Excerpt: ...urt previously ruled on Defendant's motion to tax costs, the judgment had not been satisfied as of the time Plaintiff claimed costs. Plaintiff filed the present motion on June 26, 2018. There is no evidence before the court that Defendant satisfied the judgment before Plaintiff filed the present motion. Therefore, the motion is timely. Plaintiff's motion sets forth a prima facie showing of hours incurred for enforcement of judgment, as well as ea...

Excerpt: ...ired by Code Civ. Proc. § 439, which requires that the parties (or their attorneys, if represented) actually speak to each other, or make a genuine attempt to speak to each other, either in‐person or by phone, regarding the substance of the motion. An exchange of correspondence does not suffice. Attorney Pappas' 5‐ 15‐18 declaration (filed 5‐17‐18) does not comply with this requirement. It refers only to two emails, and provides no ind...

Excerpt: ...even if it did, the FAC would still state a cause of action for unlawful detainer. Defendant shall Answer the Complaint within five (5) days of Notice of Entry of this Order. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords suffi...

Excerpt: ...o comply with CRC Rule 3.1350. Defendants set forth 109 facts that they contend are material for disposing of the entire complaint. (See Moving Separate Statement at pp.1‐22.) Defendants then repeat the same 109 facts and same evidence in support of summary adjudication as to the second through tenth causes of action (but not the first cause of action). This style of Separate Statement, while convenient for the moving party, violates the requir...

Excerpt: ...n May 4, 2018 as payment for the judgment. In support, Defendant relies on Gray1 CPB LLC v. SCC Acquisitions, Inc. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 882 (“Gray”). In Gray, the debtor tendered a cashier's check for more than the amount owed on the judgment, and the creditor proceeded to file a Memorandum of Costs After Judgment and then cashed the cashier's check. The Gray court held that if the judgment creditor is presented with a check for the full am...

Excerpt: ...was filed on July 12, 2018, there was insufficient time to consider the matter prior to the current hearing date. As a result, the hearing on the demurrer is continued to July 26, 2018. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling af...

Excerpt: ...ge log, and the hearing on Defendant PriceWaterhouseCoopers' Joinder in the same motion, is continued to Aug. 3, 2018 at 9 a.m. in the Law & Motion Dept. In part due to documents being filed under seal, the Court has not had sufficient time to review LocusPoint's Reply papers. No later than July 25, 2018, each party may (but is not required to) file an additional brief not exceeding two pages, further addressing the following issues: (a) how many...

Excerpt: ...on. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties. ...

Excerpt: ...5 lodestar enhancement, for a total of $56,895.00. Of the $37,930.00 attorneys' fees, Plaintiff seeks $10,155.00 for work performed by the Knight Law Firm (“Knight firm”) and $27,775.00 for work performed by Hackler Daghighian Martino & Novak, P.C. (“HDMN”). In opposition, Defendants FCA US LLC and KTP Cars, Inc. (“Defendants”) object to both the hourly rates and the claimed time spent by the attorneys. 1. THE KNIGHT FIRM a. Hourly ra...

Excerpt: ...f Civ. Proc. §§2030.300, subd. (b) [interrogatories], 2033.290, subd. (b) [admissions] and 2031.310, subd. (b)(2) [documents].) Failure to comply with this requirement constitutes a “misuse of discovery.” (Id. §2023.010, subd. (i).) Defendant's motion fails to comply with this requirement. The correspondence between Defendant Goldbeck and Plaintiff do not satisfy the meet‐andconfer requirement because Defendant Goldbeck is not the party ...

Excerpt: ...or breach of contract is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Code Civ. Proc. §430.10(e). Separate and apart from Plaintiff's third‐party beneficiary claim (see Second Cause of Action), the FAC does not properly allege the existence of any written or oral contract between Plaintiff and Manor. Plaintiff argues the HOA's CCRs and/or Bylaws constitute a “three‐party contract” between Plaintiff, the HOA and Manor because they reference the HOA's r...

Excerpt: ... Friday, June 15, 2018, instead of Monday, June 18, 2018. Plaintiff still had time to timely file and serve an opposition though, and has not established any prejudice from the shortened notice. Nevertheless, Plaintiff did not substantively oppose the motion, and therefore the motion is continued to allow Plaintiff time to file a substantive opposition. Plaintiff's supplemental opposition is to be filed and served by August 3, 2018. Defendant's s...

Excerpt: ...fendant HASKEW, the Complaint alleges, or at least strongly implies, that a portion of damages caused by Clark might have been avoided or mitigated if Defendant HASKEW had discovered Clark's wrongful acts and reported them to the Plaintiff's Board sooner than Plaintiff eventually learned of Clark's acts. To this extent, at least some of the losses litigated in the Clark Litigation were possibly avoidable and are alleged to flow from the alleged n...

Excerpt: ...the hearing date. If the notice is served by overnight delivery, the notice period shall be increased by two court days. The court cannot cure a notice defect by continuing the hearing. Instead, the notice period must begin anew. Robinson v. Woods (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1268‐1268. Although plaintiff has not objected to the lack of statutory notice, a waiver of the notice period should not be inferred from silence. Urshan v. Musicians' Cre...

Excerpt: ...ani Decl., on 3‐14‐16, Plaintiff Cassidy signed an agreement requiring the arbitration of employment‐related disputes. Plaintiff's asserted claims here fall within the parties' agreement, which is enforceable. Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th 83. Accordingly, the motion is granted, and the case is STAYED pending resolution of the arbitration. Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 1281.4. Plaintiff's Opposition disputes defense counsel's contention that Plaint...

Excerpt: ... described Contract was, and is, subject to the provision of the Rees – Levering Motor Vehicle Sales and Finance Act (ASFA), Civil Code Section 2981—2984.4. (See Paragraph 8 at Pg. 2 of Complaint). Defendant, in answering the complaint, raises five (5) affirmative defenses directly related to ASFA. At no point in time during the course of the litigation did Plaintiff ever amend its complaint to remove or strike the contention that the contrac...

Excerpt: ...zi in Support of Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, filed March 15, 2018.) Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees is granted in the amount of $64,142.50. Defendant shall pay said amount to Plaintiff on or before 8‐13‐18. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court's ruling for the Court's signature, pursuant to Ca...

Excerpt: ...lished the service. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties. ...

Excerpt: ...weighs James Jin Qing Li's (“Li”) privacy objection. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank is ordered to provide the records requested in Plaintiffs' subpoena that was issued on February 14, 2018. (See Plaintiffs' Revised Exh. 1.) (2) The motion as to the subpoena to Wells Fargo is DENIED. Plaintiffs have not established that the subpoena was served on all of the individuals and/or entities identified in the subpoena. Plaintiffs served a “Notice to Consum...

Excerpt: ...onsequently, the hearing on the motion is continued to August 20, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department so that the parties may meet and confer. The moving party is required to file, no later than 7 days prior to the new hearing date, a code‐compliant declaration stating either (1) the parties have met and conferred in person or by telephone and (a) the parties have resolved the objections raised in the motion, which shall be taken...

Excerpt: ...ation on the Merits. In the First Action (Case No.16 CIV 02108), the Court sustained demurrer without leave to amend. Judgment, however, was never entered. Regardless, Plaintiff filed a Dismissal with Prejudice on August 29, 2017. The voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice satisfies the “judgment in prior action” requirement. (Roybal v. Univ. Ford (1989) 207 Cal. App. 3d 1080, 1085.) 2. The Parties Between the Two Actions Are “Identical.” Alt...

Excerpt: ...e insufficient to support disqualification under Calif. Rule of Professional Conduct 3‐310. First, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate the formation of an attorney‐client relationship. The Court acknowledges that meeting with a potential client can, in some circumstances, create an attorney‐client relationship. Here, the motion is based on a 30‐minute meeting held over three years ago, in May 2015, between Plaintiff Vida's mana...

Excerpt: ...t INTERSTATES VANLINES, LLC. (Decl. Kutsevol, Exhibits A‐F.) They are non‐signatories to the Forum Selection Clause contained in Exhibits C and D, and thus have no standing to enforce it against Plaintiff. Moreover, the Forum Selection Clause expressly states that it applies only as between INTERSTATES VANLINES, LLC and Plaintiff, and not to any “agents, contractors, employees, and representatives”. (Decl. Kutsevol, Exhibits C and D at Se...

Excerpt: ...ld be promoted by the change of venue. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties. ...

Excerpt: ...use of Action for Equitable Contribution is OVERRULED. Defendant argues that equitable contribution does not apply because Plaintiff and Defendant are not coobligors, focusing on the allegation that Plaintiff never had, and does not have a duty to defend CrossChannel in the underlying suit. (See Comp. ¶ 30.) However, Plaintiff also alleges that both Plaintiff and Defendant issued policies to CrossChannel, that Plaintiff agreed to provide a defen...