

Excerpt: ...tlement agreement”, to avoid waste of limited Court time and resources. As to the Settlement 1. Was notice of this hearing provided to the LWDA? Any supplemental brief and/or amendments made pursuant to this Order should also be filed with LWDA along with notice of the continued hearing date, with a proof of service submitted to the Court. 2. Why is Defendant's share of payroll taxes being paid out of the gross settlement amount instead of in a...