Excerpt: ...Miller, or Mibs Matthews] from January 2019 to June 5, 2019, RELATING TO NEWPORT CROSSINGS.” A motion to compel further responses must set forth “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1); see also Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) To establish “good cause,” the burden is on the moving party to demonstrate both: (1) relevanc...

Excerpt: ...08) 158 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1126. The challenge 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. CCP § 452; Stevens v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 594, 601. All material facts properly pleaded, and reasonable inference...

Excerpt: ...xtent Faylor has any additional documents in his possession, custody or control that are responsive to Nos. 64, 66, and 67, he is ordered to produce them within 20 days. The Motion is granted as to Nos. 69 and 70. Faylor is ordered to provide amended verified responses to these requests that fully comply with the Code, within 20 days. The Motion is denied as to Nos. 75, 76, and 77. With respect to sanctions: Faylor is ordered to pay Moving Partie...

Excerpt: ...of action in the FACC. Cross-Defendant's unopposed request for judicial notice is granted. Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (h); Fellom v. Adams (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 855, 864; Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 7080.5 and 7081. Cross-Complainants' unopposed request for judicial notice is denied. Although a Court may take judicial notice of the existence of Web sites and blogs, a Court may not take judicial notice that their contents are true. Ragland v. U.S. Bank...

Excerpt: ...nd 453: 1. Lot Line Adjustment recorded on 2/11/82; 2. Easement Deed and Agreement dated 1/15/92; 3. Grant deed dated 11/12/82. The Court grants the request for judicial notice. Plaintiffs allege they own property at 31112 Hamilton Trail in Trabuco Canyon. Defendant Farah owns the property next door located at 31111 Hamilton Trail. A driveway runs down the property line, with one side of the driveway on Plaintiffs' property and the other side of ...

Excerpt: ...ant must have concealed or suppressed a material fact, (2) the defendant must have been under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff, (3) the defendant must have intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff, (4) the plaintiff must have been unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he did if he had known of the concealed or suppressed fact, and (5) as a result of the concealment or suppressio...

Excerpt: .... [¶] (b) The application shall be executed under oath and shall include all of the following: [¶] (1) A showing of the basis of the plaintiff's claim and that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property claimed. If the basis of the plaintiff's claim is a written instrument, a copy of the instrument shall be attached. [¶] (2) A showing that the property is wrongfully detained by the defendant, of the manner in which the defendant c...

Excerpt: ...Hirsa v. Superior Ct. (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488–89; Kittredge Sports Co. v. Super.Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d. 1045, 1048. The Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) is not based on the same general facts as the original complaint. Instead, it seeks to add defense counsel as a defendant and contains allegations of actions that occurred mostly during the pendency of this lawsuit, with some minor additional allegations which appear to be related...

Excerpt: ...st Amended Notice of Deposition is DENIED without prejudice. Ambrose moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (a) which provides: “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to ap...

Excerpt: ...oduction of documents (ROA 1908). Each of the PMK deposition notices were served on 1/20/21. The notices, which are identical except for the name of the defendant and the date and time of the deposition, each call for testimony on identical Categories A-R and production of documents in response to identical Categories 1-55. Orland Decs. (ROAs 1960 and 1963)., ¶¶ 19, Exhibits B. Fund II, L.P and Fund II(A) each served objections on 2/2/21. Orlan...

Excerpt: ... 20-22, Exs. D-M and O-Q. Han failed to properly answer each of the above FROG as completely and straightforwardly as the information reasonably permitted and/or did not state he did not have sufficient information to be able to fully respond to each of the FROG in question. Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.220. As such, this motion was proper. Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.300. Han is ordered to serve further responses to the above FROG within 40-days of recei...

Excerpt: ...s granted as to Form Interrogatory Nos. 6.3 and 17.1 and denied as to Form Interrogatory Nos. 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3. Plaintiffs' responses to Form Interrogatory No. 6.3 is evasive. Plaintiffs John Nord, Sheran Marron, and Simon R. Nord, III are ordered to serve a further, complete, verified response within 10 days of service of Notice of Ruling. Plaintiffs' responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3 are full and complete. Plaintiffs...

Excerpt: ..., or one or more issues of duty, if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there is no affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudi...

Excerpt: ...l stages of the proceeding, in permitting the amendment of pleadings in order to resolve cases on their merits. (IMO Development Corp. v. Dow Corning (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 451, 461.) It is a “rare case” in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. (Douglas v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 155, 158.) The liberal policy of permitting amendments is not without limitation or qualification. The policy of liberality in permitting amen...

Excerpt: ...iff's application for preliminary approval of a settlement reached in the action. The referenced litigation is slated to resolve with no monetary benefit of any kind to the class members, but with an agreement from defendant to modify its advertising to exclude the following phrases: (1) “no negative side efforts”; (2) “no side effects”; and (3) “100% safe”. In addition to this injunctive relief, defendant has agreed to pay plaintiff ...

Excerpt: ... anti- SLAPP motion and the appeal, was whether the Burkholders' complaints to the HOA regarding potential view obstruction were made in “connection with an issue of public interest.” Ultimately, the court came out in favor of plaintiffs on this issue but defendants' position was not without support. Defendants' original motion cited various authorities involving disputes involving HOAs, which supported defendants' contention that the instant...

Excerpt: ...proposes the following deductions/allocations: Attorney Fees: $50,000.00 Litigation Costs: $11,859.46 Plaintiff Enhancement: $7,500.00 Admin. Costs: $5,250.00 LWDA PAGA Penalties: $3,750.00 Class size: 47 Net to employees: $71,640.54 All class members: $66,871.01 (67% 1099) Wage sub-class: $3,519.58 (67% 1099) PAGA employees: $1,250.00 (100% 1099) There has been complete satisfaction of the notice requirement, and zero objections or opt- outs. As...

Excerpt: ...roval stage. Is there a difference between a “unique individual record” and a “class member”? Is the reduction due to the fact that some putative class members names were originally included more than once on the list of potential class members? At the preliminary approval stage, the court was informed there would be 332,985 Class Members. (Hodne Decl. ¶9). The court needs an explanation for this discrepancy. 2. Where the Administrator m...

Excerpt: ...able issue with respect to same. Defendants Brite Dental (“Moving Defendant”) contends Plaintiff's entire action is time barred because Plaintiff received dental treatment of a root canal therapy and placement of the crown on tooth #30 from Moving Defendant on December 1 and 10, 2015; Plaintiff was forced to visit an emergency dental care facility due to frequent pain and loss of hearing in or about June 2016; on June 29, 2016, Plaintiff was ...

Excerpt: ...n of “writing”] & 1014 [authentication of a writing is required before the writing or secondary evidence of its content may be received in evidence].) “Evidence received at a law and motion hearing must be by declaration or request for judicial notice without testimony or cross-examination, unless the court orders otherwise for good cause shown.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1306(a).) A motion for reconsideration made by a party must be b...

Excerpt: ...that Plaintiff had engaged in similar fraudulent conduct with other third parties and is the subject of other pending lawsuits by third parties. This information, however, does not constitute “new” “facts” or “circumstances” which “could not, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered and produced at the time of the prior motion” as required. (See Forrest v. State Of California Dept. Of Corporations (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183...

Excerpt: ...n Deon Sims are sustained. The joint declaration is not executed under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, nor does it expressly state that it was executed in California. It therefore fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure §2015.5 and its contents are inadmissible. Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial Corp. (2004) 33 Cal. 4th 601, 610-11 (a declaration that doesn't strictly comply with §2015.5 is inadmissible on...

Excerpt: ...material fact as to whether he made the subject misrepresentations/false promises and whether plaintiff Alan S. Inbody (plaintiff) justifiably relied on them, causing plaintiff damages. Furthermore, even if Candland had met his initial burden, which he has not, plaintiff's evidence in opposition to the motion only further demonstrates that there are triable issues of material fact with respect to these claims. Specifically: 1. Contrary to Candlan...

Excerpt: ... to enforce the agreement. (Jones v. Jacobson (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1, 15.) Defendant has failed to meet this burden. First, contrary to defendant's contentions, plaintiffs did not expressly agree to arbitrate their claims against Kia. The arbitration agreement explicitly requires only plaintiffs and the nonparty seller to resolve “any dispute between us”— i.e., any disputes between plaintiffs and the nonparty seller (including the seller'...

Excerpt: ...ction. Before the Court this day is plaintiff's application for preliminary approval of a settlement reached in the action. The referenced litigation is slated to resolve for a gross settlement amount of $525,000.00. From there, counsel proposes the following deductions/allocations: Attorney Fees: $175,000.00 Litigation Costs: $20,000.00 Plaintiff Enhancement: $15,750.00 Admin. Costs: $8,000.00 Class size: 213 Net to employees: $306,250.00 Class ...