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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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 ...

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...

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...

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...

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, ...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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 ...

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 ...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...