Excerpt: ...ed on July 28, 2016. The date of the alleged misrepresentation/concealment of the hypothetical cause of the alleged damage was July 29, 2016.The date of the alleged misrepresentation/concealment started the running of any applicable statute of limitations. The Complaint was filed on March 11, 2022. It appears from the Complaint that the last contact between Plaintiff and Defendant was no later than two weeks following July 29, 2016. There is no a...

Excerpt: ...is supplied). (See also Kirkeby v. Superior Court of Orange County (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 648 [“A fraudulent conveyance is a transfer by the debtor of property to a third person undertaken with the intent to prevent a creditor from reaching that interest to satisfy its claim”]; Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co. v. Schroeder (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 834, 841 [“A fraudulent conveyance under the UFTA involves a transfer by the debtor of property to a...

Excerpt: ...ke the court's power to grant writ relief. (Synergy Project Mgmt., Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 21, 30.) Under Code Civ. Proc., §1086, a petition warrants writ relief only if brought by a “party beneficially interested” when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. (Id.) A petitioner is “beneficially interested” in the issuance of a writ of administrative mandamus when ...

Excerpt: ...faction of Judgment at any time. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to present evidence that Defendant Goudie was aware of Defendant, Valley Wide Towing, LLC's independent collection activities and/or participated with his Co‐Defendant to knowingly collect more than was awarded in the judgment rendered to Valley Wide Towing LLC in the underlying action. Such evidence would be required to be presented in order for Plaintiff to prevail on either of t...

Excerpt: ...fication Page 2 of 2 when the motion to reclassify is brought after the time to amend the initial pleading. If a plaintiff moves for reclassification after the time to amend, “the court shall grant the motion and enter an order for reclassification only if both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The case is incorrectly classified. (2) The moving party shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.” C.C.P. § 403.040(b)...

Excerpt: ...e governing documents, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and costs. (Cal Civ Code § 5975(c).) A party may be considered the prevailing party if it achieves its litigation objectives. (Tuthill v. City of San Buenaventura (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 1081, 1094.) “Plaintiffs may be considered “prevailing parties” for attorney's fees purposes if they succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves ...

Excerpt: ... of fact whether (1) Defendants were negligent by failing to warn Fikse of the danger of bypassing the HTS; and (2) whether Fikse's bypassing the HTS was a superseding cause. “[T]he defense of “superseding cause” … absolves a tortfeasor, even though his conduct was a substantial contributing factor, when an independent event intervenes in the chain of causation, producing harm of a kind and degree so far beyond the risk the original tortf...

Excerpt: ...set aside default must be filed within a reasonable time, not to exceed six months, from the date of default. Further, the application must be accompanied by a copy of the proposed responsive pleading, otherwise the application shall not be granted. ...

Excerpt: ......

Excerpt: ...s for admissibility of the statements in, and exhibits attached to, Flores' declaration. Flores states that he is employed by Plaintiff in its Collection Department and has “personal knowledge of the manner in which Plaintiff's account records relating to the matter herein are compiled,” and that he has “custody and control of the business file and records relating to the account of the Defendants.” (Flores Dec., ¶¶ 1, 2.). However, Flo...

Excerpt: ...tepped into Cross‐Defendant's shoes and alleged that Cross Complainants were the cause of the accident and the damage to Cross‐Defendant's vehicle. Since State Farm has substituted in for Cross‐Defendant as the party plaintiff, Cross‐Complainants may assert any affirmative defense they might have had against Cross‐Defendant Magana including the defense of comparative negligence and apportionment of fault. Cross Complainants are also see...