Excerpt: ...r Defendant (collectively, Meztger and Defendant are “Cross-Complainants”). Plaintiff filed his complaint alleging that Defendant had violated California's civil rights statutes by failing to provide access to its business for those patrons with disabilities. He asserted two causes of action, both based on the assertion that Defendant's facility was not properly accessible to wheelchair users. The first cause of action was for violation of He...

Excerpt: ...r under submission, the Court adopted its previously published tentative ruling, explaining that Defendant met their prima facie burden of proving there was no triable issue of material fact as to causation, such that the burden shifted to Plaintiffs to establish such a triable issue of fact. Plaintiffs did not raise a triable issue regarding causation, thus the Court granted Defendant's motion based on the evidence provided which showed Defendan...

Excerpt: ... on March 17, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. in Department #19. Plaintiff must file timely proof of service demonstrating proper service on Defendant of the OSC with full hearing information, as necessary for service of summons and complaint. The court, finally, finds that the evidence presented generally supports the requested imposition of sanctions pursuant to CCP section 177.5 but will make a final determination of the propriety of such an award at the s...

Excerpt: ...public record. A. Facts and History Plaintiff alleges that it was, and is, engaged in the business or producing and selling “premium” wines and that Defendants were, and are, merchants engaged in manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling microfiltration systems for processing and clarifying wine. It complains that after reviewing Defendants' representations about their filters (“Filters”) and the filtration system (“Filtration...

Excerpt: ...ch of fiduciary duty; 5) elder abuse; and 6) nuisance. This matter is on calendar for Defendant's demurrer to the FAC pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”) § 430.10(a) for lack of jurisdiction, CCP § 430.10 (g) for failure to specify the form of a contract, CCP § 430.10 (c) for abatement, CCP § 430.10 (e) for statute of limitations, and CCP § 430.10(f) for uncertainty, as well as Defendant's motion to strike pursuant to CCP § 435 et ...

Excerpt: ...il 8, 2018, but that Defendant improperly cancelled the Policy without notice to Plaintiffs on October 3, 2017, just 6 days before a fire destroyed the home on the Property. Defendant brought a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication and Plaintiffs brought a counter motion for summary adjudication on the issue of the duty to provide coverage. The trial court in November 2019 denied Defendant's motion and granted Plaintiff's motion on ...

Excerpt: ...payments. Counsel for both parties requested oral argument at the February 2, 2022 hearing but only one side appeared; thus, this Court continued the matter to this calendar. The Court adopts its prior tentative ruling. As defendant Piner Partner's motion for relief from judgment has been denied, the Court will now turn to Plaintiffs' request for attorney fees. The motion is GRANTED as set forth below. Code of Civil Procedure section 386.6 allows...

Excerpt: ...o CCP § 2031.300. Plaintiffs move under CCP § 1008, which reads in relevant part: (a) When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to t...

Excerpt: ...nce with Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312. Analysis: In September of 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to disqualify Defendants McCutchan, Sunderland and Sunderland/McCutchan LLP from representing Defendant Davis in the instant action due to Defendant McCutchan having previously represented both Plaintiff and Defendant Davis in their join action as plaintiffs in the following matter: Liebling v. Goodrich (SCV-245738). Plaintiff ‘s basis for the motion ...

Excerpt: ...iff released and discharged Defendant from all claims against the Wilson Lane property; and, because Defendant has at all times been the legal owner of title since purchasing Wilson Lane and Plaintiff is unable to rebut, by clear and convincing proof, the statutory presumption that Defendant is its owner. The motion is DENIED. Plaintiff's objections are overruled. Quieting title is the relief granted once a court determines that title belongs in ...

Excerpt: ...include Gloria Egger (“Egger”), Mickey Henderson (“Henderson”), and Mickey Henderson's two children. (Def. Buchman's Statement of Undisputed Facts (SUF), 1.) Prior to 2007, Egger and Henderson owned the partnership in equal 50 % shares. (SUF, 2.) Plaintiff hired Defendant, Robert Buchman, an attorney, in 2004 to provide legal services related to the Restated and Amended Partnership Agreement which was the Agreement that reflected the buyo...

Excerpt: ...n 2024.020, the motion is DENIED as untimely. On October 28, 2020, cross-defendant Broadhead served Babow by mail with his Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Response to Special Interrogatories, Set One. (Gavin decl., ¶¶2-4.) Responses were due by December 2, 2020. (Code of Civil Procedure sections 1013, 2030.260(a) [interrogatories], 2031.260 [inspection demands].) Broadhead argues that further responses are warrante...

Excerpt: ...LP. This matter is on calendar for the motion by DFLP, joined by Defendant Duggan and the other partner Kelly Moffat, to compel Plaintiff to post bond pursuant to Cal. Corp. Code (“Corp. Code”) § 15910.06 on the basis that there is no reasonable possibility that Plaintiff's suit will benefit the partnership or its partners. The Motion is DENIED. I. Relevant Law Corp. Code § 15910.06 provides in relevant part: (a) In any derivative action, a...

Excerpt: ...f quiet enjoyment; 5) breach of the implied warranty of habitability; 6) habitability tort; 7) nuisance; 8) statutory retaliation; 9) common law retaliation; and 10) unlawful business practices. This matter is on calendar for Defendant's motion to strike punitive damages from the Complaint pursuant to CCP §§ 435 et seq. The motion to strike is GRANTED with leave to amend. I. Legal Standards A motion to strike lies where a pleading contains “i...

Excerpt: ...f San Francisco (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 710, 716.) This rule applies when a complaint undertakes to make substantive amendments to the pleadings but does not apply where the amendment merely substitutes the true name of a defendant sued and previously named in the complaint by a fictitious name. (Ibid.) Plaintiff's complaint was filed on November 15, 2021. It alleges a cause of action for malicious prosecution and names Paul A. Beck and Dean Bornst...

Excerpt: ... 2021, she was suffering from mild dementia with a history of neck and back surgeries, was able to walk but required assistance in daily activities, and was vulnerable to pressure ulcers and skin wounds. Eventually, she told her daughter that she did not feel good and it was discovered that Plaintiff was suffering pressure ulcers and skin wounds. She complains that Defendant Leah Archer (“Archer”) managed and operated the Facility and was ult...

Excerpt: ...mpanied by an attorney's sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect, [the court shall] vacate any… resulting default judgment… entered against his or her client …” (Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b).) After the parties' case was heard before the Labor Commissioner, an order was issued. (Zyromski decl., Exhibit A.) The cover page of the award against Defendant stated that he owed $127,162.78. (I...

Excerpt: ...onding party provides responses in substantial compliance with the requirements by the time of the hearing. CCP section 2033.280(c) (the court “shall” deem the requests admitted “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220”). Plaintiff complains tha...

Excerpt: ... determine interests in, real property at 948 Leddy Ave, Santa Rosa (“the Property”), claiming that she owned the Property but Defendant County of Sonoma (“the County”) improperly imposed real property taxes and improperly sold the Property to Defendant Tuan Q. Phan (“Phan”) at public auction of the Property which the County conducted to collect delinquent taxes. This lawsuit has seen much litigation, numerous motions, and an appeal. ...

Excerpt: ...�CCP”) §§ 2030.300, 2030.030, and 2033.290, and for monetary sanctions against Defendants and their counsel in the amount of $4,987.50. The motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall pay $3,187.50 in sanctions to Plaintiff within thirty (30) days of notice of entry of the order on this Motion. I. Governing Law Untimely responses to requests for admission waive all objections. CCP § 2033.280. Failure to verify responses is equivalent to serving no re...

Excerpt: ...a complete defense to causes of action by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion. The motion is GRANTED. The FAC alleges that on January 3, 2017, Plaintiff was legally on property located at 19323 Sonoma Highway, Sonoma, California 95476 (“the Property”). On that date, Plaintiff alleges an uncovered and exposed interior bolt located at the Property caught on Plaintiff's pants while he was carrying material and/or other...

Excerpt: ...ty”), Plaintiffs complain that UPA violated numerous obligations under the Labor Code, including Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime; Failure to Pay Prevailing Wages on Public Works; Failure to Pay Wages of Terminated or Resigned Employees; Failure to Provide or Compensate for Missed Meal and Rest breaks; Recovery Under Public Works Bonds; and that UPA thereby also breached its contract and committed Unfair Competition. Plaintiffs allegedly also ...

Excerpt: ...lure to prevent discrimination and/or retaliation, seventh cause of action for retaliation in violation of Labor Code sections 1102.5 and 6310, and eighth cause of action for wrongful termination alleged in Plaintiff Bob Middlestead's (“Plaintiff's”) First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Defendant's motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's third cause of action for Interference with CFRA Rights, and seventh cause of action ...

Excerpt: ...d to properly repair the roof on her home, causing water damage. She also complains that the CC&Rs are enforceable equitable servitudes imposing a duty on Defendant Courtyard East Homeowners Association (“the Associations”) to maintain or repair portions of the Development, including the exterior portions of residences, roof, downspouts, and gutters, and yet has failed to do so properly, causing damage. Defendants move for summary adjudicatio...

Excerpt: ...onstructed improvements on its property in violation of applicable zoning and building ordinances and a use permit (“the Permit”), which constitute a nuisance. Plaintiffs contend that TRVFD obtained the Permit by an application (“the Application”) for construction of a garage and storage building (“the Garage”) on Defendant's Property, with various restrictions (“the Project”), but TRVFD has used Defendant's Property and the Garag...