Excerpt: ...proving that 420 and AMG violated municipal ordinance and have created a public nuisance, there is a presumption of public harm and the City need not produce evidence of harm. Neither of the Defendants Page 2 of 2 presented evidence of harm to rebut this presumption. Defendants cannot establish that they will suffer harm if prevented from operating or permitting an unlawful marijuana dispensary in violation of local ordinances. ...

Excerpt: ...scriminatory practices. (Gov. Code § 12965(c); Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 211.) The Supreme Court noted that “proof of an adverse employment decision was substantially motivated by discrimination may warrant a judicial declaration of employer wrongdoing. Declaratory relief, where appropriate, may serve to reaffirm the plaintiff's equal standing among her coworkers and community, and to condemn discrimination employme...

Excerpt: .... (Defendant was served with the Summons, Complaint, etc., on August 20, 2017 and filed an Answer, with the assistance of his former counsel, on October 24, 2017.) Defendant's Responses were not served on Plaintiff by Defendant's current counsel until March 27, 2018. Defendant did not submit any evidence to the Court that the parties agreed to an extension of time to serve the Responses with objections. Moreover, Defendant's Responses were not ve...

Excerpt: ...iscovery Act specifically permits contention interrogatories with no time restriction. The motion is MOOT as to Special Interrogatories 2, 5 and 28 and numbers 4 and 30. Supplemental responses were provided very late, which identify the portion of the CC&Rs that provide the duty. The motion is GRANTED as to Special Interrogatories 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, and 18, 20, 21, 22. If Plaintiffs are not aware of any personal facts, and can only rely on expert o...

Excerpt: ...dence proving an effective service. (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390.) The request for sanctions is denied for failure to comply with the 21 day waiting period. (Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5(f) & 128.7(c)(1); Nutrition Distribution, LLC v. Southern Sarms, Inc. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 117, 127.) Plaintiff Mireya Arias and her attorney, Rogelio V. Morales, are Ordered to appear and show cause, if any,...

Excerpt: ... the issues in this case (i.e., regarding privileged Medical Executive Committee meetings, and with respect to several physicians that never cared for decedent; about Mr. Uffer's knowledge of other lawsuits from physicians (who were not involved in this action); and regarding the sexual relations of members of Corona Regional administration and medical staff). The information obtained is confidential and has the potential to cause Corona Regional...

Excerpt: ...o authority was provided to the Court that a general allegation of ownership and/or control is insufficient for pleading purposes. A Complaint is not defective because of an allegation of joint ownership and control. (More v. City of San Bernardino (1931) 118 Cal.App. 732, 737. Gov. Code § 830(c).) Less particularity is required where the defendant may be assumed to possess knowledge superior to that possessed by the plaintiff. Finally, the Comp...

Excerpt: ......

Excerpt: ...cates that as of the date of the opposition, no policy is in defendant's possession and that it will produce the policy when in possession of it. Page 2 of 2 Demands 7, 18, and 19 (as to attorney client privilege and/or work product objections): Defendant failed to comply with C.C.P. §2031.240(b) and (c). Defendant did not identify with particularity documents falling within any category of item in the Demands to which the objection is being mad...

Excerpt: ...R.S. v. Superior Court, supra, 172 Cal. App. 4th at 1056.) The Juvenile Court previously determined that Defendants could use the subject juvenile case files to defend this litigation. ...

Excerpt: ... large part, upon the distinction between a pharmacy, which primarily provides a service, and a retailer, which sells goods. Thus, any theory of strict liability that seeks to treat a pharmacy as a retailer contravenes the reasoning upon which the decision in Murphy is based. For this same reason, a breach of warranty claim does not lie against a pharmacy. (Hector v. Cedars–Sinai Med. Ctr. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 493, 508 n. 3; Shepard v. Alexian...

Excerpt: ...served on 11/18/17. Defendants served their responses on 12/28/17, more than 30 days after the responses were due. Thus, all objections to the Demands for Production were waived by Defendants. (CCP § 2031.300(a).) Plaintiff's Separate Statements indicate that Demand Numbers 2 ‐ 15 and 18 ‐ 21 contained objections. As such, Defendants are Ordered to provide further responses without objections to these Demands within 20 days. Defendants' resp...

Excerpt: ...submission of new evidence (William Chu's declaration ¶¶ 28‐31). Second cause of action: The law of the case doctrine does not apply and Defendants failed to establish restitution is not applicable. Fourth cause of action: Defendants did not provide evidence that completely disposes of the entire cause of action. Fifth cause of action: Defendants failed to meet their initial burden. Sixth and seventh causes of action: There are triable issues...

Excerpt: ...aintiff did not plead facts or circumstances that indicate exhaustion would be futile or that an administrative process under IDEA could not provide at least some of the remedies she is seeking. As to the seventh and eight causes of action, the Demurrers are SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Government Code section 910 et. seq., identifies several requirements for the contents of a government claim and procedures for filing the claim with a governme...

Excerpt: ... v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444.) Where a party contends that a judgment is valid on its face but void for lack of proper service, it is similar to C.C.P. §473.5 relief, and must be sought within 2 years. (Trackman v. Kenney (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 175, 181.) Based on the Declaration of defendant Veit, the presumption of valid service on defendant ORZ Corp., was rebutted. The Statement of Information which Plaintiff...

Excerpt: ...ined former defendant City of Moreno Valley's Demurrer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend. The Court ruled that Plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege facts that could permit the finder of fact to conclude that the City's crosswalk was a dangerous condition of public property. The allegations of Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint do not add material or substantial facts which under which the finder of fact could now c...

Excerpt: ...l amount of reduction is $4,607.15. Mr. Camarena's memorandum of costs was filed one day late. However, the Court exercises is broad discretion to allow relief from the late filed memorandum of costs because there is no showing of prejudice to Mr. Conkwright. (Hoover Cmty. Hotel Dev. Corp. v. Thomson (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 485.) Filing Fees: The motion is denied as to these costs. Service of Process Costs: The motion is granted as to these costs o...

Excerpt: ... in the OBGYN department. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Parkview attempted to discourage her from making the complaint and once she made it, Dr. Nurick (Vice Chief of all Medical Staff) trivialized her complaint suggesting Plaintiff was just not used to the interactions. These allegations are sufficient at the pleading stage. Plaintiff alleges facts supporting a claim for punitive damages based on the allegation of sexual harassment by Salazar....

Excerpt: ...dditionally, plaintiff offered to provide a written answer to the question. (2) ELIZABETH – “did you make the decision to sue Tom and Mizuki?” – GRANT The Opposition fails to establish that ELIZABETH's decision to sue was made in the course of attorney‐client privileged communications with her attorney. (3) ELIZABETH – what bank the Derby house sales proceeds went into – GRANT Given the dispute and the cross‐claims for fraud and f...

Excerpt: ...to advance an interest that it and defendant Chambless shared in securing legal advice on a common matter. (OXY Resources California LLC v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 874.) The further responses of defendant Chambless shall be served on or before April 30, 2018. No sanctions are awarded in this discovery dispute in which plaintiff Daly and defendant Chambless both acted with substantial justification. The Court will complete and file t...

Excerpt: ...iff does not dispute or explain Defendant Steele's declaration stating that it was Plaintiff who unilaterally cancelled the contract. Thus, the Motion is DENIED. ...

Excerpt: ...discrimination, harassment and retaliation with the DFEH on March 1, 2017. The Complaint alleges that the adverse employment actions occurred on or around February 14, 2017. The judicially noticeable documents show that Plaintiff filed his amended DFEH Complaint naming defendant Taft on February 28, 2018. Therefore, the amended complaint was untimely pursuant to Govt. Code §12960. Because the requirement that the DFEH complaint must state the na...

Excerpt: ...169; Moore v. Preventive Medicine Medical Group, Inc. (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 728, 747.) The failure to label the second cause of action as one for “professional negligence” does not render the Complaint uncertain. Demurring Defendants can reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied and what claims are directed against them. (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) ...

Excerpt: ...er Responses are GRANTED. Defendant Alfa Business filed timely Motions to Compel Further Responses. Hence, the burden was on Plaintiffs to justify the objections they asserted to the subject Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, and Requests for Production and/or to justify their failure fully to respond to the discovery. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220 ‐ 221.) Plaintiffs did not satisfy that...

Excerpt: ....) Fourth Cause of Action (Declaratory Relief): A claim for declaratory relief requires a present controversy between the parties. None of the allegations in the First Amended Complaint challenge the validity of the Deed of Trust in favor of CommerceWest or state a basis for avoiding the Deed of Trust. Additionally, plaintiff Janaco cites no agreement or basis for the Court to substitute Janaco in place of defendant ZXCR as the obligor on the loa...