Excerpt: ...ndividual claims based on Labor Code violations and also alleges a cause of action seeking penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 2698 et seq. (Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 [“PAGA”].) Defendants filed a cross‐complaint alleging claims for breach of contract and more premised on allegations that Plaintiff failed to pay rent. At issue on the instant motion are Defendant Shin Takeshima's (“Takeshima”) responses to Plaintiff's special...

Excerpt: ...D‐19 NOTICE: All attorneys and self‐represented parties in law and motion hearings are encouraged to appear viaCourt Call. You may contact Court Call as follows: www.courtcall.com or call 888‐882‐ 6878. You must check in by 8:20AM for the 8:30 AM calendar. To submit on a tentative decision, e‐mail the Court at [email protected] or by fax to Judge McKaig'ssecretary at 805‐477‐ 8790. If a party submits on the tentative...

Excerpt: ...intiff's request for admissions to Defendant Akaash Pardesi were deemed admitted on November 10, 2021. When the moving party is the plaintiff, there is only one ground for a motion for judgment on the pleadings: "the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint." (C.C.P. 438(c)(1)(A).) The grounds for the mo...

Excerpt: ...�Respondent”) is GRANTED as follows. On November 12, 2021, Petitioners served Respondent investigational subpoenas pursuant to Gov't Code §§ 11180 & 11181. The subpoenas are part of Petitioners' investigation of whether Respondent is in full compliance with the requirements of Gov. Code § 100705(c)(2). Respondent purports to be a health care sharing ministry (“HCSM”). HCSMs must meet certain requirements to be exempted from the requireme...

Excerpt: ...is ruled upon as follows. Request for Judicial Notice Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice is unopposed and granted. Background As stated by the Third District Court of Appeal, this action was “brought against various individuals and entities . . . in the aftermath of a series of investments gone wrong.” (Remittitur at p. 4, ROA # 1779.) Plaintiffs filed the original complaint on May 10, 2012. The operative pleading is the Third Amended an...

Excerpt: ...e 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court's tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. Moving counsel is also order to be available at the hearing in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B). Background In this FEHA disability discrimination action, Plaintiff David Ridge (“Plaintiff”) alleges...

Excerpt: ...oway (“Calloway”) entered the B&W liquor store in Sacramento, California with the intent of robbing the liquor store at gunpoint. Plaintiffs' Decedent held a gun to the head of Defendant Garzon (“Garzon”). Garzon knocked the gun from Plaintiffs' Decedent's hands, grabbed the gun, and then started firing and hit Plaintiffs' Decedent and Calloway. Both Plaintiffs' Decedent and Calloway were hit, Calloway survived but Plaintiffs' Decedent su...

Excerpt: ... consolidated eminent domain actions filed in Monterey County Superior Court involving three parcels of real property. Desmond represented Jarvis individually and in his capacity as a general partner of the partnership in which Jarvis was a half owner with his brother James Jarvis, Jarvis Properties. In October of 2015, Jarvis signed a fee agreement with Desmond on behalf of himself and on behalf of the partnership in his capacity as a general pa...

Excerpt: ... and (3) interference with contract. The Complaint and this motion for preliminary injunction were personally served on Defendants Lisa Simon (“Simon”) and Haute Caviar Company, LLC (“Haute Caviar”) through Simon, its agent for service of process, on April 7, 2022. (ROA 20‐23.) The Complaint and this motion for preliminary injunction were also served on Defendants Deborah Keane (“Keane”) and California Caviar Company, LLC (“Califo...

Excerpt: ...resent motion and therefore Plaintiff did not file an opposition. Plaintiff argues that his attorney first learned of the motion on April 7, 2022, when counsel for McGinness informed counsel for Plaintiff that they had not received an opposition to the present motion. Plaintiff argues the only motion for summary judgment he was aware of was filed on December 15, 2021 and set for hearing on March 3, 2021, but was subsequently dropped by McGinness ...

Excerpt: ...Superior Court, Plaintiff David Fred Blakefield (“Blakefield”) was found to be liable to the plaintiff in that action, David Lonich, based on acts undertaken by Blakefield's agent, Defendant James Loren Franklin. (“Franklin.”) Following the judgment, Blakefield filed this action on April 2, 2019 against Defendants Franklin and Marron Road Ventures, LLC. Blakefield alleges that Franklin was not specifically authorized by Blakefield to pay ...

Excerpt: ...taliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5. (First Amended Complaint.) This motion was initially set for hearing on March 23, 2022. The Court continued the hearing on this matter and ordered the parties to further meet and confer and submit a joint statement that states which discovery requests have been resolved and which requests remain outstanding. (ROA 57.) The parties submitted a joint statement and the Court will address the issues rais...

Excerpt: ...fendant Christopher Vrame (“Defendant”) to comply with Plaintiffs' demand for inspection of the company's books and records. This motion was initially set for hearing on March 23, 2022. The Court continued the hearing on this matter and ordered the parties to further meet and confer and submit a joint statement that states which discovery requests have been resolved and which requests remain outstanding. (ROA 34.) The parties submitted a join...

Excerpt: ...s for Respondent Chandler Topic Company, Inc. (ROA 17). The only proof of service filed since that hearing was a proof of service showing service of unspecified documents on Megan Mainwaring on April 23, 2022, which is more than two weeks after the hearing took place. Service of unidentified papers on Megan Mainwaring for a motion after the hearing on the motion took place is insufficient to demonstrate that she was served with the petition and n...

Excerpt: ...ogatories, request for admissions and request for production (sets one) no later than February 27, 2022. (ROA 61) No sanctions were awarded as the motion was unopposed. Plaintiff now seeks terminating sanctions, issue sanctions, evidentiary sanctions and/or monetary sanctions, on the basis that Defendant has not provided the Court ordered responses. For misuse of the discovery process, including as is the case here, disobeying a court order to pr...

Excerpt: ...tories (set three). The motion to compel is granted. No later than May 18, 2022, Plaintiff shall serve verified responses, without objections, to Defendant's special interrogatories (set three). “Financial and Issue Sanctions” In addition moving to compel, Defendant also seeks evidentiary and monetary sanctions on the basis that this is the third motion it has filed in order to get Plaintiff to comply with his discovery obligations. Specifica...

Excerpt: ... (“Main Street”) for breach of contract and other causes of action. Plaintiff eventually dismissed all causes of action against Ronald Happe and all causes of action against Main Street except the breach of contract cause of action. Plaintiff alleged that he entered into two promissory notes with Main Street and that Main Street breached its obligation to repay the amounts lent to it and now owes a total of $436,450. Plaintiff moves for summa...

Excerpt: ...or financial elder abuse, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence, arising from claims that Plaintiff had taken money from the client trust account and paid off his personal mortgages. The Amended Judgment provides that Defendants shall recover the sums of $109,374 in compensatory damages, $160,970.63 in attorney's fees, $6,454.21 in costs, and $16,214.32 in prejudgment interest from Plaintiff. It also provides that the Defendants shall recover ...

Excerpt: ...ted language as incorrectly representing that Plaintiff alleges Ambridge Hospitality Holding LLC (“AHHLLC”) is Plaintiff's employer. Rather, the Court interprets the disputed language as stating Defendant is a party to the arbitration agreement because Defendant is an affiliated entity of AHHLLC and because Plaintiff alleges Defendant is Plaintiff's employer. As the Court finds there is no intentional false representation, a sur‐reply to co...

Excerpt: ...tionstar will prevail on its seventeenth affirmative defense that the action is barred by the statute of limitations and that FHLMC should be judicially estopped from pursuing its claims. In the alternative, Nationstar requests summary adjudication of FHLMC's first cause of action for declaratory relief, the second cause of action for cancellation of instruments , and the third cause of action for constructive trusts on grounds the causes of acti...

Excerpt: ...nd This is a wage and hour class action for various alleged violations of the Labor Code by Defendant Fleetcor Technologies Operating Company, LLC (collectively “Defendant”). Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint on behalf of herself and other non‐exempt employees of Defendants. As part of the relief requested on this motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which alleges Plaintiff gave no...

Excerpt: ...te Comp. Ins. Fund (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 216, 219; Nordlinger v. Lynch (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1271; Boyle v. City of Redondo Beach (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1114, fn. 2.) The Court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law, and considers matters which may be judicially noticed. ( Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Poseidon Development, Inc. v....

Excerpt: ...mail on March 2, 2022, and was not mailed with sufficient time ahead of the March 9, 2022 hearing pursuant to CCP § 1005(b) and CCP § 1013. Plaintiff argues it did not receive the reply brief until March 7, 2022. The Court notes that Defendant's reply papers were filed with the Court on March 7, 2022, two court days before the original hearing date. CCP § 1005(c) requires reply papers to be “reasonably calculated to ensure delivery to the ot...

Excerpt: ...rder declaring Harmoning a vexatious litigant based on the argument that Harmoning is being used as a "strawman" by vexatious litigant Quigley to evade the prefiling order requirement contained in CCP 391.7(c).) Defendants' request for judicial notice is unopposed and granted in its entirety. On October 8, 2019, Quigley was declared a vexatious litigant by order of the Tuolomne County Superior Court. (RJN Ex. A.) Quigley is listed on the Californ...

Excerpt: ...urt addresses Plaintiff's 1632‐page opposing separate statement. As Dignity points out in its reply, Plaintiff's counsel, the Bohm Law Group, Inc. has previously been admonished by the Sacramento County Superior Court's Law and Motion Department for filing an overly lengthy response to a moving party's separate statement. (See Request for Judicial Notice ISO Dignity's Mot., Ex. A.) In connection with a motion for summary judgment decided in Aug...