Excerpt: ... cause of action for fraud (negligent misrepresentation), third cause of action for fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Defendant's issues for summary adjudication are: (1) Plaintiff's claims for fraud ‐ intentional misrepresentation, fraud ‐ negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of covenant of good faith and fair deali...

Excerpt: ...olve whether the Demurrer disposes of the causes of action asserted by Plaintiff in his complaint in their entirety.” The continuance provided that the reply briefing would be due according to the new hearing date. No reply brief was filed. Defendant demurs to the first cause of action for common counts for unjust enrichment, second cause of action for constructive trust, and third cause of action for account on the grounds that each cause of a...

Excerpt: ... an intervening reassignment of the case between the Law & Motion Departments, and late filed papers. After a continuance of the hearing from October 29, 2020 to February 4, 2021, at Plaintiffs' request, the new date for Plaintiff to file any opposing papers became January 21, 2021. Plaintiff filed no opposition to this motion by that date. The Court's register of actions indicates the Court's receipt of an opposition brief from Plaintiff on Janu...

Excerpt: ...nts, LLC (GGH); and GG E16 Apartments, LLC (GGE), is DENIED as set forth below. Plaintiffs (HLocal and ELocal), are limited liability companies. Plaintiffs are members of other limited liability companies (HApt, EApt) which are in turn members of other limited liability companies (GGH and GGE). GGH and GGE separately own two apartment buildings in midtown Sacramento. GGH and GGE have decided to sell their buildings to a third‐party. Plaintiffs ...

Excerpt: ..., on the grounds that the proposed class action and PAGA settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate as to all class members and should be given final approval by the Court. Plaintiff moves for an order: 1. Certifying the proposed class herein for purposes of settlement; 2. Appointing Plaintiff Raul Vasquez Vanegas as Class Representative for purposes of settlement; 3. Appointing the Shimoda Law Corp. as Class Counsel for purposes of settlement...

Excerpt: ...wing grounds: 1. the negligence cause of action is barred by the one‐year statute of limitations pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §340.5, it is uncertain and ambiguous, and it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; 2. the premises liability claim is uncertain and ambiguous, and fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; 3. the “vicarious liability” cause of action fails to state a viable t...

Excerpt: ...rately upon the ground that Plaintiff's claims against him are barred by the statute of limitations. The question presented upon demurrer is whether the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts in the complaint to justify relief on any legal theory. (Service by Medallion, Inc. v. Clorox Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1807, 1811‐1812.) The trial court is required to give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, and to treat the demurrer as admitting ...

Excerpt: .... KB defendants seek to redact three matters from their concurrent motion: (1) the Plaintiff's name; (2) the settlement amount; and (3) the portion of the settlement allocated to Plaintiff's lost wages. Protection of the Plaintiff's identity is appropriate and consistent with the use of an alias in this action in accordance with California Rules of Court, Rule 1.201. To the extent the KB defendants seek to redact the Plaintiff's true name, the mo...

Excerpt: ...pen book account and violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200. The complaint arises from allegations that Defendant is an alcoholic beverage wholesaler and charges its customers 2% per month on unpaid balances that are 43 or more days past due in violation of the 1% limit in Business and Professions Code § 25509(a). (Comp. ¶¶ 1, 2.) Plaintiff alleges that it operated a cantina in Sacramento between November 2015 and August 2018 and ...

Excerpt: ...e is granted. Only Plaintiff Brian Bigelow submitted an opposition through counsel. While Counsel's motion to withdraw as Mr. Bigelow's counsel of record was granted on March 3, 2021, the ruling indicated that the Court will sign the order submitted, which shall be “effective upon the filing of the proof of service of th[e] signed order upon the client.” The Court signed the order on March 8, 2021, though counsel did not have time to serve th...

Excerpt: ...st, the Court identifies the issues framed by the pleadings. The pleadings define the scope of the issues on a motion for summary judgment. (FPI Dev. Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381‐382.) Because a motion for summary judgment is limited to the issues raised by the pleadings (Lewis v. Chevron (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 690, 694), all evidence submitted in support in support of or in opposition to the motion must be addressed to the ...

Excerpt: ...ional discovery. Then on 1/28/2021 Judge Krueger recused himself from this matter, which resulted in this matter being transferred to this department and re‐set for hearing on 3/24/2021. The Court's 1/28/2021 order transferring this matter specified that no further briefing on this matter would be considered unless leave of court was obtained. The Court now rules as follows. *** If oral argument is requested, the parties are directed to notify ...

Excerpt: ... 2021 at Plaintiff Stella Altraide's request. Judge Krueger then recused himself from this matter on January 27, 2021, which resulted in this matter being transferred to this department and re‐set for hearing on today's date. While Plaintiff did not file a timely opposition in connection with the January 27, 2021 hearing, she has filed an opposition in connection with the re‐set hearing. Given the dispositive nature of the motion, the Court c...

Excerpt: ...s”), Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendant to provide full and complete responses to certain requests for production. Requests Nos. 1, 6, 10, 11‐33, 41, and 80 relate to Defendant's investigation and analysis regarding the Defects. Requests Nos. 8, 9, 54, 58, 59 and 76 relate to Defendant's warranty and repurchase policies. Defendant interposed numerous objections to the requests for production, including objections based on relevance, burden a...

Excerpt: ... summons and complaint within three years as required by CCP § 583.210. SGN was ultimately served with the cross‐ complaint on January 10, 2021 when Centex served Stuart Nelson, a former director of SGN. Both parties' requests for judicial notice are granted. Centex opposes the motion on the basis that service was timely under the circumstances of the case. Pursuant to CCP § 583.210, “the summons and complaint shall be served upon a defenda...

Excerpt: ...ntiff previously sought and received a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) freezing financial accounts held by any Defendant with any financial institution within the United States (pending and/or in lieu of attachment) above $5,000 per institution, and prohibiting disposition of any assets, records, and other items acquired by Decedent or her estate. The requested TRO was subject to a monthly spending allowance of $5,000 for California resid...

Excerpt: ...irected to contact Plaintiffs' counsel and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court's tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact Plaintiffs' counsel prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing via Zoom or by telephone. Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice of orders in other cases in federal district court actions and an Los Angeles Superior Court ruling...

Excerpt: ... the objections to the late filed evidence because it has given respondent the opportunity to file a sur‐opposition. Respondent's Request for Judicial Notice is granted. The Court takes judicial notice of the existence of the documents but not the truth of the matters stated therein. However, if a plaintiff alleges compliance with the claims presentation requirement, but the public records do not reflect compliance, the governmental entity can ...

Excerpt: ...not serve the proposed order on them. Defendants contend this failure is a due process violation under the United States and California Constitutions. Defendants also contend they did not have a sufficient amount of time to review the proposed order before it was submitted to the Court. On January 5, 2021, Plaintiff served Defendants with a Proposed Order. (ROA 35.) The Order signed by the Court on January 12, 2021, is different than the Proposed...

Excerpt: ... cart and a plaintiff, a two‐year‐old boy, at the 2018 Dixon May Fair. An employee of co‐defendant Professional Event Service, Mr. Meek, drove the golf cart over Plaintiff David S. Cruz Abundio ("Plaintiff'), causing him permanent brain damage. District has filed a motion for summary judgment set for hearing on April 7, 2021. (See February 10, 2021 ex parte Order, ROA 279) The plaintiff's opposition to that motion is due March 24, 2021. On ...

Excerpt: ...e is granted. Cross‐complainant's Objections to Evidence: Overruled for the reasons stated in the response to objections. Cross‐defendant's Objections to Evidence Sustained as to No. 1 (hearsay). Overruled as to No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Plaintiff/cross‐defendant Bank contends Cross‐complainant Kronick violated former Rules of Professional Conduct ("RPC") Rules 3‐310 and 3‐600 by failing to obtain a written waiver of conflict from ...

Excerpt: ...emurrer to the First Amended Complaint filed by the plaintiff, Mitchell Development Enterprises, Inc. is sustained with leave to amend for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Mitchell Development's First Amended Complaint alleges that defendants violated his constitutional rights in connection with the administrative review of his challenge to his tax liability. Defendants contend plaintiffs causes of action essenti...

Excerpt: ...all causes of action without leave to amend, but on a "motion to clarify" ruled that the demurrer was sustained with leave to amend so that plaintiff could exhaust his administrative remedies with CalPERS. Plaintiff asserts that the dispute with CalPERS is now resolved and that the Second Amended Complaint does not seek to change the benefit he is receiving through CalPERS but instead a certain retirement benefit that SDRMA agreed to give him. Pl...

Excerpt: ...r judicial notice is granted. In this dental malpractice action, Plaintiff seeks damages from Defendants Thomas N. Ludlow, DDS, and his practice doing business as Expressions in Dentistry, who operates as a general dental practice in Folsom, California, and Will Koett, Jr., DDS. The complaint alleges Plaintiff was harmed by Defendants' purported improper and unauthorized extraction of several of her teeth, removal of crowns, and administration of...

Excerpt: ...ly, “Plaintiffs”) filed a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, which was set for hearing before Judge Mesiwala in Department 53 on January 21, 2021. (ROAs 31‐33.) On January 20, 2021, Judge Hom issued a tentative ruling granting Intervenors' motion to intervene. (ROA 65.) After the hearing on January 22, 2021, Judge Hom took the matter under submission. (ROA 71.) On January 20, 2021, this Court issued a tentative ruli...