Excerpt: ...on or review by a judicial body or other official proceeding (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(e)(2)); and/or 2) in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue(s) or issue(s) of public interest. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(e)(4).) Defendant contends that Plaintiff's complaint arose from Defendant's protected activity and Plaintiff cannot establish a probabi...

Excerpt: ...d into a contract with Webcor Construction, LP to construct a project, and that Webcor then entered into a written subcontract with Plaintiff for the project with an agreed‐upon contract price of $16,424,494. (FAC, ¶¶ 8‐9.) Plaintiff alleges that Webcor has not paid Plaintiff nearly three million dollars under the contract. (FAC, ¶ 16.) Plaintiff alleges that it previously served on CSU a stop payment notice in the amount of $2,864,487.54,...

Excerpt: ...verse condemnation. In their FAC, Plaintiffs allege they own a 48‐acre parcel in the San Luis Obispo County (the Property) to cultivate wine grapes. (FAC, ¶ 8.) Plaintiffs allege they acquired the Property in 2012. (FAC, ¶ 9.) Plaintiffs allege in summer 2013, they hired Miller Drilling Company to install an electric water pump and related water supply facilities on the Property's existing water well for the purpose of irrigating Plaintiffs' ...

Excerpt: ...nded Summons and Complaint were served on Jay Coakley at 32230 N. Harbor Dr., Fort Bragg, CA 95437 (the Fort Bragg Address”) via substituted service. The documents were left with Jay Coakley Jr., son of Defendant, on January 17, 2018 at 3:35 p.m., and were mailed to that same Fort Bragg Address on that same date from Ft. Bragg, California. Defendant did not appear in the action. On June 3, 2019, default was entered against Defendant. On January...

Excerpt: ...ition of Public Property is alleged against the State of California (the “State”), amongst other Defendants. On January 12, 2021, the State served two deposition subpoenas for business records relating to Jordan's records on California Polytechnic State University, in San Luis Obispo (“Cal Poly”), and on Cal Poly Campus Health & Well Being, seeking production of records, on February 8, 2021 (the “Subpoenas”). The Subpoenas were both a...

Excerpt: ...aintiff alleges he was injected with something to be “put to sleep,” and that after a second injection, he felt “like he was going to die.” Plaintiff alleges he could not move his body, could not speak, and vomited. Plaintiff alleges he was injected with something to stop the vomiting but that Dr. Cruz wanted to proceed with the “surgery” without anesthesia. Plaintiff alleges he refused and postponed his surgery. Plaintiff alleges he ...

Excerpt: ...intiff filed her first amended complaint on June 1, 2018. Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint (”SAC”) on October 3, 2018. The SAC alleges three causes of action, for (1) negligence against SPS; (2) violation of the Homeowner Bill of Rights (“HBOR”) against all Defendants; and (3) and Unfair Business Practices under Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq., against all Defendants. The action arises out of Plaintiff's a...

Excerpt: ...laint (“SAC”) on December 10, 2018. The parties' dispute arises out of the negotiation, sale, and construction of a home in Paso Robles. The SAC sets forth the following allegations. On June 23, 2015, Plaintiffs entered into a New Construction Residential Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instruction (the “Purchase Agreement”) with Kleck, the owner of the property. Merrill and Andrew were, respectively, the broker and agent negotiating ...

Excerpt: ...wn Creek Lane, Paso Robles, and Defendants own 7330 Town Creek Lane, Paso Robles. (Compl., ¶¶ 1, 3.) Plaintiff alleges the two properties share a common border with the lake during high water levels, but because of the drought, Plaintiff “has consistently crossed over the Raad Property during periods of low water levels by way of an access road [the Lake Access Road] openly and without permission for a period in excess of twenty years.” (Co...

Excerpt: ... (the Settlement). On August 13, 2020, this Court granted the parties' motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement. Now before the Court is Arguello's unopposed motion for final approval. The settlement class consists of 1,227 Class Members, defined as all persons that Defendant employed in California during the class period. The class period is May 21, 2014 through August 13, 2020, the date the Court granted preliminary approval. The parti...

Excerpt: ...s' fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 (Section 1021.5). Legal Authority. Pursuant to section 1021.5, a trial court may ‘award attorney[ ] fees to a successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action [that] has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest if: (a) a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, has been conferred on the general public or a large class of...

Excerpt: ...motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, which motion the Court granted on November 18, 2020. Now before the Court is the unopposed motion for final approval of the settlement. The settlement class consists of 267 Class Members, defined as “all current and former employees who worked for Defendant in California at any time from April 25, 2018 through March 26, 2019.” The Parties have agreed to settle the class claims for a ...

Excerpt: ...ys General Act (“PAGA”). Plaintiffs and Defendants have now settled, and Plaintiffs move for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769.) Plaintiffs served the motion and supporting documents on Defendants; no opposition or objection was filed. Plaintiffs seek an order: 1) Provisionally approving and certifying the Settlement Class; 2) Provisionally approving the Named Plaintiffs (ALEJANDRA GUZMAN, K...

Excerpt: ...ode of Civil Procedure section 426.50. Defendant's proposed cross‐complaint alleges claims for declaratory relief and reimbursement, no coverage and reimbursement, fraud and deceit, and negligent misrepresentation against Plaintiff. (Exh. 1.) Defendant contends that it learned of misrepresentations and concealments by Plaintiff when it received supplemental responses to written discovery on or about October 14, 2020. (Valdespino Decl., ¶ 2.) D...

Excerpt: ...g Statement identifying the Lender as “WebBank” and the Borrower as Defendant. Defendant filed an answer to the complaint on October 13, 2020. Now before the Court is Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. The Court is not in receipt of an opposition; a proof of service is on file. Under California law, “[a] written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter is valid, enforceable, and irrevocab...

Excerpt: ...ach, known as Tract #3043 (“Tract 3043”). On November 29, 2016, a Statement of Agreement was filed reporting the parties had participated in mediation which resulted in a conditional settlement. The matter has been on calendar for various status reports since that time.2 The Settlement Agreement between Hansen and Silver Shoals (the “Agreement”)3 provides that Silver Shoals would pay Hansen $700,000 and transfer title of Lot 6 of Tract 30...

Excerpt: ...ry on Defendant, including demands for production of documents, special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and requests for admission. Defendant failed to respond to any of the discovery. On January 29, 2021, Plaintiffs' counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant requesting that Defendant respond to the discovery on or before February 12, 2021. Defendant failed to respond. Plaintiffs now bring four motions: • Motion to Compel Defend...

Excerpt: ...t piece‐rate employee, whereby he allegedly received certain compensation for certain tasks performed (also referred to as “task pay”). Plaintiff's first amended complaint (FAC) alleges causes of action for (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay all wages owed for rest period time; (3) failure to pay overtime wages; (4) failure to provide first meal periods timely; (5) failure to provide second meal periods; (6) unfair competi...

Excerpt: ...ntacted by the arbitrator by phone. On November 14, 2018, the arbitrator issued and served his decision, which awarded $7,693 in favor of Ausman, plus interest at the legal rate of ten percent per annum “from the 30th day after the date of service of this award.” Although the arbitration was non‐binding, it becomes binding unless a party has sought trial within 30 days after service of the award. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6203(b).) If no actio...

Excerpt: ...t (“REG”) and its chief executive officer, David Singer, were also named as defendants. They were dismissed without prejudice on April 2, 2021. On May 17, 2021, EHHOA filed a cross ‐complaint against Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs and the individual Defendants all reside within Emerald Hills Estates, a common interest development, located in San Luis Obispo (the “Development”). The Development is subject to both the Davis‐Stirling Common Inte...

Excerpt: ...ictoria Street Partners, LLC alleging causes of action for (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty; (3) money had and received; (4) offer and sale of unqualified non‐exempt securities; (5) misrepresentation or omission of material facts in violation of Corporations Code section 25401; (6) conversion; (7) accounting; and (8) fraud. The parties' dispute arises out of what Plaintiffs allege is a “shell game...

Excerpt: ...months old at the time) suffered burns from hot coffee left on a table while in Defendant's care. After seeking leave to amend, Jennifer filed a first amended complaint on October 23, 2020, adding a request for punitive damages. Defendant answered the FAC on November 20, 2019. In addition to filing an action on behalf of the minor, Jennifer filed an individual action for negligent infliction of emotional distress (20CV‐0322) in June 2020. The c...

Excerpt: ...t 31, 2012. Defendant answered the complaint on June 5, 2014. On March 6, 2015, the parties reached a settlement for $13,567.29. On March 20, 2015, the parties submitted a Stipulation for Settlement under which Defendant's insurance company (Progressive Insurance) agreed to pay $8,700 of the $13,567.29 settlement amount and Defendant agreed to pay the remainder of $4,867.29, in monthly installments of $15, starting on February 15, 2015. The parti...

Excerpt: ...al breaks; (2) failure to provide rest breaks; (3) penalties under Labor Code section 203; (4) violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200; and (5) penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), Labor Code section 2699, et seq. This action has now been resolved pending preliminary approval of the parties' settlement. Plaintiff brings this unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, and moves the Cou...

Excerpt: ...d. Plaintiff previously moved for judgment on the pleadings, largely based on Defendants' failure to controvert the material allegations in the complaint based on their unverified answer. On January 12, 2021, this Court denied Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, noting that Plaintiff's operative pleading suffered from various deficiencies, including but not limited to a failure to set out each cause of action separately, along with ...