Excerpt: ... of 3 elevator to get to the ground floor.” Plaintiff also asserts that the failure to warn that the ground floor was under construction, that there was no exist, and that a key card was required, created an unreasonable risk of pedestrian accidents and injuries. (PSS, UMF No. 32.) She asserts that these dangerous conditions contributed to/caused the subject incident. (PSS, UMF Nos. 33, 40.) Plaintiff asserts that under the circumstances, she a...

Excerpt: ...fy a good faith settlement. Furthermore, she does not provide a copy of the Mikhail settlement to confirm that Mikhail actually settled the claims as asserted against her. The stipulation between McShane, Mikhail and Plaintiff regarding the Mikhail's assumption of liability has no bearing on the Pharmacy Defendants' cross‐complaint as it is not binding as to them. ...

Excerpt: ...me, particularly where the receiver would be engaging in the same action – to evict the tenant. There is nothing for a receiver to do at this point. There is no reason to incur the significant expense of a receiver. ...

Excerpt: ...court earlier that a cross‐complaint had been filed. Hence, reconsideration is appropriate. However, upon reconsideration the Motion to Quash is GRANTED. When one weighs the privacy rights of the Tatums against James' need to conduct discovery into claims presented in a cross‐complaint that had been filed by his co‐defendant and that he does not have any interest in, the privacy rights of the Tatums prevail. Without being a party to the cro...

Excerpt: ... of 3 More importantly, the Motion was not supported by declaration containing the information required under Rule 3.1324(b). The Motion is supported by the Declaration of Jessica R. Underwood, who indicates that Plaintiff was deposed on March 16, 2018 and testified as to Hurtado's involvement with the vehicle. However, the declaration does not state that the information was discovered at the deposition or why leave to amend was not sought earlie...

Excerpt: ...s of its sixth cause of action are sufficient to support a defamation cause of action. See Quelimane Co., Inc. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38‐39 (if the essential facts of some valid cause of action are alleged, the complaint is good against a general demurrer). With regard to the remaining causes of action, the allegations of the Complaint are sufficient for pleading purposes to support the causes of action as alleged agai...

Excerpt: ...vides no basis for application of Gov. C. §815.6. Moreover, as discussed in Hoff vs. Vacaville Unified School District (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 925, 939, Ed. C. §44807 requires teachers to hold pupils to a strict account for their conduct, and does not purport to impose a mandatory duty more broadly on any public entity. Ed. C. §44807 merely imposes a discretionary duty to supervise the conduct of pupils. Nothing in Ed. C. §44807 requires that any ...

Excerpt: ...t belong to them, fraudulently sold it and retained the profits. As stated by the U.S. Supreme Court: Page 2 of 2 [W]hen claims to the property itself are the source of the underlying controversy between the plaintiff and the defendant, it would be unusual for the State where the property is located not to have jurisdiction. In such cases, the defendant's claim to property located in the State would normally indicate that he expected to benef...

Excerpt: ...h PPSM‐70. Petitioner's argument that he is not challenging the termination of his employment but is only challenging the Title IX investigation is unavailing. The Title IX investigation and Final Report do not constitute a final administrative decision upon which a writ of administrative mandate may be issued. See CCP § 1094.5(a); Security Nat. Guar., Inc. v. California Coastal Com'n (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 402, 415 (CCP § 1094.5 “permits c...

Excerpt: ... and Darryl Clare. Defendants failed to show that the filing of the cross‐complaint against such parties would be in the interest of justice. (CCP § 428.50(c).) ...

Excerpt: ... Impac Funding's evidentiary objections are OVERRULED as immaterial. The Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Impac Funding meets its initial burden to demonstrate that Plaintiff's Loan was not table funded, and Plaintiff fails to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the sale of his Loan was anything but a bona fide transaction. More importantly, even assuming that the Loan was part of a table‐funded transaction, there is no authority...

Excerpt: ...rty to the first cause of action for cancellation of instruments. BANA has never had an interest in the Note and DOT and is not a successor to any instrument that Plaintiff seeks to cancel. See Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (4th Ed. 2016), § 40:113; Lord v. Luse (1931) 214 Cal. 10, 11; Consolidated Concessions Co. v. McConnell (1919) 40 Cal.App. 443, 444‐45. Moreover, the entire basis for Plaintiff's cancellation claim – that Plaintiff's ...

Excerpt: ...r § 2923.5(e)(1), but also that Plaintiff responded to Lewis's correspondence. Further, the factual basis for Plaintiff's contract‐based claims (second and third causes of action) is entirely inaccurate and ignores the salient provisions of the Note. Contrary to Plaintiff's argument, Lewis did not accelerate Plaintiff's loan; rather, as evidenced by the Notice, the loan fully matured and the final balloon payment had come due. Plaintiff's four...

Excerpt: ... was corrected and clarified. (Dec.Dossey, ¶21, Exs. Page 3 of 3 “12”, “13”.) The parties have engaged in extensive meet and confer efforts, which led to Plaintiff correcting its responses. No discovery abuse has been established. As to the sanctions for Plaintiff's erroneous responses to RFAs. The statute contemplates having to prove the truth at trial, or in a dispositive motion for summary judgment. Neither situation has occurred here...

Excerpt: ..., even assuming that Autry could revoke or be entitled to a refund of her charitable donation (i.e., the $5,000), Plaintiffs offer no explanation as to how the banking records would demonstrate that her particular donation was misdirected or why Plaintiffs should be entitled to discover the personal banking information for Louise and Gentile. Lastly, Plaintiffs offer no explanation as to how the banking records will demonstrate the extent of dama...

Excerpt: ...alleged personal loans were part of the prior litigation and regardless of whether some portion of Vega's claims may be barred, a general demurrer does not lie to only a part of a cause of action. See Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1167. Further, the doctrine of judicial estoppel is inapplicable, as Vega was not successful in asserting his allegedly inconsistent position in the prior action. See Aguilar v...

Excerpt: ...nt's position that Mr. Garcia's deposition should not go forward until he is properly served with an appropriate subpoena is reasonable. In the absence of a subpoena, Mr. Garcia has no obligation to respond to Defendant's document demands, and in the absence of a voluntary production, Defendant would be forced to serve a subpoena and potentially move to compel a response to its demands (and possibly a further deposition). Moreover, the proposed d...

Excerpt: ...able claim to ownership of stock in the corporation. She provides no corporate governing documents, no stock certificates, no corporate minutes. As defendant notes, the plaintiff in a shareholder derivative action must own stock throughout all relevant time periods. Corp. Code §800(b); Grosset v. Wenaas (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1100, 1119. Furthermore it is unclear that this is appropriately brought as a shareholder derivative action. To the extent tha...

Excerpt: ...issues in the case. Further, Plaintiff has asserted a basis for deposing the MERS PMK. Plaintiff alleges the loan resulted from an illegal transaction in which Sea Breeze misrepresented it was the lender when the actual lender was the unlicensed Impac. Plaintiff asserts that this allegation leads to two issues: (1) that MERS was not identified as a beneficiary in violation of California law (10 CCR §1406(b)); and (2) who owns the loan and contra...

Excerpt: ...ight of the significant number of administrative claims pending, the notice should expressly advise/warn those with administrative claims pending that if they wish to continue their administrative claim, they must exclude themselves from this class action and/or that if they do not exclude themselves they will lose the right to pursue their administrative claim. Plaintiffs shall submit a new proposed order with the revised forms attached and with...

Excerpt: ...lass of persons is made up by all licensed EMTs in the state. It potentially could be even a larger class of persons including all professionally licensed employees. While only a small number of EMTs are disciplined through the administrative hearing process each year, the benefit is available to all licensed EMTs. Cullen incurred significant attorneys' fees in vindicating this important right, and he had no financial gain in pursuing writ relief...

Excerpt: ...il 24, 2018 at 8:30am in Department 6. The defendants who filed the demurrer and motion to strike are ordered to meet and confer with the plaintiffs who filed the complaint for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections raised in the demurrer and motion to strike. As part of the meet and confer process, the defendants shall identify all of the specific causes of action that they believe are su...

Excerpt: ...ect to a criminal proceeding; the privilege against self‐incrimination is personal to an individual criminal defendant and does not apply to co‐defendants in a civil action. See Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 886‐87. Further, an evaluation of the factors set forth in Avant! Corp. does not favor a stay: (1) Plaintiffs have a strong interest in proceeding expeditiously; (2) any threatened infringement on the privile...

Excerpt: ... leave to amend. Plaintiffs plead ultimate facts to support their fourth and fifth cause of action for negligence and products liability. See CCP § 425.10; Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 53, 550; C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872. However, the sixth cause of action for breach of warranties fails because there is no allegation that Corona sold the allegedly defective Tire to Decedent or Plain...

Excerpt: ......