Excerpt: ...rett) issued on January 28, 2021. The January 28, 2021 Order concerned a motion to compel further responses to discovery brought by Plaintiff which was heard by the Court on December 15, 2020 and was taken under submission. The January 28, 2021 Order states in pertinent part: “Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED in its entirety as untimely. (See CCP § 2030.300(c); § 2031.310(c); § 2033.290(c); see also Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1983) 147 C...

Excerpt: ... Family Dental Group. As the Court has previously noted, Plaintiff is self‐represented, sometimes referred to as proceeding in propria persona. “[W]hen a litigant is appearing in propria persona, he is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys. Further, the in propria persona litigant is held to the same restrictive rules of procedure as an attorney.” (Burnete v. La Casa Dana Apartments (2007) 14...

Excerpt: ...ith interactive process; 4) Age Discrimination; 5) Retaliation in violation of FEHA, and; 6) Wrongful Constructive Termination in violation public policy. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff began working for Defendant in 2008. In 2009 she became an Assistant Nurse Manager. Plaintiff alleges that after she developed thyroid cancer and fibromyalgia she notified Defendant in October 2017 and requested that Defendant reduce her work load from 40 ho...

Excerpt: ...ely flat and vacant dirt lot, owned by defendant EAH, Inc. dba EAH Housing (“EAH”). (See SAC, ¶¶ 2, 6, 13.) Defendant Shreya Shah (“Shah”) was the project manager employed by EAH for the construction of the Bella Salici apartment complex on the property. (See SAC, ¶ 6.) EAH and defendant City of Morgan Hill (“City”) shared joint control in the planning, building and construction of the project and hired defendants L & D Constructio...

Excerpt: ...use. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the work of these two defendants asbestos was disturbed and released into the residence. Defendant MG Remediation, Inc. was then hired to perform asbestos remediation. Plaintiff's original complaint was filed on January 7, 2019. The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on September 3, 2020. The FAC states four causes of action1 for: (1) Breach of Contract (against all three contractor ...

Excerpt: ...poration (“Subsidium”) to deliver hangar doors on Hi‐Fold's behalf to customers. (Complaint, ¶11.) Plaintiff Robert Durham (“Durham”) was retained by Subsidium, as an independent contractor, to deliver multiple hangar doors to defendant Winegarden. (Id.) Prior to delivery of the subject hangar doors to defendant Winegarden, HiFold and plaintiff Durham notified defendants of the instructions and requirements related to unloading of the ...

Excerpt: ... was attempting to restart his car, a CHP vehicle pulled up behind him. Plaintiff's car backfired and, apparently believing a gun had been fired, the two CHP officers on the scene (Officers Morasco and Bleisch, responding to a report by another CHP officer, a Sgt. Hill) fired multiple shots at Plaintiff, one of which grazed his skull. Plaintiff's original complaint was filed on January 27, 2018. After Defendants removed the action to federal cour...

Excerpt: ...ed claims for: 1) “Breach of Contract and Accounting,” 2) “Tortious Breach of Contract and Accounting,” 3) Breach of Fiduciary Duties, 4) Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duties, 5) Conspiracy to Breach Fiduciary Duties 6) Fraudulent Concealment; 7) Constructive Fraud; 8) “Tortious Inducement to Breach of Contract” 9) “Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations” 10) “Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic R...

Excerpt: ...rtinez and Katie Nielsen, as well as Defendant San Jose‐New Horizons Homeowners Association (“Association”) the homeowners association for the condominium complex in which the individual parties lived during the relevant period. On June 20, 2019 Darrel Martinez, Sylvia Martinez, Matthew Martinez and Katie Nielsen (hereafter referred to “Cross‐Complainants”) filed a Cross‐Complaint against Plaintiffs and the Association, stating clai...

Excerpt: ... while the action was removed to federal court and was not filed in this Court until February 22, 2021. The FAC states claims for: (1) Violation of Civil Code §1793.2(d) (against Ford Motor Company only); (2) Violation of Civil Code §1793.2(b) (against Ford Motor Company only); (3) Violation of Civil Code §1793.2(a)(3) (against Ford Motor Company only); (4) Breach of Express Written Warranty; Civil Code §1791.2(a); §1794 (against Ford Motor ...

Excerpt: ... Family Dental Group. As an initial matter the Court notes that Plaintiff is self‐represented, sometimes referred to as proceeding in propria persona. “[W]hen a litigant is appearing in propria persona, he is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys. Further, the in propria persona litigant is held to the same restrictive rules of procedure as an attorney.” (Burnete v. La Casa Dana Apartments (2...

Excerpt: ...h of a written contract between the parties (a “Master Service Agreement” or “MSA” attached to the Complaint as exhibit A) which contains a provision stating that the venue for disputes arising from the MSA will be Santa Clara County. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's demurrer to Armor's Third Amended CrossComplaint (“TACC”), filed pursuant to stipulation and order on November 25, 2020.1 The TACC states two cross‐claims: (1)...

Excerpt: ...ust 7, 2020 and states claims for: (1) Professional Negligence (against all Defendants); (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duties (against Defendant Carney and Doe defendants only), and; (3) Constructive Fraud (against Defendant Carney and Doe defendants only). This action arises from prior litigation between Plaintiff and her adult siblings, disputes over ownership of real property. The first of these appears to have been case no. 16CV292847, in which two...

Excerpt: ... while the action was removed to federal court and was not filed in this Court until February 22, 2021. The FAC states claims for: (1) Violation of Civil Code §1793.2(d) (against Ford Motor Company only); (2) Violation of Civil Code §1793.2(b) (against Ford Motor Company only); (3) Violation of Civil Code §1793.2(a)(3) (against Ford Motor Company only); (4) Breach of Express Written Warranty; Civil Code §1791.2(a); §1794 (against Ford Motor ...

Excerpt: ... landlords. Plaintiff contends that a dispute has arisen between it and the successor landlords over the interpretation of several portions of the lease (sections 4, 5 and 8) relating to expenses, maintenance and repair of the premises. The original and still operative Complaint filed September 22, 2020 states claims for: 1) Breach of Contract ; 2) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; 3) Declaratory Relief; 4) Fraud (int...

Excerpt: ..., 2020 states claims for: (1) breach of contract (against Widus Partners and Widus Holdings); (2) breach of fiduciary duty (against Byun and Widus Partners); (3) tortious interference with contract (against Byun); (4) appointment of a receiver (against Byun and Widus Partners); and (5) interpleader (against Byun and Widus Partners). The Complaint admits (at ¶4) that Defendant Byun is a resident of South Korea. A copy of the employment agreement ...

Excerpt: ...an Jose when Defendant Charron, driving a motor vehicle, failed to yield and made a right turn into a driveway, colliding with Plaintiff and causing him injury. Defendant Charron then “intentionally” left the scene in violation of Vehicle Code §20001 and §20003. (See Complaint at ¶8.) The Complaint states the following causes of action: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence (against all Defendants); (2) General Negligence (against all Defendants); ...

Excerpt: ...or Company only); (2) Violation of Civil Code §1793.2(b) (against Ford Motor Company only); (3) Violation of Civil Code §1793.2(a)(3) (against Ford Motor Company only); (4) Breach of Express Written Warranty; Civil Code §1791.2(a); §1794 (against Ford Motor Company only); and (5) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; Civil Code §1791.1, §1794, 1795.5 (against both defendants). The Complaint at ¶¶7‐8 states that Plaintiff purcha...

Excerpt: ..., 2020 states claims for: (1) breach of contract (against Widus Partners and Widus Holdings); (2) breach of fiduciary duty (against Byun and Widus Partners); (3) tortious interference with contract (against Byun); (4) appointment of a receiver (against Byun and Widus Partners); and (5) interpleader (against Byun and Widus Partners). The Complaint admits (at ¶4) that Defendant Byun is a resident of South Korea. A copy of the employment agreement ...

Excerpt: ...or Company only); (2) Violation of Civil Code §1793.2(b) (against Ford Motor Company only); (3) Violation of Civil Code §1793.2(a)(3) (against Ford Motor Company only); (4) Breach of Express Written Warranty; Civil Code §1791.2(a); §1794 (against Ford Motor Company only); and (5) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; Civil Code §1791.1, §1794, 1795.5 (against both defendants). The Complaint at ¶¶7‐8 states that Plaintiff purcha...

Excerpt: ...ntiff served objections to the special interrogatories on November 16, 2020 and have since refused to answer any of the interrogatories. In its moving papers, Defendant argues that the discovery requests were made pursuant to CCP 2030 et seq. and 2031 et seq. as opposed to California Corporations Code Section 1601. Defendant contends that the scope and obligations of discovery are controlled by these sections and under the appropriate standards s...

Excerpt: ...p, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”). Both the FAC and the original complaint state a single cause of fraud, alleging that Defendant fraudulently concealed its intent to use cobalt in a silicon wafer coating process to induce HTE Labs, Inc. and/or the current Plaintiffs into signing a Research and Development Support Services Agreement (“RDSSA”). (See Complaint at ¶¶19‐23; FAC at ¶¶19‐23.) There are no exhibits attached to either the original c...

Excerpt: ...vember 22, 2017. The now operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) filed September 25, 2020 states claims for (1) Breach of written contract (against Nano only); (2) fraud in the inducement (against all Defendants), and; (3) Conversion (against all Defendants). The SAC alleges (at ¶¶12‐18) that on March 23, 2015 Tongtai and Nano entered into a “written commercial business agency agreement,” whereby Nano was granted the right to buy T...

Excerpt: ...or (1) restitution; (2) restitution; (3) breach of contract; (4) fraud; (5) negligence per se; (6) negligence per se; (7) civil conspiracy; (8) negligence per se; (9) negligence; and (10) civil conspiracy against Defendants Kozlova, Dr. Toren, Chris Grzeszczak, Toren Psychological Services, Inc., and Sofia University. The eighth, ninth and tenth causes of action as alleged against Sofia University were dismissed by Plaintiff (without prejudice) o...

Excerpt: ...ey and Carlson are collectively referred to as “District Employees”) The cases are: 1) Jane Doe v. Union Sch. Dist., et al., 19CV343088; 2) Jane Doe 2 v. Union Sch. Dist., et al., 19CV343101, and; 3) Jane Doe 1 and 2 v. Union Sch. Dist., et al., 19CV348167. Defense Counsel are the same in all three cases and Plaintiffs' Counsel are the same in case nos. 19CV343088 and 19CV348167. These cases were consolidated by the Court for all purposes, ex...