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: ...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: ...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: ...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: ... 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: ...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: ...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: ... 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: ...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: ...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: ...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: ..., 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: ...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: ... 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: ...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...