Excerpt: ......

Excerpt: ......

Excerpt: ......

Excerpt: ......

Excerpt: ...guing that the documents sought in these Requests are directly relevant to this litigation, and none of Defendant's objections have merit. Thus, where a demanding party deems that an objection to a response is without merit, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(a)(3).) Thus, the Court treats this Motion as a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production...

Excerpt: ...uires service on an a competent member of the household, followed by a mailing to the defendant at the same address. The Proof of Service, filed September 8, 2014, shows that the summons and cross‐complaint were left with Stacey Pierce at Cross‐ defendant's residence, and the papers were mailed to Cross‐defendant at that address on August 28, 2014. Service was complete 10 days after mailing. (Code of Civ. Proc. Sect. 415.20, subd. (a).) Tha...

Excerpt: ...iled his original Petition in this matter (12‐1‐20 Petition) seeking a Writ of Mandamus that would have directed Respondent police department to issue a “Certificate of Detention” following Petitioner's arrest and release, pursuant to Pen. Code Sects. 849.5, 851.6. The original Petition was apparently rendered moot by Respondent's subsequent issuance of the requested Certificate. Petitioner thereafter filed, on 2‐25‐21, the operative ...

Excerpt: ...EJUDICE. Judgment Creditor indicates that it discovered various “akas” for Judgment Debtor Maher Abudamous (Judgment Debtor) and filed a Declaration of Identity (Declaration) identifying these “akas.” As a threshold matter, however, this Declaration violates Rule 1.201(a)(1) of the California Rules of Court. It is therefore STRICKEN on the Court's own motion. Accordingly, the clerk of the court is ORDERED to remove the Declaration of Iden...

Excerpt: ...ial Notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (d) & (h).) Both parties refer to the plan documents in their briefs, and Plaintiff California Spine and Neurosurgery Institute (Plaintiff) does not oppose the Request for Judicial Notice. (See StorMedia Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, 457, fn.9.) A. First Cause of Action – Promissory Estoppel Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff's first cause of action...

Excerpt: ...ff failed to comply with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1324(b). Second, Plaintiff has failed to allege a viable cause of action in the proposed amendments. Plaintiff alleges that he tripped and fell, and sustained personal injuries, while waling on the pedestrian walkway at his apartment complex. His existing complaint alleges negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff now seeks to asserts that he suffers from diabetic neuropathy and that his ...

Excerpt: ...ants shall file and serve their First Amended Cross‐Complaint on or before June 1, 2021. As to the first cross‐cause of action for abuse of process, such a claim is the willful act in the use of process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding. (Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1157, 1168.) Further, “merely obtaining or seeking process is not enough; there must be subsequent abu...

Excerpt: ...irst Set of Requests for Production of Documents, Request No. 4, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The requests for judicial notice are DENIED as irrelevant. Requests for fees are DENIED. In its written response to Request #4, Sun Valley Partners LLC make dozens and dozens of evidentiary objections – on every conceivable basis, whether or not meritorious or applicable. No privilege log was served. As part of the “meet and confer” proce...

Excerpt: ...led beyond the statutory 60‐day deadline, the Court exercises its discretion to rule on the motion. Code of Civ. Proc. Section 425.16(f.) Cross‐ defendants Atulya Velivelli's and Aditya Velivelli's special motion to strike the third cause of action from the Cross‐complaint fails to make a prima facie showing under prong one of the SLAPP statutes, Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16, that the cause of action arises from protected speech o...

Excerpt: ...ell as Plaintiff's amended opposition, filed April 19, in which Plaintiff claims that Defendants did not meet and confer in good faith. Plaintiff alleges a breach of his lease based on the claim that he had an “indefinite and perpetual” lease term that Defendants could not terminate. Complaint, ¶ 36. As alleged in the Complaint, however, the lease specified a one‐year term and stated that a 60‐day notice could be used to terminate the le...

Excerpt: ... to Sect. 397(c), Cirrus requests a venue transfer to the Sonoma County Superior Court, which is near the subject airplane crash site, on grounds that twelve (12) non‐party witnesses (4 eye‐witnesses and 8 first responders) live in or near Sonoma County and have signed declarations stating they would be inconvenienced by having to travel about 85 miles to Redwood City to testify at trial. See Sect. 397(c) (the Court may transfer venue “when...

Excerpt: ...t prejudice for the reasons set forth below. Plaintiff seeks the appointment of a discovery referee to preside over the remaining depositions in this case, in light of the fact that Plaintiff has attempted to complete the deposition of Defendant Orhan Tolu on three separate occasions. The gravamen of the parties' dispute concerns Plaintiff's counsel's questions relating to a $50,000 check issued by Defendant Tolu, and defense counsel's invocation...

Excerpt: ...The case will be set for Case Management and Trial Setting Conference. This case was filed in January 2016. In January 2017, after participation in mediation, the parties allegedly agreed to sale of the disputed property and to participate in arbitration on remaining issue of accounting. The alleged settlement stipulation of the parties was NOT provided to the Court or filed in this action. There is only a joint ex parte request by counsel for th...

Excerpt: ...), DEBORAH SULLIVAN(DOE 18), KAREN FITZGERALD(DOE 19) AND GREGORY D. HANSEN(DOE 30) TENTATIVE RULING: The Court grants Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice as to all 31 matters. The Motion to Strike, filed by Defendants MAINS, SLOAN, SHREWSBERRY, FRANCESCONI, WT CAPITAL LENDERS SERVICES, BERG, POWELL, NUNEZ, WELLS FARGO & CO., SULLIVAN, FITZGERALD, and HANSEN is DENIED. The 12 moving defendants were substituted into this matter in place of Doe...

Excerpt: ...DOE 19) AND GREGORY D. HANSEN(DOE 30) TENTATIVE RULING: A. The Complaint Fails to State any Cause of Action against the DEMURRING DEFENDANTS. The demurrers by Defendants MAINS, SLOAN, SHREWSBERRY, FRANCESCONI, WT CAPITAL LENDERS SERVICES, BERG, POWELL, NUNEZ, WELLS FARGO & CO., SULLIVAN, FITZGERALD, and HANSEN to the seventh and eighth causes of action are sustained. Neither the seventh nor eighth cause of action alleges any wrongful acts by thes...

Excerpt: ...t on the basis of extrinsic mistake. Defendant filed this motion to set aside default more than six months after the default and default judgment were entered. Accordingly, relief under CCP § 473(b) is not available to Defendant. The Court, however, may set aside default on the basis of extrinsic fraud or mistake pursuant to its equitable powers. In order to obtain relief under the Court's equitable power, Defendant must demonstrate (1) a merito...

Excerpt: ...d below. Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 436. In sustaining Putnam's Demurrer to Nissan's Second Amended CrossComplaint (2ACC), the Court concluded that the 2ACC did not allege a valid liquidated damages clause. See 11‐12‐20 Order (signed 11‐9‐20). The allegations in Nissan's 3ACC largely track the allegations from the 2ACC, with some minor additions, including the following Parag. 9: “The Repayment Provision was included in the FI Agreement beca...

Excerpt: ...c.'s Third Amended Cross‐Complaint (3ACC) is OVERRULED, for the reasons stated below. Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 430.10(e). Putnam has not shown Nissan's breach of contract claim to be time‐barred on its face Putnam first argues Nissan's breach of contract claim is time‐barred under California's four‐year statute of limitations. Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 337. Putnam made this identical argument in the context of its previous demurrer to Nissan's 2...

Excerpt: ...ntered in Case No. 19‐CIV‐06527, it does not appear that Plaintiff may be subject to a prefiling order before being found to be a vexatious litigant. (See Hupp v. Solera Oak Valley Greens Assn. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1300, 1318‐1319 [refusing to dismiss claims filed by nonvexatious litigant even though nonvexatious litigant alleged claims similar to claims alleged by co‐ plaintiff who was a vexatious litigant and was the mother of the vexa...

Excerpt: ...nia Rules of Court – which states that “If the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request, or if the reasons a further response to a particular discovery request is deemed necessary are based on the response to some other discovery request, the other request and the response to it must be set forth . . . .” Regarding Form Interrogatory 17.1, Defendants' Separate Statement does ...

Excerpt: ...habilitation Plan and the individual who verified Petitioner's ex parte conservator application. Respondent also seeks the production of documents covering four topics relating to Petitioner's decision to pursue a conservatorship and Rehabilitation Plan and the grounds for those decision. Finally, Respondent seeks to depose the person most knowledgeable (PMK) of those four topics. Petitioner does not challenge Respondent's right to receive docume...