Excerpt: ...g Company, Inc. who worked for Seco in California from June 6, 2015 through date of preliminary approval.” The Proposed PAGA Recipients will include all Class Members who do not opt out of the Settlement and worked for Defendant within the PAGA Period, which is defined as “any time from June 12, 2018 to date of preliminary approval.” The proposed class members are approximately 217 former and current employees of Defendant. The proposed set...

Excerpt: ...re granted. Meet and Confer CCP § 439(a)(3) provides : “The moving party shall file and serve with the motion for judgment on the pleadings a declaration stating” the attempts made to meet and confer. No such declaration was filed. That is sufficient to deny the motion. However, in the interest of judicial efficiency, the Court will exercise its 2 discretion and consider the merits of the motion, despite Plaintiff's failure to follow the sta...

Excerpt: ... insurer will pay the policy limits of $400,000 plus the $6,000 Medical Payments Coverage. All parties who have appeared in the action per CCP § 1014 were provided proper notice. No Oppositions were filed. Merits of the Motion. The California Supreme Court case of Tech‐Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward‐ Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488 provides that “the intent and policies underlying [Code of Civil Procedure] section 877.6 require that a numb...

Excerpt: ... on May 27, 2021. Defendant contends it was timely as Defendant had until June 2, 2021 to file the Demurrer pursuant to CCP § 430.41(a)(2). CCP § 430.41(a)(2) states in part: The parties shall meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. If the parties are not able to meet and confer at least five days prior to the date the responsive pleading is due, the demurring party shall be granted an automatic 30‐d...

Excerpt: ... insurer will pay the policy limits of $400,000 plus the $6,000 Medical Payments Coverage. All parties who have appeared in the action per CCP § 1014 were provided proper notice. No Oppositions were filed. Merits of the Motion. The California Supreme Court case of Tech‐Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward‐ Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488 provides that “the intent and policies underlying [Code of Civil Procedure] section 877.6 require that a numb...

Excerpt: ... on May 27, 2021. Defendant contends it was timely as Defendant had until June 2, 2021 to file the Demurrer pursuant to CCP § 430.41(a)(2). CCP § 430.41(a)(2) states in part: The parties shall meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. If the parties are not able to meet and confer at least five days prior to the date the responsive pleading is due, the demurring party shall be granted an automatic 30‐d...

Excerpt: ...ply to an enforcement proceeding brought after the effective date, where the settlement agreement was signed on December 21, 2020, by the parties' attorney, but not the parties? CCP § 166.1 provides that the parties can request, or, “at the judge's discretion, a judge may indicate in an interlocutory order a belief that there is a controlling question of law as to which there are substantial grounds for difference of opinion, appellate resolut...

Excerpt: ...intiff did not comply with CRC 3.1354(b) when making these objections. The objections were not served and filed separately, were not numbered consecutively, and did not follow either format permitted by CRC 3.1354(b). In addition to the issues with the format of the objections, the objections do not cite to or list specific evidence being objected to, but rather object to entire DUMF's. All objections that state, “Disputed and objected to as ir...

Excerpt: ...ply to an enforcement proceeding brought after the effective date, where the settlement agreement was signed on December 21, 2020, by the parties' attorney, but not the parties? CCP § 166.1 provides that the parties can request, or, “at the judge's discretion, a judge may indicate in an interlocutory order a belief that there is a controlling question of law as to which there are substantial grounds for difference of opinion, appellate resolut...

Excerpt: ...intiff did not comply with CRC 3.1354(b) when making these objections. The objections were not served and filed separately, were not numbered consecutively, and did not follow either format permitted by CRC 3.1354(b). In addition to the issues with the format of the objections, the objections do not cite to or list specific evidence being objected to, but rather object to entire DUMF's. All objections that state, “Disputed and objected to as ir...

Excerpt: ...s' Evidence. Declarations of Terry Buchanan, Marisa Hennan, Patricia Jones, Daniel Smith, and Tawny Wooten: “I may have missed a 30 minute break but was adequately compensated.” Sustained as to “but was adequately compensated.” “I am not aware of any employees at my stores who did not have the opportunity or were not able to take a required meal or rest break, or who was not appropriately compensated.” Sustained as to “or who was no...

Excerpt: ...n be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” Although not initially provided, Defendant's counsel has provided evidence of two lengthy and detailed letters describing the defects in the Complaint and asking that Plaintiff's counsel amend. There was also a conversation about the Demurrer in which Plaintiff's counsel indicated that meet and confer obligations had been satisfied. The Court finds that the meet and c...

Excerpt: ...6.040, which states that a meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion. During the deposition, Mr. Kelley informed Ms. Haner and counsel that he would seek court intervention if the question was not answered. On Wednesday May 5, 2021, Mr. Kelley emailed a letter to counsel describing the issue and stating that a mot...

Excerpt: ...rt shall be public.” CCP § 124. Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open to the public. California Rules of Court (CRC), Rule 2.550(c). CRC Rule 2.551 prohibits the court from permitting a record to be filed under seal except by motion or application. The moving party bears the burden to provide “facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” Rule 2.551(b)(1). “The public has a First Amendment right of ...

Excerpt: ...ides evidence that Plaintiff's counsel was sent a meet and confer letter on March 23, 2021 that described the deficiency with each response at issue. Plaintiff did not respond to this letter. The Court finds that Defendants' meet and confer efforts were sufficient. Merits. “Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” CCP § 2030...

Excerpt: ...dant entered into a contract with Plaintiff to purchase and have installed three greenhouses. This is the only alleged business dealing between Defendant and any California entity. The installation occurred entirely in Oregon. Defendant is a resident of Oregon, and was served a summons and a copy of the complaint in Oregon. Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific. Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 4 Cal.4th 434, 4...

Excerpt: ...l sought is protected from disclosure based the right to privacy. SUHSD has asserted these objections on behalf of Defendant Michelle Kimball (“Kimball”). Motions brought pursuant to CCP § 2031.310 shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. CCP § 2031.310(b)(2). “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented b...

Excerpt: ... in nine different court files. The request for judicial notice was contained within Defendant's declaration and was not filed as a separate document. The request for judicial notice is DENIED. Jurisdiction: A defendant against who a default has been entered cannot thereafter file pleadings, move for a new trial or demand a notice of subsequent proceedings until the default is set aside. Holsinger v. Holsinger (1950) 95 Cal.App.2d 835, 837. Here,...

Excerpt: ... on April 29, 2021, which is less than sixteen court days prior to the hearing. However, Plaintiff did not raise an objection and responded substantively, thus waiving any objection to the notice. Tate v. Superior Court (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 925, 930. Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice. Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of the moving papers from the previous Motion to Continue heard on December 14, 2020 as a record of a c...

Excerpt: ...elated to why the motion has been brought instead of filing the substitution of attorney. CRC 3.1362(c) requires the supporting declaration to provide an explanation as to why the motion is necessary in place of a filing a consent to substitution under CCP § 284(1). Mr. Minasian indicates that his client owes in excess of $10,000 in attorney fees, does not communicate with him, and has not responded to requests to obtain discovery. In Mr. Minasi...

Excerpt: ...nsider the late filed paperwork. CRC 3.1300(d) Merits of Motion: “When service of a summons has not resulted in actual notice to a party in time to defend the action and a default or default judgment has been entered against him or her in the action, he or she may serve and file a notice of motion to set aside the default or default judgment….” CCP § 473.5(a). A motion of this nature “shall be accompanied by an affidavit showing under oa...

Excerpt: ...bjection No. 7‐ Overruled as to relevance, sustained as to hearsay and improper opinion Objection No. 8‐Overruled Objection No. 9‐Overruled Objection No. 10‐Overruled Objection No. 11‐Sustained Objection No. 12‐ Sustained Objection No. 13‐Sustained Objection No. 14‐Sustained Objection No. 15‐Sustained Objection No. 16‐Sustained Objection No. 17‐Overruled 2 Objection No. 18‐Overruled Objection No. 19‐Overruled Objection N...

Excerpt: ...which to ensure meaningful access to the court. Jameson v. Desta (2009) 179 Cal. App. 4th 672, 678. Wantuch v. Davis (1995) 32 Cal. App. 4th 786 provides considerations for the Court to balance in determining the appropriate remedy to secure access to the court. That case analyzed a similar request in the context of an indigent, incarcerated litigant. The Court suggested consideration of “the nature of the action, the potential effect on the pr...

Excerpt: ... property which has been complicated by the issuance of multiple judgments. 4 Plaintiffs cite no legal authority, either statutory or case law, to support their request. There is no allegation that the Judgments in this case contain any errors or that they are void. The request appears to be purely for the convenience of Plaintiffs in enforcing the judgments. With no legal authority being cited, the motion is DENIED without prejudice. A proposed ...

Excerpt: ...which to ensure meaningful access to the court. Jameson v. Desta (2009) 179 Cal. App. 4th 672, 678. Wantuch v. Davis (1995) 32 Cal. App. 4th 786 provides considerations for the Court to balance in determining the appropriate remedy to secure access to the court. That case analyzed a similar request in the context of an indigent, incarcerated litigant. The Court suggested consideration of “the nature of the action, the potential effect on the pr...