Excerpt: ... for the conduct of Defendant Heinemeyer. (See, Complaint, ¶¶ 4, 17‐20.) Consequently, Plaintiff was required to comply with the claims presentation requirements of the Tort Claims Act by pursuing written claims with the respective employing public entities for these public employees. (Gov. Code §§ 950.2, 950.6(a); Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 374; People ex rel. Harris v. Rizzo (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 921, 939; Julia...

Excerpt: ...fer Receipt for this case, and the fact that HORNE is a marriage and family therapist licensed by the California Board of Behavioral Sciences with license number 46660. The court does not need to take judicial notice of the two documents because they are already part of the record of this action. The court takes judicial notice of the fact of HORNE's license from a state licensing board as an official act of the executive department of the state ...

Excerpt: ...rder or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless it is made according to this section”]. To renew a motion such as the earlier motion filed here by Defendant seeking relief from Judge Daniels' May order deeming admissions admitted, a party must file a motion per C.C.P. §1008(b), which sets forth new or different facts, circumstances or law that would justify a different result, and which identifies th...

Excerpt: ...use of action); failure to accommodate disability (5th cause of action); failure to engage in the interactive process (6th cause of action); retaliation (7th cause of action); and failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in the workplace (8th cause of action). Because California's FEHA law is modeled on federal law (Title VII), California courts consider federal Title VII cases when applying FEHA, in discrimination and retaliation claims...

Excerpt: ...37c(p)(2); Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Prods. (2006) 38 Cal.4th 264, 274.) The undisputed material facts presented by Defendant fail to establish that the speed bump was not a dangerous condition on the property. That Plaintiff Michael Midkiff did not personally observe any liquid or other substance on the speed bump at the time of the accident does not establish that there were no substances or that the speed bump did not otherwise present a...

Excerpt: ...nce, fourth cause of action for violation of the Ralph Act, and fifth cause of action for violation of the Bane Act are overruled. Plaintiffs have adequately alleged facts establishing that Defendant Forsythe owed them a duty not to create an unreasonable risk of injury to them and breached that duty by informing Defendant Snyder he would look the other way if Snyder drove over Plaintiffs' signs. (See, Lugtu v. Cal. Highway Patrol (2001) 26 Cal.4...

Excerpt: ... covering the same subject matter as is involved in a California action, the California court has the discretion but not the obligation to stay the state court action. (Farmland Irrigation Co. v. Dopplmaier (1957) 48 Cal.2d 208, 215.) In exercising its discretion the court should consider the importance of discouraging multiple litigation designed solely to harass an adverse party and avoiding unseemly conflicts with courts of other jurisdictions...

Excerpt: ...n made in response to a request for admission if it obtains leave of court, which is only to be granted if the court determines that the admission was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect and the party that obtained the admission will not be substantially prejudiced. This provision applies to allow withdrawal of admissions that were deemed admitted as a penalty for failure to respond to propounded discovery. (Wilcox v. Birtwh...

Excerpt: ...eatedly restated policy encourages liberality in allowing amendment. (See Frost v. Witter (1901) 132 Cal. 421, 424; Cardenas v. Ellston (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 232; Kolani v. Gluska (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 402, 412.) It is an abuse of discretion to deny amendment where amendment does not prejudice the opposing party. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) DARREN asks to replace his form answer denying each of Plain...

Excerpt: ...rer: whether a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205.) In considering such a motion the court may properly accept facts it may judicially notice or that cannot reasonably be controverted. (Columbia Casualty Co. v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 457, 468.) “The motion normally lies only for defects fully disclosed on the face of the pleading under attac...

Excerpt: ...tive damages requires both a showing that the defendant acted with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others and that the conduct was despicable. (Civ. Code § 3294, subds. (a), (c)(1); Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 292, 332; Butte Fire Cases (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1161; Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1211.) Conscious disregard is a “highly culpable state of mind” tha...

Excerpt: ...me Sav. Of Am. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1199; Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 689‐690.) Defendant Horne is awarded a monetary sanction against Plaintiff in the amount of $525 for reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in opposing this motion. A motion for reconsideration of a discovery order is subject to sanction for misuse of the discovery process. (Mattco Forge v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1440‐1441.) Defe...

Excerpt: ...EW's (“JOE”) demurrers to Plaintiff's earlier action on these facts. The court takes judicial notice of this document as a record of a court of this state. (Ev. Code § 452, subd. (d).) Fifth Cause of Action: Interference with Contractual Relations. The elements of a cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations are: (1) a contractual relationship between a plaintiff and a third party, (2) defendant's knowledge of th...

Excerpt: ...t (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872; G.D. Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 29.) “In order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief must be pled by a plaintiff.” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.) The court had previously considered Plaintiffs' allegation that Defendant had made vague and unspecified verbal threats of ...

Excerpt: ...ough 13 of the declarations of Marlon and Febes Taasan and the transcript of the deposition of Hodges are overruled. Defendant Veriprise Processing Solutions, LLC's motion for summary judgment, based on the privilege pursuant to Civil Code section 2924(d), is denied. While it is true that Plaintiffs' allegation against Defendant consists solely of the issuance of statutory notices required by the nonjudicial foreclosure statutes (FAC, ¶ 24), Def...

Excerpt: ...ough 13 of the declarations of Marlon and Febes Taasan and the transcript of the deposition of Hodges are overruled. Defendant Veriprise Processing Solutions, LLC's motion for summary judgment, based on the privilege pursuant to Civil Code section 2924(d), is denied. While it is true that Plaintiffs' allegation against Defendant consists solely of the issuance of statutory notices required by the nonjudicial foreclosure statutes (FAC, ¶ 24), Def...

Excerpt: ... responding party to assert objections, including those based on privilege or work product. C.C.P. §2030.290(a) [interrogatories]; §2031.300(a) [requests for production]; §2033.280(a) [requests for admissions]. To the extent that objections are raised in “promptly” filed protective order motion, those raised objections may be preserved. However, if the protective order motion is denied, with those objections found invalid, in the absence o...

Excerpt: ...ns interstate commerce between Nevada limited liability company VEROS and California individual person LOPEZ. However, the court rules on this petition using the procedures of Code of Civil Procedure sections 1280 et seq. (Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 410 (Rosenthal).) California's procedural rules for petitions to compel arbitration are neutral between federal and state claims for arbitration enfor...

Excerpt: ...iation and informal resolution” that amounted to a sufficient “attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294; Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1439.) Plaintiffs did not attempt to discuss the merits of any of Defendant's specific objections to any of Plaintiffs discovery requests, but simply took exception to the service of responses...

Excerpt: ...ns interstate commerce between Nevada limited liability company VEROS and California individual person LOPEZ. However, the court rules on this petition using the procedures of Code of Civil Procedure sections 1280 et seq. (Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 410 (Rosenthal).) California's procedural rules for petitions to compel arbitration are neutral between federal and state claims for arbitration enfor...

Excerpt: ...iation and informal resolution” that amounted to a sufficient “attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294; Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1439.) Plaintiffs did not attempt to discuss the merits of any of Defendant's specific objections to any of Plaintiffs discovery requests, but simply took exception to the service of responses...