Excerpt: ...e evidence on which the moving party is relying must be served with the moving papers, not with the reply. To the extent that the defendant seeks to strike the class claims on the ground that the plaintiff is not a suitable class representative as the class is defined, the motion is in substance a motion to deny class certification. No defendant may file a motion to deny class certification without leave of court. (CMO, § J.1.) The defendant nei...

Excerpt: ...der the CLRA and UCL, are not enforceable. (McGill v. Citibank, N.A. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 945, 956; Cruz v. PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 303, 307 (public injunctive relief claims under the UCL and false advertising law are not arbitrable); Broughton v. Cigna Healthplans of Calif. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1066, 1081 (actions under CLRA is not arbitrable).) However, in AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. 333, the United State...

Excerpt: ...e Court is mistaken, the plaintiff shall file a supplemental declaration explaining how this motion complies with the CMO, and asking that the hearing on the motion be re‐calendared. Even if the motion were to be heard on the merits, it would appear to be without merit. The defendant objected to the interrogatories on the ground that the plaintiff never worked for the defendant and that therefore the discovery is not likely to lead to the disco...

Excerpt: ...pel arbitration of the plaintiff's individual PAGA claim is granted. The request to dismiss the plaintiff's non‐ individual claims for an alleged lack of standing is denied. However, the plaintiff's prosecution of those nonindividual claims is stayed pending the resolution of the arbitration. In the meantime, the trial setting conference is vacated and the matter is placed in inactive status. Analysis: Defendants' first RJN seeks judicial notic...

Excerpt: ... cannot be held liable for the defective or dangerous condition of property which it did not own, possess, or control." (Preston v. Goldman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 108, 119.) Here, Page 5 of 7 the plaintiffs do not attempt to allege possession, and there is no sufficient allegation of either ownership or control. The allegations that the Weldon defendants are owners is contrary to the grant deed that shows that the Weldon defendants conveyed the propert...

Excerpt: ...is case) when forced into litigation with a third party as a result of the tortious conduct by the defendant (cross‐defendant in this case). (Mai v. HKT Cal, Inc. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 504, 512.) This doctrine was established by Prentice v. North Amer. Title Guaranty Corp., Alameda Div. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 618, in which the court held “[a] person who through the tort of another has been required to act in the protection of his interests by bring...

Excerpt: ...ion. That declaration shall describe the information contained in the defendant's financial records that cause the plaintiff to believe that the defendant cannot afford a greater sum. The latter description shall be in sufficient detail to allow the Court to make an independent evaluation of the defendant's ability to fund a larger settlement. All revised, amended, or supplemental documents shall be filed and served no later than September 22, 20...

Excerpt: ...at it seeks to tax the costs claimed by the district in that memorandum. Analysis: Procedural Background This motion was initially heard on 6‐24‐22. Prior to that hearing, the Court tentatively ruled as follows: “The plaintiff's motion is denied to the extent that it seeks an order striking the district's cost memorandum. “The plaintiff's motion is granted in part to the extent that it seeks to tax costs. Specifically, the district's cost...

Excerpt: ... After the district demurred, the plaintiff filed a first amended petition and complaint on 5‐15‐19. The district again demurred (6‐17‐19). The demurrer was sustained in part. (9‐25‐19.) The district answered the FAP/C on 10‐10‐19. Shortly thereafter, the district petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate, seeking a writ directing the trial court to sustain the demurrer to all of Roberts's claims. (11‐4‐19.) The Cou...

Excerpt: ...truction defects in their homes. That dispute was ordered to arbitration. After the initiation of the Bressler action, the Schneiders sold their house to the Browns and assigned their rights under their purchase and sale agreement (PSA) with Meritage to the Browns. Thereafter, Meritage filed a separate action against the Schneiders and the Browns by which Meritage seeks declarations: that the Schneiders' assignment to the Browns of their rights t...

Excerpt: ...s of the value of the individual claims that he is releasing (Decl. of Elliot, ¶ 7), the Court is not persuaded, for two reasons. First, the values stated are for the defendant's maximum exposure, not for the reasonable settlement value of those claims. Second, the plaintiff does not claim to have any personal knowledge of the value of those claims. Instead, he merely reiterates the estimated values that his attorneys reportedly described to him...

Excerpt: ...es the opponent of the opportunity to counter all the evidence offered in support of the motion, “[t]he general rule of motion practice . . . is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers.” (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537‐1538.) It should be allowed only in an exceptional case, and only on the condition that the opposing party be given the opportunity to respond. (Ibid.) The plaintiff does not deny that his sign...

Excerpt: ...ludes that the clerk did not err. Analysis: In their FAC, the plaintiffs alleged that the class has been wronged by the acts and omissions of the owners of the park. In particular, the plaintiffs sought relief for alleged wrongs that were committed, at their earliest, in 2017. The Court found that allegation failed because, as shown by the deed of which judicial notice was taken, the Weldon defendants transferred their interest in the park on Jul...

Excerpt: ...rt observed: “The plaintiff appears to rely on the defendant's financial condition as part of the reason for the amount of the settlement, but fails to comply with § F.4.” The plaintiff's only response appears to be to Page 4 of 5 delete paragraph 14 from the 7‐5‐22 declaration. Was the defendant's ability to pay a factor in the settlement negotiations or not? • Attorney's Fees: Pride claims to have incurred $62,000 in fees. None of th...

Excerpt: ... is denied. Analysis: The plaintiffs move for an order “approv[ing] the Arbitrator's ruling to substitute Emanuel and Anita Brown as real parties in interest for Scott and Noel Schneider as to the pending Arbitration proceeding . . . .” (Petition, pp. 1‐2.) The plaintiffs contend that the arbitrator made that ruling in his Scheduling Order #2. (Pet., pp. 6‐7.) The arbitrator did not do so. (Ex. 2 to 6‐14‐22 decl. of Turner.) Instead, ...

Excerpt: ...sed and refiled. Therefore, the following list of deficiencies is probably incomplete. The hearing on the motion is continued to 9‐14‐22 at 8:30 A.M. No later than 9‐6‐22, the plaintiff shall file amended, supplemental, or revised documents sufficient to fully comply with the CMO and all prior directives of the court. Those documents shall provide the court with specific references to the CMO provision at issue and a pinpoint cite to the ...

Excerpt: ...t to fully comply with the following: 1. The motion does not comply with § F.9.c. of the CMO. The language of the release as stated in the order at page 2 and in the SA at ¶ 21continues to exceed the limits prescribed by the CMO, i.e., that the claims to be released are limited to “only those claims described in the notice sent by the plaintiff to the LWDA, and only to the extent that they are alleged in the complaint.” The parties appear t...

Excerpt: ...ith the following directions. a. The release still does not comply with the CMO, given that it purports to release all claims “arising out of or related to” various topics. (Proposed order, ¶ 26.) The release must be limited to the claims alleged and those that could have been asserted based solely on the facts alleged. (CMO, § H.6.b.) The agreement shall be amended. b. The declaration of Singh does not comply with I.5.c. & d. If a suppleme...

Excerpt: ...roposed order will be signed. The petitioner may, but is not required to, respond. Any responsive brief shall be filed and served no later than 8‐26‐22, and shall not exceed 8 pages. Alternatively, if the petitioner expressly limits itself to the assertion that the funds raised by the SWP taxes are spent on or otherwise diverted to improper purposes, and expressly abandons all other arguments, including arguments challenging the necessity of ...

Excerpt: ...of e moving parties' counsel, Chad Morgan. That request is untimely, having been served less than 16 court days before the hearing. Moreover, it is not relevant to the motion, because it shows only that the State Bar has recommended to the Supreme Court that Morgan be suspended, and there is no evidence of what action, if any, the Supreme Court has taken in response to that recommendation. Code of Civil Procedure section 473 “The court may, upo...

Excerpt: ... of the putative class. On that same date, the Court issued its case management order. That CMO provides in relevant part: “The discovery stay under RSC Local Rule 3160(B) is vacated as to interrogatories concerning the identity of and contact information for members of the putative class. Any such interrogatories propounded by the plaintiff to the defendant shall be accompanied by (a) a proposed Belaire West notice, (b) the name of a proposed ...

Excerpt: ... Because it deprives the opponent of the opportunity to counter all the evidence offered in support of the motion, “[t]he general rule of motion practice . . . is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers.” (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537‐1538.) It should be allowed only in an exceptional case, and only on the condition that the opposing party be given the opportunity to respond. (Ibid.) When a preliminary inju...

Excerpt: ...e proposed cross‐complaint would be alleged against cross‐defendants who are not parties to the underlying judgment. Similarly, the Court has no doubt that the Agency is authorized by the judgment to bring an action to abate the unauthorized or excessive use of water within the basin against water producers who are not now parties to the judgment. That is what the Agency proposes to do by way of its second amended cross‐complaint. The quest...

Excerpt: ... the action without prejudice rather than with prejudice. 3. ¶ 2 of the order shall be revised to delete the reference to “claims of the Aggrieved Employees.” The aggrieved employees have no claims, only the state and the named plaintiff. 4. The order states that the amount of the administrator's fees is $4,000, but the administrator quotes a fee of not‐to‐exceed $3,600. The order (¶ 4.b.) shall be revised to match the quote. 5. The amo...

Excerpt: ...the motion into full compliance shall be filed no later than 8‐3‐2022. Deficiencies The deficiencies include the following: H.3.a.ii. The total amount of exposure is still unclear. In Wheeler's original declaration, he stated that the maximum exposure to PAGA penalties is $140,000. (P. 9.) Now he says that it is “approximately $125,000. (Supp. Decl. ¶ 4.) That inconsistency needs to be explained. H.3.a.iii.D. Does not state the number of w...