Excerpt: ... made the initial showi ng by: - Presenting evidence that Defendants CCR and Gleason observed corporate formalities such that imposition of alter ego liability is inappropriate. (SSUMF Nos. 1 -18.) - Presenting evidence that Plaintiff cannot establish the element of damages. (SSUM F Nos. 30-33.) - Presenting evidence that Plaintiff cannot establish the element of intent to disrupt, necessary to sustain his claim for Intentional Interference with ...

Excerpt: ...ral and con clusory allegations do not suffice; policy of liberal construction of the pleadings will not ordinarily be invoked. Murphy v. BDO Seidman, LLP (2003) 113 Cal. App. 4th 687. That specificity has not been achieved with the representations themselves. Fo r example, paragraphs 17 through 21 are incorporated into the first cause of action, but the allegations of paragraph 44 only serve to confuse those allegations. That paragraph states:...

Excerpt: ... the weight and credibility of these matters, and rules as follows: Plaintiff Pure Dermatology's motion for preliminary injunction is denied. “A trial court may grant a preliminary injunction upon a showing that (1) the party seeking the injunction is likely to preva il on the merits at trial, and (2) the ‘interim harm' to that party if an injunction is denied is greater than ‘the [interim] harm the [opposing party] is likely to suffer if t...

Excerpt: ...al.App.4th 267, 288 (Kim) [evidence of damages is required for default judgment]; see also ROA No. 356 –Heidary Decl., in passim [one -page conclusory declaration].) There is also no affidavit of notice. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 587; Bae v. T.D. Service Co. of Arizona (201 6) 245 Cal.App.4th 89, 108, fn. 15.) Even if plaintiff had complied with the foregoing requirements, the request for default judgment would still be denied because the operat...

Excerpt: ...nd unintelligible. ” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e) & (f); see Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 430.50, subd. (a) [demurrer may be taken to whole pleading or to any of the causes of action stated therein].) “A person against whom a complaint or cross -complaint has been fi led may, within 30 days after service of the complaint or crosscomplaint, demur to the complaint or cross -complaint.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 430.40, subd. (a)....

Excerpt: ...same].) Specifically, defendants failed to m eet their initial burden as to Noticed Issue No. 1 because the issue fails to completely dispose of any cause of action. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) Defendants met their initial evidentiary burden as to Noticed Issues No. 3. & 5, Even if d efendants had met their initial burden as to each noticed issue, plaintiffs met their shifted burden to show triable issues of material fact. (See ...

Excerpt: ...[same].) Specifically, defendants failed to meet their initial burden as to Noticed Issue No. 1 because the issue fails to completely dispose of any cause of action. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) Defendants met their initial evidentiary burden as to Noticed Issues No. 3. & 5, Even if defendants had met their initial burden as to each noticed issue, plaintiffs met their shifted burden to show triable issues of material fact. (See C...

Excerpt: ...ion, violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 (UCL), and br each of implied warranty; and the 5th cause of action for violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) to the extent it seeks any relief (see Compl. ¶¶ 77, 79 -80) other than public injunctive relief (id. ¶ 81). To be clear, the petition is DENIED to t he extent it seeks an order compelling arbitration of the 4th cause of action for liability on dealer bond, and the...

Excerpt: ...existence of duty/absolute duty]; Chee v. Amanda Goldt Property Management (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1369 [“landlord does not owe a duty of care to protect a third party from his or her tenant's dog unless the landlord has actual knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities”]; accord, Fraser v. Fa r v i d (2024) – Cal.App.5th – (Fraser) [2024 WL 510111, at *1]; see also Def. SSMF Nos. 3, 6 -9, 12 -16, 19.)“ ‘Under California law, ...

Excerpt: ...� 437c, subds. (a), (p)(2); SSUMF Nos. 18 -37 [COA 1], 48 -56 [COA 1], 68 -72 [COA 1]; 148 -160 [COA 2]; 339 -352; [COA 5]; and 357 -370 [COA 6].) Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden to identify a triable issue of material fact with admissible evidence. Plaintiff's attempt falls short as she seeks to establish a triable issu e through a self-serving declaration or citation to evidence that does not actually contradict the material facts Defen...

Excerpt: ... fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the “lodestar,” i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.” (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 (PLCM Group).) “The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work. The lodesta r figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fe...

Excerpt: ...e of damages is required for default judgment]; see also ROA No. 356 –Heidary Decl., in passim [one -page conclusory declaration].) There is also no affidavit of notice. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 587; Bae v. T.D. Service Co. of Arizona (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 89, 108, fn. 15.) Even if plaintiff had complied with the for egoing requirements, the request for default judgment would still be denied because the operative first amended complaint (FAC)...

Excerpt: ...alif. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(b); Truong v. Glasser (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 102, 118.) Defendant's separate statement fails to comply with Calif. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(b). Rather than deny the motion outright (CCP 437c(b)(1); Beltran v. Hard Rock Hotel Licensing, Inc. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 865, 875), the court el ects to treat defendant's motion as one for summary judgment only. Defendants fails to meet their initial burden to show the e...

Excerpt: ...(Bohrer v. County of San Diego (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 15 5, 164 [“[a]bsent a special statute, there is no authority for the court to take judicial notice … from a governmental document to establish the cause of death”].) Defendant's Reply Separate Statement (ROA 315) is not authorized and was not considered. (Na zir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 252.) 1st cause of action: elder abuse / neglect. Moving party has not met...

Excerpt: ...ted protective order to the court. If the parties fa il to timely do so, the court will impose a protective order limiting the use of responses to the interrogatories in which a confidentiality/privacy right is claimed to this litigation and requiring that such information be surrendered or destroyed at the conclusion of this litigation. Upon entry of the protective order, Defendant John Marcin is ordered to serve complete, non- evasive further ...

Excerpt: ... second Hariri Decl., filed in support of cross- complainant's supplemental Opposition on 1 -5 -24, nor crossdefendants' objections to same. The original hearing was continued solely due to crosscomplainant's failure to provide an opposing separate statement, and the court specifically ordered that no new evidence was permitted. (See 12 -14 -23 min ute order continuing hearing (ROA 669).] 1st cause of action: professional negligence (Summary Ad...

Excerpt: ...such records. Thus, the subpoenas to the billing departments of A & S H ealthcare and Alta Vista Assisted Living are quashed in full, and the balance of the subpoenas are quashed to the extent that they seek billing records. The motion is denied as to the balance of the records subpoenas issued by defendant. While the plaintiff s may assert a claim under the physician -patient privilege (See California Consumer Health Care Council, Inc. v. Califo...

Excerpt: ...ouri (Doe 5) and Kouri Law Firm, APC (Doe 6) (together, the K houri defendants). (See ROA No. 401.) 5. San Bernardino County (Doe 4), erroneously sued as “County of San Bernardino.” (See ROA No. 322.) 6. Tushar Ramnik Doshi (Doshi) (Doe 9). All six demurrers are SUSTAINED as to the first amended complaint (FAC) in its entirety without leave to amend. The court on its own motion takes judicial notice of the following: 1. The 1/18/24 minute or...

Excerpt: ... had previously conducted an independent medical examination of Plainti
¯ in July 2021. Having failed to resolve this dispute informally, Defendant Sun now moves the Court for an Order requiring Plainti
¯ to make himself available for another independent medical examination. Defendant Sun argues that Cal. Code Civ. Proc.. §2032.220, subd. (a) provides “any party” with the right to take a single physical examination on demand without leave ...

Excerpt: ...ion of Labor Code sections 201, 202. The Þrst cause of action does not “clearly and a
¯irmatively” appear time-barred on its face. (See Lee v. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1225, 1232 (Lee) [a demurrer based on the statute of limitations is only permissible where the running of the statute appears “clearly and a
¯irmatively” from the dates alleged, it is not su
¯icient that the complaint might be barred].) The statute of limitations for an...

Excerpt: ...with the pleading rules governing statutory claims.” (Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 496, 407 (citing Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 790).) Here, while lengthy, the Complaint is hazy on the details when it comes to alleging how Moving Defendants' conduct constituted “neglect” within the meaning of the Act and how that neglect was a causal factor in the injuries alleged. Sp...

Excerpt: ...ing members/board o directors o POKI CAT INNOVATIONS, LLC ("POKI CAT" or "deendant LLC"), a Caliornia limited liability company ("LLC"), and its member managers/presumptive Board o Directors to pursue the below-described claims against POKI CAT, Does 1 to 25, inclusive, deendants, and each o them, and the various co-deendants or diversion, conversion, deception, embezzlement, tax raud, securities raud, breach o contract, sel-dealing,...

Excerpt: ... (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc., §437c, subds. ()(1) and (p)(2); Aguilar v. Atlantic RichÞeld Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850-851.) In support o their Motion, Plainti
¯s cite to Deendant's responses to various requests or admission and a corresponding Form Interrogatory No. 17.1. Plainti
¯s contend that Deendant's responses are devoid o actual content, evasive, and demonstrate that Deendant has no evidence to support the a
¯irmative deens...

Excerpt: ...�6th causes of action for breach of contract, negligence, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, wrongful foreclosure, cancellation of instruments, and declaratory relief. (See Mtn. P&As at pp. 5-12.) All six causes of action are based on the same set of factual allegations and the same alleged misconduct with respect to the foreclosure on plaintiff's second mortgage. (See, e.g„ Compl. 1, 4, 12, 15-21, 23 [general allegations], ...

Excerpt: ...intiff's complaint alleges that "Ryan Morris agreed to rent from Plaintiffs Insured, Ability Center / Arch Channel Investments, LLC, a 20 Toyota Sienna." (Comp'. BC-I) Plaintiff's evidnece only establishes the existence of a rental agreement between Ryan Morris and Ability Center. There is no evidnece of a rental agreement between Mr. Morris and Arch Channel Investments, LLC, or the plaintiffs other INSURED. Where a party seeking summary judgment...

Excerpt: ...f quantum meruit —that the plaintiff acted pursuant to an express or implied request for services by the defendant. LHS focuses on presenting evidence that it did not make an express request to Plaintiffs to provide any services to the non-party patients. However, LHS overlooks that a quantum meruit claim can arise where the services are provided pursuant to an implied request for services. (Ochs v. PacifiCare (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 782, 794 ["...

Excerpt: ...'s discretion to deny motion on the basis of failure to comply with Rule 3.1350]. ) Summary judgment is denied because moving parties have not shown that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that they are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff's entire operative Second Amended Complaint [SAC]. (Code Civ. Proc„ S 437c, subd. (c).) Specifically, as to the 1st cause of action, moving parties have not met their init...

Excerpt: ...ants provided pursuant to this Court's Order is inadequate because it does not contain sufficient detail to enable Plaintiff to evaluate the merits of Defendants' privilege objection. Upon review of Defendants' privilege log, the Court finds the privilege log to contain sufficient information to evaluate Defendants' claims of privilege and/or work product protection. Defendants have complied with the Court's Order that they produce a privilege lo...

Excerpt: ...uch records. Thus, the subpoenas to the billing departments of Saint Mary's and TNA Residential Care are quashed in full, and the balance of the subpoenas are quashed to the extent that they seek billing records. The motion is denied as to the balance of the records subpoenas issued by defendant. While the plaintiffs may assert a claim under the physician-patient privilege (See California Consumer Health Care Council, Inc. v. California Dept. of ...

Excerpt: ...ved informally. The party moving for a protective order bears the burden of showing good cause for issuance of the order by a preponderance of the evidence. (Stadish v. Superior Court (Southern California Gas Co.) (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130 at 1145.) Ford seeks a protective order that restricts the disclosure of trade secrets. In order to show good cause for entry of such an order, Ford must present evidence that establishes the material it seeks...

Excerpt: ...ng a cause of action "...constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language" The FAC also fails to identify each cause of action and which defendant is being asserted against. The FAC fails to allege facts sufficient as to breach of fiduciary duty. (Pierce v. Lyman (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1101 [elementsl.) This cause of action is duplicative of the cause of action for legal malpractice and is subject to demurrer. (Couch v. San ...

Excerpt: ...lifornia, Case No. 8:23-cv-00103. (See Caiafa Prof. Law Corp. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 800, 804 (Caiafa) ["when a federal action has been filed covering the same subject matter as is involved in a California action, the California court has the discretion but not the obligation to stay the state court action"; relevant considerations]; accord, Benitez v. Williams (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 270, 276.) The hearing on this OSC...

Excerpt: ...n over defendant); Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 262, 273.) Validity of Service Plaintiff has failed to establish that substituted service to George Hong or HJC America, Inc. is effective as to Moving Party. Plaintiff's argument that service was made to Moving Party's 'general manager' in California is not well taken. It is possible for service upon a wholly owned subsidiary or a contractor of a foreign entity defendant could be ...

Excerpt: ...mate decision to deny the Moton does not necessarily rely upon any point or authority raised in Defendant's filing. Plaintiff will be afforded an opportunity to respond to any argument raised in the Opposition at the hearing on the Mohon. Plaintiff's Meet and Confer Efforts A moton to compel further responses to a Request for Production of Documents "shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040." (Cal. Code Civ. Pr...

Excerpt: ...835,000.00 after completion of the LTRMN/UMBRLA transaction, breach of the obligation to give notice of the closing of the LTRMN/UMBRLA transaction, and by disparaging plaintiff in violation of section 10 of the separation agreement. Defendants only provide evidence that the term of the separation agreement did not require them to make the $835,000.00 payment, and fail to address the other two breaches that may require them to pay damages, and th...

Excerpt: ...audulent transfer and 5th cause of action for promissory estoppel/unjust enrichment are also MOOT, given the ruling on these defendants' motion to strike, discussed further below. Defendant Sheybani's demurrer to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd causes of action are OVERRULED. The court takes judicial notice on its own motion of plaintiff's original complaint and attached exhibits. (Evid. Code, S 452, subd. (d) [court records].) 1st cause of action: breach ...

Excerpt: ...ecause the Cross-complaint does not attach the contract as an exhibit, set forth the material terms of the contract verbatim, or allege the legal effect of the contract. Responding Party does not dispute that a copy of the written contract that forms the basis of the first cause of action is not attached to the Cross-complaint, and the relevant terms are not set out verbatim. Instead, Respond-ng Party argues that the Cross-complaint sufficiently ...

Excerpt: ...motion is a renewed motion for summary judgment that was denied on 08/03/23. A renewed motion must be based upon" new or different facts, circumstances, or law..." (See Code Civ. Proc. 1008, subd. (b).) Dr. Perlman's moton is not based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, and therefore is denied on that basis. Where a party seeking summary judgment has not addressed all of the relevant allegations of the complaint and/or all theori...

Excerpt: ...yled as an "Amended Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of its Motion to Consolidate." (ROA No. 82.) Even if Plaintiff's Motion met the requirements of Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.350, Plaintiff has failed to establish good cause for consolidation of these matters. In assessing a motion to consolidate, courts will typically consider the following factors: (1) timeliness of the motion: i.e., whether granting consolidation would delay t...

Excerpt: ...8) The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (ROA No. 48), brought by Plaintiff David Ulises Castro Herrera, by and through his successor in interest Leslie Plascencia, is GRANTED, in part, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure secton 2030.300. Defendant Grace Retirement Village, Inc. shall provide further verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories Nos. 26, 28, 30, 31, 32 and 33, within 15...

Excerpt: ...and 2, is GRANTED. Defendant Blum shall provide full, complete, and verified responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2, without objection, within 20 days. Plaintiff Carno Law Group's motion to compel defendant Jack Blum to provide further responses to Requests for Production, Set One, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (Code Civ. Proc., S 2031.310.) The motion is DENIED as to Request Nos. 10-12, which r...

Excerpt: ...ntitled to its post offer costs and fees. In a typical action, Moving Party would be correct. But this action is founded on discrimination and seeks the protections of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA.) Where, as here, the prevailing defendant seeks a post offer claim of attorney fees and costs, it must first show the action was "frivolous." Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC (1978) 434 LIS 412. The Christianburg court affirmed that alth...

Excerpt: ... injury." (Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal. 4th 913, 917.) Here, Cross-Defendant argues that the Crosscomplaint contains no allegation of a duty owed by Cross- Defendant, and as such, no claim for negligence can be stated against CrossDefendant. Review of the Cross-complaint itself confirms this argument. Cross-complainant's cause of action for negligence consists of a single paragraph that is nothing more than a conclusory statement th...

Excerpt: ...ROA 555] MOTION #7 of 9: Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two [ROA 547, 559] MOTION #8 of 9: Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set Three [ROA 542, 546] MOTION #9 of 9: Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, set Three [ROA 561] Plaintiff Charles S. Mosesian's ("Plaintiff") Motion to Compel Responses to his Demand for Production of Documents, Set One is GRAN ED. (See Code Civ. SS 2031.3Cü) Defen...

Excerpt: ... Court, rule 3.1346 [except under circumstances not applicable here, personal service required].) While defendants' proof of service claims that Sybilla Green Dorros (hereinafter, Ms. Green Dorros) was personally served, it states she was so served "via First Legal" and not by the declarant. This lacks personal knowledge and is insufficient to establish service. (See Katelaris v. County of Orange (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1215.) The messenger w...

Excerpt: ...than the offer at trial. (ROA No. 502; Smalley v. Subaru of America, Inc. (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 450, 453, 458 [subject 998 offer was valid, reasonable, and made in good faith; plaintiff failed to do better than the offer at triall.) Plaintiff can therefore recover only his preoffer attorney fees. "[A] valid and reasonable section 998 offer by the seller, where the buyer recovers less than the offer, precludes recovery by the buyer of postoffer at...

Excerpt: ...on, '1 7, Exh. J. Code of Civil Procedure secton 2030.300(c) states: "Unless notce of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories." Here, the emails between counsel st...

Excerpt: ...on, with the requisite specificity. (See Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2Cu) 32 Cal.4th 771, 783 [elements of elder abuse based on neglect, S#cificity]; Winn v. Pioneer Medical Group, Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 148, 152, 155 [caretaking or custtxlial relationship]; Welf. & Inst. Code, S 15610.57, subds. (a)(l), (b); Fenimore v. Regents of University of California (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1349-1351 [knowing pattern and practice of chronic ...

Excerpt: ...port of motion, "1 5 and 7; Exs. 2 and 4.) Thus, moving party was required to file a motion to compel further responses by 10-11-23. (Code Civ. Proc., S 2030.31W, subd. (c) [45 days to file motion to compel further responses]; see also (Code Civ. Prcyc., S 1010.6, subd. [additional two court days for electronic service].) The instant motion was not filed until 11-2-23, and is thus untimely. Moving party contends the instant motion is timely based...

Excerpt: ...tion Agreement, before arbitration can be compelled. (See 9 U.S.C. 52 and C.C.P. 51281.2). "If a party to a civil action asks the court to compel arbitration of the pending claim, the court must determine in a summary proceeding whether an 'agreement to arbitrate the controversy exist.'" (lyere v. Wise Auto Group (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 747, 754.) "Because the existence of the agreement is a statutory prerequisite to granting the petition, the peti...