Excerpt: ...ted two additio nal supplemental briefs and this tentative addresses those additional arguments and evaluates several authorities not cited in the last tentative and expands upon some authorities cited before. The Court very much appreciates the parties' additional work. The Court GRANTS the parties' requests for judicial notice. Evid. C. §§451 - 453. This action concerns the founding of two aerospace companies: “Original Firefly,” in whic...

Excerpt: ...: BACKGROUND Plaintiff brings this action against her former real estate agent Cooper, arising from the sale of her former residence at 236 24th Avenue in San Mateo (“property”). At the time Plaintiff lived at the property for over 50 years and was 87 years old. Plaintiff retained Cooper, who worked for Dwell at the time, to assist her with selling the property. Plaintiff claims that Cooper pressured her not to list the property on the multip...

Excerpt: ...plaint (“FAC”) by Pla intiffs 400 Concar Drive Tenant LLC (“Tenant”) and WeWork Companies U.S. LLC (“WeWork”) (also collectively “Plaintiffs”) is ruled on as follows: (1) Demurrer to the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract and Second Cause of Action is OVERRULED on the ground that WeWork lacks standing to bring this action. “Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, except as otherwise p...

Excerpt: ...t culminated with j ury verdicts on February 29, 2024, awarding damages to Plaintiff as follows: • Late charges and interest • Tenant expenses • Lost rent from 11/2018 to 6/2022 • Repair and remediation expenses $5,0621 $91,284 $8,425 $9,875 Prior to trial, Plaintiff s ettled with co-defendants the Polettis, for $400,000, and Alexander Malaspina, for $187,500, for a total of $587,500. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleged a nu...

Excerpt: ... - 437.) Defendants' No tice of Motion incorrectly states that the hearing on this Motion will take place in Department 21. This matter will be heard in Department 24, located of 400 County Center, Redwood City, Ca. Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) is GRANTED as foll ows: As to the document(s) filed in prior court proceedings, and as to the documents recorded with a County Recorder's office, the RJN is GRANTED. (Evid. C. § 452(...

Excerpt: ...ortation Holdings, L LC's and Akira Takei's Unopposed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution, joined by Cross -Defendants Philip White and Brandon Lawrence, dba Sportscars Italiano, is GRANTED. Code of Civil Procedure § 583.360 provides than an action shall be brought to tr ial within five years after it was commenced. The five- year period begins to run on the date the action is filed against the defendant. Davalos v. County of Los Angele...

Excerpt: ...alleged in th e operative complaint to see whether they state a cause of action under any legal theory, as a matter of law. (New Livable California v. Association of Bay Area Governments (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 709, 714 –715.) The demurrer may be made to the entire complai nt or to any of the cause of action therein. (CCP § 430.50(a).) To properly state a cause of action, a complaint must allege every element of that cause of action. (Shaeffer v...

Excerpt: ...ossession of the Property without permission of Plaintiff. Defendant's Demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. A. Legal standard on demurrer The purpose of a demurrer is to test the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged in the operative complaint to see whether they state a cause of action under any legal theory, as a matter of law. New Livable California v. Association of Bay Area Governments (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 709, 714 –715. The demurr...

Excerpt: ... of Action for Medical Malpr actice is SUSTAINED with leave to amend based on failure to allege facts sufficient to support this cause of action. The elements of a cause of action for medical malpractice are: “(1) the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of his profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and t...

Excerpt: ...r. (CCP § 430.41.) Cross -D efendant also failed to file a declaration regarding its meet and confer obligations. (CCP § 430.41(a)(3).) Since insufficient meet and confer efforts are not grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer (CCP § 430.41(a)(4)), and Cross - Defendant's special dem urrer is without merit, the Court will reach those merits and OVERRULE the demurrer on those ground separate and apart from the failure to meet and confer. Col...

Excerpt: ...in April 2019, ab out five years ago. In February 2020, Defendant served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents, which broadly asked Plaintiff to explain the claims that Plaintiff was asserting against Defendan t, and the basis therefore. Plaintiff did not … and has never … serve(d) responses to the discovery requests. In May 2020 and again in Jan. 2021, Defendant's counsel sent...

Excerpt: ... Song and Kooyeon Son g (collectively, “the Songs”). On January 18, 2023, the Songs crosscomplained against Streamlined and added Cross -defendant Paul Hugh Johnson, “the principal and officer” of Streamlined, in his personal capacity. (Jan. 31, 2024 Declaration of Paul Johnson (“Johnson Decl.”), ¶ 2; see id., at ¶¶ 4– 5 [referring to Streamlined as “my corporation”].) The Songs attempted to serve process on Johnson via Strea...

Excerpt: ... liberal allow ance of amendments should prevail. Nestle v. Santa Monica (1971) 6 Cal.2d 920, 939. California courts have held that for an original complaint, whether or not the plaintiff has requested leave to amend, denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of disc retion unless the complaint is clearly incapable of amendment. Tarrar Enterprises, Inc. v. Associated Indemnity Corp. (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 685, 688 (quoting King v. Mortimer (19...

Excerpt: ...nants Christopher Campanile's and David Espie's Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED as to all items. Amiseq moves here to dismiss Cross - complainants' operative cross -complaint for a failure to serve process within three years. A summons and complaint must be served within thr ee years after the action is commenced, and the proof thereof must be filed within sixty days thereafter. (CCP §583.210.) When service has not been made within this ...

Excerpt: ...the Court notes that although both Plaintiffs bring the present Motion to Compel (see 1 -12- 24 Notice of Motion [Plaintiffs Leonidas and Nestor Quezada will move this Court … for an Order compelling Defendant Jing Yuan to provide further response …]), Plaintiff Nestor Quezada did not serve the subject Special Interrogatories, and therefore has no standing to bring this Motion. This is noteworthy given Plaintiffs' repeated argument, both duri...

Excerpt: ...olo now moves for s ummary judgment (the “Motion”) pursuant to CCP § 437c as to the only cause of action in the Complaint on grounds that Lawrence is an independent contractor rather than Wonolo's employee, and thus Wonolo cannot be held vicariously liable for her torts. Plaintiff does not oppose the Motion. Only co - defendant Good Eggs opposes the Motion. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED. Defendant's request for judic...

Excerpt: ...oss- Defendant”). The original Cross-Com plaint was served on Cross - Defendants on August 14, 2023. On October 12, 2023, Cross -Defendant Stiles timely filed his special motion to strike (“anti -SLAPP motion”) pursuant to CCP §425.16, directed at the tenth cause of action for abuse of process allege d against him in the original Cross -Complaint. After the Court sustained in part and overruled in part Cross -Defendants' separate demurrer...

Excerpt: ...r Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses from Defendant Ampex Engineering and Construction, Inc. (“Defendant”) to Special Interrogatories nos. 1 through 12, contending that Defendant's supplemental responses are insufficient. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that none of Defendant's objections have merit and the substantive portion of Defendant's supplemental responses are...

Excerpt: ...tional distress (“IIED”). Vinogradova demurs here to the second cause of action for IIED on the grounds of uncertainty and a failure to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action. (CCP §430.10(e) –(f).) A. Legal Standard on Demurrer The purpose of a demurrer is to t est the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged in the operative complaint to see whether they state a cause of action under any legal theory, as a matter of law. (New Li...

Excerpt: ... and to set aside the default and default judgment, if applicable, under CCP §473. Defendant's Motion is GRANTED. Where a motion for relief is not accompanied by an attorney affidavit of fault but is timely made, the court may grant discretionary relief from default taken against a party due to that party's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (CCP §473(b).) The law favors judgment based on the merits, not based on procedural ...

Excerpt: ...- defendants Nite sh Hissaria and Digitize Solutions Private Limited (DSPL) is DENIED. Cross - complainants move here to enter the defaults of Cross -defendants Hissaria and DSPL on the Amended Cross -Complaint. Hissaria and DSPL are purportedly located in the Republic of India . Service of process on a person outside the United States may be made (1) as provided in part 2, title 5, chapter 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or (2) “if the court...

Excerpt: ...) The Court continued this Demur rer for Defendants to establish compliance with the meet and confer requirement under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, and to file a supplemental declaration establishing compliance with this requirement. Defendants' counsel previously filed a decla ration stating that the parties met and conferred by telephone on September 8, 2023, and also attached a meet and confer email to Plaintiff to confirm the co...

Excerpt: ... Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Superior Court (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 733, 774.) Plaintiffs shall file and serve a Second Amended Complaint no later than March 18, 2024. As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Defendants provided the improper addres s for the hearing. Department 24 is located at the Hall of Justice and Records, Courtroom 2F, 400 County Center, Redwood City, California 94063. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110 [notice “...

Excerpt: ...se (Annie Sammut, Cody Sammu t, and Artichoke Joe's) filed demurrers to Plaintiff's FAC. In an Order dated 1.31.24, the Court ruled on Cody Sammut's and Artichoke Joe's demurrer. Having reviewed the briefing here, the Court finds that the issues and arguments raised are substantially the same as those raised in the prior demurrers. The Court finds no basis to diverge from its previous ruling, as further explained below. Defendant's 10 -5 -23 ...

Excerpt: ...re early inve stors and shareholders, and “New Firefly,” a company which Plaintiffs allege was created by Defendants from the looted remains of Original Firefly. New Firefly's creation followed a scheme allegedly hatched by Defendants to defraud Plaintiffs and prevent them from protecting the value of their investments. The instant case (“the California action”) was stayed pending the disposition of a concurrent action which Defendants...

Excerpt: ...mary judgme nt, the cross -defendant has met its burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the cross - defendant has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. ( CCP §437c(p)(2).) Once the cross-defendant meets that burden, the burden shifts to the cross- complainant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to...

Excerpt: ... Cros s-Complainant David Espie.” (Notice of Motion for Judicial Reference at 2; the “Motion”.) In its Reply, B of A clarifies that it seeks general consensual reference of all its claims against the CPQ Defendants (CPQ LLC, Campanile, and Espie; referred to col lectively herein as CPQ), while the other cross- claims against non-CPQ Defendants will remain with the Court. The Motion is GRANTED and the original Complaint and all causes of ac...

Excerpt: ...TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff's Motion for an Award of Expert Witness Costs is DENIED. Plaintiff is the prevailing party. However, for the reasons stated in granting in part Defendant's Motion to Tax Costs, which is also on this Law & Motion calendar, the P laintiff did not obtain a more favorable result than its CCP §998 offer and is therefore not entitled to these costs. Plaintiff's CCP §998 offer was $160,000. The jury's verdict was $147,119.3...

Excerpt: ...o Coi t's form interrogatories, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and request for production of documents, set one. The Court also ordered that Plaintiff pay $645.00 in sanctions within 30 days of notice of the Order. Plaintiff failed to comply. In a te ntative order issued on March 24, 2023, the Court denied Coit's unopposed first motion for terminating sanctions. In a tentative order issued October 17, 2023, the Court denied without p...

Excerpt: ... Relief is DENIED. The Court's tentative ruling from December 28, 2023, as modified, is restated here. The controversy involves the Opperman's October 15, 2021 application to build an Accessory Dwelling Unit ADU on their property, which cross defendants denied. The project is referred to interchangeably in the Cross- Complaint as the “ADU” and the Opperman Application.” (Cross- Complaint ¶¶7 and 19.) The Opperman's Fifth Cause of Action ...

Excerpt: ...a nd DENIED IN PART. Defendants David M. Bragg and Silicon Valley Real Ventures, LLC shall pay $10,000 to Plaintiffs' counsel no later than March 8, 2024. Plaintiffs move here for terminating sanctions, monetary sanctions, and a finding of contempt with re spect to Defendants David M. Bragg and Silicon Valley Real Ventures, LLC (“SVRV”). They contend that sanctions and contempt are warranted by Bragg's and SVRV's refusal to comply with the C...

Excerpt: ...s of action a gainst Stiles and second Cross -Defendant Johnson (“Johnson”). In short, the Cross- Complaint alleges that Homa held title to the Ferrari at all times, including when it was sold for $200,000.00, but was forced by the Cross -Defendants to pay $175,000 and var ious other sums of money because CrossDefendants were upset that the car had been sold. According to the Cross -Complaint, Johnson told Homa that she should pay the money t...

Excerpt: ...te of Li mitations Where a complaint shows on its face that the cause of action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, it is subject to demurrer. Sirott v. Latts (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 923, 928. Here, the FAC alleges that Plaintiffs purchased the Subje ct Property from the Defendants on July 15, 2019. FAC ¶11. It further alleges that Plaintiffs discovered the storm drain by chance in June 2022 when they were doing landscaping on the S...

Excerpt: ..., inter a lia, the following causes of action (“COAs”) against Grove: private nuisance under Civil Code § 3479, trespass under Civil Code § 3334, negligence, injunctive relief, and violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 7000. Defendant's demurrer is SUSTAINED -IN -PART wit hout leave to amend OVERRULED -IN -PA R T. A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings, raising issues of law but not fact regarding the form or content of the opp...

Excerpt: ... 430.10 CALIF. RULE OF CT., RULE 3.1320] TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Wayne Podesta's, Gary Podesta, Jr.'s; and Podesta Family Investments II, LLC's (collectively, “Defendants”) 11 -7 -23 Demurrer to Plaintiffs' 9 -21 -23 First Amended Complaint (FAC) is SU STA INED-IN -PART without leave to amend and OVERRULED -INPART. Defendants' 11 -7 -23 Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) is GRANTED as follows: As to the document(s) filed in prior court p...

Excerpt: ...are reason ably subject to dispute by CCSF and irrelevant. (Evid. C. §452(h); AL Holding Co. v. O'Brien & Hicks, Inc. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1313 fn. 2 [“a court must decline to take judicial notice of material that is not relevant”] (internal citation omitted).) Accordingly, the Court has not considered Plaintiffs' extrinsic evidence. (See Ion Equipment Corporation v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868.) This case is brought by Plaintiff...

Excerpt: ...wers to interrogatories, depositions, and matters of which judicial notice shall or may be taken.” Under Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Company (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, the party moving for summary judgment has the burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there is no triable issue of any material fact. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to make a prima facie showing that there is a triable issue of material fact. Here, t...

Excerpt: ...ndant' s Request for Production of Documents (“RFPs”), Set One (the “Motions”). These are the fourth and fifth discovery motions brought by Defendant and Plaintiff has already been sanctioned $18,005.40, none of which has been paid. Defendant's Motions and requ est for terminating sanctions are GRANTED and the matter is ordered DISMISSED with prejudice. The proof of service (“POS”) for the Motions indicates they were sent to Plaintif...

Excerpt: ...pe r annum of $28,554.79, and costs of $1,383.85 for a total award of $54,938.64. (Aug. 11, 2023 Default Judgment.) Schreiner moves here to set aside and vacate that judgment or to strike the prejudgment interest portion of it. Defendant contends that the aw ard of interest was improper under subdivision (a) of Civil Code §3287, which entitles a prevailing party to prejudgment interest on damages that are certain. (C.C. §3287(a).) However, as P...

Excerpt: ...Agreements serving as the basis of the judgment are void and unenforceable” on those bases. (Motion at p. 8 (emphasis added); see also Reply at p. 1, fn. 1.) Nevertheless, the only issue before the Court is whether the Judgment entered by the Honorable Robert Foiles on March 19, 2021, is void on its face. Noting this limitation on the Court's authority is important because the Motion asks the Court to go beyond simply voiding the Judgment and t...

Excerpt: ...P §§435, 436, 581(f)(2).) Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) is GRANTED. (Evid. Code Sect. 452(d).) Defendants' unopposed Motion to Strike Plainti
¯s' TAC is GRANTED. (CCP §§435 & 436; Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613.) As set forth in Defendants' moving papers, the Court's 8-31-23 Order sustaining Defendants' demurrer to Plainti
¯s' Second Amended Complaint (SAC) set a deadline for Plai...

Excerpt: ...tion Act (the “FAA”) covers at least some of the claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and that a party may properly move to compel arbitration of claims asserted in an existing lawsuit. Rather, the dispute here is limited to whether and the extent to which the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (the “EFAA”) permits Bruschi to elect to proceed in court on his claims. The EFAA...

Excerpt: ... (“Envirobuilt”). Gray now moves pursuant to CCP §§386.5 and 386.6 to deposit the sum of the bond with the Court, to be discharged from further liability for the sum, to be dismissed from the action, and for its fees and costs. Gray's motion is hereby GRANTED with modiÞcations to the requested costs and attorneys' fees set forth herein. “Where the only relief sought against one of the defendants is the payment of a stated amount of money...

Excerpt: ... states, on the caption page, that the Feb. 2 hearing on this Motion to Strike will take place in Dept. 21 at 9 a.m., whereas the body of the Notice (the next page) states that the Feb. 2 hearing will take place in Dept. 24 at 2 p.m. Thus, the Notice provides incorrect information. The hearing is 2.2.24 @ 9:00 a.m. in D24. Defendants' 1.26.24 “Opposition to the Declaration of Christine Tour Sarkissian,” in which Defendants ask the Court to st...

Excerpt: ... (“CPQ”) and Cross-complainant David Espie's Motion to Compel Cross- defendant The Chugh Firm, PC's (hereafter “Chugh”) Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set Two, and for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Cross-defendant Chugh shall serve code-compliant further responses to requests nos. 2021, 28–30, 37, 59–82, 84– 87, and 90–99 no later than February 16, 2024. Upon receipt of responses to reques...

Excerpt: ...el, noting that Plainti
¯'s objections and arguments were meritless, appeared to have been made in bad faith, and were unreasonable. The Court ordered Plainti
¯ to supplement his responses to certain special interrogatories, and also ordered that Plainti
¯ pay $2,000 in monetary sanctions to Defendant within twenty days of its Order. (Order Re: Motion to Compel, signed September 14, 2023.) Defendant now moves for evidentiary and monetary sanct...

Excerpt: ...— first sentence alleging malice; • 947 — last sentence related to attorney fees; and • Prayer for punitive damages, p. 12, 93 CCP S 436 empowers the court to, upon moton or sua sponte, strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading, as well as all or any part of the pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the law, rules of court, or an order of the court. On a motion to strike, the Court construes th...

Excerpt: ... Espie's Motion to Compel Cross-defendant The Chugh Firm, PC's (hereafter "Chugh") Further Responses and Document Production in Connecton with Request for Production of Documents, Set Three, and for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Cross-defendant Chugh shall serve code-compliant further responses as set forth herein no later than February 9, 2024. Upon receipt of responses to requests for production, the propounding part...

Excerpt: ...at least two choices to the Court's Clerk for the Court to choose from. In order to comply with CCP the demurring party shall file and serve with the demurrer a declaration stating either of the follovnng: (A) The means by which the demurring party met and conferred with the party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer, and that the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the objections raised in the demurrer. (B) That the party who file...

Excerpt: ... that Plaintiffs' real property in San Carlos was damaged due to flooding, allegedly caused and exacerbated by the actions of the collective Defendants including Grove. As to Grove, Plaintiffs allege that he engaged in "construction activty in the vicinity of Canyon Vista Avenue in late 2022 and continuing through the month of January 2023. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Grove blocked numerous storm drains operated b...