Excerpt: ... was the general contractor for the roof replacement project, and moving defendants are the building owners. Defendants argue that the Privette doctrine applies and they are not liable because they did not create the dangerous condition nor did they exercise control over the roofing project that resulted in Plaintiff's death. Privette v Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689. The Privette doctrine bars a contractor's employee from suing the hirer on...

Excerpt: ...1350(f).) If it is disputed, then the opposing party must state the nature of the dispute and supporting evidence. (Id.) Plaintiff fails to comply with CRC 3.1350(f) on several facts, merely stating “disputed,” or “unknown” to Plaintiffs. Plaintiff improperly relies on his interrogatory responses, in violation of CCP §2030.410. A party may not use its own interrogatory response in support of its papers for summary judgment. (Great Americ...

Excerpt: ...igen retained the right to approve or disapprove the appointment of a service provider, and no misrepresentations were made. Altigen contends that the Unfair Competition cause of action fails for the same reasons. Intellitalk alleges the independently wrongful conduct arises out of Altigen rejecting customer requests for transfer of their accounts to Intellitalk starting in mid‐2016, and representing falsely that they had to be serviced by West...

Excerpt: ...d causes of action for breach of express and implied warranty under the SongBeverly Act is four years. (Krieger v. Nick Alexander Imports, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 205, 215.) “A cause of action normally accrues when under the substantive law the wrongful act is done and the liability or obligation arises, that is, when action may be brought.” (Mosesian v. County of Fresno (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 493, 500.) However, under the “discovery rul...

Excerpt: ...pplicable standard of care; (2) there was no neglect or abuse on the part of Moving Defendant; (3) no conduct by Moving Defendant caused Plaintiff's injuries; and (4) there is no basis for the enhanced remedies sought by Plaintiffs. These are four of the six issues set forth in the separate statement. With respect to the issues of standard of care and causation, Moving Defendant offers the expert opinion of Daniel Bessler, M.D., who affirms that ...

Excerpt: ...e risk to invitees, have a duty to make the condition reasonably safe for the use of customers or to provide warnings adequate to enable them to avoid the harm. CAR fails to show that it did not have actual notice of the obstruction of the doorway, or would not have known about it through a reasonable inspection. The short duration of the obstruction, without more, is not dispositive proof to negate constructive notice. Whether a dangerous condit...

Excerpt: ...nder this agreement, Petitioner agreed to pay the commodity rate for reclaimed water at the same rate adopted by the Respondent for other reclaimed water customers. In 2015, Respondent substantially increased its rate for reclaimed water. Petitioner objects to this increase. It asserts Respondent's facilities consist of a North City Plant and South Bay Plant. It contends it is improperly being forced to pay for fees associated with the North City...

Excerpt: ...d under accepted accounting methods should not have been comingled in the one account held by defendant. (See Undisputed Material Fact (UMF) Nos. 2, 4, and Declaration of Jim Vitelli, CPA at ¶¶ 8‐10.) Vitelli, a certified public accountant, explains in his declaration filed in support of the opposition that deposits are a debit to the cash account and a credit to the liability account and held as a liability until the service is rendered, at ...

Excerpt: ...eceived her Declaration in support of a motion for reconsideration. Both Sherron and Williams separately and specially move to strike based on the litigation privilege and either CCP Section 425.16(e)(1)‐(2). Sherron and Williams have met their initial burden to show that their actions are protected speech under the first prong analysis of the Anti‐Slapp statute. The opposition now has the burden of proof to establish that she will prevail on...

Excerpt: ...where Plaintiff fell did not constitute an unreasonabley dangerous condition and that the disabled parking space where Plaintiff's mother was parked met all ADA requirements. (Snyder Decl., ¶¶ 9‐10 14‐16.) Based upon Snyder's testimony – which is accepted as admissible without argument – SGMH meets its initial burden to demonstrate that it did not breach a duty of care and that Plaintiff, therefore, cannot establish all of the necessary...

Excerpt: ...aint arises from Defendant's exercise of free speech or petition rights as defined in CCP Section 425.16(e). Courts have adopted an expansive view of protected speech to include any statements or writings made before any judicial proceeding, including pleadings, statements, and writings “ in connection with” litigation. A statement or writing is ‘in connection with litigation' if it relates to the substantive issues in the litigation and is...

Excerpt: ... CCP Section 2030.230 is response to the discovery. To invoke Section 2030.230, a responding party must specify the writings, with sufficient detail, from which the answer may be ascertained. The responding party must show that a compilation is required to answer. Plaintiff provides no basis as to why a compilation is required. Further, Plaintiff asks Defendant to review the repair orders to determine the basis for Plaintiff's contentions under F...

Excerpt: ...ed to raise a triable issue of material fact. Plaintiff does not properly cite to his supporting evidence (BURNETT010 and PVE, Ex.”4”[DT‐Nunez} for PRSS, UMF No.14 and PRSS, UMF No.127) The court cannot determine whether the evidence in support is admissible, nor can the court rule on any potential objections to that evidence. The balance of the Motion for Summary Adjudication is otherwise Denied on the ground that MFS has failed to meet it...

Excerpt: ...lity cause of action. As for the negligence/premises liability causes of action, Defendants produced evidence that they had no prior knowledge that the dog that caused Plaintiff to fall and/or attempted to bite him had any vicious or dangerous propensities. They had never witnessed or received any reports or complaints regarding the dog nor did the dog exhibit any vicious tendencies. (UMF 35‐41 and Plaintiff's response thereto.) The burden shif...

Excerpt: ...ed to raise a triable issue of material fact. Plaintiff does not properly cite to his supporting evidence (BURNETT010 and PVE, Ex.”4”[DT‐Nunez} for PRSS, UMF No.14 and PRSS, UMF No.127) The court cannot determine whether the evidence in support is admissible, nor can the court rule on any potential objections to that evidence. The balance of the Motion for Summary Adjudication is otherwise Denied on the ground that MFS has failed to meet it...

Excerpt: ...st cause of action for breach of contract). The only new evidence that Defendant cites as a basis for this renewed motion is the deposition testimony of Plaintiff's PMQ (Madge). Defendant argues that based upon the testimony of Madge, there is no evidence of fraud: (1) Madge did not speak with anyone from the Defendant, including Defendant's broker; (2) neither Defendant nor any of its representatives made any representation about the warehouse o...

Excerpt: ...analysis the court must ignore the unprotected acts and focus on the protected activity. However, the court must still determine whether the protected acts constitute the gravamen of the actions alleged in the Cross‐Complaint. The court agrees with Cross‐Defendant that she is being sued for her filing of the complaint and lis pendens, which caused, in part, the breach of the settlement agreement for which Cross‐Complainant is seeking damage...

Excerpt: ...'s Declaration – Overrule on 1‐10, Sustain on Objections11 and 12; Lotze Declaration – Objection 13 – Overrule as to the first sentence and sustain as to the second sentence. Overrule on 14‐21; Erdman Declaration—Overrule on 22, 24, 25 and 28. Sustain on 23, 26 and 27; Hamilton Declaration—Overrule on 29, 30, 32‐35. On 31, Sustain as to the last two sentences, otherwise overrule; Griffin Declaration – Overrule on 36, 39, and 40....

Excerpt: ... to the alleged date. Here, the Complaint was not filed in close proximity to April 12, 2020, therefor, it was not timely filed under the one‐year contractual limitations period set forth in the insurance policy. However, Judicial Council of California, Emergency Rule 9, provides, in pertinent part, “Notwithstanding any other law, the statutes of limitations and repose for civil causes of action that exceed 180 days are tolled from April 6, 2...

Excerpt: ...ur Reply To Motion To Contest Application For Good Faith Settlement Determination. Court finds that Murphy has still not submitted any evidence of Plaintiff's total damages as required under Tech‐Bilt v. Woodward‐Clyde (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499. The factors to be considered under Tech‐Bilt include, “ a rough approximation of plaintiffs' total recovery and the settlor's proportionate liability, the amount paid in settlement, the allocation...

Excerpt: ...urt to reconsider its ruling and reasoning in light of Malott under CCP section 1008(b). However, this matter is not like Malott. Petitioner did not fail to attend the public hearings held by Respondent, unlike Malott. Respondent held at least 8 hearings or meetings in which the issue was discussed and where Petitioner attended, presented evidence, had its representatives speak at each meeting, gave Power Point presentations at several meetings, ...

Excerpt: ...re Overruled because the Declarant has provided the actual photographs of the scene. Defendants attack the causation element of a negligence claim (premises liability), which is the only cause of action asserted against these Defendants. The tragic accident occurred when Defendant Gall exited the Farmer Boys restaurant using the westerly exit, attempted to cross multiple lanes of westbound Van Buren, seeking to reach the left turn pocket on Van B...

Excerpt: ...cable standard of care and causation. Welf. & Inst. Code Section 15610.57(a); Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley, LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 405‐ 407; Flatt v. Superior Court (1994) 9 Cal.App.4th 275, 293. CPA's expert, Karen Josephson has provided a declaration indicating that CPA's conduct did not breach its applicable standard of care or cause Plaintiff's injuries. (Karen Josephson's Declaration, ¶¶ 6.D. and 7.) Due to this, C...

Excerpt: ...herently dangerous about the stairway and Plaintiff tripped merely because it was dark outside. Failure to provide adequate lighting may create a dangerous condition on property. Defendants have not produced any evidence that the subject stairway was adequately lit. The only evidence offered by Defendant, Plaintiff's special interrogatory responses, indicate that the lights in the stairway were not working. (Exh. B, Response No.1) Defendants have...

Excerpt: ... seek immediate review of the court's Ruling sustaining the Demurrer without Leave, nor was this issue raised on Appeal. The disposition on appeal was to reverse the judgment with directions to the trial court “to vacate its ruling on summary adjudication and enter a new order denying the motion on this issue.” (RJN iso Opposition, Exh.2.) The appellate court noted : “The body of the cause of action alleges intent to defraud, suggesting tha...