Excerpt: ... occupied, or controlled the property; 2) the Defendant was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property; 3) the Plaintiff was harmed; and 4) the Defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff. (CACI No. 1000.) A defendant is negligent in the use or maintenance of the property if: 1) A condition on the property created an unreasonable risk of harm; 2) the Defendant knew or, through the exercise of reasonable c...

Excerpt: ...inally a PAGA-only matter brought against Defendants U Gym, LLC and Costa Mesa Gym, LLC, both alleged as doing business as UFC Gym Costa Mesa. In August 2021, U Gym, LLC settled a related PAGA case pending in Sacramento Superior Court, Manzares v. U Gym, LLC, Sacramento SC No. 34-2020- 00284868. (1 st Perez Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff and Defendants apparently agreed the Manzares settlement extinguished Plaintiff's PAGA claim against U Gym, LLC, but ...

Excerpt: ...records under Evidence Code §§452(d). However, while courts may take judicial notice of court records and their dates, parties and legally operative language, they do not accept the truth of matters stated in those documents. Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2011) 198 Cal. App. 4th 256, 264-65; Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2011) 196 Cal. App. 4th 1366, 1375. NMAC has shown good cause for a subsequent deposition of Michael Kah...

Excerpt: ... Case No. 30-2017- 00908279; Anderson v. The Irvine Company, LLC, Case No. 30-2017-00907780; Anderson v. The Irvine Company, LLC, Case No. 30-2017-00908262 and Abousheta v. The Irvine Company, LLC, Case No. 30-2017-00920789. The Court GRANTS Moving Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice (ROA 875). When there are actions involving common questions of law or fact pending, a court may order a joint trial of any or all of the matters in issue in the...

Excerpt: ...des, “The duration of the implied warranty of merchantability and where present the implied warranty of fitness shall be coextensive in duration with an express warranty which accompanies the consumer goods, provided the duration of the express warranty is reasonable; but in no event shall such implied warranty have a duration of less than 60 days nor more than one year following the sale of new consumer goods to a retail buyer. Where no durati...

Excerpt: ...l must be injured by his reliance. (US Ecology, Inc. v. California (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 887, 901.) “[T]he doctrine of promissory estoppel is essentially equitable in nature.” (C & K Engineering Contractors v. Amber Steel Co. (1978) 23 Cal.3d 1, 8.) It “employs equitable principles to satisfy the requirement that consideration must be given in exchange for the promise sought to be enforced.” (Raedeke v. Gibraltar Sav. & Loan Assn. (1974)...

Excerpt: ...�Every manufacturer of consumer goods sold in this state and for which the manufacturer has made an express warranty shall: . . . [¶] (3) Make available to authorized service and repair facilities sufficient service literature and replacement parts to effect repairs during the express warranty period.” In support of the third cause of action the Complaint alleges that: “In violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3), Defendant...

Excerpt: ...nue argues that venue has been improperly laid in Orange County because defendants Hernandez and Hire Well Screening Solutions, Inc., are residents of Madera County. The plaintiff concedes Hernandez is a resident of Madera County but argues venue is still proper in here because Hernandez committed the wrongful acts in Orange County at the plaintiff's business. As for Hire Well Screening Solutions, Inc., the complaint alleges that although it is a...

Excerpt: ...ormance, (3) the defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damage to the plaintiff.” (Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1186.) In the demurrer, Defendant argues, “It is clear from the language of the contracts that Plaintiff's returns on his investment is a future even that is yet to be determined. To assert a breach of contract cause of action here is premature.” Here, Plaintiff alleges at paragraph 38 of the FAC, “In or ab...

Excerpt: ...tlement agreement', to avoid use of limited Court time and resources. As to the Settlement 1. Although the Davis Declaration indicates “information regarding the preliminary approval hearing” was provided to the LWDA (ROA 386, Davis Decl., ¶75), it is unclear if this means the moving papers were served on the LWDA. If so, proof of service of the moving papers on the LWDA should be filed with the Court. 2. The Settlement and Plaintiffs repres...

Excerpt: ...he Court reminds counsel to comply with all applicable statutes and rules and any future failure to do so may result in the motion being taken off calendar or denied, if appropriate. A separate statement in opposition to a motion for summary judgment must indicate if the opposing party disputes each material fact and, if so, include a reference to the supporting evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(b)(3); California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350(f)(...

Excerpt: ... is in default for nonpayment of rent; (4) the tenant has been properly served with a written three-day notice; and (5) the default continues after the three-day notice period has elapsed.” (Kruger v. Reyes (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th Supp. 10, 16, citation omitted.) A valid three-day pay rent or quit notice is a prerequisite to an unlawful detainer action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1161(2); Cal-American Income Property Fund IV v. Ho (1984) 161 Cal.App.3...

Excerpt: ...bjections pursuant to Evid. Code §§ 970, 971, and 980, and objections against self-incriminating pursuant to 5th Amendment rights. The court finds none of these objections are applicable to the questions at this present time. 1) Marital Privilege Objections (Evid. Code §§ 970, 971, 980) As to the marital privilege objections, none of the questions request any information about Lamberto's wife, co-defendant Meredith Anne Castillo (“Meredith�...

Excerpt: ...Plaintiff also argues that Lovett's employment file is highly relevant to the claim of negligence against Lovett and the Defendant Capistrano Unified School District (the “District”). Plaintiff asserts that the employment file would likely contain information regarding Lovett's prior notice concerning Plaintiff's doctor note and/or prior misconduct, and could likely demonstrate a history of inappropriate behavior such that production of it wi...

Excerpt: ...ntain that Defendant's responses are insufficient. Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220 provides, “A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demande...

Excerpt: ...of service complying with the 8/30/2021 Minute Order. He failed to do so. 2. Demurrer by USA Hotel Group LLC to FAC by Rafael Arroyo in 30-2020- 01173676 (ROA #306, 308, 311, 313, 314) The demurrer was served only on the plaintiff's counsel in violation of Judge Hunt's 8/30/2021 Minute Order. On 5/26/2022, moving party was ordered to file proof of service showing compliance with the 8/30/2021 Minute Order, and plaintiff was ordered to file the FA...

Excerpt: ...ur x 10 hours) + $60 for filing fee).] The Requests for Admissions (Set Two) contained requests Nos. 51 to 89. Cross-Defendant Yard House USA, Inc. objected to every one of the requests. The court finds the objections were without merit. In response to Request for Admissions Nos. 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 73, 82, 84, 88 & 89, Yard House USA, Inc. stated: “Responding party objects to the request on the g...

Excerpt: ...FA employee Flow Servan approached Ellen Manley by telephone and email with interest in acquiring Manley's Boiler. (E. Manley Decl. ¶ 8.) After sending a letter of intent, he flew out to California to meet with Ellen Manley and her husband to further negotiate an acquisition. (Id.) SFA is not a party to any of the agreements at issue in this action. (See Bovard Decl.¶ 7.) SFA is the ultimate parent of Manley's LLC. (Alvarez Depo. at 47:14-18.) ...

Excerpt: ...enses. Plaintiff sued for breach of contract, fraud, conversion, and other claims. In the early iterations of the Complaint, Defendant Ewin Ashely, M.D. is alleged only to have “participated and consented.” Defendants' default was entered on 4/10/2018. A default judgment in the amount of $400,785 was entered on 9/17/2019 against those listed in attached judgment caption – but there was no such attachment. The Judgment also refers to an atta...

Excerpt: ...is limited to the “four corners” of the pleading (which includes exhibits attached and incorporated therein) or from matters outside the pleading which are judicially noticeable under Evidence Code §§ 451 or 452. On demurrer, a complaint must be liberally construed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 452; Stevens v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 594, 601.) All material facts properly pleaded, and reasonable inferences, must be accepted as true. (A...

Excerpt: ...rt must accept as true all allegations of fact contained in the complaint. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the affected pleading, not the truth of the factual allegations in the pleading or the pleader's ability to prove those allegations. (Cundiff v. GTE Cal., Inc. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1404-05.) Questions of fact cannot be decided on demurrer. (Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt....

Excerpt: ...iciency of the affected pleading, not the truth of the factual allegations in the pleading or the pleader's ability to prove those allegations. (Cundiff v. GTE Cal., Inc. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1404-05.) Questions of fact cannot be decided on demurrer. (Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1556.) Because a demurrer tests only the sufficiency of the complaint, a court will not consider facts that have not been all...

Excerpt: ...version of any revised papers, including the class notice. Counsel also should provide the court with an explanation of how the pending issues were resolved, with references to any corrections to the settlement agreement and the class notice, rather than with just a supplemental declaration or brief that simply asserts the issues have been resolved. The moving points and authorities are 28 pages long, far exceeding the 15-page limit of CRC Rule 3...

Excerpt: ...e, that date was 6/17/2022. The opposition papers were woefully late, filed and served on Cape Frio only 2 days before the court hearing. Nevertheless, although the court has broad discretion under CRC rule 3.1300(d) to refuse to consider papers served beyond the deadline, (Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 755, 765) the court has considered plaintiff's opposition here. Cape Frio's Request for Judicial Notice Cape Frio's unopposed r...

Excerpt: ...chose not to respond to the Petition. (ROA 21) Legal Standard “The Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (MFAA), under Business and Professions Code section 6200 et seq., provides a quick and inexpensive method for clients, at their option, to resolve fee disputes with their attorneys.” (Law Offices of Dixon R. Howell v. Valley (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1083; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6200, subd. (c) [“Unless the client has agreed in writing to arbi...