Excerpt: ...oving party in fact served the instant motion and supporting papers more than 21 days prior to filing them. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 128.5, subd. (f)(1)(B), 128.7, subd. (c)(1); Smith, Smith & Kring v. Superior Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 573, 577 -578 [statements in brie fs are argument, not evidence]; Hart v. Avetoom (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 410, 413 -415 [motion initially served must be the same as the one eventually filed]; Galleria Plus, Inc. v...

Excerpt: ...gent m isrepresentation. The FAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute these causes of action. (See Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638, 645 [fraud elements]; Nissan Motor Acceptance Cases (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 793, 823 [negligent misrepre sentation elements].) The residential purchased agreement (RPA) attached as exhibit A to the FAC shows that at the time defendants made the subject “misrepresentations” on 6/1/22 (FAC...

Excerpt: ...er v. AT&T Mobilit y, LLC (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1545, 1556 [elements] The FAC states facts sufficient to state a cause of action for Negligent Repair See Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 527 [Negligence may be alleged in general terms].) The FAC states facts sufficient to state a cause of action for Violation of the UCC (Defendants failed to identify any defects with the pleading of this cause of action). The omission of the allegati...

Excerpt: ...rder and orde r for issuance of a Writ of Attachment (“Application”) against defendant Arunpal Sehgal, M.D. (“Defendant”) are GRANTED in the following amounts: Reliant Management Group, LLC's Application is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $100,000; and Riverside Postac ute Care, LLC's Application is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $103,132.88. Plaintiff is ordered to post an undertaking of $10,000. “Under Code of Civil Procedure secti...

Excerpt: ... reason able particularity subject to any orders that may be appropriate under Section 3426.5 of the Civil Code.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2019.210.) Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. Contrary to plaintiff's contentions, the first amended complaint (FAC) does not identify the subject trade secret with reasonable particularity. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2019.210; Perlan Therapeutics, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) ...

Excerpt: ... Busine ss and Professions Code section 17200 (UCL) are both based on the same common nucleus of facts as the cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets and are therefore superseded by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA). (See K.C. Multimed ia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology & Operations, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 939, 958959, 962 (K.C. Multimedia) [CUTSA preemption]; Angelica Textile Servs., Inc. v. Park (2013) 220 ...

Excerpt: ...h 1422. “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action…it is not only error but abuse of discretion”.  Morgan v. Superior Court  (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527.        Plaintiff argues that Defendant' s proposed A...

Excerpt: ...nts Compass California, Inc. and Art Heckman's motions to compel plaintiffs Mary Nathan and Reuben Nathan to provide further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, are GRANTED in part and WITHDRAWN in part by moving parties. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310 [authorizing motion to compel]; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409 [court's discretion where responses serv...

Excerpt: ...not avoid an anti -SLAPP motion directed at a cause of action in a pending complaint (e.g., the second cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress) by filing an amended complaint that effectively drops the claim without prejudice. (See Salma v. Capon, at p. 1294 [legislative poli cy of early evaluation and expeditious resolution of claims arising from protected activity]; see also JKC3H8 v. Colton, at p. 478 [same].) Since ...

Excerpt: ... action is viable because it relies upon allegations of a breach of a duty owed to the minor Plaintiff. As noted in the authority Defendant cit es in support of the demurrer, “unless the defendant has assumed a duty to plaintiff in which the emotional condition of the plaintiff is an object, recovery is available only if the emotional distress arises out of the defendant's breach of some other leg al duty and the emotional distress is proximate...

Excerpt: ...t. Specifically, Defendant argues that allegations of fraud that function to a lter the terms of an integrated contract are barred by the parole evidence rule. Furthermore, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has pleaded facts that are plainly inconsistent with a claim for promissory fraud by admitting in the Complaint that Defendant performed under the contract until at least Spring 2022. Defendant reasons that it “is implausible that Schreiber's...

Excerpt: ... v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.) A ny “ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Ibid.) The FAC states sufficient facts in support of the cause of action for breach of contract against Robert and AHM. (See Stockton Mortgage, Inc. v. Tope (2014) 233 Cal.App.4th 437, 453 [elements]; Miles v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 394, 402 [plaintiff may...

Excerpt: ...ndant fails to meet its initial burden as to Noticed Issu es No. 1, 3, 6, 7, & 8. As to Noticed Issue No. 1, (Vatalaro v. Cnty. of Sacramento (2022) 79 Cal. App. 5th 367, 381) cited by defendant is distinguishable. In Vatalaro the plaintiff could only point to an unspecified violation of civil service rules and more importantly, had affirmatively conceded in discovery that she had no reasonable belief that the law had been broken. (25 Cal 4th at...

Excerpt: ...��all communications between Plaintiff and Mr. Walters co nceivably relevant to the Gifting Transaction for the years 2013 - 2014”].) Busch has failed to set forth specific facts showing good cause for any further production. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1); Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117 [good cause]; see also Chute Decl. ¶ 11.) Good cause must be supported by factual evidence, such ...

Excerpt: ...� 1281.2). Defendants have the “burden of proving the existence of a va lid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence while a party opposing a petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense.” (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 842 ; accord (Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 219 [once petitioner alleges the agreement e...

Excerpt: ... is taxed in the total amount of $41,089.46, as further discussed b e l ow. Pl aintiff's remaining costs in the total amount of $115,732.31 are granted against defendant Regents only. Plaintiff's 998 offer Plaintiff's Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (section 998) offer to compromise (998 offer) served on Regents on 8/18/17 was valid and effective. The fact that plaintiff obtained a more favorable judgment than his 998 offer is prima facie evi...

Excerpt: ...rm presented, i.e., the comparative consequences of th e issuance and non -issuance of the injunction. (See Fleishman v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 350). Generally, where the damage from a breach of contract can be easily estimated, the presumption is that an action at law will be final and prevent further dispute; and an injunction will not issue against the breach. (See Kellett v. Ida Clayton & G.W. WagonRoad Co. (1893), 99 Cal. 210...

Excerpt: ... not the owner of the subject dog. (See, e.g. SS UMF No. 8.) Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot establish a cause of action for strict liability under Cal. Civ. Code § 3342 against Moving Defendant. Negligence and Premises Liability Moving Defendant argues that Plaintiff's causes of action for negligence and premises liability both fail because Plaintiff does not establish the existence of a duty of care applicable to Moving Defendant. “The existen...

Excerpt: ...oodward -Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499 ( Te c h-Bilt).) As an initial matter, moving parties' proof of service is defective, as it attests to service via email only. (see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1010.6, subd. (a)(2), 877.6, subd. (a)(2) [requiring service via “certified mail, return receipt request ed, or by personal service”].) While defendants OC 405 Partners and the State of California, acting by and through the Department of...

Excerpt: ...f three separate entities. Plaintiffs bring suit derivatively on behalf of Reliant Management Group, LLC (“Reliant Management”), Riverside Postacute Care, LLC (“Riverside”), and RMG Capital Partners, LLC (“RMG Capital”). Moving Party has shown that the RMG Capital Operating Agreement contains a valid a rbitration agreement. However, Moving Party has failed to demonstrate why this arbitration agreement would apply to bind Reliant Manag...

Excerpt: ...that she has not yet completed discovery. A court typically has discretion to grant a continuance, but the court must grant a continuance under CCP § 437c(h) on a good faith showing by declaration or affidavit that a continuance is needed to obtain facts essential to justify opposition to a summar y judgment motion. Ace Am. Ins. Co. v Walker (2004) 121 CA4th 1017, 1023 (continuance is “virtually mandated”). See also Dee v Vintage Petroleum, ...

Excerpt: ...payment of the disputed monetary discovery sanctions on 01/18/24. (Khojayan Dec. ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) All requests for sanctions are denied. Defendant is ordered to give notice. Motion No. 2: Defendant Yao Geng's Motion to Stay Action is DENIED. An application for a stay is addressed to the “sound discretion” of the trial court. “In exercising its discretion, the court should consider the importance of discouraging multiple litigation designed so...

Excerpt: ... Dev. LLC (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1068 sets forth the applicable test for determining whether a party waives attorney-client privilege and/or work product protection through use of a company-provided e-mail address. While Holmes sets forth the applicable standard for determining whether privilege has been waived, Moving Party fails to make the requisite factual showing that would demonstrate the attorney-client privilege has in fact been wai...

Excerpt: ...Servicing, LLC, and PHH Mortgage Corporation, as to plaintiff's 13th cause of action for fraud by concealment / fraudulent misrepresentation, is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., S 1008 [authorizing reconsideration].) The only "new" facts set forth in the moving papers are: (1) defendants' filing a notice of ruling as to the 10-13-23 order; and (2) defendants' filing a crosscomplaint. (Exs. 1 and 2 to moving papers.) However, plaintiff has not shown why ...

Excerpt: ...f motion to state a ground for relief when the supporting materials discuss and support that ground for relief so that it is clear that relief is sought on that ground"]; ROA No. 39— Mtn. P&As at pp. 4-5 [citing and quoting Code Civ. Proc., S 2030.300].) Defendant/cross-complainant Cesar Quintana (defendant) is ORDERED to provide verified further responses without objections to form interrogatory Nos. 12.2—12.7, within 15 days. The term "INCI...