Excerpt: ...laim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury. [Citations.] Premises liability ‘“is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant right to control and manage the pre mises” '…” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158.) “However, ‘[a] defendant cannot be held liable for the defective or dangerous condition of property w...

Excerpt: ...nty She riff's Department shall file an answer or other pleading in response to the First Amended Complaint within 10 days of the expiration of the period of time to amend. (See Cal. Rules of Ct. rule 3.1320(j).) Defendants Orange County and Orange County Sheriff 's Department demur to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, and 9th Causes of Action of the First Amended Complaint (FAC) filed by Plaintiff Albert Hughes III. Standard for Demurrer ...

Excerpt: ...ch (“City”) is an in dispensable party. Defendants' unopposed requests for the Court to take judicial notice of a notice of violation (warning only) issued by the City of Newport Beach Harbor Department and a notice that the warning was rescinded are granted. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (c).) First cause of action for declaratory relief A defendant may demur to the complaint on the ground that there is a defect or misjoinder of parties. (Code ...

Excerpt: ...subdivision (q), suc h that Plaintiff's claims would not expire until June 27, 2023. Emergency Rule 9 provides that “[n]otwithstanding any other law, the statutes of limitations and repose for civil causes of action that exceed 180 days are tolled from April 6, 2020, until Oct ober 1, 2020.” Thus, according to Plaintiff, her Complaint filed on June 22, 2023, is timely. Plaintiff's argument is well -taken. Plaintiff relies on Roe v. Doe (...

Excerpt: ...he pleading t hat are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) No other extrinsic evidence can be considered (i.e., no “speaking demurrers”). (Ion Equip. Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881.) In testing the sufficiency of a cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded (i.e., all ultimate facts alleged,...

Excerpt: ...t issue s must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her. (See Khoury v. Maly's of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) The allegations in the FAC are not so confusing that Defendants cannot determine what to respond to. (Id., see also Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139.) General demurrer A demurrer presents an issue of law regarding the sufficiency of the allegat...

Excerpt: ...depends upon contract; a petition to compel arbitration is simply a suit in equity seeking specific performance of that contract. Little v. Pullman (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 558, 565. The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agr eement by the preponderance of the evidence, and a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense. Id. Def...

Excerpt: ...ust file a pr oof of service with the court reflecting service of these orders on the LWDA. 2. Were any exclusions, objections or disputes received for the 31 remailed notices? 3. The settlement administrator states plaintiff's individual settlement share is $517.55. I s plaintiff anticipating any other compensation (not including any enhancement payment) from the settlement (such as for any individual claims)? 4. The settlement administrator s...

Excerpt: ...n, Cal. Practice Guide: Civi l Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2021) ¶ 6:564.) Where the proposed cross -complaint arises out of the same transaction as plaintiff's claim, leave to file must be granted as long as defendant is acting in good faith. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50.) Here, Defendant's proposed cross- complaint asserts a single cause of action for breach of contract related to Plaintiffs' alleged failure to pay two years o...

Excerpt: ...ate itemized w age statements. The operative Complaint brings the following causes of action: 1. PAGA penalties 2. UCL 3. LC §§ 351, 353 4. Wage statements 5. Waiting time SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT: Aggrieved Employees Definition: PAGA Member(s) or Settlement Group Members are “all current and former nonexempt employees of Defendant who were subject to the alleged illegal and unauthorized tip pooling in California during the PAGA Period.” (§ ...

Excerpt: ... Heating, LLC (“ Defendant”). (ROA 2.) The Complaint alleged the following nine causes of action: 1. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; 2. Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; 3. Failure to Provide Accurate, Itemized Wage Statements; 4. Failure to Provide Meal Periods; 5. Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; 6. Waiting Time Penalties; 7. Failure to Maintain Records; 8. Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; and 9. Unfair Business Practices On March 3, 2023,...

Excerpt: ...rectional Drilling. The motions for summary judgment are denied. Relevant Background Plaintiff Michael Konrad filed a Complaint alleging that the subject accident occurred on December 19, 2018. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was properly and lawfully riding his bicycle when he unknowingly encountered a damaged portion in the road and was violently thrown from his bicycle to the ground and sustained serious bodily injuries. (Compl., at ¶ 1...

Excerpt: ...), (p)(2) [bu rden]; Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 - 851 [same]; see Veh. Code, § 11711.) USFIC admits it is the surety that issued the dealer bond to dealer Image Auto Group, LLC (IAG or dealer) pursuant to Vehicle Code sections 11710 and 11711. (SSMF #2.) USFIC first contends it is entitled to judgment because plaintiff Ramin Hersel (plaintiff) has dismissed his second cause of action for deceit/fraud against t...

Excerpt: ...o provide responses to plaintiff's special interrogatories and requests for production and to pay sanctions. Plaintiff's motion is denied for the following reasons. Disobeying a court order to provide discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. Cal. Civ. Pro c. Code § 2023.010(g); Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516. A trial court should consider both the conduct being sanctioned and its effect on the party seeking discov...

Excerpt: ...filed, the burden i s on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) The interrogatories at issue seek the names and contact information for: (1) all roomma tes of Casanas at the facility during the period of August 6, 2021 through August 7, 2022 (no. 13); (2) the responsible party for all residents of the facility during the perio...

Excerpt: ...plemental filing addressing defendant's new evidence. 1/19/24 Order (ROA 89). For the following reasons, defendant's motion is granted. The right to arbitration depends upon contract; a petition to compel arbitration is simply a suit in equity seeking specific per formance of that contract. Little v. Pullman (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 558, 565. The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponde...

Excerpt: ..., the court concludes that Agile has failed to meet its burden of authenticating plaintiff's purported electronic signature to the arbitration agreement. Agile provides the declaration of one of its customer service representatives and the on -site representative fo r Agile at Ortronics, Inc., Laura Caratachea, who is responsible for ensuring that employees complete their onboarding documentation. (Caratachea Dec. ¶3.) She states she was respons...

Excerpt: ...dentified a ny witness nor denied knowledge of any witness. In its further response, it should do one of these. Sanctions were not noticed; none are imposed. Motion to Compel: Anaheim Healthcare Form Rogs (ROA #67) Plaintiff's motion is denied as moot except as to sanctions. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348; see also Ho decl. [ROA #100] �...

Excerpt: ...ed Third- Party D ispute Resolution Process" affirmative defense. (See Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 590 -591 [relevance broadly defined]; Kwan v. Mercedes -Benz of North America, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174, 184 -1 85 [willfulness]; Santana v. FCA US, LLC (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 334, 346- 347 [civil penalties affirmed where manufacturer knew its repair was intentionally inadequate]....

Excerpt: ... -02883 and now pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California as No. 24 -cv -01678- SK. The motion is GRANTED, with the limited exception of Plaintiff Ronald Li's concurrent motion for curative notice and to invalidate settlement releases. The Court will decide that motion before fully staying proceedings. Defendant's unopposed request for judicial notice is GRANTED. GROUNDS FOR RULING I. Background This is a...

Excerpt: ...nd Defendant replies (ROA 52). CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS: Statement of the Law A motion to set aside a default may be brought pursuant to either Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), or section 473.5. A court has broad discretion to vacate a default or default judgment. However, this discretion can only be exercised if the moving party establishes a proper ground for relief, by proper procedure and within the appropriate periods. (...

Excerpt: ...ve class action for violations of California's debt collection laws. On October 20, 2023, Plaintiff Ali Reza Sadrarhami, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (“Plaintiff”), filed a Class Action Complaint against Defendant Nelnet, Inc. (“Defen dant”). (ROA 2.) The Complaint alleges two causes of action for: (1) Violation of Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”); and (2) Violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection P...

Excerpt: ...gment].) On 11/6/23, the court served a copy of the filedstamped “Judgment dated 11/03/23” to all parties, including to defendants' counsel, triggering the 15 -day deadline for defendants to timely file a memorandum of costs. (ROA No. 484; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a)(1); Code Civ. Proc., § 664.5, subd. (d); Van Beurden Ins. Services, Inc. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 51, 61, 64, 65- 66 [�...

Excerpt: ...ants' Special Motion to Strike Complaint (Anti -Slapp) Defendants Robert P. Mosier and Mosier & Company, Inc.'s motion to strike the entire Complaint filed by Plaintiffs, Simon Semaan, Pierrette Semaan, Mia Semaan, Simon Semaan, Jr., Melissa Semaan, a minor by and through her Guard ian Ad Litem Pierrette Semaan, and Gilberts Rizallah is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452, subds. (d), (h).) “Litigati...

Excerpt: .... Administration costs in the amount of $12,511.43, per the administrator's declaration. 4. Payment to the LWDA of $3,750, representing the LWDA's share of the amount allocated to the PAGA claim. Please submit a revised proposed order that conforms to the foregoing for the Court's signature. GROUNDS FOR FEE AWARD Counsel requests a fee award of $146,800, or 40%, of the $367,000 GSA. Per the moving papers, counsel will receive $133,000 of the $333...