Excerpt: ...a motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents, the motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(1); Kirkland v. Sup.Ct. (Guess?, Inc.) (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) In order to establish “good cause,” the moving party's burden is to show both: (1) relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the documen...

Excerpt: ...e unlimited action is pending may stay the unlawful detainer action until the issue of title is resolved in the unlimited action, or it may consolidate the actions.” (Martin‐Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385.) Thus, consolidation is permitted but not required. (See id., at p. 393 [“We do not hold that trial courts must in all cases grant applications for consolidation of an unlawful detainer proceeding with a pending quiet titl...

Excerpt: ... for monetary sanctions is DENIED. Defendant's motion to compel responses to its special interrogatories is denied for the same reasons stated in its tentative ruling granting Plaintiff's motion for protective order. In addition, Defendant's motion is untimely as to any interrogatories to which Plaintiff has responded pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subd. (c). Plaintiff served his supplemental responses on October 26, 2020 a...

Excerpt: ...and Procedure (“WPP”) manual from 2018 to the present. Defendant has agreed to produce the 2018 and 2020 manuals subject to a protective order. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel is GRANTED as to this request. 2. RFP No. 17 Plaintiff's RFP No. 17 seeks documents “including but not limited to electronically stored information and electronic mails, concerning any internal analysis or investigation . . . regarding the TRUNK DEFECT in EX...

Excerpt: ...Plaintiff is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. As a threshold matter, the motion is timely pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.090(a) and 2031.060(a). Defendant Ocean Colony Partners, LLC does not dispute that the Court directed the parties at the September 17, 2020 Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) that the parties coordinate the filing of their respective motions to compel and for protective order so that they could be heard o...

Excerpt: .... v. Woodward‐Clyde Associates (1985) 38 Cal.App.3d 488. “[O]nly when the good faith nature of a settlement is disputed it is incumbent upon the trial court to consider and weigh the Tech‐Bilt factors … when no one objects, the barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case is sufficient.” City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App....

Excerpt: ... 94080. Since she currently conducts hearings through Zoom, there should be no prejudice from this error. The Court rules on Defendants Silicon Valley Disposition, Inc. (“SVD”) and John M. Carroll (“Carroll”) as follows: A. Demurrer by Defendant Carroll The demurrer by Defendant Carroll on the ground that the Complaint names him only in a corporate capacity is OVERRULED. The Complaint names Defendant Carroll in the fifth and sixth causes ...

Excerpt: ...March 26. The Court ordered Plaintiff to provide proof of service of the application by March 25. On March 25, Plaintiff filed a proof of service of the summons and complaint on Defendant Ryan Pourtemour, as well as declarations of attempted service of the summons and complaint on Defendants Christine and James Pourtemour. However, no proof of service of the application was timely submitted in accordance with the Court's order. Accordingly, the C...

Excerpt: ...tion to quash subpoenas based on litigation taking place in New York. The underlying New York action is a personal injury action. The Defendant in that action, Subaru Distributors Corp., served the subpoenas on non‐party Petitioner Facebook, Inc. The subpoenas seek discovery of the contents of Plaintiffs' Facebook and Instagram accounts. The Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) bars disclosure of the contents of the subpoenaed accounts. The SC...

Excerpt: ...icipated in an informal discovery conference on December 1, 2020, but did not resolve the issues raised herein. Kawahito Decl. ¶23‐24. This, and the subsequent communications detailed in the Kawahito Decl., satisfies the meet and confer requirement. Defendant argues that Dr. Scott cannot participate in a deposition because of health issues, based on a November 24, 2020 letter from Dr. Gilbert Goodman of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation which s...

Excerpt: ... reasons set forth below. Both the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract and Second Cause of Action for Negligence are barred because Facebook is immune from liability under section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (“CDA”). (See 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).) Section 230(c)(1) states that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by ...

Excerpt: ...Defendants are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The asserted claims arise from the same conduct alleged in Plaintiff's complaint against Defendants in Yichao Chen v. Patricia Lileggi, et al, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Index No. 655664/2017 (“New York Civil Case”). See RJN, Ex. E. Defendants' summary judgment motion was granted in the New York Civil Case and the case was dismissed. RJN, Ex. F. Thus, Plai...

Excerpt: ... Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED. Neither Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion nor Plaintiffs' Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts are compliant with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350(b) because they do not state specifically the cause of action for which summary adjudication is sought and repeat it verbatim on the separate statement. Defendants' objections numbers 1 and 3 are SUSTAINED on those grounds. Additionally, Plaintiffs have no...

Excerpt: ...ges claims for: (1) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; (2) Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; and (3) Violation of Government Code § 815.6. The FAC is brought against Defendant, who is “a city located in San Mateo County, California.” (FAC ¶ 7.) A claim for money or damages against a local public entity requires that a claim first be presented before filing a lawsuit, subject to certain exceptions. (See Gov. Code §§ 905, ...

Excerpt: ...ed causes of action arises from (i.e., is based on) protected activity. City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 79. If defendant meets this initial burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff(s) to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the claim(s). Zamos v. Stroud (2004) 32 Cal.4th 958, 965. Here, Plaintiffs' 12‐4‐20 Complaint asserts two causes of action, for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED�...

Excerpt: ...election clause such as the one at issue here is generally given effect unless enforcement would be unreasonable or unfair, and the party opposing enforcement of the clause ordinarily bears the burden of proving why it should not be enforced.” (Handoush v. Lease Finance Group (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 729, 734 (Handoush).) “The burden, however, is reversed when the claims at issue are based on unwaivable rights created by California statutes. In ...

Excerpt: ...s Industry, Inc. (Siemens) and Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. (Liberty Mutual) are ORDERED to conduct a mediation pursuant to their subcontract with McCarthy under the terms set forth below. Pending the completion of the mediation, the crossactions involving Siemens, Liberty Mutual, and McCarthy are STAYED. Siemens' Subcontract with McCarthy requires that Siemens and McCarthy mediate any dispute arising from the Subcontract “before any legal proceedin...

Excerpt: ...ts discretion not to rule on Plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association's (Plaintiff or US Bank) objections to Defendants' evidence, because none of the disputed evidence affects the Court's ruling on the motion. (Code of Civ. Proc. Sect. 437c, subd. (q) [court need rule only on objections deemed material to court's disposition of motion].) Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED as to all attached exhibits. B. Defendants' Motion for Sum...

Excerpt: ...torney's fees is DENIED. Respondent contends, first, that the arbitrator lacked statutory authority to issue the December 18, 2019 “Amended Ruling.” According to Respondent, “the arbitrator had no statutory authority or power to change, ‘amend,' or otherwise ‘clarify' his December 17, 2019, decision, regardless of his desire to do so or whether the parties requested ‘clarification' during a telephone call.” Opposition, p.5. Pursuant...

Excerpt: ...ber 16, 2020 is denied. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 473(d); see Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544 [default judgment entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the matter prescribed by statute is void].) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20(b), plaintiff's process server attempted service on defendant at the Fremont apartment, the address defendant gave as his home address at the scene of the accident, ...

Excerpt: ...min Darrow (“Plaintiff”), is ruled on as follows: (1) Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED, pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d). (2) The Demurrer to the First through Fifth Causes of Action as barred by the statute of limitations is OVERRULED. Defendants argue that these claims are barred by the three‐year statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 338(d). The statute commences to run only after one has ...

Excerpt: ... “material continuing violations of your lease (smoking, unapproved dog, noise),” “material failure to carry out obligations under state landlord and tenant law (nuisance and interfering with quiet enjoyment of neighbors),” and “other good cause (harassment of neighbors, smoking, noise).” (Complaint, Ex. 2.) Defendant's tenancy is a Section 8 tenancy. (Complaint, Ex. 1.) The Complaint does not allege facts that would permit terminatio...

Excerpt: ...lows: Demurrer to the First Cause of Action for Premises Liability and Second Cause of Action for Negligence is OVERRULED. Defendant demurs to these claims based on failure to state facts sufficient to support these claims. Defendant assert that the facts pled are insufficient to support that Defendant owed Plaintiffs a duty of care. After reviewing the cases cited by the parties and the facts alleged in the Complaint though, the Court finds that...

Excerpt: ... Further, the Demurrer provides no argument that the first or second cause of action is uncertain. B. Demurrer to Third Cause of Action Defendant's demurrer to the third cause of action (fraudulent inducement) is sustained with leave to amend. 1. The Economic Loss Rule bars Plaintiff's claim. The economic loss rule allows a plaintiff to recover in tort when a product defect causes damage to “property other than the product itself.” (Jimenez v...

Excerpt: ...ased solely on allegations that Realogy “is the controlling company for” Cornerstone (Compl., ¶ 3) and that Defendants were the “alter egos of their co‐defendants” and “were joint venturers with, or co‐partners with, . . . their co‐defendants” (id., ¶ 11), Plaintiff contends that he has sufficiently pled the first cause of action for negligence and the third cause of action for tort of another against Realogy (see Pl. Opp., at...