Excerpt: ... Robles. The three properties at issue are: (1) 14615 Chimney Rock Road (APN: 080‐055‐015); (2) 15750 Natoma Pass Road (APN: 080‐171‐001); and (3) 3975 Natoma Pass Road (APN: 080‐071‐002). The complaint alleges the deeds were recorded on June 5, 2018, and identify Daniel as the grantor purporting to grant title to Arriela;1 and that Defendants have listed the Chimney Rock property for sale. Plaintiff states he did not discover the for...

Excerpt: ... served Plaintiff with (1) form interrogatories, (2) special interrogatories, (3) requests for production of documents (“RFPs”), and (4) requests for admission (“RFAs”).1 Responses were due on October 21, 2020. After sending a meet and confer letter,2 Defendant filed motions to compel responses and a motion to deem the RFAs admitted. The motions were initially set for calendar on April 29, 2021, and then continued to May 13, 2021, and aga...

Excerpt: ...implants and restorative dentistry.” (Comp., ¶¶ 6, 10.) On April 15, 2021, the Court granted Dr. Phillips' (1) motions to compel responses to form interrogatories (set two) and requests for production (set five); and (2) motion to deem requests for admission (set two) admitted. The Court also granted discovery sanctions in the amount of $1,300. Plaintiff was ordered to provide her discovery responses and pay the sanctions by May 7, 2021. The ...

Excerpt: ... the settlement was conditional. On March 3, 2021, Plaintiff filed a stipulated agreement (the Stipulation), signed by both parties. The Stipulation provides that the parties agree that $2,882.41 is the accurate amount Defendant owes Plaintiff. Defendant agreed to repay the amount due according to a payment schedule which required him to make monthly payments. The parties agreed that these consecutive monthly installment payments totaled $2,882.4...

Excerpt: ...tive defense of prescriptive easement for a portion of roadway that encroaches onto the Nickersons' property and a parking area on the Nickersons' property. The Charleses (“Cross ‐Complainants”) filed a cross‐complaint on April 26, 2021, alleging causes of action for (1) quiet title to a disputed driveway; (2) quiet title to an area of encroachment based on prescriptive easement; (3) declaratory relief; and (4) a preliminary and permanent...

Excerpt: ...d 2/27/01, and Marco Specchierla (collectively “Defendants”) on December 31, 2020, 20CV‐0689 (the “Cziraki Action”). The Czirakis filed a First Amended Complaint on March 22, 2021. The Czirakis own and reside on property abutting Defendants' property. (Cziraki First Amended Compliant (“Cziraki FAC.”), ¶¶ 5‐6, 10‐11.) The Cziraki property is accessible only by way of a recorded private access easement across Defendants' propert...

Excerpt: ...causes of action, for (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) fraud; (4) accounting and production of documents; (5) injunctive relief and constructive trust; (6) intentional interference with contractual relationship; and (7) negligent interference with contractual relationship (the “FAC”). On October 7, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Doe Amendment naming Cornerstone Residential Real Estate, Inc. as Doe 1. On October 8, 2019, Ben...

Excerpt: ...general contractor for the Project. In furtherance of the Project, Specialty hired subcontractors. At some point, for disputed reasons, payments stopped, resulting in Specialty and various subcontractors recording mechanics' liens. Those liens in turn led to this litigation and the consolidation of several related actions, all of which involve the Project. Currently on calendar is Garden Street's motion to compel amended responses to requests for...

Excerpt: ...buse; (2) fraud, intentional misrepresentation and concealment of fact; (3) breach of contract; (4) conversion; (5) accounting; (6) negligence; (7) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (9) professional negligence by an attorney; (10) breach of fiduciary duty; (11) breach of fiduciary trust duty; (12) conspiracy; and (13) declaratory relief. Now before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for tri...

Excerpt: ...tnership (the Limited Partnership); and other Defendants who are no longer a party to the lawsuit. Intervening Plaintiff Daniel Eddleman joined the lawsuit shortly before trial. A court trial commenced on October 27, 2020. On July 20, 2021, this Court issued its Statement of Decision. Plaintiffs now move for a new trial under Code of Civil Procedure section 657. Intervening Plaintiff Daniel Eddleman has filed a notice of joinder to the motion. A ...

Excerpt: ...�). The parties agreed that the Court would decide certain preliminary issues in Phase I of the trial, on the papers and after oral argument, which occurred on March 18, 2021. Thereafter, the parties filed final briefing and the matter was deemed submitted on March 30, 2021. On May 17, 2021, the Court issued its Ruling on Phase I of the Trial, which addressed eleven separate issues. Ten days later, Karen Tallent (“Respondent”) filed a Motion ...

Excerpt: ...g amounts. Wigwam moves here for its attorneys' fees and costs incurred in attempting to collect on the Judgment, in the amount of $2,658.16. Wigwam served the motion on Judgment Debtors, but no opposition was filed. Wigwam's unopposed Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) is granted; the Court shall take judicial notice of Exhibits 1‐3 to the RJN. Wigwam moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 685.040 and 685.080 on the grounds th...

Excerpt: ...incorporated San Luis Obispo County. (Compl., passim.) The plaintiffs are German nationals who, at the time of the incident, were vacationing in California. Now before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Pierre Hempel (“Plaintiff”). The notice of motion, motion and supporting documents were served by email on counsel for the plaintiffs via email on July 26, 2021. No opposition is on file. On June 2, 2021, Defenda...

Excerpt: ...t it is the owner of real property located at 2445 Brady Lane, Arroyo Grande, California (the Property) consisting of a one hundred and twenty‐eight (128) acre parcel which sits adjacent to Highway 101 (the Highway), and which shares frontage with the Highway for approximately one‐third (1/3) of a mile, with the Highway elevated above the Property. (SAC, ¶¶ 1, 3.) Plaintiff alleges its uses of the Property includes or will include residenti...

Excerpt: ...2017. Plaintiff then filed a first amended complaint on July 20, 2017. On March 1, 2021, this Court (Hon. Linda D. Hurst, presiding) granted Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, now the operative pleading in the case. The Court also granted a trial continuance from April 6, 2021, to December 7, 2021. Now before the Court is Defendant's motion to continue the December 7, 2021, trial date. As outlined in its motion, Defe...

Excerpt: ... On January 19, 2021, W. Craig Robertson III, of the American Arbitration Association, conducted a telephonic arbitration hearing. (Petition, ¶¶ 6, 7.) Respondents did not appear at the arbitration. On this same date, Mr. Robertson awarded Petitioner $114,589.86 in damages. (Petition, ¶ 8.) The Award is attached to the petition and was served on all parties on January 28, 2021. Petitioner petitions the Court for confirmation of the arbitration...

Excerpt: ...t a motion to vacate the order prior to that date. Plaintiff now brings a motion to set aside the dismissal, to set aside the Notice of Settlement filed March 11, 2021, and to set the case for trial. Plaintiff served the notice of motion and motion on Defendant at her address of record. No opposition is on file. The moving papers show that on August 18, 2020, the parties negotiated a settlement with respect to the monetary terms but subject to a ...

Excerpt: ...ber 13, 2019, Sandra Natali (“Natali”) served a second set of requests for production of documents (“RFPs”) on the personal representative, Kim Mathis (“Mathis”). On December 11, 2019, Natali served a third set of RFPs (nos. 34‐101) on Mathis. Mathis served responses to both the second and third sets of RFPs on January 13, 2020. On February 18, 2020, Natali's counsel sent a meet and confer letter outlining his issues with the respon...

Excerpt: ...ocated at 783 Asilo Street, Arroyo Grande, California 93420 (the “Property”) to her and that she has invested significant money in the Property, but that Defendants did not convey title to her. Defendants now move for summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication, as to each of Plaintiff's causes of action, on the grounds that Plaintiff is judicially estopped from asserting that she owns the property; therefore, there are no tr...

Excerpt: ...ublic policy; and (4) promissory estoppel. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Warranty Administrator from September 8, 2015, to February 9, 2018. (Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Fact [UMF] 1.) A Warranty Administrator submits all warranty claims to manufacturers so Defendant can be reimbursed for jobs completed under those manufacturers' warranties. (UMF 2.) There is some dispute between the parties as to whether Plaintiff was the onl...

Excerpt: ...Larry, and caused a head‐on collision with Plaintiff. Now before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (FAC), which is opposed by Defendants. Legal Authority. “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading...” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(a)(1).) Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties in the same lawsui...

Excerpt: ... filed an answer to the complaint. Coasthills thereafter moved for summary judgment as to McGinty, which was granted. Judgment was entered on July 26, 2019, in the amount of $9,373.41. Coasthills now moves the Court for a determination that Coasthills is the prevailing party and, as such, requests that its attorney's fees be recoverable as an item of costs in the sum of $10,780. Coasthills served the motion and supporting declarations on McGinty,...

Excerpt: ...n April 22, 2021. That same day, the City filed a cross‐complaint against VLS alleging breach of contract, false claims, and unfair competition. On June 14, 2021, VLS filed its own cross‐ complaint against the City for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and claims arising under section 1983 of title 42 of the United States Code. According to the petition, in January 2018, the City contracted wit...

Excerpt: ...e to file a first amended answer. Defendant seeks to add a fourteenth affirmative defense to Plaintiff's claims. The Court is not in receipt of an opposition from Plaintiff; Defendant has filed a notice of non‐receipt of opposition. Defendant's proposed fourteenth affirmative defense states: Plaintiff's claims are barred by the settlement and release entered into by the parties in or around January 2019 in the matter before the Department of Fa...

Excerpt: ...��), and the California Department of Parks and Recreation (“State Parks”). Petitioner filed a First Amended Verified Petition on October 27, 2014. Petitioner brings its Petition on the grounds that the APCD, through an agreement with State Parks, substantively changed a District regulation (Rule 1001) without public notice, an opportunity for public comment, or a hearing as required by state air quality statutes; and as such, the agreement i...