Excerpt: ... Kamelia Begley (Continued From 10/17/19). Defendant Delta Dental of California's Motion for Summary Judgement is granted. Assuming Plaintiff Kamelia Begley has provided sufficient evidence to establish the prima facie elements of her discrimination and retaliation causes of action, the burden shifts to Defendant to show a legitimate, non‐discriminatory reason for Plaintiff's termination. (McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792, 8...

Excerpt: ...gender/sexual orientation discrimination, retaliation, failure to maintain environment free of discrimination/harassment, and race discrimination all fail because plaintiffs cannot demonstrate an adverse employment action. Plaintiffs also fail to demonstrate harassment as they cite isolated and sporadic remarks. To establish a discrimination or retaliation claim, "[t]he employment action must be both detrimental and substantial." (Thomas v. Depar...

Excerpt: ...Court. (Local Rule 2.7(B).) As to Plaintiff's design defect claims, Defendant failed to demonstrate that it supplied a specific product to the Navy pursuant to a contract and specific MIL‐SPEC that required asbestos between January 1980 through October 14, 1982, as not all packing MIL‐SEPCS specified asbestos as a required ingredient. (Springs Declaration, Ex. H [MIL‐P‐ 17303C].) As to Plaintiff's failure to warn claims, Defendant failed ...

Excerpt: ...or failure to lodge courtesy copies with the Court. (Local Rule 2.7(B).) Defendant sustained its initial burden via the factually devoid prong of Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826. Plaintiff's special interrogatory responses demonstrate that Plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, evidence that Defendant acted with the requisite malice, fraud or oppression to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. (Exs...

Excerpt: ...Motion is granted as follows: Dr. Ranjithan shall answer questions regarding the 2008 MRI scans, and regarding whether before 2009 anyone had ever criticized his interpretation of a MRI. Dr. Ranjithan shall not be compelled to provide his present or after the fact opinions about the 2008 MRI scan. To clarify: the questions delineated on Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum 2:20‐3:23 are proper because they do not seek Defendant's present or aft...

Excerpt: ...' opposition inexplicably addresses a different case involving a defendant named Estevez who was allegedly driving drunk. (Opp. at 3, 4.) While Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890 held that driving a vehicle while intoxicated may in appropriate circumstances evidence a conscious disregard of probable injury to others and be sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages, there is no such allegation in the instant complaint. Chin...

Excerpt: ...Of Plaintiffs Motion To Compel Further Responses And Responsive <0048005100570056000300 00240051004700030029>or Sanctions HEARING REQUIRED. The LWDA letter and original complaint both treated DDI and LA Driver as a joint employer (both use the singular "Defendant"), but Plaintiffs now confirm they are not asserting a joint employer theory. (Reply at 8). The original complaint but not the LWDA letter use DDI "and/or" LA Drivers. Th...

Excerpt: ...Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, And Ninth Causes Of Action Of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint Defendant San Francisco Housing Authority's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted without leave to amend as to the sixth cause of action. "[U]nless Labor Code provisions are specifically made applicable to public employers, they only apply to employers in the private sector." (Johnson v. Arvin‐Edison Water Storage Dist. (2009) 174 Cal....

Excerpt: ...on per Code of Civ. Proc., § 1094.5(h). To obtain such a stay, petitioner must demonstrate that the stay will not cause the public interest to suffer and the agency is unlikely to prevail on the merits. (See Board of Medical Quality Assur. v. Superior Court (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 272, 276.) In this case, petitioner fails to meet either prong of this test. Given petitioner's history of substance abuse, petitioner fails to show that it would be...

Excerpt: ...Britz, Inc. v. Alfa- Laval Food & Dairy Co. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1085, the court held that a successful party to arbitration is entitled to post-award, pre-judgment interest under Civil Code section 3287, subdivision (a). The Britz court held that a successful party to an arbitration is entitled to "recover damages certain" within the meaning of section 3287, subdivision (a) as of the date the arbitrator renders his or her award. (Id. at...

Excerpt: ...in Interest did not succeed on any significant issue in this litigation. (Cf. Save Our Heritage Organisation, 11 Cal.App.5th at 157 [project proponent successfully appealed judgment granting petition for writ of mandate which challenged city's approval of site development permit for park revitalization project]; Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. A Free Pregnancy Center (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 633, 635-637 [appellants filed initial comp...

Excerpt: ..., second, fourth, fifth and seventh causes of action are overruled. The demurrer to the third cause of action is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. The demurrer as to the first cause of action for negligent hiring, training, supervision, and/or retention is overruled. Liberally construing the complaint, Plaintiffs plead sufficient facts to establish a claim. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 452; 2d Am. Compl. 10, 11, 15, 26‐27.) Whether an employee...

Excerpt: ... JUDGMENT. (part 1 of 2) Defendants' Cahill Contractors, Inc., 923 Folsom Acquisition, LLC, Align Real Estate, LLC and Pacific Structures, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment is granted. Plaintiff merely demonstrates "abstract negligence" and cannot establish causation as a matter of law. "In cases in which the specific conduct of third parties is brought to the attention of a defendant property owner sufficiently in advance of...

Excerpt: ...complaint was filed on July 3, 2018. By order filed November 5, 2018, the Court sustained Defendant's unopposed demurrer to that complaint, which the Court found to be uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible, and granted Plaintiff 10 days leave to amend. Plaintiff did not do so. By order filed November 29, 2018, the court granted Plaintiff 60 days leave to file a second amended complaint, due January 31, 2019. The order directed Plaintiff tha...

Excerpt: ...sities. (See Priebe v. Nelson (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1112, 1115‐1116 ["If [defendant] knew or should have known of his dog's vicious propensities and failed to inform [plaintiff] of such facts, he could be found to have exposed [plaintiff kennel worker] to an unknown risk and thereby be held strictly liable at common law for her injuries. [Citations.] Under such circumstances, the defense of primary assumption of risk would not bar [plaintif...

Excerpt: ...parent has pervasive control over subsidiary). (See DVI, Inc. v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1080, 1093-1094.) A plaintiff relying on one of these theories of liability must make a sufficient evidentiary showing-and not merely rely on its allegations-to establish jurisdiction. (See DVI, Inc., 104 Cal.App.4th at 1094.) Here, plaintiff relies on a single e-mail from insurance adjuster Jeffrey Kaiser. (Mannion Dec., Ex. 1.) Plaintiff notes...

Excerpt: ... argues it has never refused to arbitrate and that Defendant waived its right to compel arbitration. A party seeking to compel arbitration must "plead and prove a prior demand for arbitration under the parties' arbitration agreement and a refusal to arbitrate under the agreement." (Mansouri v. Sup.Ct. (Fleur Du Lac Estates Ass'n) (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 633, 830.) However, in certain circumstances, the opposing party's refusal ...

Excerpt: ...ication as to SBS Corporation's cross‐complaint is denied. Five Star failed to maintain its initial burden of production. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2).) The lynchpin of Five Star's motion is that it was performing its work in the kitchen area and the accident occurred at a different portion of the worksite. Five Star relies on 184:4‐7 of plaintiff's deposition to show that it was working in the kitchen. (Five Star's UMF ...

Excerpt: ...anted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action." A cause of action has no merit if "a defendant establishes an affirmative defense to that cause of action." (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(o)(2).) A defendant has met that burden if she shows that "there is a complete defense to the cause of action." (Id. § 437c(p)(2).) Defendants here do not meet this burden. They bring their motion based on collateral estoppel, arguing t...

Excerpt: ...rry Odbert did not properly file or notice for hearing his purported cross‐petition to correct contractual arbitration award for hearing. However, it raises the same issues as those in his opposition to petitioner's motion, and is denied. Respondent fails to show that the arbitrator exceeded her powers within the meaning of Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1286.2(a)(4) or 1286.6(b). Even if the arbitrator misinterpreted the parties' agreement, to t...

Excerpt: ...s other than the alleged economic damage related to the purchase of the vehicle itself. Plaintiff fails to plead any facts showing that he was exposed to liability for personal damages independent of the economic loss. "The economic loss rule requires a purchaser to recover in contract for purely economic loss due to disappointed expectations, unless he can demonstrate harm above and beyond a broken contractual promise." (Robinson Helicop...

Excerpt: ...es County Superior Court and all transfer costs must be paid by plaintiff Nicole Tate‐ Naghi. Venue is presumptively proper in the county where any of the defendants resides. (CCP 395(a).) The first amended complaint alleges that all of the defendants reside in Los Angeles County. Ms. Tate‐ Naghi has alleged transitory causes of action for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty that do not involve the internal affairs of the tru...

Excerpt: ... member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same autho...

Excerpt: ...sole cause of action for fraud in the inducement in the cross‐ complaint filed by defendant and cross‐claimant Balaji Srinivasan is overruled. California substantive law, not Delaware substantive law, governs the issue of the sufficiency of the reliance allegations in Mr. Srinivasan's fraud claim. Per Ron Greenspan Volkswagen, Inc. v. Ford Motor Land Development Corp. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 985, Mr. Srinivasan has adequately alleged that h...

Excerpt: ...credits, tax statutes are strictly construed in favor of the taxpayer. (Taiheyo Cement U.S.A., Inc. v. Franchise Tax Board (2012) 204 Cal. App. 4th 254). The City's argument that the waiver of penalty provision in SF Business and Tax Regulations Code 6.17‐4 should not be construed in plaintiffs' favor because that provision waives a penalty and does not impose a tax lacks merit. The City makes a distinction without a difference and case...