Excerpt: ...se. A party may “simply call the court's attention to such papers.” ( Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2023) ¶ 9:53.1a.) Huston moves to quash the service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. Cross - Complainants Michael Akpeke, MD, PL dba Delta Internal Medicine Cent er and Michael Akpeke did not oppose the motion. A party opposing a motion to quash service of process for lack of per...

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: ...th Plan, Inc. was dismissed without prejudice on November 9, 2022. The parties agreed that Plaintiff reserved the right to amend to rename any of the Defendants in the event discovery proceedings in the action revealed a basis for liability against them. (ROA 21.) Plaintiff attempted to bring 360 Health Plan, Inc. back into this action w ith a Doe amendment. This attempt appears to have been improper given that Plaintiff had initially named 360 H...

Excerpt: ...nce, the documents are not properly identified. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(d)(2) [m aterial to be lodged under seal must be clearly identified as "CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL"].) The parties' stipulated protective order requires that the parties follow California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551. (See Protective Order, at ¶ 18 [ROA 124].) The Clerk's Office properly did not conditionally seal those records. (See ROA...

Excerpt: ...ded complaint. Judicial notice of other court records and files is limited to matters that are ind isputably true. This generally means that judicial notice is limited to the orders and judgments in the other court file, as distinguished from the contents of documents filed therein. (Fremont Indem. Co. v. Fremont Gen. Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 113; Arce v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 482- 484.) Code of Ci...

Excerpt: ..., 24, 25, 29, 31 -34, 36, 39 and 43- 48. As to #13 and 14, the court's file does not include any Exhibit W or X, but just a notation that they were allegedly filed under seal. However, the court's file shows none of Goldman's moving papers being filed under seal. Plaintiffs' supplemental Objections (ROA 527) are overruled. Plaintiffs had the opportunity to respond to Goldman's new evidence submitted on reply. As a threshold matter, Goldman ha...

Excerpt: ...g in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 113 2, 1158.) “Premises liability ‘is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant right to control and manage the premises'…” (Ibid.) Homeowners' associations have been held to owe duties similar to the duties of a landlord. (Frances T. v. V illage Green owners Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 490, 499.) A duty of care may not be imposed on a landlord without proof that he ...

Excerpt: ...7.1 (Unpaid Overtime Wages); 2. Violation of Labor Code § 2802(a) (Fai lure to Indemnify Necessary Expenditures); 3. Violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7, 226.7(b), and 512 (Meal Periods); 4. Violation of Labor Code § 226.7 (Rest Breaks); 5. Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.; and 6. Civil Penalties Under the Private Attorneys General Act On May 5, 2021, as a matter of right, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (...

Excerpt: ...tted, a redline version showing all changes, deletions and additions must be submitted as well. In addition, Plainti
¯ must provide proof of service of any revised settlement agreement and supplemental papers on the LWDA. Preliminary Matters Plainti
¯'s request for judicial notice (ROA 80) is GRANTED, but only as to the existence of the exhibits, not to the truth of anything asserted therein. (Evid. Code § 452(d).) As to the Settlement: 1. The...

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: ...st to compel arbitration. Plainti
¯'s individual claims and the individual portion of Plainti
¯'s PAGA claim are to be arbitrated on an individual basis. 2. The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the request to dismiss the remainder of the action, i.e., the representative portion of Plainti
¯'s PAGA claim. This portion of the case is STAYED pending the resolution of Plainti
¯'s individual arbitration. An arbitration review conference wi...

Excerpt: ...24 at 8:30 a.m. in Department CX-101. GROUNDS FOR RULING I. Background Plainti
¯ Þled this class action/PAGA lawsuit on December 29, 2022. On October 23, 2023, a Þrst amended complaint (FAC) was Þled per stipulation of the parties. The FAC also is a class action with a PAGA component. Despite these pleadings, Plainti
¯'s opposition to the motion to compel arbitration refers to his lawsuit as “PAGA- only action.” (Opp. p. 2) He makes no r...

Excerpt: ...ires Plaintiff to litigate this claim in New York. Specifically, section 12 of the “ Grant of Restricted Units of Elm Bidco, L.P.” (the “Vesting Agreement”), (FAC at ¶ 21, Exh. 2) provides: This Vesting Agreement and the rights and obligations of the parties hereto shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Cay man Islands, the parties hereto hereby submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal and state...

Excerpt: ... GRANTED. (Barak v. Quisenberry Law Firm (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 654, 66062.) Defend ants Evariste Group Manager, LLC, Andrew Stupin, and Gerald Marcil joinder in Defendants' Motion is GRANTED. Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice of Exhibits A- G is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice of Exhibits A -F is GRANTED. “The court may, on motion, change the place of trial . . . [w]hen the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justic...

Excerpt: ... section 583.210 and 583.250. Moving Defendants contend that the summons and complaint has not been served upon any of the Moving Defendants within three years after this action was commenced as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 583.210(a) such that dismissal is mandatory and jurisdictional. More speciÞcally, Moving Defendants assert that the this case was Þled on June 17, 2019; that the statutory 3-year deadline is June 17, 2022; tha...

Excerpt: ...19-32, within 30 days of service of the notice of ruling. However, if the parties have not agreed upon a Protective Order, and given both parties' representations they are prepared to execute same, the Court ORDERS Plainti
¯s and Defendant to meet and confer – in person – regarding the execution of the Protective Order. Request for Production nos. 37-41 Defendant and its counsel are ORDERED to serve full, complete, and veriÞed responses to ...

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: ...ix months of Þling. For the following reasons, defendants' motion is denied. Section 583.310 provides that “[a]n action shall be brought to trial within Þve years after the action is commenced against the defendant.” For certain cases, including this one, this period was extended for six months by COVID-19 pandemic emergency rules. Section 583.360(a) states that dismissal for failure to bring a case to trial within the required period is ma...

Excerpt: ...und of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.” “When a defendant challenges the court's personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process the burden is on the plainti
¯ to prove … the facts requisite to an e
¯ective service.” [Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413 (internal quotes omitted); see Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.] Therefore, even though defendant is the moving par...

Excerpt: ...dant may be designated in any pleading or proceeding by any name, and when his true name is discovered, the pleading or proceeding must be amended accordingly.” “‘The purpose of ... section 474 is to enable a plaintiff who is ignorant of the identity of the defendant to file his [or her] complaint before his [or he r] claim is barred by the statute of limitations.'” (Streicher v. Tommy's Electric Co. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 876, 882 (S...

Excerpt: ...t, is GRANTED in part and CONTINUED in part. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023 .010, subd. (g), 2030.030, subds. (a) and (d)(3), 2031.300, subd. (e), CCP 2031.310, subd. (i) [authorizing motion].) Moving party's request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,860.00 are imposed against defendants / crosscomplainants/cross- defendants James Turco, Margaret Cheng -Turco, Simone II, LLC, JM Investment Group, LLC, American...

Excerpt: ...es that a proper meet and confer was held to resolve the matter. That said, the court concludes that judicial economy—this is the second time the motion has been here—to move forward based on the limited information it has. This is a personal injury case. Plainti
¯ asserts she fell on her side and head from a height of three feet. The motion to quash is generic. It simply argues that the disclosure of medical records would invade plainti
¯'...

Excerpt: ...Rock Holdings, LLC; TwinRock Partners, LLC; Mo Azzurri, LLC; TRP Management Murray field, LLC; TRP Management Azzurri, LLC; TRP Management VIII, LLC; and TwinRock Management, Inc. (collectively, the “TwinRock Defendants”) Responding Party: Plaintiffs West Coast Lending, Inc.; Trenton Rhodes; and California Anchor Consulting, Inc. SERVICE : August 18, 2023, by electronic transmission RELIEF SOUGHT: Intervening Plaintiffs ask the Court to ente...

Excerpt: ...e same generic claims that have been deemed legally insu
¯icient. (See, e.g., Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890.) The Þrst amended complaint makes the same generic factual allegations but now also alleges that the defendant was convicted of driving under the inßuence of alcohol in 2015 and was given a “Watson advisement” as required by Vehicle Code section 23593. A Watson advisement informs the defendant that: “You are hereby...

Excerpt: ...ROG, No. 17.1 regarding RFA, Nos. 15 and 16 are neither complete nor straightforward as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220; that Defendant has only provided objections based on privilege and no substantive response; that the objections based on attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine do not provide an adequate description of documents claimed to be privileged such that Plainti
¯ can evaluate the merits ...