Excerpt: ...”) on Plaintiff's former counsel, David G. Finkelstein, Esq. (“Mr. Finkelstein”). Procedurally, Plaintiff filed a Separate Statement with his motion that fails to comply with Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345. The separate statements must include the text of the request or demand. (See Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(c).) Plaintiff's counsel failed to include the entire text in the separate statement, and therefore is admonished to comply wit...

Excerpt: ...iffs”) for Terminating Sanctions Against Defendants Cevera Automotive Group, LLC and Robert V. Branzuela (“Defendants”), or Alternatively, for Issue and Evidentiary Sanctions, and Contempt, is ruled on as follows: The Motion for Terminating Sanctions, or Alternatively, for Issue and Evidentiary Sanctions, is DENIED. A trial court has broad discretion in selecting discovery sanctions, and considers both the conduct being sanctioned and its e...

Excerpt: ...‐Bilt v. Woodward‐Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488. The Tech‐ Bilt decision requires this Court to consider “the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs”. Id. at 499‐500. Given that Ms. Geipe is not a Plaintiff in this action and has not articulated a persuasive reason why $1 million of her son's settlement should be allocated to her personally for the purpose of buying a house, the Court declines to find that the se...

Excerpt: ... or cause unnecessary delay or needless expense under CCP § 128.7. Notably, Defendant's motion for sanctions was not denied on the merits. Rather, as noted in the court's May 20, 2019 order, Defendant's motion was denied because Defendant failed to follow the safe harbor procedures mandated by CCP § 128.5. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant shall prepare a written or...

Excerpt: ...ce of the complaint; it is not enough that the complaint shows merely that the action may be barred. McMahon v. Republic Van & Storage Co., Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 871, 874. Here, the statute of limitations bar appears clearly on the face of the Verified Complaint as Plaintiff admits that he waited nineteen years to assert a claim to the Subject Property. The discovery rule does not save Plaintiff's claims. It is the discovery of facts, not their l...

Excerpt: ...the entire cause of action for failure to allege the legal description of the property and failure to allege tender of the outstanding debt. The allegation of tender is not excused; Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing that the sale was void. B. Third Cause of Action (Breach of Implied Covenant) Demurrer is SUSTAINED. Of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the pleading fails to allege a breach. The acts of which Plaintiffs com...

Excerpt: ... Motion of Plaintiff Bonnie Rodemeyer (“Plaintiff”) and proposed additional Plaintiffs Kristina L. Nelson, Michael J. Rodemeyer and Edward E. Rodemeyer, III (“proposed Plaintiffs”) to Compel Defendants Jim Heldberg and Professional Computing Solutions, Inc. dba Silicon Segway (“Defendants”) to Produce Independent Medical Examiner (“IME”) Report is ruled on as follows: This motion purports to be brought by the proposed Plaintiffs, ...

Excerpt: ...RULING: The Motion of Plaintiff Bonnie Rodemeyer (“Plaintiff”) and proposed additional Plaintiffs Kristina L. Nelson, Michael J. Rodemeyer and Edward E. Rodemeyer, III (“proposed Plaintiffs”) to Compel Defendant Jim Heldberg dba Silicon Segway to Serve Verified Answers and for Issuance of Monetary Sanctions is ruled on as follows: This motion purports to be brought by the proposed Plaintiffs, who are not yet parties to this action. Theref...

Excerpt: ...ndant's motion is procedurally defective as it fails to include a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed in this action. Code Civ. Proc. §473(b). 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 California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice...

Excerpt: ...e of whether the existence of Defendants, who are necessary parties to Plaintiffs' claim for partition, but who are non‐signatories to the arbitration provision of the Bagnarols' LLC operating agreement, precludes the Court from determining that Plaintiffs' claim is subject to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement. Because Plaintiffs have not presented authority indicating that the existence of third parties precludes application of...

Excerpt: ...019. There are no acts for the Court to compel. The sufficiency of the objections and responses are not at issue in the present motion since the motion is pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300 and not 2030.300 or 2031.310. (See Notice of Motion.) Defendant's Motion to Compel Production of Documents is DENIED. A motion to compel production of documents is proper when a party responds that he will comply with the reques...

Excerpt: ... Proc. §1987.1. These subpoenas seek information that is protected by Plaintiff's privacy rights. In Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, the Court barred disclosure of “personnel… or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Id. at 529; see Cal. Const., Article I, §1. Defendants fail to demonstrate a compelling need for the production of these documents...

Excerpt: ...d cause of action against Defendant. All of Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant are barred by res judicata. Res judicata gives certain conclusive effect to a former judgment in subsequent litigation involving the same controversy. (Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 788, 797.) Claim preclusion operates as a bar to a second lawsuit between the same parties on the same cause of action. (Id.) The elements for claim preclusion are: ...

Excerpt: ...owledge of falsity, (3) intent to defraud, (4) justifiable reliance, and (5) resulting damage. (Philipson & Simon v. Gulsvig (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 347, 363). Fraud must be pled with specificity. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.) The plaintiff must allege facts which show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered. (Ibid.) Here, Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to support a claim f...

Excerpt: ...arnered the requisite two‐thirds of the vote to pass, pursuant to Gov. Code §§ 53326(b) and 53328; and (2) Whether the CFD boundary map was fatally defective because it includes “openspace” territory without Plaintiff's consent, in violation of Gov. Code § 53312.18(a). As to the first issue, the Court finds that the City was not a qualified landowner for purposes of voting in the special election. The City acknowledges that it voted its ...

Excerpt: ...ngs if “the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.” Code Civ. Proc. § 438(c)(1)(B)(ii). “The grounds for motion provided for in this section shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. Where the motion is based on a matter of which the court may take judicial notice pursuant to Section 452 or 453 of ...

Excerpt: ...t the sale. As the winning buyer, AJE is the owner of the personal property listed in the UCC‐1 Statements. After the sale, Cross‐defendants remained in possession of the property at the dental office, despite AJE's having purchased the personal property at the sale. AJE estimates that the property is valued at $161,000. Cross‐defendants' Opposition does not contest the estimate. B. Opposing Arguments Lack Merit. NGUYEN contends that the ap...

Excerpt: ...ED. All requests for judicial notice are GRANTED. This matter was originally heard on January 24, 2019 at which time the court continued the matter to March 7, 2019 and ordered defendant Suzie Investments, Inc. to comply with CCP §430.41(a)(3) by filing the declaration required by that statute. The Second Declaration of Seth Weiner in Support of Demurrer to Complaint filed on February 1, 2019 satisfies the statute, so the demurrer may now procee...

Excerpt: ...tion: (1) Paul McKinnie, et al. v. Phyllis Harrison, et al., Case No. 18CIV04938 (“McKinnie action”), and (2) William Grosso, et al. v. Phyllis Harrison, et al., Case No. 18CIV02540 (“Grosso action”) However, Ms. Harrison has not demonstrated that a transfer order is necessary given that both the McKinnie and Grosso actions were also filed in this court. (See C.C.P. § 403 [“A judge may, on motion, transfer an action or actions from ano...

Excerpt: ...lication for leave to present a claim as contemplated by that section. Indeed, Petitioner does not indicate that “application was made to the board under Section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied,” as required to obtain relief under Gov't. Code § 946.6. As set forth below, Respondent appears to have waived any defense as to the timeliness of Petitioner's claim pursuant to Gov't. Code § 911.3(b). Petitioner submitted a Government Claim o...

Excerpt: ...e days before the date a motion to strike must be filed” (Id. sect. 435.5, subd. (a)(2).) The motion to strike must include a declaration setting forth in detail the compliance with section 435.5, or reasons why compliance was not possible. (Id. sect. 435.5, subd. (a)(2) & (3).) Plaintiff's motion fails to comply with these statutory requirements. No declaration is on file. The motion is also possibly untimely. A motion to strike an Answer must...

Excerpt: ... Defendant's business records subpoena, which requests records relating to “treatment for any condition” since July 1, 2010 is overly broad, as it makes no attempt to limit its scope to the conditions alleged in Plaintiff's complaint. The scope of the subpoena shall be limited to records relating to the conditions identified in Plaintiff's complaint, including records relating to the treatment Plaintiff sought immediately following the allege...

Excerpt: ...ons. Under Plaintiffs' reasoning, any litigant could avoid the mandatory 21‐day period merely by waiting until the Court has ruled on a motion and then filing a motion for sanctions. Plaintiffs cite no authority for this interpretation. The interpretation is unreasonable because it would render the waiting period provision meaningless. (See Manufacturers Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 257, 274 (statutes must be construed in m...

Excerpt: ...�) Cross‐Complaint, is ruled on as follows: (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, to the Complaint is DENIED. Plaintiff fails to meet her initial burden of establishing each element of her causes of action. (See C.C.P. § 437c(p)(1).) Plaintiff not only seeks recovery of the possession of the vehicle, but also seeks damages in connection with all three causes of action alleged. (See Third Amen...

Excerpt: ...its entirety. The Complaint alleges claims for open book account, account stated, money lent, and money paid at Defendant's request. (Complaint ¶¶ CC‐1(a) & CC‐1(b).) The motion against the entire complaint can be granted only if it defeats all causes of action. The motion is denied because it fails to dispose of three of the four causes of action. A. The Motion Establishes that Defendant Owes $3,321.48 to Plaintiff for “Money Paid.” Th...