Excerpt: ... Proce dure, section 473 provides that a court may, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow an amendment to a pleading upon any terms as may be just. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) The court's discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428 (Howard).) “The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare...

Excerpt: ...ing date of February 28, 2024 by the required 16 court days, plus five additional calendar days for service by mail, as required by Code of Civil Procedure, sections 12c and 1005, subdivision (b), the final day to serve notice of this hearing by mail was Janua ry 29, 2024. “The principal purpose of the requirement to file and serve a notice of motion a specified number of days before the hearing (§ 1005, subd. (b)) is to provide the opposi...

Excerpt: ...urt DE NIES defendant's request for judicial notice. It is unclear if the parties satisfied the requirements to have an Informal Discovery Conference, but if the requirement has not been met, the court waives the requirement since the parties have had multiple c onferences with the civil commissioner. The court notes that the parties raise several collateral issues in their briefing. In ruling on the motion, the court only considered facts rele...

Excerpt: ...ding o f proposed orders. The court will sign the proposed order submitted on February 9, 2024 with the date of the hearing changed to February 21, the date for the final approval hearing filled in, and any other changes that are appropriate based upon this tentative. The court adopts the language in the proposed order as part of its tentative ruling. The proposed order shall be submitted electronically through the clerk's office. On January 30...

Excerpt: ...itted on January 26, 2024. The court modifies Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) (amended effective January 1, 2024) regarding the wording of proposed orders. Plaintiff shall submit an order which incorporates the tentative and the non- contradictory language in the submi tted proposed order. On August 23, 2024, the court granted preliminary approval to this class and PAGA (Private Attorney General Act) settlement. This case is the third case involving sim...

Excerpt: ...plain t is DENIED. Plaintiff and Cross -defendant Montgomery Sansome, L.P.'s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED as to all items, but only for the existence of these documents as court records and not for the truth of any fact therein. (See Lockley v. Law Off ice of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 883 –884.) Defendant and Cross- complainant Nathalie Anne Gachot's papers reference a request for judicial notic...

Excerpt: ... efendants Brius, LLC, Brius Management Co., Rockport Healthcare Support Services, LLC, San Mateo Wellness GP, LLC, San Mateo Healthcare & Wellness Centre, LP, Susan Ehrlich, Nora De Leon, Bryan Guillermo, Shirley Faller, Kristine Guillermo, Chester Kuna ppilly and Shlomo Rechnitz (collectively “Defendants”) to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) of Plaintiffs Rosario Custodio (“Rosario”), et al. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) is rul...

Excerpt: ...ve plea ding, the pleading is OVERRULED. However, Plaintiff's Complaint on its face discloses a fatal defect which requires the Court to instead render judgment on the pleadings in favor of Defendant. Plaintiff has failed to comply with statutory notice requirem ents. “Due to the summary nature of [an unlawful detainer] action, a three -day notice is valid only if the landlord strictly complies with the provisions of section 1161, subdivision 2...

Excerpt: ... Relief is DENIED. The Court's tentative ruling from December 28, 2023, as modified, is restated here. The controversy involves the Opperman's October 15, 2021 application to build an Accessory Dwelling Unit ADU on their property, which cross defendants denied. The project is referred to interchangeably in the Cross- Complaint as the “ADU” and the Opperman Application.” (Cross- Complaint ¶¶7 and 19.) The Opperman's Fifth Cause of Action ...

Excerpt: ...a nd DENIED IN PART. Defendants David M. Bragg and Silicon Valley Real Ventures, LLC shall pay $10,000 to Plaintiffs' counsel no later than March 8, 2024. Plaintiffs move here for terminating sanctions, monetary sanctions, and a finding of contempt with re spect to Defendants David M. Bragg and Silicon Valley Real Ventures, LLC (“SVRV”). They contend that sanctions and contempt are warranted by Bragg's and SVRV's refusal to comply with the C...

Excerpt: ...s of action a gainst Stiles and second Cross -Defendant Johnson (“Johnson”). In short, the Cross- Complaint alleges that Homa held title to the Ferrari at all times, including when it was sold for $200,000.00, but was forced by the Cross -Defendants to pay $175,000 and var ious other sums of money because CrossDefendants were upset that the car had been sold. According to the Cross -Complaint, Johnson told Homa that she should pay the money t...

Excerpt: ...te of Li mitations Where a complaint shows on its face that the cause of action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, it is subject to demurrer. Sirott v. Latts (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 923, 928. Here, the FAC alleges that Plaintiffs purchased the Subje ct Property from the Defendants on July 15, 2019. FAC ¶11. It further alleges that Plaintiffs discovered the storm drain by chance in June 2022 when they were doing landscaping on the S...

Excerpt: ... S ani alleges that on or about 2022 a[n] oral agreement was made between Plaintiff, Monney Car Audio, and ISSIMI MECCANICA INC. The essential terms of the agreement are as follows: Plaintiff entered into an oral contract with Defendants Monney Car Audio and ISSIMI MECCAHNICA INC for installation of a rearview camera, radar, recording camera, and side signals to address visibility concerns unique to his 2020 Lamborghini SVJ ("vehicle") in...

Excerpt: ...� in Plaintiff's O pposition brief (pp. 1-6). OVERRULED to the extent that Defendant objects to the entirety of Plaintiff's “Statement of Facts.” However, the Court disregards any referenced “facts” or “evidence” that is/are not identified, and properly cited, in Plaintiff's Separate Statement. San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 315 -316. • Objection to Plaintiff's assertion of theories not ...

Excerpt: ...ked merit and that Defendant is entitled to recover attorneys' fees and costs as a prevailing party in the amount of $38,265.26. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is DENIED. Defendant sets forth a litany of inconsistencies in Plaintiff's testimo ny, and argues that Plaintiff is a serial litigant whose counsel has brought high numbers of meritless claims against businesses, seeking a payout for ADA and Unruh Act violations withou...

Excerpt: ...hip o f, and benefits flowing from, six real properties in Hayward, California. On January 10, 2023, defendant/cross- complainant Ashwani Kumar Bhakri (defendant) filed a cross -complaint alleging, inter alia, promissory fraud and breach of written contract, argu ing an alternative version of facts in which the two oral contracts alleged in the FAC never existed, and that the parties never entered into the fiduciary relationship which forms t...

Excerpt: ...is o ver 70 years of age may petition the court for a preference, which the court shall grant if the court finds both that the party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole, and that the health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party's interest in the litigation. Section 36, subdivision (a) “is mandatory and absolute in its application in civil cases whenever the litigants are 70 yea...

Excerpt: ...D. Initial ly, the court notes that defendant Owl, Inc. (Owl) has provided the incorrect address for the hearing. Department 28 is not located in Redwood City as the notice states, but instead at the Central Courthouse, Courtroom I, 800 North Humboldt St., San Mateo , CA 94401. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110 [the Notice “must specify” the location of the hearing].) As another preliminary matter, the declaration submitted by Owl is insu...

Excerpt: ...pe r annum of $28,554.79, and costs of $1,383.85 for a total award of $54,938.64. (Aug. 11, 2023 Default Judgment.) Schreiner moves here to set aside and vacate that judgment or to strike the prejudgment interest portion of it. Defendant contends that the aw ard of interest was improper under subdivision (a) of Civil Code §3287, which entitles a prevailing party to prejudgment interest on damages that are certain. (C.C. §3287(a).) However, as P...

Excerpt: ...ndant' s Request for Production of Documents (“RFPs”), Set One (the “Motions”). These are the fourth and fifth discovery motions brought by Defendant and Plaintiff has already been sanctioned $18,005.40, none of which has been paid. Defendant's Motions and requ est for terminating sanctions are GRANTED and the matter is ordered DISMISSED with prejudice. The proof of service (“POS”) for the Motions indicates they were sent to Plaintif...

Excerpt: ...wers to interrogatories, depositions, and matters of which judicial notice shall or may be taken.” Under Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Company (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, the party moving for summary judgment has the burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there is no triable issue of any material fact. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to make a prima facie showing that there is a triable issue of material fact. Here, t...

Excerpt: ..., inter a lia, the following causes of action (“COAs”) against Grove: private nuisance under Civil Code § 3479, trespass under Civil Code § 3334, negligence, injunctive relief, and violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 7000. Defendant's demurrer is SUSTAINED -IN -PART wit hout leave to amend OVERRULED -IN -PA R T. A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings, raising issues of law but not fact regarding the form or content of the opp...

Excerpt: ...are reason ably subject to dispute by CCSF and irrelevant. (Evid. C. §452(h); AL Holding Co. v. O'Brien & Hicks, Inc. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1313 fn. 2 [“a court must decline to take judicial notice of material that is not relevant”] (internal citation omitted).) Accordingly, the Court has not considered Plaintiffs' extrinsic evidence. (See Ion Equipment Corporation v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868.) This case is brought by Plaintiff...

Excerpt: ... 430.10 CALIF. RULE OF CT., RULE 3.1320] TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Wayne Podesta's, Gary Podesta, Jr.'s; and Podesta Family Investments II, LLC's (collectively, “Defendants”) 11 -7 -23 Demurrer to Plaintiffs' 9 -21 -23 First Amended Complaint (FAC) is SU STA INED-IN -PART without leave to amend and OVERRULED -INPART. Defendants' 11 -7 -23 Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) is GRANTED as follows: As to the document(s) filed in prior court p...

Excerpt: ...tain discovery … by means of a … mental examination of (1) a party to the action, … in any action in which the mental [] condition … of that party or other person is in controversy in the action. (Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 2032.020(a).) Here, Plaintiff has placed his ment al condition in controversy. Plaintiff claims to suffer from “depression, anxiety, hopelessness, decreased energy and sleep disturbance” as a result of the incident in S...