Excerpt: ...fore November 14, 2022. Defendant establishes that it properly noticed Plaintiff's deposition for August 16 and 17, 2022 at the San Mateo County Attorney's Office in Redwood City, and that Plaintiff failed to appear for her deposition. (See Cruz Decl., ¶¶ 1, 15, and Exs. A and N.) Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendant is entitled to take her deposition for two additional days, but instead argues that Defendant should only be permitted to ta...

Excerpt: ...ed Razzaqui v. Williams, Case No. CGC‐22‐597701, to this Court (San Mateo County Superior Court) for coordination with this case. Defendants from both cases oppose the Motion, and indicate that they will file a motion to bifurcate if the two cases are joined for trial. Code of Civil Procedure section 403 authorizes a judge in one court to order a case pending in another court transferred to the judge's court if it (a) involves a “common que...

Excerpt: ...ade in good faith. In support, Myson submitted the declaration of its counsel, Gary L. Franklin. Franklin's declaration sets forth the basic facts concerning the litigation (Franklin Decl., ¶¶ 3‐9), and attaches the settlement agreement (id., ex. 1). Franklin also avers that Myson agreed to pay Plaintiff $120,000 to “buy peace,” that Myson vigorously disputes that it is in any way liable to Plaintiff, and that Myson is not insured for thi...

Excerpt: ...s Motion to Quash (Motion) is DENIED. Discovery is RE‐OPENED for the limited purpose of allowing Plaintiff to take Rhone's deposition before October 10, 2022. The deposition may be conducted remotely. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer on a date for Rhone's deposition. 1. Witness's Lack of Knowledge Defendants and Rhone contend the subpoena does not seek relevant information because Rhone has submitted a declaration stating that she has...

Excerpt: ... to summary judgment because “Plaintiff's failure to submit this dispute to arbitration is a complete bar to this civil action.” (MPA, at p.9) This contention lacks merit. The Loan Agreement entered into between Defendant Escandon Uniforms, Inc. (Escandon) and School Apparel, Inc. (SAI), Plaintiff's predecessor‐in‐interest, contains an arbitration provision stating that “[i]n the event of a dispute between the parties under this Agreeme...

Excerpt: ...e Motion as timely because the electronic filing stamp on the moving papers indicated Plaintiff filed the Motion on March 17, 2022—two days after the March 15 deadline. After oral argument on August 11, 2022, the Court continued the hearing to September 22, 2022, and requested additional briefing on the timeliness issue. Having reviewed the parties' Supplemental Briefs, the Court finds that the Motion was timely‐filed. Plaintiff submitted the...

Excerpt: ...V‐04521 Assigned for All Purposes to Hon. Danny Y. Chou ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF GANGFENG LAI Defendant Sterling Bank & Trust, FSB's (Sterling) unopposed Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against Plaintiff Gangfeng Lai (Motion) came for hearing before this Court on September 22, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. Having considered all papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, oral arguments of the partie...

Excerpt: ...the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those facts.” (Miklosy v. Regents of the University of Cal. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876, 883.) The Court may “also consider matters that may be judicially noticed . . . .” (Brown v. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 275, 279.) The Court does “not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law.” (...

Excerpt: ... reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those facts.” (Miklosy v. Regents of the University of Cal. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876, 883.) The Court may “also consider matters that may be judicially noticed . . . .” (Brown v. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 275, 279.) The Court does “not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law.” (Guerrero v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2014) 230 Cal.A...

Excerpt: ... in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every manner pertaining thereto.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(5); see Capra v. Capra (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 1072, 1091– 1092.) In deciding whether to disqualify an attorney, the paramount concern “must be to preserve public trust in the scrupulous administration of justice and the integrity of the bar.” (People ex rel Dept. of Corps. v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems,...

Excerpt: ...ty of San Mateo (Defendant) from 2007 to 2019 pursuant to an independent contractor agreement. (FAC, ¶¶ 6‐19.) Plaintiff alleges that “beginning in early 2019,” Defendant “began to change the terms of [Plaintiff's] employment,” which effectively changed her status from independent contractor to employee. (Id., ¶ 16.) After Plaintiff filed an EEOC Complaint against Defendant, Defendant allegedly “terminated” her. (Id., ¶¶ 19‐2...

Excerpt: ... seek any monetary relief. In her first through fifth causes of action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), however, Plaintiff does seek monetary relief. Although Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff's FEHA claims are not subject to the Government Claims Act (GCA), it nonetheless argues that Plaintiff's sixth cause of action is subject to the GCA based solely on the claims for monetary relief in her FEHA causes of action. The Court ...

Excerpt: ...AVE TO AMEND, and SUSTAINED IN PART WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 1. Legal Standard On a demurrer, the Court must “assume the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those facts.” (Miklosy v. Regents of the University of Cal. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876, 883.) The Court may “also consider matters that may be judicially noticed . . . .” (Brown v. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. (2016) 247 Cal.App....

Excerpt: ...im's second demurrer. (See Mar. 30, 2022 Demurrer, p. 1 [“Defendants Joseph and Suzie Kim (hereafter ‘Defendants'), will and hereby do generally and specifically demurrer [sic] to Plaintiffs Carol and Charles Oushani's, [sic] Complaint”].) But subsequent demurrers are not prohibited as a matter of law. (McAllister v. County of Monterey (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 253, 282 [“[w]hile it is true that no statute specifically authorizes the procedu...

Excerpt: ...econsideration Motion #1). On July 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Contest Tentative Ruling Dated 06‐30‐2022; Motion for Reconsideration; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration (Reconsideration Motion #2). On July 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed Declaration 3 of Plaintiff Andrada in Support to her Motion for Consideration on Her Request for Entry of Default Judgment Against Defendant Arman Baghbanbashi (Reconsideration Motion #3.) Al...

Excerpt: ...t cause of action alleges “various forms of indebtedness” (McBride v. Boughton (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 379, 394), including an open book account, accounted stated, money lent, money paid or laid out to or for the defendant at her request and for the loan issued by the plaintiff upon the defendant's request. The Motion, however, only addresses the claim of an open book account. Summary adjudication of the common count claim based on an open boo...

Excerpt: ...or All Purposes to Hon. Danny Y. Chou ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES The Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication of Issues (Motion) filed by Defendants Jaye Morris and Brett Kinigstein (collectively, Defendants) came for hearing before this Court on August 25, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. All parties appeared through th...

Excerpt: ...s (Reconsideration Motion #1). On July 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Contest Tentative Ruling Dated 06‐30‐2022; Motion for Reconsideration; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration (Reconsideration Motion #2). On July 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed Declaration 3 of Plaintiff Andrada in Support to her Motion for Consideration on Her Request for Entry of Default Judgment Against Defendant Arman Baghbanbashi (Reconsideration Motion #3....

Excerpt: ...e drawn from those facts.” (Miklosy v. Regents of the University of Cal. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876, 883.) The Court may “also consider matters that may be judicially noticed . . . .” (Brown v. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 275, 279.) The Court does “not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law.” (Guerrero v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 567, 571.) 2. First Cause ...

Excerpt: ...hat much of the $5,747.80 claimed in Item 1 consist of fees for legal service firms, and not filing or motion fees. Indeed, the only filing/motion fee listed in Item 1 is for Defendants' motion for summary judgment, incurred on October 8, 2019. However, the Court has discretion to grant costs of couriers or messenger fees if reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. (Foothill‐De Anza Community College Dist. v. Emerich (2007) 158 Ca...

Excerpt: ...e grounds even if statutory relief is unavailable.” (Luxury Asset Lending, LLC v. Philadelphia Television Network, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 894, 910 (Luxury Asset Lending), quoting Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975 [quotation marks, brackets, and ellipses omitted].) “One ground for equitable relief is extrinsic mistake—a term broadly applied when circumstances extrinsic to the litigation have unfairly cost a party a hearing on th...

Excerpt: ... Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set Seven) (Motion) and Requests for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 1. Request for Production (RFP) No. 78 In responding to RFP No. 78, Defendant Nordstrom, Inc. only provided objections. Defendant's response is not, however, code compliant. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240, a party who objects to a request for production must “identify with particularity an...

Excerpt: ...nsula Infiniti, a dealership, pursuant to a Retail Installment Sale Contract (Contract). (Maugeri Decl., ¶ 4, and ex. 3.) The only signatories to the Contract are Peninsula Infiniti and Plaintiff. (See id., ex. 3.) Defendant is not a signatory. (Ibid.) The Contract contains an arbitration provision, which states in relevant part that: “Any claim or dispute, whether in contract, tort, statute or otherwise (including the interpretation and scope...

Excerpt: ...Y KATHRYN LOW; MONETARY SANCTION FOR $1,500.00 FOR DEFENDANT'S WILLFUL VIOLATION OF COURT ORDERS AND EXHIBITS TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff David Weiner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set One) is and Request for Monetary Sanctions (Motion) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 1. Requests for Production (RFP) Nos. 6–7 On July 8, 2021, this Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion to compel fur...

Excerpt: ...s Motion as a “repeat” of Defendants' 2021 motion to stay this case pending resolution of Defendants' earlier‐filed federal court case appears to be inapt. In denying Defendants' 2021 motion to stay, this Court stated that the motion may be renewed “if any only if” the federal district court issued a “conflicting ruling.” (See Sept. 28, 2021 Order.) As Plaintiff correctly notes, the federal district court has issued no “conflictin...