Excerpt: .... Nesse failed to act with a sufficient degree of competence and committed malpractice in representing Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Due to his negligence, the resulting custody orders were deficient in various ways and Plaintiff's children were not sufficiently protected. (Ibid.) Plaintiff attributes Mr. Nesse's negligent representation to his chronic and ultimately terminal illness which he did not disclose. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Since his representation ...

Excerpt: ...n for premises liability. The operative pleadings limit the issues presented for summary judgment, and such a motion may not be granted or denied by issues not raised by the pleadings. (See Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 95, 98; Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1258; Nieto v. Blue Shield of Calif. Life & Health Ins. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 60, 73 [“the pleadings determine the scope of rel...

Excerpt: ... Contract; 2) Account Stated; 3) Unjust Enrichment; 4) Quantum Meruit, and; 5) Unfair Competition (violation of Bus. & Prof. Code §17200). The pleadings limit the issues presented for summary judgment or adjudication. (See Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 95, 98; Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1258; Nieto v. Blue Shield of Calif. Life & Health Ins. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 60, 73 [“the pl...

Excerpt: ...s SJSU wrongfully demoted and replaced her with Haight. Plaintiff alleges Haight thereafter made defamatory statements about her. Plaintiff asserts causes of action against SJSU for wrongful demotion and gender discrimination and against SJSU and Haight for defamation. SJSU now challenges the sufficiency of Plaintiff's first cause of action for the third time. It demurs to the first cause of action for wrongful demotion in the operative second am...

Excerpt: ...n was to be repaid with interest in two years. Defendant failed to repay the principal and interest. Plaintiffs assert two causes of action against Defendant for breach of contract and common counts. Defendant answered the FAC utilizing a judicial council form pleading entitled First Amended General Denial to First Amended Complaint (“Denial”), which contains a general denial of all allegations in the FAC as well as seven affirmative defenses...

Excerpt: ...ts for Admission are unsupported; that the requests are clear, unambiguous, straightforward and relevant; and that no substantive responses have been provided where they are required. Defendant shall serve verified, further responses to numbers 57 through 61, which comply with Code of Civil Procedure §2033.220, without further objections, within 15 days. Monetary sanctions are assessed against Defendant and his counsel, jointly and severally, in...

Excerpt: ... Peters (“Peters”), to secure Moore's release on $250,000 bail. (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ¶¶ 10‐11.) Plaintiffs paid a $17,500 premium for the bail bond with $10,000 due immediately and $7,500 payable in monthly installments of $416.66. (FAC, ¶ 11.) Defendant Bankers Insurance Company served as the bond's surety and required that the bond be secured by six different parcels of real property. (FAC, ¶ 11.) Plaintiffs made thei...

Excerpt: ...RANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) Defendants' motion for summary judgment, or alternatively, summary adjudication, is DENIED. Based on the plain language of the subject promissory note alone, Plaintiff has demonstrated the existence of an actual, present controversy between the parties regarding how to interpret the meaning of terms contained therein, particularly those set forth in Sections 3(F) and 3(E) which relate to the maximum limit ...

Excerpt: ...hrough its current counsel, who was not counsel of record when the discovery was initially served, essentially does not oppose the motion on its substance, and apparently acknowledges that no responses have been served. Counsel objects to the monetary sanction requested as “discretionary” (which it is not, absent certain required findings), and a “patently unreasonable and excessive.” The Court agrees with the latter contention – the am...

Excerpt: ...he first motion is a motion for summary judgment (“MSJ”) directed at the third cause of action for Fraud and Deceit (Promise Without Intention to Perform) in the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) of Plaintiff Marsha Armstrong, M.D. (“Armstrong”). The fraud claim is Plaintiff Armstrong's only remaining cause of action as the others were summarily adjudicated in Trepel's favor pursuant to this Court's Order dated June 20, 2016. That same...

Excerpt: ...erns Defendant's noncompliance with discovery orders filed on September 15, 2017, granting Plaintiff's motions to compel initial responses to its first sets of form interrogatories and request for production of documents. The Court originally ordered Defendant to serve complete verified responses, without objections, within 45 days. Defendant did not comply, and Plaintiff consequently filed a motion to strike Defendant's answer and associated req...

Excerpt: ...tively, “Defendants”) arises from the fact Defendants own, manage, or allow to continue, a marijuana business. According to the allegations of the Complaint, Coachella is a marijuana distribution business that has operated at 2142 The Alameda in San Jose, California (“the Property”) since May 2017. The other defendants are all in some way related to the ownership or operation of Coachella. Foxx and Nemcov are owners, operators, or manager...

Excerpt: ...ential Care Facility.2 There was a water tower on the property that supplied well water to the facility. Plaintiff leased space on the water tower to Defendants for the purpose of affixing telecommunications equipment and infrastructure. Plaintiff alleges Defendants unplugged a heating coil on the water tower thereby causing the pipes to freeze. As a result, Plaintiff suffered $3,000,000 in damages and had to shut down the nursing home. Plaintiff...

Excerpt: ... Both motions are GRANTED. The Court finds the objections asserted are not supported, and that the responses are not responsive and do not comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure §§2031.210‐2031.250. The moving papers establish good cause for production of the requested documents under §2031.310(b). Verified further responses which comply with §§2031.210‐2031.250 must be served by Arriaga (Line 4) and by Arriaga & Associa...

Excerpt: ...ages. The Cross‐ Complaint was deemed filed as of January 23, 2018 by order of the Court (Hon. Pierce). The only copy of the Cross‐Complaint existing in the Court's file is a copy of the then proposed cross‐complaint attached as exhibit A to the November 27, 2017 declaration of Blue Shield counsel Craig Rutenberg in support of the motion for leave to file a cross‐complaint. The Cross‐Complaint states five causes of action: 1) Breach of ...

Excerpt: ...�FAC”), Plaintiff purchased an automobile with financing from Patelco and insurance from FLIA. At the time of purchase, FLIA provided assurances that it would pay for repairs falling within the scope of the insurance. Subsequently, the vehicle needed repairs and Plaintiff contacted FLIA to determine which repair shop would be covered by his insurance. FLIA stated Plaintiff could take the vehicle to a servicer of his choice and it would cover th...

Excerpt: ...n Santa Clara County Superior Court, case number 1‐11‐CV‐193356 (“Underlying Action”). (Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), ¶6.) Deer Crest owned a condominium project in Utah. (Id.) Pursuant to a July 1, 2005 construction contract between Deer Crest and Silver Creek Development Group, LLC (“Silver Creek”), Silver Creek agreed to perform certain construction of the condominium project. (Id.) Granum Partners executed a written gua...

Excerpt: ...at this late date, to add a wholly new cause of action for alleged violation of Labor Code §1197.5 (the California Equal Pay Act). Plaintiff's supporting declaration does not fully and satisfactorily address any of the factors enumerated in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b). Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice is granted. The Court agrees with defendants' arguments that the proposed new cause of action would add significant new factu...

Excerpt: ...ty property – where the Second Amended Complaint is not verified, and plaintiff fails to present any admissible evidence from which the court can determine the probable validity of any real property claim. §405.38 commands “the court shall direct that the party prevailing on any motion under this chapter be awarded the reasonable attorney's fees and costs of making or opposing the motion...”. (Emphasis added.) As the court does not find on...

Excerpt: ... objections are therefore waived. As the court has been provided with no evidence that plaintiff has since served responses to the Requests for Admission which substantially comply with §2033.220, the law directs the court that it shall make the order deeming the requests admitted (§2033.280(c).) The Court also finds that no substantial justification has been provided for the failure to timely serve responses, nor for the substance of the oppos...

Excerpt: ...ank”) to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) of Plaintiff Guy Cavicchia (“Plaintiff”), current Administrator of the Estate of Decedent Patricia Lynn Hairston. The FAC states three causes of action for Negligence, against Defendant Jeanette Taggart (“Taggart,” the attorney for the former administrator of the estate Tracy Infante), Fidelity and U.S. Bank respectively. The other two demurrers are separately brought by Fidelity and U.S....

Excerpt: ...nsley (“Tinsley”), originally owned the Property as joint tenants. (FAC, ¶ 3.) When Mr. Tinsley passed away in February 2016, Plaintiff became the sole owner of the Property as the surviving joint tenant. (FAC, ¶ 4.) Subsequently, Plaintiff moved to Nevada and “secured Defendant to manage the [P]roperty for her since she no 1onger lived in California.” (Id. at ¶¶ 1 and 5.) “The agreement was for Defendant to rent the [P]roperty, wit...

Excerpt: ... (“BDFTW”) (collectively, “Defendants”). According to the allegations of the verified complaint, Plaintiff is the owner of real property located at 43 Heath Street, Milpitas, CA (“Subject Property”). Plaintiff executed a mortgage relating to the Subject Property, which consisted of a Deed of Trust (“DOT”) and an Adjustable Rate Rider. The lender, Fieldstone, was a table lender for Contrywide Home Loans (“CHL”). CHL is the orig...

Excerpt: ...documents, set one; and 3. Plaintiffs' motion to deem unanswered requests for admission, set one, deemed admitted. It is apparently undisputed, and agreed by counsel, that copies of the discovery requests at issue have been provided to defense counsel, and that this was done on or about April 26, 2018. It is also undisputed that defendant at no time has served responses to this discovery, neither within 30 days of the time the documents were pers...

Excerpt: ...sitions and replies have been filed in each of the four motions originally noticed for May 22. The court notes that the motion concerning the document requests was filed on April 2, that the notice of motion references both requests for admission and requests for production, and that the separate statement – although entitled a separate statement in support of further responses to requests for admission – addresses only requests for productio...