Search by Keyword:
Start Date:
End Date:
Tip: Wrap text in quotation marks when searching for phrases (e.g. "motion to dismiss").

234 Results

Clear Search Parameters x
Location: San Mateo x
Judge: Davis, Leland x
2019.9.30 Petition to Compel Arbitration and Request for Stay, Motion to Amend Complaint 337
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.30
Excerpt: ...gust 29, 2019 declaration in support of motion to amend complaint, ¶¶13, 15. This confirms Lyft's electronic records which show that Plaintiff consented to Lyft's terms on more than one occasion; and is sufficient to establish that the electronic signature affixed to these consents is attributable to Plaintiff, and that a valid contract to arbitrate was created. Plaintiff further admits that he did not opt out of these previous arbitration agre...
2019.9.30 Motion to Stay of Forum Non Conveniens 913
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.30
Excerpt: ...t. The parties to this case are involved in two simultaneously‐pending cases, apparently involving the same subject matter—this case and another in Wisconsin. See Matrix's 7‐ 2‐19 Motion, Ex. A (attaching Complaint filed in Wisconsin Circuit Court, captioned Matrix IT Medical Tracking Systems, Inc. v. Time Traveller, Inc. and Vitaly Golomb, Case No. 2019CV000968). In the present motion to stay, Matrix seeks to stay this case in favor of t...
2019.9.30 Demurrer 731
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.30
Excerpt: ...nce and breach of fiduciary duty is based on the claim that Defendants did not owe her a duty because she was not a named beneficiary of the CWK trust. According to Defendants, “Because Plaintiff fails to allege any facts qualifying her as an expressly designated recipient of any provision in the CWK Trust gifting her the bequest she now seeks (i.e., a provision in the CWK Trust shielding her from tax liability), the Defendant Attorneys owed he...
2019.9.27 Motion for Summary Judgment 503
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.27
Excerpt: ...fore, Plaintiff has failed to meet its initial burden of establishing that it is entitled to summary judgment. However, the Motion for Summary Adjudication to the open book account and account stated claims is GRANTED. Plaintiff presents evidence to establish all the elements of both its open book account and account stated claims. (See Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed Facts nos. 1, 3, 4, 6‐8, 10‐13, and 15‐17.) Defendant failed to oppos...
2019.9.26 Motion to Tax Costs 510
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.26
Excerpt: ...” As a result, the motion to tax costs for CCP § 638 trial fees is GRANTED in the amount of $39,444.00. Trial Technology Support Services Defendant contends that Plaintiff's costs for trial technology support services are not allowable under CCP 1033.5(c)(4) because they were not “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation.” As the party opposing costs, Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the costs were not reasonab...
2019.9.26 Demurrer 390
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.26
Excerpt: ..., 2019) No. 19‐CV‐00114‐YGR, 2019 WL 2423375, at *3, 4.) All four causes of action are based on the allegation that Defendant censored or interfered with Plaintiff's speech. (SAC para. 37, 40, 43, 45, 49, 52.) Since all claims treat Defendant as a publisher of content provided by another information provider (Plaintiff), the CDA immunizes Defendant from liability as to all claims. Plaintiff argues that his first and second causes of action ...
2019.9.25 Demurrer 442
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.25
Excerpt: ...othy Anderson and Elizabeth Cullinan (collectively “Cross‐Defendants”) to the Cross‐Complaint of Defendant/Cross‐ Complainant Florence Fang (“Cross‐Complainant”) is ruled on as follows: (1) The Town of Hillsborough's Demurrer to the First Cause of Action for Violation of the Fair Housing Act is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND for Cross‐Complainant to cite the specific statute under which she is bringing this claim. (2) Cross‐Def...
2019.9.24 Motion to Compel Deposition 118
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.24
Excerpt: ...for sanctions, filed 8‐8‐19, is GRANTED‐IN‐PART, as set forth below. The motion to compel the deposition of AAC's person most knowledgeable (PMK) is GRANTED‐IN‐PART. The motion has merit, for multiple reasons. First, the Court already denied AAC's “Motion for Temporary Stay, to Quash, and to Continue the Date of the Deposition,” in which AAC made the same argument that it simply re‐hashes here. See 7‐24‐19 Minute Order. ACC ...
2019.9.24 Motion for Summary Judgment 684
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.24
Excerpt: ...izable claim to an easement on Defendant's property. Defendant separates her arguments with respect to the individual and entity Plaintiffs, based on her claim that the 1907 subdivision map is referenced in the deed to 655 Miramar Dr., Parcel 1, the adjacent property owned by entity Plaintiff TEG Partners, LLC, but that the 1907 map is not referenced in the deed to 18 Terrace Avenue, the nonadjacent property owned by the individual Plaintiffs. Al...
2019.9.23 Motion to Set Aside Default, Vacate Default Judgment
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.23
Excerpt: ...e record that the judgment should not have been entered; however, a judgment valid on its face but void for improper service is governed by analogy to Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5 and therefore relief in the same action must be sought no later than 2 years after entry of the default judgment. (See Rogers v Silverman (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1114, 1121‐1122.) Defendant contends here that the judgment is void because she was not properly se...
2019.9.23 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 443
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.23
Excerpt: ... to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c). A defendant has met the burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if that party has shown that one or more elements of the cause(s) of action cannot be established, or there is a complete defense to that cause of action. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2). On summary judgment or adjudication, the court considers all of th...
2019.9.20 Motion for Protective Order 123
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.20
Excerpt: ...d the deposition of Mercado in her individual capacity. Mercado previously appeared for deposition after Defendant designated her as Defendant's person most qualified to testify for Defendant. Plaintiff is not precluded from taking Mercado's deposition in her individual capacity under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.610(c)(1). Defendant now seeks a protective order as to further deposition of Mercado pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure secti...
2019.9.19 Motion for Attorney's Fees 084
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.19
Excerpt: ...rney's fees. The complaint has not been dismissed as to Defendant; no judgment has been entered by which “neither plaintiff nor defendant” obtained any relief; no judgment has been entered by which Plaintiff has not recovered any relief against Defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc. Sect. 1032, subd. (a)(4).) The case of Profit Concepts Management, Inc. v. Griffith (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 950 is inapplicable. In that case, the defendant was deemed...
2019.9.19 Motion for Summary Judgment 382
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.19
Excerpt: ... other common count claims for: (1) money had and received, (2) for goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered, (3) for money lent, and (4) for money paid out. (See Complaint, Second Cause of Action for Common Counts, ¶¶ CC‐1(b)(1), (3), (4) and (5).) Plaintiff fails to address these claims, and therefore has not met its initial burden of proving these claims such that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Further, summary adjud...
2019.9.19 Demurrer 789
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.19
Excerpt: ...� 15610.30 is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e). The TAC does not allege PSI directly engaged in financial abuse, rather, it alleges PSI “assisted” Defendant Khalid in committing financial abuse by failing to provide Plaintiff Riley with “mandated” counseling services, and by failing to conduct sufficient due diligence to confirm the Trust's proper Trustee, and to confirm whether Khalid was Riley's attorney‐in�...
2019.9.18 Motion for Summary Judgment 383
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.18
Excerpt: ... § 437c(p)(1).) Plaintiff's motion only addresses the common count claims for open book account and account stated, but the Complaint also alleges other common count claims for: (1) money had and received, (2) for goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered, (3) for money lent, and (4) for money paid out. (See Complaint, Second Cause of Action for Common Counts, ¶¶ CC‐1(b)(1), (3), (4) and (5).) Plaintiff fails to address these claims, a...
2019.9.13 Motion to Release Bond 475
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.13
Excerpt: ...nlawful detainer action filed against him, which the court granted through February 16, 2018 conditioned upon Moore's payment of monthly rent of $6,300.00 during the stay. (Ibid.) Moore paid the $6,300.00 monthly rent in December 2017 and January 2018, which is the amount he now wants released. Staying the unlawful detainer action is in the nature of an injunction, and a bond may be required. (The Rutter Group, Cal. Prac. Guide: Landlord‐Tenant...
2019.9.13 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 646
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.13
Excerpt: ...dgment or adjudication, the court considers all of the evidence and all of the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, and views such evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the opposing party. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843‐856. Any doubts as to the propriety of granting the motion are normally resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion. Id. As to the 10‐17‐18 First Amended Complaint's (F...
2019.9.13 Motion to Compel Further Responses 862
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.13
Excerpt: ...endants' requests for admission Nos. 3‐8 from Plaintiff Carol Hoy ask her to admit that she created notes relating to (1) William Hoy's medical care, (2) this lawsuit, and (3) William Hoy's deposition, and that she subsequently destroyed those notes. Plaintiffs contend that the requests are “fundamentally unfair.” However, Plaintiffs have provided no pertinent authority supporting the claim that the requests are unfair. In determining wheth...
2019.9.13 Motion to Confirm Settlement in Good Faith 321
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.13
Excerpt: ... de‐published. (See Opposing P&A at 7:2 (citation to depublished opinion in Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hospital (review granted; opinion vacated).) Defendant Chang's motion to confirm settlement in good faith is GRANTED. The disputed Tech‐Bilt factor is the rough approximation of plaintiff's total recovery and settlor's proportionate liability. The party opposing the good faith determination has the burden of establishing the lack of good faith. ...
2019.9.11 Motion to Set Aside Default and Vacate Default Judgment 108
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.11
Excerpt: ... the face of the record that the judgment should not have been entered; however, a judgment valid on its face but void for improper service is governed by analogy to Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5 and therefore relief in the same action must be sought no later than 2 years after entry of the default judgment. (See Rogers v Silverman (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1114, 1121‐ 1122.) Defendant contends here that the judgment is void because he was ...
2019.9.11 Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Court Proceedings 073
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.11
Excerpt: ...Purchase Agreement. The present proceedings are hereby STAYED pending completion of the arbitration. Defendants have established the existence of an arbitration agreement, and there is no basis to deny enforcement of the agreement under CCP § 1281.2. Plaintiffs' first, second, third, and fourth causes of action are jointly asserted against Defendants Lurline and Jaojoco. Each of the causes of action arises from the same transaction governed by t...
2019.9.9 Motion for Interlocutory Judgment 889
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.9
Excerpt: ...defaulted under the terms of the Settlement Agreement and that the Settlement Agreement provides for entry of judgment, it is unclear whether the Court may enter judgment at this time. A partition complaint shall set forth “[a]ll interests of record or actually known to the plaintiff that persons other than the plaintiff have or claim in the property and that plaintiff reasonably believes will be materially affected by the action, whether the n...
2019.9.6 Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings 905
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.6
Excerpt: ... et. seq.; Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services Inc. 24 Cal.4th 83, 97 (2000) (“California law, like federal law, favors enforcement of valid arbitration agreements.”); Cione v. Foresters Equity Services, Inc. 58 Cal.App.4th 625, 642 (1998) (a heavy presumption weighs in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements). Although arbitration is a matter of contract, non‐signatories to arbitration agreements may be bound by an agreeme...
2019.9.5 Demurrer 019
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.5
Excerpt: ...redited) 06‐10‐19 Cross‐Complaint (XC) is OVERRULED. Code Civ. Proc. §430.10(e). A demurrer is used to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading, or from matters outside the pleading, that are judicially noticeable. Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318. All properly pleaded facts are assumed true. Chavez v. Indymac Mortg. Servs. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1052, 1057. In ruling on a demurrer, the trial court is required to ...
2019.9.4 Motion to Contest Good Faith Settlement 904
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.4
Excerpt: ...settling party DKS on January 25, 2019, which was prior to this Application being filed on April 10, 2019. Upon dismissal, the court lost jurisdiction over DKS. (See Sanabria v. Embrey (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 422, 425 (voluntary dismissal deprives court of subject matter and personal jurisdiction).) “Where the plaintiff has filed a voluntary dismissal of an action …, the court is without jurisdiction to act further …, and any subsequent order...
2019.9.3 Demurrer 123
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.3
Excerpt: ...ion against it because it has no duties to third parties under Bus. & Prof. Code § 24074. This argument, however, was squarely rejected in Cohn v. Gramercy Escrow Co., 65 Cal. App. 3d 884, 892–93 (Ct. App. 1977). In that case, which relied on decisions in Grover Escrow Corp. v. Gole, 71 Cal.2d 61 (1969) and Doyle v. Coughlin 37 Cal.App.3d 911 (Ct. App. 1974), the court held as follows: The provisions of [Section 24074] are mandatory and as suc...
2019.9.2 Motion to Compel Arbitration 782
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.2
Excerpt: ...aintiff's complaint seeks payment for work performed at that project. Therefore, Plaintiff's complaint is a dispute that relates to the Agreement. Plaintiff does not demonstrate that the Agreement is procedrually unconscionable. Defendant sent the Agreement to Plaintiff in the evening of October 21, 2018. That same evening, Plaintiff responded “the contract is good and will sign it.” (Email from Gaddis to Lee, September 21, 2018, Exhibit 3 to...
2019.8.30 Motion for Summary Judgment 426
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.30
Excerpt: ..., but also “prejudgment interest in the amount and at the rate provided by law.” (See Complaint, Prayer, 2:21.) Plaintiff presents no evidence as to the amount of interest sought. Further, Plaintiff has not presented admissible evidence to establish all the elements of an account stated, including that Defendant JBJ Holdings, Inc. (“Defendant”) owed Plaintiff money from previous financial transactions and that Plaintiff and Defendant agre...
2019.8.29 Motion to Strike Complaint 501
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.29
Excerpt: ...ant moves to strike the SAC on the ground that Plaintiffs are no longer represented by counsel, and cannot represent themselves in propria persona because Plaintiffs are an LLC and trustees of a trust. A court may strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (C.C.P. § 436(b).) Defendant fails to show that the SAC was “not drawn or filed" in ...
2019.8.28 Demurrer 274
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.28
Excerpt: ... DENIED as to the Notice of Rescission because it was not provided with the request. Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice of the Complaint in this action is GRANTED. (2) Demurrer to the First Cause of Action for Rescission is OVERRULED. Defendants demur to the First Cause of Action based on failure to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action on the following grounds: (a) Plaintiff accepted the benefits of the contract and theref...
2019.8.28 Motion to Reopen Discovery, to Issue Terminating Sanctions 110
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.28
Excerpt: ...igence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier; (3) any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party; and (4) the l...
2019.8.28 Request for Sanctions 391
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.28
Excerpt: ..., and Aug. 28, 2019, is GRANTED‐IN‐PART, as set forth below. Plaintiff filed 12 separate motions to compel further responses to written discovery requests—4 motions against each of Defendants Autobahn, Inc., JPMorgan Chase Bank, and Hartford Fire Ins. Co. The 12 motions were set for hearing on Aug. 13, Aug. 14, and Aug. 28, 2019. Defendants then served further responses to the discovery requests before the Aug. 13‐14 hearings. Accordingly...
2019.8.28 Motion to Compel Further Responses 862
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.28
Excerpt: ...a HIPAA‐compliant protective order which protects the identity of Patient No. 2 in satisfaction of 45 CFR Section 164.512(e)(1)(v) within ten days of this order. Within 5 days of issuance of the protective order, Defendant shall provide verified responses to Request for Production nos. 65 – 68 ("RFP") and produce documents redacting any personally identifying information of Patient No. 2. Plaintiff William Hoy ("Plaintiff") ha...
2019.8.26 Motion to Appoint Arbitrator and Compel Arbitration 760
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.26
Excerpt: ...etition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate the controversy, the court shall order petitioner and respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate exists, unless it finds that certain exceptions apply. (See C.C.P. § 1281.2.) Thus, the court must first order the dispute to arbitr...
2019.8.22 Motion to Compel Further Responses 548
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.22
Excerpt: ...NDANTS' ATTORNEY 0F RECORD JENNY L1 AND DENNIS FAORO IN THE SUM 0F $1,280 TENTATIVE RULING: The Motion of Plaintiff HaiboYu (“Plaintiff”) to Compel Defendant Aim Consolutions, Inc. (“ACI”) to Further Respond to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and Other Tangible Things, Set One, and Defendant Hailin Li (“Li”) to Further Respond to Form Interrogatories, is ruled on as follows: (1) Plaintiff's Motion to Compe...
2019.8.21 Motion to Set Aside Dismissal 089
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.21
Excerpt: ...not have authority to stipulate to dismissal of the cause of action. This claim is supported by counsel's declaration, which states that (1) counsel mistakenly believed she had authority to enter the stipulation to dismiss, (2) Plaintiff was not aware of the stipulation, and (3) Plaintiff did not grant authority to enter into the stipulation. [Graves Decl., ¶¶ 2, 4] A misunderstanding between an attorney and client furnishes a proper and suffic...
2019.8.19 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 353
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.19
Excerpt: ...n is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Collateral Estoppel As indicated in Moriarty v. Laramar Mgmt. Corp., 224 Cal. App. 4th 125, 141 (2014) and other authorities, the preclusive effect of a judgment in a UD action is limited. This is because the only issues typically litigated in a UD action are the plaintiff's right to possession, and the defendant's defenses to the plaintiff's claim of possession. In the prior UD action, the jury determi...
2019.8.19 Motion to Disqualify Counsel 571
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.19
Excerpt: ... the Ceccatos' supplemental briefing. This motion was continued from July 18, 2019 for supplemental briefing by the Ceccatos. The Ceccatos assert that Bonis should be disqualified as counsel for the Montgomerys due to a conflict of interest based on concurrent representation and successive representation. The court requested further briefing regarding both concurrent and successive representation, as well as briefing on the issue of whether the m...
2019.8.16 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 369
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.16
Excerpt: ...hen the patent expires. (Brulotte v. Thys Co (1964) 379 U.S. 29, 33‐34.) Royalties may continue to be collected past the patent expiration if the royalties represent other than patent rights (hybrid agreement). (Kimble v. Marvel Entm't, LLC (2015) ___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2401.) The License Agreement granted patent rights, “technology rights,” and “Improvements,” each of which is specifically defined. RUST‐OLEUM acknowledges that ...
2019.8.16 Motion for Summary Judgment 369
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.16
Excerpt: ...ary, the Complaint expressly states that the breaches were by “Defendants,” an allegation that does implicate RPM. The premise of this motion is that RPM cannot be liable for breach of the licensing agreement because RPM had no contractual obligations under the licensing agreement. The motion argues that RPM “assigned Sierra” to Rust‐Oleum, and Rust‐Oleum continued to perform Sierra's payment obligations under the license agreement. S...
2019.8.16 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 264
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.16
Excerpt: ...ct, conversion and common counts.” Notably, however, Plaintiff's complaint did not assert causes of action for breach of contract or conversion. Nonetheless, the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute causes of action for account stated and money lent, and the answer admits those facts. The answer, however, does not show on its face that it is incapable of amendment. As a result, the motion is granted with leave for Defendant to amend ...
2019.8.15 Motion for Reconsideration or Order Expunging Lis Pendens, for Attorneys' Fees 581
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.15
Excerpt: ...to Defendant's demurrer, there is no requirement that a claim for breach of implied covenant must plead the plaintiff's performance of the contract. The authority cited in the Demurrer (Habitat Tr. For Wildlife v. City of Rancho Cucamonga) pertains to claims for breach of contract, not breach of implied covenant. B. Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action (Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation) Demurrer is SUSTAINED as to Phuong T. Nguyen, DDS, Inc. The c...
2019.8.13 Motion to File Amended Complaint 326
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.13
Excerpt: ...3 months old. Trial is set for 9‐9‐19. There have been no trial continuances. Although Plaintiff seeks leave to amend relatively late in the case, the evidence before the Court does not demonstrate any prejudice compelling enough to justify denying leave to amend. The Opposition does not argue that granting leave would affect the 9‐9‐19 trial date. Indeed, the proposed FAC adds no new causes of action; all 9 causes of action were already ...
2019.8.13 Motion for Summary of Judgment 786
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.13
Excerpt: ...n dated February 6, 1992. Plaintiff has not identified a proper basis for judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code Section 452. Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code Sections 451 and 452. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. Section 437c. No triable issue of material fact exists as to the dates of record notice of Defendant's interest in the Property and Defendan...
2019.8.12 Motion for Summary Adjudication 637
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.12
Excerpt: ...a cause of action if that party has proved each element of a cause of action to entitle the party to judgment on the cause of action. (C.C.P. § 437c(p)(1).) Once the plaintiff has met its burden, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. (Ibid.) Plaintiff presents evidence to establish all of the elements of the First Cause of Action for Br...
2019.8.9 Motion to Quash Service of Summons, to Set Aside Entry of Default Judgment 452
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.9
Excerpt: .... However, Defendant does not dispute that she was personally served with the summons and complaint on May 22, 2019. Accordingly, the court finds there are no grounds for granting Defendant's motion to quash service. Alternatively, Defendant seeks to set aside the default and default judgment on the basis of mistake and excusable neglect. According to Defendant, her failure to respond was due to the fact that she has a brain injury and cannot rea...
2019.8.9 Motion to Seal 369
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.9
Excerpt: ...of the subject documents at the time the motion is made. (See CRC Rule 2.551(b)(4).) No documents are lodged under seal with this motion or RPM's motion for summary judgment. The motion fails to comply with the requirement that redacted public versions of the documents be filed. (Id. Rule 2.551(b)(5).) No redacted versions are filed. The court cannot determine whether the proposed redactions are sufficiently narrow. (See Rule 2.550(d) (sealing mu...
2019.8.8 Demurrer 501
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.8
Excerpt: ...ur to them. However, California requires that affirmative defenses be pleaded with ultimate facts. Demurrer is sustained because the affirmative defenses plead only legal theories, but not any ultimate facts. Defendants argue that the facts are set forth in the Cross‐complaint. Even if that were true, the allegations belong in the Answer. The case of Schaefer v. State Bar of California (1945) 26 Cal. 2d 739 does not support Defendants. Schaefer...
2019.8.8 Motion to Consolidate Cases and for Injunction of Unlawful Detainer 502
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.8
Excerpt: ...�� namely, whether the nature of his option to exercise a lease extension was fraudulently misrepresented to him – and because it would promote judicial economy. He further contends that consolidation would “avoid the potential for irreparable injury.” According to Mr. Nguyen, “If the business is summarily evicted, at the least, both Mr. Nguyen and Mr. Tran will lose their only source of income and health insurance, and suffer irreparable...
2019.8.8 Motion to Consolidate Cases and Injunction of Unlawful Detainer 585
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.8
Excerpt: ...tion to exercise a lease extension was fraudulently misrepresented to him – and because it would promote judicial economy. He further contends that consolidation would “avoid the potential for irreparable injury.” According to Mr. Nguyen, “If the business is summarily evicted, at the least, both Mr. Nguyen and Mr. Tran will lose their only source of income and health insurance, and suffer irreparable harm.” [MPA, p.12] Mr. Nguyen relies...
2019.8.6 Motion to Set Aside Default, Judgment 182
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.6
Excerpt: ...ts proposed answer within 5 days of this order. Defendant Adams claims that he sent the summons and complaint to an unnamed attorney in Santa Rosa. Mr. Adams indicates that he was too busy to follow up on his instructions that the attorney file an answer to the complaint. Based on the facts as set forth in Mr. Adams' declaration, it is questionable whether Mr. Adams exercised reasonable diligence in responding to the complaint. The court finds, h...
2019.8.6 Motion for Attorney Fees 664
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.6
Excerpt: ...f $25,737, plus a 2.0 multiplier, plus $1,206.15 in costs/expenses. The Court declines to apply a loadstar enhancement/multiplier. The Court finds no basis to conclude the case was complex or novel. It appears to have been a fairly routine consumer warranty/lemon law case. Complexity is judged in part by whether the case involved: 1) numerous pre‐trial motions raising novel issues; (2) a large number of witnesses and documents; (3) a large numb...
2019.8.5 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 342
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.5
Excerpt: ...ach of Express Warranty Defendant contends Plaintiff has failed to assert a cause of action for breach of express warranty because Plaintiff has not alleged that the “latent defect” in the timing chain system manifested itself during the five‐year warranty period. According to Defendant, Plaintiff has alleged “no manifestation of the purported defect in the timing chain.” [MPA, p.4] Construing the complaint liberally, however, Plaintiff...
2019.8.2 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 950
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.2
Excerpt: ...ases on their merits if possible. Here, Plaintiffs have already had multiple opportunities to draft and file a Complaint asserting a valid cause of action, beginning with their Complaint filed in federal district court, which was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Nonetheless, because Plaintiffs may be able to assert a valid cause(s) of action based on their allegation of unpaid wages (whether in the form of a breach of contract c...
2019.8.1 Motion to Unseal Court Records and Terminate Protective Orders 188
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.1
Excerpt: ...equested relief must be sought from the judge or court that entered the original sealing orders, under the general rule that “The power of one judge to vacate an order duly made by another judge is limited.” Greene v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 224 Cal. App. 3d 1583, 1588 (Ct. App. 1990). The People have provided no authority indicating that this court can unseal records ordered to be sealed by another judge or court. Further, as indicated i...
2019.8.1 Demurrer 581 (2)
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.1
Excerpt: ...or a Plaintiff to demur to them. However, California law requires that affirmative defenses be pleaded with ultimate facts. Demurrer is sustained because the affirmative defenses plead on legal theories, but not any ultimate facts. Defendants cite cases that recognize a fine distinction between proper ultimate facts and improper legal conclusions; such pleading must be read in context with other allegations. (See cases cited at Defendants' Opposi...
2019.7.31 Motion to Quash Services of Summons 131
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.31
Excerpt: ...h Trevor initially stopped, he left and later returned with his son, Defendant Lawrence Tam (“Lawrence”). The investigating police officer completed a traffic collision report that incorrectly identifies Lawrence, as the driver, and Trevor, as the son. Plaintiff filed this Complaint against Lawrence only, but then filed an Amendment to the Complaint substituting Trevor as Doe 1. Trevor brings this motion on the ground that Plaintiff improperl...
2019.7.31 Motion for Judgment 199
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.31
Excerpt: ...leging a fraud claim against a corporate defendant, a plaintiff must “allege the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written.” Lazar v. Sup.Ct. (Rykoff‐Sexton, Inc.) (1996) 12 C4th 631, 645. Newsweek has not alleged who made the alleged fraudulent representations or what was said. Consequently, Newsweek has fail...
2019.7.31 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 383
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.31
Excerpt: ...D pursuant to Evidence Code Sections 451, 452, and 453. Defendant's objections to evidence are DENIED. Plaintiff's objections to evidence are DENIED. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication is DENIED pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. Section 437c. Defendant has not demonstrated that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to any of the four causes of action in Plaintiff's Complaint. As to the Firs...
2019.7.29 Demurrer 249
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.29
Excerpt: .... (SAC paras. 23 ‐ 27.) The new allegations do not describe conduct that is “extreme and outrageous” for IIED. Further, the wrongful conduct “must be conduct directed at the plaintiff, or occur in the presence of a plaintiff of whom the defendant is aware.” (Wilson v. S. California Edison Co. (2015) 234 Cal. App. 4th 123, 152.) The new allegations do not state or imply that Defendants' conduct was “directed at Plaintiff.” None of th...
2019.7.29 Motion for Summary Judgment 131
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.29
Excerpt: ...er Plaintiff to file a proper one. Instead, the Court admonishes and directs attorneys John F. Martin, Marta R. Venegas, Brittany C. Jones, and the entire law firm of Martin& Vanegas to learn and comply with all Rules of Court in this and every other case. Plaintiff also has filed, without leave of court, two sets of supplemental evidence (July 19 and 22) after Defendant had already filed its Reply papers. Plaintiff never sought leave for the del...
2019.7.29 Motion to Strike 249
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.29
Excerpt: ...nscious disregard of the rights and safety of others. Rather, the complaint alleges that the ant infestation and accumulation of dog droppings occurred, but not that Defendants caused them or that Defendants intentionally refrained from addressing the problems. As to the mold, Plaintiff alleges that he discovered the mold on June 30, 2017, and a restoration company began remediating just one week later. (SAC para. 16 & 17.) As to the shelving, Pl...
2019.7.29 Demurrer 765
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.29
Excerpt: ...egis Group of Northern California, LLC et. al.'s Demurrer to Plaintiff Sodini Enterprises, Inc., et. al.'s 5‐17‐19 First Amended Complaint (FAC) is OVERRULED. A demurrer challenges defects that appear on the face of the pleading, or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318. In ruling on a demurrer, the trial court is required to construe the complaint liberally with a view of ...
2019.7.26 Demurrer 940
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.26
Excerpt: ... based on failure to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (See Code of Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) The Complaint indicates that Plaintiffs are bringing causes of action for General Negligence, Intentional Tort and Premises Liability. (See Complaint ¶ 10.) It also appears Plaintiffs may be attempting to allege a cause of action for Breach of Contract as well. (See Complaint, ¶ 12.) However, “each complaint must have one or mo...
2019.7.26 Motion to Stay Proceedings 731
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.26
Excerpt: ...il Procedure Section 187, cited by Plaintiff as support for this Motion, authorizes the Court to use the means necessary to carry jurisdiction into effect, but does not specifically discuss a motion to stay the action. CCP Section 418.10(a)(2) reads “A defendant... may file a notice of motion… [t]o stay or dismiss an action on the ground of inconvenient forum.” Here, it is plaintiff moving for a stay, and the ground for the request is not r...
2019.7.26 Motion for Summary Judgment 843
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.26
Excerpt: ...ty, Defendant it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The facts of this case are not in dispute. According to Plaintiff's complaint, on the evening of October 25, 2015, [P]laintiff was on the premises of the PALO MAR STABLES, there to visit with defendant ROBIN [HOWLAND] and/or to tend to her own horse. As she walked on the premises, she walked past the vicinity of [Ms. Howland's horse,] Valentino, who was at that time not properly in his ...
2019.7.24 Motion to Enforce Settlement 961
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.24
Excerpt: ...ent Agreement”) entered into with Defendant in August 2018. (See Campbell Decl., Exh. A.) The court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement, if requested by the parties. (C.C.P § 664.6.) The Settlement Agreement, which is signed by both parties, contains such a provision here. (See Settlement Agreement ¶ 23.) Plaintiff establishes that Defendant George P. Esho...
2019.7.24 Demurrer 232
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.24
Excerpt: ...f Action for “fraud in the inducement” and “promissory fraud” is OVERRULED. Cross‐Defendants argue the XC fails to allege any misrepresentation(s) of fact. It alleges, however, that Cross‐Defendants falsely represented, both on their website and orally, that (a) they had accelerated 120+ Startups; (b) they had obtained $400,000,000 for those startups; (c) those startups are currently valued at $4 billion; (d) they had partners and loc...
2019.7.24 Motion for Attorney Fees 802
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.24
Excerpt: ... Before Trial (Rutter, Jun. 2019 Update) ¶ 9:102.6.) Respondent's Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED, BUT NOT FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS ASSERTED THEREIN, as to: (1) Request no. 1 (Petition filed on March 28, 2019); (2) Request no. 5 (Petitioner's reply papers filed May 2, 2019); and (3) Request no. 6 (Court's tentative ruling and order of May 9 and 10, 2019). Respondent's Request for Judicial Notice is DENIED as to: (1) Re...
2019.7.24 Motion for Determination of Fee Award 917
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.24
Excerpt: ... the choice of law provision contained in the parties' Agreement. Defendant Cheung contends that, notwithstanding the choice of law provision, California law applies to the dispute over attorney's fees pursuant to Rincon EV Realty LLC v. CP III Rincon Towers, Inc., 8 Cal. App. 5th 1 (Ct. App. 2017) and ABF Capital Corp. v. Grove Properties Co., 126 Cal. App. 4th 204, 220 (2005). The facts of Grove are similar to the present case: Plaintiff and re...
2019.7.24 Motion to Strike 232
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.24
Excerpt: ...motion seeks to strike the request for “restitution” and “damages” in ¶1 of the XC's Prayer for Relief. As an initial matter, the Opposition brief argues a request for rescission may validly exist without any accompanying claim for restitution. This is irrelevant because CrossDefendants have not moved to strike the XC's request for a rescission; they only seek to strike the request for “restitution” and “damages” in ¶1 of the Pr...
2019.7.23 Demurrer 574
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.23
Excerpt: ...e to pay rent or quit based on the language in the Late Payment Schedule agreement (“agreement”). (See Complaint, Exh. 1, p.2.) However, the agreement does not contain any language requiring a 30‐day notice. Rather, the agreement provides that after 30 days, “an eviction notice will be posted.” (Ibid.) “Unless the rent is brought current and late fees are paid, the Tennant [sp] shall be vacated from the unit after 60 days of nonpaymen...
2019.7.23 Motion for Protective Order 321
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.23
Excerpt: ...esent Disclosure is operative, and Plaintiff may challenge it. Defendant correctly points out that there is no such thing as “cumulative experts” based on their specialty. Rather, the prohibition is against testimony that is cumulative. Plaintiff's motion does not identify any specific testimony of any expert witness that is cumulative of any other witness. B. Motion to Exclude Dr. Ament or to Disqualify Defendant's Counsel. The motion to exc...
2019.7.23 Motion to Seal 870
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.23
Excerpt: ...ation overcomes the right of public access to the records and supports sealing them. Absent an order sealing this information, defendant's rights will be prejudiced as the records would be available to the public. The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored and there is no less restrictive means to protect defendant's right to privacy. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant ...
2019.7.23 Motion to Compel Completion of Deposition 862
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.23
Excerpt: ...imited Dr. Steinberg's deposition to this period. In a January 29 letter to Plaintiff's counsel, defense counsel stated: Gary Steinberg, M.D. is available on 3/7 from 2:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. at Stanford. Unfortunately, this is the only available weekday Dr. Steinberg has within the next couple of months. If you are not available on this date, we will have to schedule his deposition on a Saturday. Please let us know. [Dolinski Decl., Ex. E] Plaint...
2019.7.22 Demurrers 502
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.22
Excerpt: ...Same Parties. The parties must stand in the same relationship (i.e., as plaintiff or defendant) in both suits. (Plant Insulation Co. v. Fibreboard Corp. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 781, 789 [“absolute identity of parties” required].) In ED 1005's cross‐complaint in the Lease Action, the parties are identical to the unlawful detainer action, but only as to Vinh Nguyen. Defendant Broadway Prime Motorz is not a party to the cross‐complaint. Thus, ...
2019.7.19 Demurrer 437
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.19
Excerpt: ...DENIED as moot. All proceedings in this action are hereby STAYED pending resolution of the appeal from this court's order granting Defendant's motion to quash service of summons in Docket No. 17‐CIV‐05088, assigned Appellate Case No. A157248, or until this court orders, upon a showing of good cause, that the stay should be lifted. The court finds that the Court of Appeals' determination in Appellate Case No. A157248 may have significant beari...
2019.7.19 Demurrer 013
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.19
Excerpt: ...ealth & Safety Code § 1430(b), is OVERRULED. For purposes of the Demurrer, Defendant has not demonstrated the § 1430(b) claim(s) are time‐barred. The parties dispute whether the applicable statute of limitations is one year under Code Civ. Proc. § 340(a) (applicable to statutory “penalties”) or three years under Code Civ. Proc. § 338(a) (applicable to “all other claims for liability created by statute”). Defendant cites no case appl...
2019.7.18 Motion for Sanctions 862
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.18
Excerpt: ...(or former attorney), or both. The moving papers indicate Defendant Virginia Gualberto was represented during part of the relevant time period by attorney James Imperiale. The Notice of Motion does not provide proper notice unless it states the specific person or persons against whom sanctions are requested. Second, the 6‐10‐19 Proof of Service does not demonstrate proper service of the moving papers. It states the papers were mailed to defen...
2019.7.18 Motion to Seal 355
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.18
Excerpt: ...CTION 2000 at: i:6‐7, 16‐28; ii:1‐5; 1:2‐3, 5‐6, 15‐17, 23‐ 28; 2; 3:1‐3, 20‐28; 4:1‐23, 27‐28; 5:19‐22; 6:25, 27‐28; 7:11‐28; 8‐14; 15:1‐4, 6‐9. The portions of the DECLARATION OF DAVID ANDRIGHETTO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONFIRM VALUE OF SHARES IN ANDRIGHETTO PRODUCE INCORPORATED PURSUANT TO CORPORATIONS CODE SECTION 2000 filed herewith in redacted form at: 1:13‐28 2:1‐10, 16‐18, 22‐25; 3:1‐11; Exs. A...
2019.7.18 Motion to Disqualify Counsel 571
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.18
Excerpt: ...otion Department. The Ceccatos assert that Bonis should be disqualified as counsel for the Montgomerys due to a conflict of interest based on concurrent representation and successive representation. Where the conflict of interest is alleged to be a concurrent representation, the “primary” value at issue is the attorney's duty, and the client's legitimate expectation of loyalty, rather than confidentiality. (Flatt v. Superior Court (1994) 9 Ca...
2019.7.17 Motion for Attorney's Fees 693
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.17
Excerpt: ...‐17 Order granting Plaintiffs' SLAPP motion. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(c); Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1131; Morrow v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1446. Defendants have not challenged the charged hourly rates, which appear to be reasonable. Plaintiffs' appellate counsel is highly qualified. See 5‐17‐19 Sargent Decl. The charged rates of $650/hr. (for Mr. Russo) and $450/hr. (for Mr. Sargent, who ...
2019.7.17 Motion to Compel Vehicle Inspection 789
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.17
Excerpt: ...days after service of the demand. As a result, Plaintiff's waived any objections to the demand pursuant to CCP § 2031.260. Plaintiff contends that, pursuant to CCP § 2031.310, Defendant's motion is untimely because it was not filed within 45 days of Plaintiff's response on January 18. CCP § 2031.310 governs motions to compel further responses. Defendant, however, does not seek to compel further responses to the demand. Rather, Defendant seeks ...
2019.7.16 Motion to Compel Responses 646
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.16
Excerpt: ... counsel Jennifer Emmaneel told Plaintiffs' counsel Desmond Tuck that she was waiting for someone from the City to review and verify the discovery responses. (Email from Emmaneel to Tuck, April 29, 2019, Ex. 8 to Decl. of Emmaneel.) This suggests that the responses were substantially complete on that date. In the same email, Ms. Emmaneel stated that if she could not get a City representative to review and verify the responses, she might serve the...
2019.7.15 Motion to Seal Records 189
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.15
Excerpt: ...efendant Little's capacity. There is a recognized right to privacy in medical records and communications. This privacy interest constitutes an overriding interest that overcomes the public right of access and supports sealing within the meaning of CRC 2.550. The proposed order is narrowly tailored. It seeks to seal only the document containing Dr. Landsverk's medical opinion relating to Defendant's Little's capacity. There does not appear to be a...
2019.7.15 Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responese, Request for Sanctions 360
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.15
Excerpt: ...As a threshold matter, Defendant BMW argues this motion is preempted by federal law (Opp. at 6‐8). Because BMW's planned motion for summary judgment on the preemption issue has not yet been filed or decided, and that issue has not been properly raised, it is not a basis to deny or delay a ruling on this motion. Accordingly, the Court does not reach the merits of the preemption argument. However, the Court agrees that RFP Nos. 37‐38 and 40‐4...
2019.7.15 Motion to Bifurcate 959
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.15
Excerpt: ...limitations shall be tried separately from the issues of liability and damages. Defendant's request to have the issues tried before two separate juries is DENIED without prejudice at this time. The trial court is best positioned to weigh the issues of judicial economy and potential for prejudice to each party and determine whether separate juries are appropriate. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Ther...
2019.7.12 Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens, Request for Monetary Sanctions 161
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.12
Excerpt: ...C”), Plaintiff relies on two documents: a “Notice to the Partners” and a “Partner Sale Agreement.” [Porter Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. A] According to Plaintiff, “It was not until mid‐to‐ late 2017, when a third party provided me with the ‘Notice to the Partners' and ‘Partner Sale Agreement,' that I realized Mete Tan had actually sold me thirty (30) shares in Fox.” [Id.] Plaintiff, however, has not alleged any personal knowledge regard...
2019.7.12 Demurrer 386
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.12
Excerpt: ... AS SET‐ BACKED PASS‐THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007—PA3 (“HSBC”), AND MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. (“MERS”) (COLLECTIVELY “DEFENDANTS”) TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT TENTATIVE RULING: A. First through Fifth Causes of Action – Statute of Limitations. Demurrer to the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth causes of action is sustained on the ground that they are barred by the applicable statutes of...
2019.7.10 Motion to Amend Complaint 696
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.10
Excerpt: ...69–70; Cent. Pathology Serv. Med. Clinic, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 181, 190.) The allegations of “willful and conscious disregard” (para. 41, 49, 50) are not mere conclusions. They are supported by allegations of specific fact that AMERIGAS knew the pipes were non‐ compliant with the ordinance and that continuing to fill the tanks was dangerous. (Proposed SAC paras. 36‐39, 47, 48.) Allegations of director/officer approva...
2019.7.9 Motion to Strike 234
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.9
Excerpt: ... FAC on December 19, 2018. It filed the present demurrer and motion to strike on May 17, after the time to file a responsive pleading expired. Accordingly, Cornerstone's motion is untimely. Cornerstone contends that “this motion is indisputably timely.” However, Cornerstone presents no argument or evidence in support of this position. Relation Back As noted in the court's ruling on the related demurrer, Cornerstone has provided no authority i...
2019.7.9 Demurrer 763
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.9
Excerpt: ...act is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. This claim alleges WF breached ¶28 of the Deed of Trust (DOT), which Plaintiff contends states that Plaintiff may reinstate the loan up to five business days prior to the foreclosure sale. First, ¶28 of the DOT does not say that. And even if it did, the FAC still would not allege a breach because, as with the original Complaint, nowhere does the FAC allege that Plaintiff ever offered to reinstate the loan m...
2019.7.9 Demurrer 234
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.9
Excerpt: ...19, 2018. It filed the present demurrer and motion to strike on May 17, after the time to file a responsive pleading expired. Accordingly, Cornerstone's motion is untimely. Cornerstone contends that there is “no timeliness issue” with respect to the present motions. However, no argument or evidence is submitted in support of this position. Facts Sufficient to State a Claim Cornerstone's demurrer fails on the merits for the same reasons set fo...
2019.7.8 Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Default Judgment 927
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.8
Excerpt: ...ion and has not provided a proposed answer as required by CCP §§ 473 and 473.5. The language of those statutes is mandatory, in that they require that an application for relief from default “shall” be accompanied by a proposed answer. Although Plaintiff appears to be willing to stipulate to set aside the entry of default, the court is not empowered to grant the requested relief due to Defendant's failure to satisfy the mandatory requirement...
2019.7.5 Motion to Augment Expert Witness List 038
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.5
Excerpt: ...r expert and sent a witness disclosure statement to Plaintiff. [Gumear Decl, ¶¶ 5, 8, 9] Plaintiff has not opposed this motion and, accordingly, has not provided any reason why he would be prejudiced by augmentation of Defendant's expert witness list. The court has taken into account the extent to which the opposing party has relied on the list of expert witnesses and has determined that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced in maintaining his actio...
2019.7.5 Motion to Contest Good Faith Settlement 038
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.5
Excerpt: ...fore this court. Accordingly, it's not clear whether CCP § 877.6 provides GE with authority to file an application for a good faith settlement determination. As set forth in CCP § 877.6, that statute applies to “a settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co‐obligors.” Because Defendant's complaint has not alleged that GE is a joint tortfeasor, it is not clear how this scenario fits ...
2019.7.5 Demurrer 445
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.5
Excerpt: ...the breached covenant is curable. Case law holds that a prohibitory covenant, once broken, cannot be cured. (See, e.g. Hignell v. Gebala (1949) 90 Cal.App.2d 61, 69 (lease required use as apartment house; tenant used it for real estate business; breach was incurable); Pfitzer v. Candeias (1921) 53 Cal.App. 737, 739‐740 (livestock raised on land leased for growing alfalfa held to be noncurable breach).) Here, Defendant's alleged breaches of cove...
2019.7.3 Motion to Compel Second Deposition 468
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.3
Excerpt: ...he repeated interruptions and interjections by defense counsel, Plaintiff cites no authority indicating that CCP § 2025.290 excludes breaks or interruptions from the permitted “seven hours of total testimony.” Third, the Court notes that when Plaintiff's counsel adjourned the deposition, he stated “This has been – this has been plenty long for me, starting at 9:00 to 4:00.” At the conclusion of the deposition, counsel did not indicate ...
2019.7.3 Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement 208
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.3
Excerpt: ...tiffs contend that the Court may enforce Defendant's payment obligation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 without the parties' having signed the separate settlement agreement; Defendant contends that without a signed separate agreement, enforcement under section 664.6 is not permissible. The Court does not decide whether enforcement of the October 16, 2018, agreement is possible without an executed separate settlement agreement. The sig...

234 Results

Per page

Pages