Excerpt: ...Grayson's allegedly fraudulent representations renders the arbitration agreement unenforceable lacks merit. Plaintiff claims that Mr. Grayson fraudulently represented to him that the employment agreement was a “mere formality.” Though claims of fraud in the execution of the entire agreement are not arbitrable under either state or federal law (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin'l Secur. Corp. (1996) 14 C4th 394, 416; Duffens v. Valenti (2008) 161...

Excerpt: ...inthis case. The Court takes judicial notice of the public records of the State Bar of California. In re White (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1453, 1469 fn. 14. A. Factual Background On March 15, 2019, the Court granted Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. Thereafter the parties were unable to agree upon an arbitrator. Defendants' former attorney filed a Rule 9.20 Notice of Interim Suspension on August 29, 2019. D's RJN, Exh. A. Defendant Carolina B...

Excerpt: ...aint on or before June 10, 2021. Defendant Cabezali's demurrer to the first cause of action is MOOT, as it is undisputed that he is not sued under the first cause of action – only the second cause of action. The second cause of action is for fraudulent inducement to entered into the settlement agreement and release contract. This is not pleaded as a tort claim for fraud itself. This is a contract claim, for which the remedy is rescission on the...

Excerpt: ...led beyond the statutory 60‐day deadline, the Court exercises its discretion to rule on the motion. Code of Civ. Proc. Section 425.16(f.) Cross‐ defendants Atulya Velivelli's and Aditya Velivelli's special motion to strike the third cause of action from the Cross‐complaint fails to make a prima facie showing under prong one of the SLAPP statutes, Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16, that the cause of action arises from protected speech o...

Excerpt: ...irst Set of Requests for Production of Documents, Request No. 4, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The requests for judicial notice are DENIED as irrelevant. Requests for fees are DENIED. In its written response to Request #4, Sun Valley Partners LLC make dozens and dozens of evidentiary objections – on every conceivable basis, whether or not meritorious or applicable. No privilege log was served. As part of the “meet and confer” proce...

Excerpt: ...ff failed to comply with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1324(b). Second, Plaintiff has failed to allege a viable cause of action in the proposed amendments. Plaintiff alleges that he tripped and fell, and sustained personal injuries, while waling on the pedestrian walkway at his apartment complex. His existing complaint alleges negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff now seeks to asserts that he suffers from diabetic neuropathy and that his ...

Excerpt: ...ants shall file and serve their First Amended Cross‐Complaint on or before June 1, 2021. As to the first cross‐cause of action for abuse of process, such a claim is the willful act in the use of process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding. (Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1157, 1168.) Further, “merely obtaining or seeking process is not enough; there must be subsequent abu...

Excerpt: ...The case will be set for Case Management and Trial Setting Conference. This case was filed in January 2016. In January 2017, after participation in mediation, the parties allegedly agreed to sale of the disputed property and to participate in arbitration on remaining issue of accounting. The alleged settlement stipulation of the parties was NOT provided to the Court or filed in this action. There is only a joint ex parte request by counsel for th...

Excerpt: ..., seventh, and eighth cross‐causes of action; and is GRANTED as to the ninth cross‐cause of action. Third through Eighth Causes of Action Sayad attacks the cross‐claims against him for indemnity, declaratory relief, apportionment of fault, and contribution – all based upon the theory that Sayad and Gachot were co‐counsel for the client Montgomery Sansome and that Sayad committed attorney malpractice in regards to the underlying litigati...

Excerpt: ...udicial notice” and the Court can consider all filings in this action. Tolu's objection that the demurrer is untimely is OVERRULED. First, it appears Tolu served the Fourth Amended Complaint on Naber personally, but not on Naber's counsel of record – as discussed in the reply brief. There is no filed Proof of Service showing that Tolu served Naber's counsel with the 4ACC. It is improper to serve papers on a party when the serving party knows ...

Excerpt: ...f undisputed material facts, [and] the declaration of Kirkman J. Hoffman, submitted herewith,” no such declaration was filed in support of the motion. Plaintiff requests the Court take judicial notice of discovery responses that have not been filed with the Court. Plaintiff, however, has provided no grounds upon which the discovery responses may be judicially noticed. Accordingly, the request for judicial notice is DENIED. Because Plaintiff has...

Excerpt: ... initialing the space, no agreement is created. Plaintiff Nay did not initial Paragraph 22B. Therefore, no agreement to arbitrate and no waiver of judicial rights arose. If an agreement to arbitrate were enforceable in the absence of the parties' initials, then the language “by initialing in the space below” would be surplusage. An interpretation that renders part of a contract surplusage should be avoided. (City of El Cajon v. El Cajon Polic...

Excerpt: ...on a contractual forum selection clause, is DENIED. First, the Indemnitor Application and Agreement upon which moving party relies is expressly between Plaintiff Waller and Defendant Lexington National Insurance. Defendant U.S. Immigration Bonds has failed to make an initial showing of any contract to which it is a party that contains a forum selection clause. The Deed of Trust referencing Freedom Immigration Bonds (the dba for U.S.> Immigration ...

Excerpt: ...Gov. C. § 810 et seq. Section 815 provides that “Except as otherwise provided by statute: (a) A public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person.” (Gov. C. § 815.) Thus, to state a cause of action alleging government tort liability, every fact essential to the existence of a statutory duty must be pleaded with particularity, includin...

Excerpt: ...ity cause of action, but DENIED as to the remaining claims. Id. As to Conco, Plaintiffs allege claims for negligence, premises liability, and loss of consortium. 9‐ 26‐19 Complaint. The parties appear to agree that the loss of consortium claim is predicated upon and dependent on the negligence and premises liability claims. Having reviewed the parties' briefing and supporting evidence, the Court concludes that triable issues of fact preclude ...

Excerpt: ...mpt from disclosure under Gov. Code § 6254(k), part of the California Public Records Act (CPRA), which provides that the Act does not require disclosure of “Records, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege.” In Citizens Oversight, Inc. v. Vu (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 612, 618– 620, the Fourth District Court of Appeal...

Excerpt: ...ssity and the reasons for the discovery; (2) the diligence 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 r...

Excerpt: ...st instruments”. It is Defendant's contention that the oral examination can be conducted remotely, but that some of the psychological tests cannot be conducted remotely. The Amended Notice lists a multitude of potential tests, and that the doctor “will use her judgment to administer any, all or none of the following test”. No specific evidence has been presented as to which specific tests the doctor has a good faith belief will actually nee...

Excerpt: ...s contained within the documents. Defendant/Cross‐Complainant Cullens' Motion to Enforce Settlement is GRANTED. Plaintiff/Cross‐Defendant Jeromes' Motion to Enforce Settlement is DENIED. Defendant/Cross‐Complainant Cullens' request for attorney's fees is DENIED. The Court has jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 664.6, item 7 of the Settlement Agreement, and the March 5, 2020 Order Retainin...

Excerpt: ...§ 437c. The parties agree that Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 and its progeny apply to the facts, but disagree as to the result. In general terms, the California Supreme Court's decision in Privette limits the liability of the hirer of an independent contractor for on‐the‐job injuries sustained by the independent contractor's employees. Id. As the Supreme Court explained in subsequent case law, however, the Privette doctrine...

Excerpt: ... other responsive pleading on or before five days after service upon him of the notice of entry of the order denying the motion to quash. In unlawful detainer actions, the filing of a motion to quash “extends the defendant's time to plead until five days after service upon him of the written notice of entry of an order denying his motion[.]” C.C.P. § 1167.4(b). Defendant filed a motion to quash on March 4, 2020. The Court denied the motion t...

Excerpt: ...2 Cal.App.4th 1234); Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial ¶6:94‐¶6:96. Plaintiffs appearing pro per drafted and filed their Complaint on December 21, 2018, alleging claims for negligence and personal injuries arising from a vehicle collision on January 2, 2017. In the caption, Plaintiff identified “AAA Insurance (American Automobile Association)” as Defendant. Throughout the body of the Complaint, Plaintiffs addressed their negligen...

Excerpt: ...e answer. Sebago, Inc. v. City of Alameda (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1372, 1379. “The grounds for a motion for judgment on the pleadings must appear from the face of the complaint or from a matter of which the court may take judicial notice.” RichardsonTunnell v. Schools Ins. Program for Employees (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1056, 1061 (disapproved on other grounds by Quigley v. Garden Valley Fire Protection Dist. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 798). Here, Plaintiff...