Excerpt: ...tion to quash subpoenas based on litigation taking place in New York. The underlying New York action is a personal injury action. The Defendant in that action, Subaru Distributors Corp., served the subpoenas on non‐party Petitioner Facebook, Inc. The subpoenas seek discovery of the contents of Plaintiffs' Facebook and Instagram accounts. The Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) bars disclosure of the contents of the subpoenaed accounts. The SC...

Excerpt: ...icipated in an informal discovery conference on December 1, 2020, but did not resolve the issues raised herein. Kawahito Decl. ¶23‐24. This, and the subsequent communications detailed in the Kawahito Decl., satisfies the meet and confer requirement. Defendant argues that Dr. Scott cannot participate in a deposition because of health issues, based on a November 24, 2020 letter from Dr. Gilbert Goodman of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation which s...

Excerpt: ... reasons set forth below. Both the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract and Second Cause of Action for Negligence are barred because Facebook is immune from liability under section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (“CDA”). (See 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).) Section 230(c)(1) states that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by ...

Excerpt: ...ed causes of action arises from (i.e., is based on) protected activity. City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 79. If defendant meets this initial burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff(s) to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the claim(s). Zamos v. Stroud (2004) 32 Cal.4th 958, 965. Here, Plaintiffs' 12‐4‐20 Complaint asserts two causes of action, for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED�...

Excerpt: ... Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED. Neither Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion nor Plaintiffs' Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts are compliant with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350(b) because they do not state specifically the cause of action for which summary adjudication is sought and repeat it verbatim on the separate statement. Defendants' objections numbers 1 and 3 are SUSTAINED on those grounds. Additionally, Plaintiffs have no...

Excerpt: ...ges claims for: (1) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; (2) Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; and (3) Violation of Government Code § 815.6. The FAC is brought against Defendant, who is “a city located in San Mateo County, California.” (FAC ¶ 7.) A claim for money or damages against a local public entity requires that a claim first be presented before filing a lawsuit, subject to certain exceptions. (See Gov. Code §§ 905, ...

Excerpt: ...Defendants are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The asserted claims arise from the same conduct alleged in Plaintiff's complaint against Defendants in Yichao Chen v. Patricia Lileggi, et al, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Index No. 655664/2017 (“New York Civil Case”). See RJN, Ex. E. Defendants' summary judgment motion was granted in the New York Civil Case and the case was dismissed. RJN, Ex. F. Thus, Plai...

Excerpt: ...election clause such as the one at issue here is generally given effect unless enforcement would be unreasonable or unfair, and the party opposing enforcement of the clause ordinarily bears the burden of proving why it should not be enforced.” (Handoush v. Lease Finance Group (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 729, 734 (Handoush).) “The burden, however, is reversed when the claims at issue are based on unwaivable rights created by California statutes. In ...

Excerpt: ...s Industry, Inc. (Siemens) and Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. (Liberty Mutual) are ORDERED to conduct a mediation pursuant to their subcontract with McCarthy under the terms set forth below. Pending the completion of the mediation, the crossactions involving Siemens, Liberty Mutual, and McCarthy are STAYED. Siemens' Subcontract with McCarthy requires that Siemens and McCarthy mediate any dispute arising from the Subcontract “before any legal proceedin...

Excerpt: ...ts discretion not to rule on Plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association's (Plaintiff or US Bank) objections to Defendants' evidence, because none of the disputed evidence affects the Court's ruling on the motion. (Code of Civ. Proc. Sect. 437c, subd. (q) [court need rule only on objections deemed material to court's disposition of motion].) Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED as to all attached exhibits. B. Defendants' Motion for Sum...

Excerpt: ... “material continuing violations of your lease (smoking, unapproved dog, noise),” “material failure to carry out obligations under state landlord and tenant law (nuisance and interfering with quiet enjoyment of neighbors),” and “other good cause (harassment of neighbors, smoking, noise).” (Complaint, Ex. 2.) Defendant's tenancy is a Section 8 tenancy. (Complaint, Ex. 1.) The Complaint does not allege facts that would permit terminatio...

Excerpt: ...min Darrow (“Plaintiff”), is ruled on as follows: (1) Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED, pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d). (2) The Demurrer to the First through Fifth Causes of Action as barred by the statute of limitations is OVERRULED. Defendants argue that these claims are barred by the three‐year statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 338(d). The statute commences to run only after one has ...

Excerpt: ...ber 16, 2020 is denied. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 473(d); see Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544 [default judgment entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the matter prescribed by statute is void].) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20(b), plaintiff's process server attempted service on defendant at the Fremont apartment, the address defendant gave as his home address at the scene of the accident, ...

Excerpt: ...torney's fees is DENIED. Respondent contends, first, that the arbitrator lacked statutory authority to issue the December 18, 2019 “Amended Ruling.” According to Respondent, “the arbitrator had no statutory authority or power to change, ‘amend,' or otherwise ‘clarify' his December 17, 2019, decision, regardless of his desire to do so or whether the parties requested ‘clarification' during a telephone call.” Opposition, p.5. Pursuant...

Excerpt: ...lows: Demurrer to the First Cause of Action for Premises Liability and Second Cause of Action for Negligence is OVERRULED. Defendant demurs to these claims based on failure to state facts sufficient to support these claims. Defendant assert that the facts pled are insufficient to support that Defendant owed Plaintiffs a duty of care. After reviewing the cases cited by the parties and the facts alleged in the Complaint though, the Court finds that...

Excerpt: ... Further, the Demurrer provides no argument that the first or second cause of action is uncertain. B. Demurrer to Third Cause of Action Defendant's demurrer to the third cause of action (fraudulent inducement) is sustained with leave to amend. 1. The Economic Loss Rule bars Plaintiff's claim. The economic loss rule allows a plaintiff to recover in tort when a product defect causes damage to “property other than the product itself.” (Jimenez v...

Excerpt: ...ased solely on allegations that Realogy “is the controlling company for” Cornerstone (Compl., ¶ 3) and that Defendants were the “alter egos of their co‐defendants” and “were joint venturers with, or co‐partners with, . . . their co‐defendants” (id., ¶ 11), Plaintiff contends that he has sufficiently pled the first cause of action for negligence and the third cause of action for tort of another against Realogy (see Pl. Opp., at...

Excerpt: ...AINED IN PART WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. As a threshold matter, the Court exercises its discretion to consider the Demurrer even though Defendant filed it more than a year after being served with the Summons and Complaint. Plaintiff has not opposed the Demurrer, and therefore has not demonstrated that it will be prejudiced. (Jackson v. Doe (2011) 192 Cal. App. 4th 742, 750.) Defendant's Demurrer to the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Causes of Action based ...

Excerpt: ...icle negligence arising from a collision on the 280 Freeway in San Mateo County. It alleges Defendant “was engaged in a race on the freeway with his motor vehicle with another unknown individual …. [and] caused his motor vehicle to strike Plaintiff's vehicle with such force that it caused Plaintiff's vehicle to fly off the highway and to rollover multiple times.” The Complaint refers to Defendant's actions as “despicable conduct, intentio...

Excerpt: ... Plaintiffs have demonstrated the records they seek to seal contain proprietary or confidential information. The records consist of testimony and documents furnished to the San Mateo County Assessment Appeals Board in conjunction with an application for changed assessment. Complaint, ¶ 10. Plaintiffs cite to Rev. and Tax. Code § 451, which provides that “All information requested by the assessor or furnished in the property statement shall be...

Excerpt: ... Alexander Mayer (“Mayer”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”), is ruled on as set forth below. The demurrer to the second, third, fourth, ninth, and tenth causes of action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to Defendant Pepe Pimentel (“Pimentel”). Plaintiffs have not alleged facts to support these causes of action. There is no alleged misrepresentation by Pimentel to support the Second Cause of Action for Intentional Misrepresentation and T...

Excerpt: ...by Defendant Clark Pest Control Services, Inc. (CPCS) in 2016. Plaintiff alleges that, following a company event at a San Mateo County golf course on January 20, 2018, her supervisor, Chris Burkett, “made a racist comment to Plaintiff” using a racial slur. Complaint, ¶ 8. Plaintiff complained to her employer about the comment. Defendant conducted an investigation and found Plaintiff's claim unsubstantiated. Id., ¶ 9. Upon learning the resul...

Excerpt: ... California, Inc., Aetna Health Management, Inc. and Aetna Life Insurance Company (collectively, Aetna) is CONTINUED to March 18, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. in Department 22. Defendants have lodged Exhibit Nos. 1‐7 under seal pursuant to California Rules of Court (CRC), Rule 2.254(c). (See Notice of Lodging filed September 24, 2020.) Rule 2.254(c) states that “[e]xcept as provided in rules 2.250‐ 2.259 and 2.500‐2.506, an electronically filed docu...

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...