Excerpt: ... Defendant had 30 days. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 412.20, subd. (a)(3), 471.5.) Page 3 of 5 In her first amended complaint (FAC), Plaintiff alleged additional facts about Defendant's conduct. (See FAC, ¶¶ 19‐34.) The new allegations primarily concern Defendant's conduct toward other employees. For example, Plaintiff alleges that her supervisor told a black receptionist to wear more makeup and commented that the receptionist was not attractiv...

Excerpt: ...not show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means there were false representations. (See Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 73.) The FAXC alleges that Cross‐ Defendant Qiao knowingly and falsely misrepresented that he had a controlling interest in Golden Taste and Golden Globe, and that he intended to cause a significant disruption in the operation of the business. (FAXC, ¶ 40.) The FAXC alleges that Qiao made the misrepresent...

Excerpt: ...cluding in the complaint a satisfactory explanation why the earlier admissions are incorrect. Absent such explanation, however, the self‐destructive allegations in the earlier pleading or discovery response are “read into” the complaint, and allegations inconsistent therewith treated as sham and disregarded. (Owens v. Kings Supermarket (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 379, 384.) Since Plaintiff has not alleged any explanation as to the inconsistencies...

Excerpt: ...the plaintiff files the complaint. (McClatchy vs. Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 368, 371‐372; Woo vs. Sup. Ct. (Zarabi) (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 169, 177.) A Doe amendment relates back only when the plaintiff is genuinely ignorant of that person's identity or liability when commencing the action. (Miller v. Thomas (1981) Page 2 of 3 121 Cal.App.3d 440, 445‐446; McClatchy, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th 371‐372.) To defeat a Doe ...

Excerpt: ...ourt would sustain Defendants' Objections 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13, and overrule the rest. Loren Jensen declares that he is Plaintiff's son and co‐worker. The declaration says that in a private, closed‐door meeting, Davis [sic] Fountain told Loren Jensen that Frank Jensen was a former user of illegal narcotics, “as well as other [unspecified] private personnel matters.” (L. Jensen Decl., ¶ 4.) The declaration does not establish tha...

Excerpt: ...f Civil Procedure section 2015.5, it lacks foundation and is inadmissible hearsay. The court overrules Defendant's remaining objections. Defendant has met its initial burden of showing that Plaintiff's causes of action arise from Defendant's act in furtherance of its free speech rights in connection with a public issue. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(1).) Defendants published the article underlying this lawsuit in a public forum, the stud...

Excerpt: ... pages long, and only 12 lines of which was not boilerplate. Counsel estimated 0.4 hours to draft a fiveline email, and 0.8 hours to draft a declaration with only 12 substantive lines. In the accompanying motion to compel responses to form interrogatories below, plaintiff's counsel billed the same number of hours for the documents supporting that motion, even though the motion, declaration, exhibits, and proposed order for that motion were almost...

Excerpt: ...Act or “FEHA”). In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant ATI was his employer. He alleges that codefendant David Fountain was president and plaintiff's supervisor. Only an employer can be liable under FEHA. (Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399 (“Leek”).) A sole shareholder of a corporate employee can only be held liable for the corporation under alter ego theory. (Leek, 194 Cal.App.4th, at p. 406.) Plaintiff did not plead ...

Excerpt: ... “YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ BOTH SIDES OF THIS CONTRACT, INCLUDING THE ARBITRATION PROVISION ON THE REVERSE SIDE, BEFORE SIGNING IT.” The contract was take‐it‐or‐leave‐it, so it was adhesive and somewhat procedurally unconscionable. (Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 899, 915 (“Sanchez”).) However, the contract was not substantively unconscionable. Its terms were similar to the contract upheld in Sanc...

Excerpt: ...rvice literature and replacement parts to effect repairs during the express warranty period.” (Civ. Code, §1793.2(a)(3).) Plaintiff can claim civil penalties in the third cause of action because Civil Code section 1794 allows damages and penalties for “a failure to comply with any obligation under this chapter” and the replacement or reimbursement remedies under section 1793.2, subdivision (d) are not exclusive. Civil Code section 1794, su...