Excerpt: ... the appointment of a receiver pursuant to a stipulation for entry of judgment ("Stipulation") is GRANTED. The appointment of a receiver after a judgment to carry the judgment into effect is authorized by Code Civ. Proc. § 564(b)(3). The Court may appoint a receiver to enforce the judgment when the judgment creditor shows that considering the interests of both the judgment creditor and the judgment debtor, the appointment of a receiver i...

Excerpt: ...dicial notice of court documents filed in this case is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice of a complaint filed in another case is DENIED as irrelevant. Factual / Procedural Background This dispute over real property ended with a motion granting summary judgment in Galletta's favor. (See Galletta Decl., Exh. 2 [Ruling of 7/10/18]; Judgment of 8/15/18.) The plaintiffs are 6492 Florin Perkins Road LLC (the “Company”), Miguel Rodrig...

Excerpt: ...rnment Code sections 8547 et seq. Plaintiff alleges that he was retaliated against for disclosing improper governmental activities in the workplace. Plaintiff was employed as a Special Agent‐In‐Charge with the Office of Internal Affairs ("OIA"), Headquarters. Plaintiff was responsible for preparing threat assessment reports and alleges he was retaliated against for complaining that other employees were intentionally hiding relevant in...

Excerpt: ...al, Inc. and Paul D. Frank's (collectively “Defendants”) demurrer to Plaintiff La Jolla Cove Investors (“LJCI”) and Golden State Equity Investors, Inc.'s (“GSEI”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) is ruled upon as follows. Overview In this action, Plaintiffs allege that they provide capital to real estate developers and businesses. In November 2013, LCJI loaned approximately $2.8 million to a borrowe...

Excerpt: ...ected plaintiff's "Motion for Extension of Time" on the basis he had not followed the rules for filing of motions. The Requests for Judicial Notice are unopposed and are granted. (See Poseidon Devel., Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1117‐18; see also Stratford Irrig. Dist. v. Empire Water Co. (1941) 44 Cal.App.2d 61, 68 [recorded land documents, not contracts, are the subject of judicial notice on dem...

Excerpt: ...e wished to purchase were on sale, when they were not. Macy's allegedly placed two clothing racks next to one another and displayed a "40% off" sign on one of the racks such that a reasonable consumer would have believed the merchandise on both racks was on sale. When he purchased shorts on the rack furthest from the on‐sale sign, he learned that he would have to pay the full price, which he paid. Stout alleges that other shoppers w...

Excerpt: ...at various locations at the University of California, Davis campus. The Perma‐Pipe Piping System was installed by several different contractors under a series of separate contracts. Perma‐Pipe was aware of and involved in the procurement efforts for the Piping System installed at the UC Davis Campus. As a necessary part of this process, Perma‐Pipe had knowledge of the intended locations and specific uses of its product at the Campus, and pr...

Excerpt: ...roaches, trespasses and overhangs plaintiff's property. Evans lived next door to plaintiff until April 17, 2018. Defendant Sanders is the current owner of the property. Plaintiff alleges that in January of 2017 a large branch fell from the tree and hit plaintiff's property causing $425 in damage. Defendant Evans gave plaintiff permission to remove the tree at plaintiff's expense but then revoked permission and denied access. (Complain...

Excerpt: ...ing the things herein alleged was acting within the scope of such employment and agency. It is further alleged that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff. Defendant Scott Sagaria suddenly passed away in mid September 2018, after the Requests for Admission were served on him, Sagaria Law APC and Matthew Decaminada on August 8, 2018. The plaintiff has withdrawn the discovery as to Scott Sagaria. Scott Sagaria was the sole own...

Excerpt: ...ing on this matter and served the opposition on Defendant that same day by mail. The Court notes Plaintiff argues his opposition was late because he was not served with this motion. However, the proof of service provided with Defendant's motion indicates Plaintiff was served by mail on August 21, 2018. Nonetheless, the Court has considered Plaintiff's opposition, but it does not change the Court's ruling. On August 10, 2018, this Court entered de...

Excerpt: ...�� existence of a triable issue of material fact. *** Defendant Berry's motion for summary judgment is DENIED because the moving papers failed to satisfy defendant's initial burden under Code of Civil Procedure §437c (p)(2) and even if this initial burden had been met, plaintiff carried her burden of producing evidence sufficient to establish at least one triable issue of material fact which mandates denial of summary judgment as a matter of law...

Excerpt: ...2018. DWR and D.A. McCosker Construction Co. dba Independent Construction Company, and Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland's (“ICC”) request for judicial notice is granted. Background The procedural history of this case is complicated and convoluted, and a brief history is helpful in the context of the instant proceeding to provide a comprehensive overview. DWR and ICC contracted for construction of the Dyer Reservoir. The Court first heard ar...

Excerpt: ...ontends one customer was billed for services by defendant's new company while he was still employed by plaintiff. Defendant contends that he merely informed his customers that he had left employment with plaintiff and started his own company. Plaintiff contends that the identity of its customers is a trade secret, including their identities and email addresses and other contact information. Under Morlife Inc. v Perry (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 151...

Excerpt: ...e court's tentative ruling sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. Despite failing to file an opposition, Plaintiff appeared at the hearing. The Court continued the matter to August 17, 2018 to allow Plaintiff to file a motion for leave to amend. Plaintiff failed to file a motion for leave to amend. The matter was then continued to the instant date. The Court received, but did not consider Plaintiff's opposition late filed on Augus...

Excerpt: ...4 Cal.App.2d 61, 68 [recorded land documents, not contracts, are the subject of judicial notice on demurrer].) The Court, however, does not accept the truth of any facts within the judicially noticed documents except to the extent such facts are beyond reasonable dispute. (See Poseidon Devel., supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at 1117‐ 18.) see also Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 265 ("[A] court may take judicial notice...

Excerpt: ... hearing in Department 53. Legal Officer D. Mercado shall have Mr. Harrell available by telephone on September 14, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. Mr. Harrell shall call Courtcall (888‐88‐COURT) prior to the September 14, 2018 hearing date and set up his appearance with Courtcall. In addition, Mr. Harrell will have to call Courtcall prior to the 2:00 p.m. hearing on September 14, 2018, so Courtcall can connect him to Department 53. The clerk shall fax a co...

Excerpt: ...d, Inc., struck the wheelchair. On July 25, 2018, the Court granted defendant's motion to compel two IMEs, one by neurologist Vernon B. Williams, M.D. and a neuro‐psychiatric examination by neuropsychiatrist Mark H. Strassberg. The Court found good cause to require both examinations, and found that they were not duplicative of each other or the orthopedic and internal medicine exam. The examinations were to take place August 8, 2018. Plaint...

Excerpt: ...ondent/claimant filed a claim opposing forfeiture on March 15, 2018. The People did not file a Petition for Forfeiture within 30 days of the filing of the claim and therefore Respondent seeks return of the property. At the time this matter was first on calendar, no petition for forfeiture has been filed. A Petition for Forfeiture was filed by petitioner on August 10, 2018 after this matter was continued to August 31, 2018, and then to September 6...

Excerpt: ...will be received one court day after the filing date. The opposition was due August 23, therefore it should have been served in a manner to ensure receipt by plaintiff on August 24. However, the court has considered the opposition despite the untimeliness, as defendant has fully addressed the opposition in the timely filed Reply and has not been prejudiced by the late service of the opposition. This action arises out of a motor vehicle rear‐end...

Excerpt: .... Butalla's CSAA policy provides uninsured motorist coverage. Both Insurance Code § 11580.2 and the policy require Butalla to demand an arbitration to resolve his coverage dispute with CSAA. Background Facts/Procedure In January 2013, Butalla, through his former counsel Joseph Cooper (Cooper), served CSAA with a written demand to arbitrate. (Schultz Decl., ¶ 3.) The demand, which was served by certified mail / return‐receipt requested, expres...

Excerpt: ...damages is GRANTED but with leave to amend, as follows. The opposition papers inexplicably fail to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(1), (3)‐(4). Factual Background This action arises from a motor vehicle accident alleged to have occurred when defendants' vehicle made an illegal u‐turn directly in front of plaintiff, who asserts that the driver fled the accident scene and either has been or will be convicted of felony hitand‐run. The complaint...

Excerpt: ...te Compensation Insurance Fund (“SCIF”). Plaintiff alleges that SCIF assigned its rights to Plaintiff. At issue on this motion are Plaintiff's responses to Defendant's special interrogatories 1‐9 and Form Interrogatory 50.1. At the outset, the Court will not deny the motion based on a failure to meet and confer. While Defendant sent a single brief letter shortly before the motion to compel deadline, at least with respect to special interrog...

Excerpt: ... motion spans just a few pages, fails to include a proper notice of motion, and does not provide any evidence of any subpoena much less a basis upon which to evaluate the subpoena. Further, the motion contains no proof of service and was dated August 28, 2018, just 5 court days prior to the hearing. Nevertheless, Defendants filed a response to the motion which did not object to the service defect and indicated that they were withdrawing the subpo...

Excerpt: ...ance is required on September 5, 2018. Plaintiff Merrick shall be available, by COURTCALL, to participate in oral argument on the continuance date. The plaintiff filed a late opposition on August 23, 2018, the original hearing date. The Court has reviewed the opposition and determines that nothing in the opposition cures the defects of the First Amended Complaint. Therefore, for the reasons stated below and in the Reply, the demurrer is sustained...

Excerpt: ...nation in violation of public policy, IIED, NIED, and breach of contract. Plaintiff alleges that he was “lured” from his lucrative consulting practice by Assemblyman Mathis to help fix problems in his office. He alleges that this required him to prevent Mathis from misusing state resources, engaging in sexual harassment and other improper behavior. (Comp. ¶¶ 1, 18, 19.) Plaintiff alleges that he sought assistance from the Assembly Rules Com...