Excerpt: ...pear at the Jury Trial. Plaintiffs do not contest that, but argue that certain items are excessive and/or not allowed. Each challenged item is addressed in turn as follows: ITEMS 4 (i) through (q) – DEPOSITION COSTS: Plaintiffs argue that $1,171.69 in deposition costs sought under Items 4 (i) through (q) should be taxed because they were not reasonably necessary to the litigation, or because it is unclear what the costs were for. Opposing defen...

Excerpt: ...he moving parties. However, the Court finds that the Order for Judgment filed on December 18, 2013, and the Corrected Order for Judgment filed on January 9, 2014, should be clarified. The Court finds that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 762.050 and as the real parties in interest, the moving parties and opposing party is properly before this court and the court has considered the moving papers, the opposition, and the reply. After exa...

Excerpt: ...onally serve Defendant. (CCP § 415.20.) Prevailing party to give notice. ...

Excerpt: ...mely made. /// Even if the motion was timely made, it is still improper. A motion for reconsideration must be based on new or different facts or circumstances of law. C.C.P. §1008(a). When a party seeks reconsideration he or she must show a “satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the evidence earlier, which can only be describes as a strict requirement of diligence.” Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690. Facts know by th...

Excerpt: ...gnment before the foreclosure sale are insufficient to demonstrate that the assignment was void (as opposed to voidable) and are insufficient to support the first cause of action for wrongful foreclosure. The same is true with respect to the assignment from BANA to Nationstar. With regard to the second cause of action for violation of HBOR, Plaintiff fails to allege facts to demonstrate that the alleged violations of Civ. Code §§ 2923.55 and 29...

Excerpt: ...tinued to sexually coerce her through text messages, phone calls and in person. (FAC, ¶61). She states that incidents occurred in February 2014 (FAC, ¶67 and 68), March 2014 (FAC, ¶72‐73) and May 2014 (FAC, ¶ 75). These acts of sexual battery are time‐barred. However, the final act of sexual battery alleged by Plaintiff occurred on either July 20 (FAC, §92) or July 27, 2014. (TAC, ¶78‐ 79), when Defendant sexually assaulted Plaintiff ...

Excerpt: ...been recorded in the official records of each county in which the common interest development is located.” Civ. Code, § 6531. It appears that EAA is a commercial common interest development as defined under § 6531. As such, the provisions of the Davis‐Sterling Act applicable to common interest developments, including the ADR provisions, may not apply to EAA. See Civ. Code § 4202 (provisions of part 5, Common Interest Developments, do not a...