Excerpt: ...lendar for the motion by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) for leave to intervene pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”) § 387 by filing a complaint-in-intervention on behalf of its insured Defendant Ryan Sieb (erroneously sued as Ryan Rogers). CCP § 387(d)(1) provides that the Court “shall” permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if either of the following conditions is satisfied: (A...

Excerpt: ...onal distress, third cause of action for fraud, fourth cause of action for wrongful distribution of dead bodies violation, fifth cause of action for breach of contract, sixth cause of action for interference with civil rights, seventh cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and eighth cause of action for negligence liability for being uncertain and failing to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. This m...

Excerpt: ...ncealment) (the “Complaint”). This matter is on calendar for Defendant's demurrer to the third cause of action for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”) § 430.10(e)) and for uncertainty (CCP § 430.10(f)). This matter is also on calendar for Defendant's motion to strike pursuant to CCP §§ 435, 436 paragraph 70 of the Complaint which alleges that Defendant's conduct “is oppress...

Excerpt: ... serve a second amended complaint. In this lemon law action, Plaintiff Raymond Fields (“Plaintiff”) purchased a “new 2011 Chevrolet Silverado 2500” from Victory Chevrolet in Petaluma, CA on August 24, 2012. (First Amended Complaint at ¶9.) “Express warranties accompanied the sale of the vehicle to Plaintiff by which [Defendant] undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of Plaintiffs vehicle or to provide compensation...

Excerpt: ...erested Party, Hongxia Li (“Li”) by mail. Plaintiff filed a new proof of service on April 14, 2015, showing service on both named Interested Parties, that day, by mail. The same day, Plaintiff filed a declaration explaining that the Property had been seized from the Interested Parties during a traffic stop, after which Interested Party Sivilay Sidara (“Sidara”) signed a form for Disclaimer of Ownership, and Li received a Notice of Seizure...

Excerpt: ...s broad discretion to permit or deny an amendment of the pleadings “[i]t is well established that California courts have a policy of great liberality in allowing amendments at any stage of the proceeding so as to dispose of cases upon their substantial merits where the authorization does not prejudice the substantial rights of others.” (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163; see also, Lincoln Property Co., N.C....

Excerpt: ...Court need not address Defendant's remaining, largely factual, arguments. This case arises from a contract “for the installation of a Dammann Risohorse Ebb and Flow System (“Risohorse System” or “System”) as part of a new [horse] arena (“Arena”) Plaintiff was building on her private property (“Subject Property”).” (FAC at ¶7.) “The System is a product designed to maintain consistency in the footing of a horse [A]rena by add...

Excerpt: ...nts); 2) retaliation in violation of LC § 6310 (against all Defendants); 3) wrongful termination in violation of public policy (against HBC); 4) age discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) (against HBC); 5) sex discrimination under FEHA (against HBC); and 6) promissory estoppel (against HBC and Miller). This matter is on calendar for Defendants' demurrer for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of...

Excerpt: ...against all Defendants); 2) retaliation in violation of LC § 6310 (against all Defendants); 3) wrongful termination in violation of public policy (against HBC); and 4) age discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) (against HBC). This matter is on calendar for Defendants' demurrer for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”) § 430.10(e)) as follows: by the Ind...

Excerpt: ...dants); 2) retaliation in violation of LC § 6310 (against all Defendants); 3) wrongful termination in violation of public policy (against HBC); 4) age discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) (against HBC); and 5) promissory estoppel (against HBC and Miller). This matter is on calendar for Defendants' demurrer for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”) § 4...

Excerpt: ...ng water flow onto Plaintiff's land and causing erosion. He contends that he has repeatedly, in vain, asked Defendant to stop the offending conduct and that the Sonoma County Permit and Resources Management Department (“the County”) has issued citations to Defendant regarding this conduct, requiring her to take remedial and corrective action to repair the changes and damages she has caused. Plaintiff specifies that Defendant's activities incl...

Excerpt: ...end, or revoke the prior order. Code of Civil Procedure §1008(a). Timeliness is not an issue. The motion for reconsideration must be brought within 10 days of the service of notice of the entry of order. Code of Civil Procedure § 1008. Plaintiff filed her motion 4 days before the Court issued the final order and an amended notice of motion 10 days after the Court issued the final order. A party seeking reconsideration must first demonstrate new...

Excerpt: ...endent and superseding conduct of Plaintiff and or third parties, and not the conduct of Defendant; the Seventh affirmative defense asserts that the conditions complained of were not dangerous conditions, and did not create a dangerous condition when used with due care in a reasonably foreseeable manner; and the Eleventh affirmative defense states that at the time of the accident, Plaintiff was in the course and scope of employment with Defendant...

Excerpt: ...tion as follows: 1) on the first cause of action; 2) on the third cause of action; and 3) on the claim for punitive damages. The Motion is GRANTED. I. The Complaint The Complaint alleges that on or about March 21, 2014, Plaintiffs purchased the property located at 3795 Coffey Lane, Santa Rosa, CA 95403 (the “Property”), which includes a home (the “Main Home”) and a barn-style dwelling unit (“Barn Unit”) and on the same day obtained an...

Excerpt: ...Premises from the Defendants Mahrt and he complains that they fraudulently promised to Plaintiff that they would rebuild the house and extend the lease with Plaintiff but, although they rebuilt the house, they refused to allow him to occupy it and lease it to him. Plaintiff alleged two causes of action against Defendants Mahrt Family Trust (“the Trust”), Steven P. Mahrt (“Steven”), and Judith Mahrt (“Judith”): eleventh for fraud and t...

Excerpt: ...e actions despite knowing that the alternations were likely to interfere with the natural flow of water across the parties' properties. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants took these actions “intentionally, maliciously, and with knowledge of the adverse consequences.” Plaintiffs' complaint asserts causes of action for private nuisance, trespass, and negligence, and seeks punitive damages. Defendants move to strike the prayer for punitive damage...

Excerpt: ...aration of fault, the relief is “mandatory” and the trial court has no discretion to deny a motion.]; see also, Abers v Rohrs (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1199, 1210; SJP Ltd. Partnership v City of Los Angeles (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 511, 516–517.) Here, the Declaration from Erin B. Carlstrom is sufficient to establish that the defaults in this case were entered as a result of attorney error in calendaring the date for a response and therefore, re...

Excerpt: ...nt counsel's pursuit with diligence in seeking this relief merits a reopening of discovery.” The Motion is DENIED without prejudice. Defendant may bring a narrowly tailored motion specifying the particular discovery sought to be conducted, following a substantive meet and confer between counsel, as further set forth below. The basis for the Motion is CCP § 2024.050, which provides that the Court may grant leave to complete discovery or reopen ...

Excerpt: ...fee total of $4,032.00 in advance of his stay. (Ibid.) The purpose of booking the Cline Villa “was to procure lodging for himself and his guests in preparation of getting married to the love of his life, Sandy Reynolds.” (Id. at ¶11.) Plaintiff arrived at the Cline Villa on November 21, 2019, a few days prior to getting married to Ms. Reynolds. (Id. at ¶12.) On November 22, 2019, plaintiff fell down a set of stairs at the Cline Villa and ob...

Excerpt: ...and its rights to Plaintiff. Plaintiff asserts two causes of action for the same debt, open book account and account stated. Plaintiff identifies Defendant as “Jose Carillo aka Jose Carrillo aka Jose Martin Carrillo aka Martin Carillo as an individual and dba Carillo Painting aka Carrillo's Painting.” Defendant answered on behalf of all of the named identities as Martin Carrillo. The Motion for Summary Adjudication Plaintiff moves for summary...

Excerpt: ...endent and superseding conduct of Plaintiff and or third parties, and not the conduct of Defendant; the Seventh affirmative defense asserts that the conditions complained of were not dangerous conditions, and did not create a dangerous condition when used with due care in a reasonably foreseeable manner; and the Eleventh affirmative defense states that at the time of the accident, Plaintiff was in the course and scope of employment with Defendant...

Excerpt: ...; and an additional $16,840.52 as against Michael Trillo only. The SRACGSL argues that Michael Trillo's Anti-SLAPP motion and Sonoma County Superior Court action SCV-264785 were frivolous. The motion is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part, as discussed below. The imposition of sanctions for a frivolous anti-SLAPP motion is mandatory; a court must use the procedures and apply the substantive standards of general sanctions statutes in deciding wh...

Excerpt: ...f, and seeks injunctive relief, indemnification, civil penalties, costs, and attorneys' fees. Defendants filed the presently operative verified second amended answer (the “Answer”) pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”) § 446(a), which responds to each allegation with an admission, denial, or statement that Defendants “lack sufficient information and belief sufficient to answer the allegations, and basing denial on this ground” (CC...

Excerpt: ...OVERRULED as to Petitioner's fourth cause of action for promissory estoppel. The demurrer is SUSTAINED, WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, as to the fifth cause of action for intentional interference with a contract. 1. Petitioner's First and Third Causes of Action Fail Because the Underlying “Family Agreement” is Unenforceable Under Former Probate Code Section 150. Petitioner's first cause of action is brought under Probate Code section 850 and is base...

Excerpt: ...ns, plaintiffs do not have standing to enforce County ordinances against the County, and the writ of mandate is not proper. The County also demurs to the first and second causes of action for failure to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. The County's request for judicial notice of sections of the Sonoma County Code and the letter dated March 18, 2019 attached as Exhibit 1 to the Schmid Complaint is GRANTED. The demurrer is OV...