Excerpt: ...b)‐16(d) is GRANTED. These costs are barred by the oral settlement agreement between the parties entered into on April 24, 2018. The transcript of the April 24, 2018 hearing shows that Defendant's counsel, Matthew James, stated on the record: …And just so I'm absolutely in an abundance of caution, that the parties are agreeing to incur their own attorney's fees and costs relating to this litigation except as provided for by Mr. Macias [Plaint...

Excerpt: ...nt. The parties to this case are all currently involved in another pending case—an earlier‐filed action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, captioned Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories, Inc. v. Talkdesk, Inc. et. al., Case No. 1:19‐CV‐00695‐TWPDML. In the Indiana case, parties Talkdesk, Morales, Strahan, Hertel, and Manno, who are all Plaintiffs in this case and Defendants in the Indiana case, ...

Excerpt: ...aining broadly‐worded arbitration clauses. 8‐16‐19 Maley Decl., Ex. 2 at § 11, Ex. 6. Morales does not appear to dispute that the arbitration clause in one or both of the agreements would apply to her asserted claims against Genesys. However, she contends the agreements are unconscionable and/or voidable under Labor Code § 925, and thus should not be enforced. Because unconscionability is a contract defense, the party asserting the defens...

Excerpt: ... no merit. CCP §437c(p)(2). The complaint asserts causes of action for products' liability based on defective design, defective manufacturing and failure to warn, negligence based on design and manufacturing defects and failure to warn, loss of consortium and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The undisputed material facts and supporting evidence establish the following: Defendant was not involved with the installation of its product. U...

Excerpt: ...aint (SAC) is GRANTED. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 435‐437; Civ. Code § 3294. As a general rule, punitive damages are disfavored and are awarded “with the greatest caution” and only in the “clearest of cases.” Beck v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 347. Mere negligence, even gross negligence, is not sufficient. Ebaugh v. Rabkin (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 891, 894. The law requires that a plaintiff seeking punitive damages prove...

Excerpt: .... I. Issue One – First Cause of Action (Declaratory Relief) The Stadler‐Freeman deed reserved a right of way that is 50‐feet wide, designated for “road purposes and for public utilities.” The reservation does not indicate any specific dimensions for road purposes or for utilities. Certain defendants received easements over the 50‐foot right of way, but Defendants' deeds do not specify any width of their respective easements. Therefore...

Excerpt: ...other state agencies. Those agencies are not a party to this action. As a result, Defendants must seek the documents through a third‐party subpoena pursuant to People ex rel. Lockyer v. Superior Court, 122 Cal. App. 4th 1060, 1078–80 (2004). Defendants have provided no argument or discussion relating to Lockyer. Defendants contend that, in accordance with CCP § 2031.230, the People are required to indicate whether a diligent inquiry has been...

Excerpt: ...ute of limitations defense bars this Cause of Action as a matter of law. Additionally, triable issues of material fact exist pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. Section 437c as to the substantial nature of alleged stream diversions, including with regard to SSUMF numbers 2, 4, 6, 9, 15, and 16. Plaintiffs' dispute of these facts are supported by the depositions of Deleon, Leicester, Lt. Ober and Randi Adair and the declaration of Crystal Chau. As to t...

Excerpt: ...pposition brief, filed 9‐30‐19. Defense counsel is reminded to comply with the service requirements set forth in Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b)‐(c) (Opp. briefs must be served by means of next‐day delivery). Plaintiff seeks leave to file a FAC adding a new Defendant (Fidelity National Title Co., or FNTC) and several new causes of action, all based on the alleged non‐disclosure of an additional easement encumbering the property (the “1954 ...

Excerpt: ...t the privacy interest. Absent sealing, the private information would be publicly available. 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: ...because all asserted claims hinge on a 2006 trust deed signed only by decedent, Plaintiff was required to file the lawsuit within one year of decedent's 2014 death, and thus all claims are now time‐barred. Citing Probate Code § 13550, 13551, and 13554; Code Civ. Proc. § 366.2. The merits of this defense cannot be resolved on Demurrer. A demurrer lies where the dates alleged in the complaint show clearly and affirmatively that the action is ba...

Excerpt: ...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. Plaintiff provided additional declarations at the prior hearing, and the court continued the motion to consider this evidence and to give Defendants an ...

Excerpt: ...specific requirements of Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.030, which includes a designation of the land or property to be inspected, tested or sampled by “specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item”; and a specification of “any inspection, copying, testing, sampling, or related activity that is being demanded, as well as the manner in which that activity will be performed, and whether that act...

Excerpt: ...31.320, subd. (a).) In response to Categories 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7, Plaintiff responded that it would produce certain documents, but the motion offers no evidence that Plaintiff has refused to actually produce them. The motion states, “June 20 came and went with no production or any response from plaintiff's counsel. (Nelson Decl. ¶ 10.)” (Moving P&A at 4:22‐23.) Paragraph 10 to the Nelson Declaration states merely that Attorney Nelson did...

Excerpt: ...fraud. Further, it does not allege facts that can reasonably support a finding of malice or oppression, as defined by Civ. Code § 3294. The allegations lump defendants together, without specifying what acts/conduct Fidelity allegedly engaged in that constitutes fraud, oppression, and/or malice. Further, the allegations of wrongdoing appear directed at the lender and/or servicer of the loan. There is no allegation Fidelity was the lender or servi...

Excerpt: ...is for binding arbitration. When arbitration is pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1280 et seq., the resulting arbitration award is, in substance, binding. Judicial arbitration is nonbinding; a party dissatisfied with the award may reject the award by requesting trial de novo. In contrast, when arbitration is under Section 1280 et seq., such as what the present motion seeks, the arbitration award may be attacked only on limited grounds. ...

Excerpt: ...is expected to explain, at the 8‐2‐17 hearing, why granting leave to amend as to Fidelity would not be futile. First, as to all asserted claims, the FAC is uncertain by failing to specifically identify what conduct defendant Fidelity, as distinct from the other named defendants, purportedly engaged in. Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 430.10(f); Moore v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120, 125. As set forth in Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 425.10(a),...

Excerpt: ... a claim or issue litigated in the prior proceeding; (2) the prior proceeding resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom the doctrine is being asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior proceeding. Tobin v. Nationstar Mortgage, Inc. (2016) 2016 WL 1948786, at *5 (citing Boeken v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 788, 797. Plaintiff filed a prior action, San Mateo County Superior Court C...

Excerpt: ...�Application”), or whether Mr. Carroll intended for this hearing to be treated as the Order to Show Cause re: Contempt hearing. On the same day Mr. Carroll filed the Application, he also filed an Order to Show Cause re: Contempt purporting to give Ms. Carter notice of this hearing as a contempt hearing. No Order to Show Cause re: Contempt was ever signed by the court. Thus, to the extent that Mr. Carroll intended this hearing as a contempt hear...

Excerpt: ...pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties. ...

Excerpt: ...0, 2018, no declaration had been filed. Consequently, the demurrer is stricken. 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: ... that dismissal should be vacated under Code of Civil Procedure section 473. (See Declaration of Dubowski, para. 11.) Therefore, the ground for this motion is that dismissal was entered by “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” (Code of Civ. Proc. §473, subd. (b).) The motion shows no “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” The parties stipulated in writing to entry of dismissal, and the Court entered t...

Excerpt: ...��76, 82, 93‐94, 99, 105‐106, 111‐112, 117‐118, 129‐130, 135, 147‐148 and for sanctions is GRANTED‐IN‐PART and DENIED‐IN‐PART. The 27 interrogatories at issue are sufficiently relevant to the asserted claims. Although not the primary basis of its Opposition papers, the County argues the 27 disputed interrogatories here have only marginal relevance to “whether Mr. Sedillo was having improper relationships with his clients.”...

Excerpt: ...fs to file the motion. (Minutes, January 10, 2018.) No trial date was pending, and Plaintiffs' motion was for the purpose of setting a trial date. Therefore, the motion also was not filed for the purpose of delay. The grounds for the motion to reset trial date were not asserted in bad faith or frivolously. At the time of the motion, this case had not been included in the coordinated action, and no trial date was set in this Court. Presently, the ...

Excerpt: ...Environmental Services, Inc., Langan Engineering Environmental Surveying and Landscape Architecture DPC dba Langan Engineering Environmental Surveying and Landscape Architecture, Treadwell & Rollo, Inc. and T&R Consolidated, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) to the First Amended Complaint of Plaintiff KB Home South Bay, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) is ruled on as follows: Demurrer to the Fourteenth Cause of Action for Successor‐in‐Interest Corpo...