Excerpt: ...��), and specifically preparation of a sufficient Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”). Petitioner claims that the Project approval violates both the Sonoma County Code (“SCC”) and CEQA. The Project consists of establishing and operating a cannabis dispensary (“the Dispensary”) in an existing 3,847- square-foot commercial building (“the Project Building”) on a 0.33-acre parcel at 15499 Arnold Drive (“the Project Site”), the int...

Excerpt: ...o Cal. Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”) § 437c. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED due to the presence of triable issues of material fact. I. Underlying Facts On June 12, 2019, Plaintiff approached Defendants' store. Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts, Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) 2. Plaintiff approached a set of doors in front of the store. UMF 8. The automatic doors did not open as Plaintiff approached them. UMF 9. Plaint...

Excerpt: ...or any cloud on Plaintiffs' title thereto, and Does 1-20. Plaintiffs and the Ress Defendants own neighboring properties, sharing a common property line. (FAC, ¶7.) Plaintiffs allege the Ress Defendants have built a concrete pad encroaching on a portion of their property. (FAC, ¶8.) Plaintiffs further allege that the Ress Defendants maintain the concrete pad, that they periodical store various personal property items on it, that they “have int...

Excerpt: ...2022, the Court granted Defendant's motions, compelling Plaintiffs to respond to Defendant's discovery requests within 30 days of the date of the hearing and awarding total sanctions in the amount of $720.00 to Defendant (“Order”). On June 8, 2022, Defendant filed two separate, but substantively identical, Motions for Terminating Sanctions for Plaintiffs' Noncompliance with Court Orders (“Motion”) for Plaintiffs failure to fully abide by ...

Excerpt: ...ndant for leave of court to file a compulsory cross-complaint pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”) §§ 428.50. Defendant wishes to file a cross-complaint for declaratory relief for additional clarification as to the terms of the contract at issue in the Complaint. Defendant argues that they should be allowed to file the cross-complaint as it is compulsory. The motion is unopposed. CCP § 428.50(c) provides: “The court, after notice to ...

Excerpt: ...ers, Inc. and GRS Funding, Inc. (“Responding Parties”) under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §§ 1987.1, 1987.2 and 2023.030. The Motion is DENIED. I. Evidentiary Issues Responding Parties' objections are all asserted against the contents of Defendant's motion, and not to any of the evidence provided by Defendant. Therefore, the objections are OVERRULED. However, the Court will not take judicial notice of the case submitted by...

Excerpt: ...ns. The unopposed Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall attend a properly noticed deposition from Defendants within thirty (30) days' notice of this order. Plaintiff shall pay $660 in sanctions to Riley within thirty (30) days of notice of entry of the order on this Motion. I. Relevant Law CCP § 2025.450(a), provides: “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, ...

Excerpt: ...motion. The Motion is DENIED. CCP § 664.6(a) provides: “If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until perfor...

Excerpt: ...ict (“Defendant”) on November 30, 2020, alleging wrongful termination. On February 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, and Requests for Production (“Motion”) supported by a Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the declaration of Plaintiff's attorney Thuesen and a separate statement. On April 19, 2022, the Court ordered the Parties participate in the Discovery Facil...

Excerpt: ...udication in their favor on the grounds that there complete defense to causes of action by Plaintiff. The motion is GRANTED. I. Facts Plaintiff alleges that on June 25, 2019, Defendant D. Biagini negligently operated the vehicle owned by the Defendants jointly. See Complaint; Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts (“DSS”), ¶ 1&2. Plaintiff alleged general negligence and motor vehicle negligence. Complaint pg. 3 ¶ 10 (a)&(b). Plaintiff ra...

Excerpt: ...rator Patrick Galligan, has filed a complaint against Plaintiff which has been consolidated into this case with a cause of action for unlawful detainer (“Consolidated Complaint”). Harold Petersen, Edward Petersen, James Petersen, Steve Petersen and Robert Keith (“Cross-Complainants”) have filed a cross-complaint (“Cross-Complaint”) against cross-defendant Patrick Galligan (“Cross-Defendant”) with two causes of action for 1) legal ...

Excerpt: ...tiffs' motion for sanctions against Defendants and their counsel under Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §§ 128.5 and 128.7. The motion is DENIED. I. Facts and Procedure The FAC alleges that Defendants misappropriated funds due to the Plaintiffs as a result of a bequeathal, and subsequent loan to Defendant Murray. Plaintiffs retained Carle, Mackie, Powers, and Ross, LLP, (“CMPR”) and particularly Dawn Ross (“Ms. Ross”) to pursue their...

Excerpt: ...opposition to the motion. The motion is GRANTED. I. Facts Defendant requested a line of credit from Plaintiff. Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts (PSS), Common Counts ¶¶ 1. Repayment of lent funds was a condition of the credit. PSS, Common Counts ¶ 2. In taking the line of credit, Defendant accepted the contract and its terms. PSS, Breach of Contract ¶ 2. Defendant used the line of credit and incurred charges and debts thereon...

Excerpt: ... (Petition, ¶¶1-2.) Friends is a California nonprofit, representing the interests of homeowners and renters, parents of school children, business owners and operators, and property owners in the Sebastopol area. (Amended Petition, ¶6.) On February 10, 2022, Friends filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1095.4 and 1085. The Amended Petition asserts “[c]urrently and for the past several yea...

Excerpt: ...ogatories (“FIs”), requests for production of documents (“RPODs”), and requests for admission (“RFAs”) against both Foothill and Clapp under Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §§ 2030.300, 2031.310, and 2033.290. These matters were previously on calendar and continued as additional responses were provided to all of the motions. Supplemental briefing from Defendants was due 20 court days prior to the hearing. Responses from Foothill...

Excerpt: ...s-complaint against Renascent Builders for indemnity. Plaintiffs' insurer, Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford (“Insurer”) brought a separate subrogation case against both Private Properties and Nathan Antonio Serratore dba Renascent Builders (“Renascent”) as defendants in a subrogated complaint (“Consolidated Complaint”). Private Properties filed a cross complaint against Renascent in the subrogation case as well. Ins...

Excerpt: ...s matter is on calendar for Defendant's demurrer to the second cause of action within the FAC pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”) § 430.10(e) for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and CCP § 430.10(f) for uncertainty. As to the second cause of action, the Demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. I. Legal Standards A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading u...

Excerpt: ...e “Crossing”). This matter is on calendar for motion by SMART for summary judgment or adjudication of each pending cause of action pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”) § 437c. The motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. I. Facts SMART and the City were and are negotiating a possible at-grade pedestrian and bicycle crossing commonly referred to as the “Jennings Crossing”. SMART's Undisputed Material Facts (“SUMF”), ¶¶ 9, 13,...

Excerpt: ...for the death of the decedent, Walter Eric Leet (“Decedent”). This matter is on calendar for the motion by Schmidt pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”) § 877.6 for an order determining that its settlement with Plaintiffs, in the amount of $29,999, is in good faith. The Motion is GRANTED. According to the declaration submitted, Plaintiffs and Schmidt agreed to a payment of $29,999 as settlement in exchange for a release of any and all...

Excerpt: ...negligence; 6) breach of bailment agreement; and 7) conversion (the “SAC”). This matter is on calendar for motions by Defendants for summary judgment or adjudication pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”) § 437c. I. Evidentiary Issues Moving Defendants assert for the first time on reply that they never entered into an agreement with Plaintiff. New contentions asserted on reply may be disregarded by the court as a matter of fairness. Ma...

Excerpt: ...ers”), Gavin McDOWELL (“McDowell”, together with Colliers, “Opposing Defendants”), and Does. Opposing Defendants have filed a cross-complaint against Moving Defendants (“Cross-Complaint”) and Plaintiff. This matter comes on calendar for defendants 434 CENTRAL AVENUE APARTMENTS LP's and WCGM PROPERTIES LLC's motion to discharge Moving Defendants as stakeholders under Code of Civil Procedure sections 386 and 386. The motion is DENIED....

Excerpt: ...efendant Patrinellis (“Defendant”) arising out of Decedent's death, which was consolidated with the present action per order entered on December 2, 2020. Pursuant to a stipulation and order, Mother Plaintiff's first amended complaint and Father's second amended complaint were filed; they are substantively identical complaints (the “Complaints”). This matter is on calendar for Father Plaintiff's motion to compel answers to form interrogato...

Excerpt: ...laintiff received court approval for service by publication of summons on December 28, 2021. The OSC hearing was set for March 3, 2022. Plaintiff nor his counsel appeared at the March 3, 2022 hearing. The case was dismissed as a result of Plaintiff's non- appearance. The proof of service by publication was filed on March 8, 2022. This motion was filed March 14, 2022. II. Governing Law Under the mandatory relief provision of CCP § 473(b), “the ...

Excerpt: ...tive relief based on Plaintiff's admission regarding injunctive relief. The demurring and moving party is required to answer within 10 days of service of the notice of entry of the order. CRC 3.1320(g). Plaintiff is to serve the notice of entry of this order within 5 days of entry of this order. CRC 3.1320(g). Facts Plaintiff, alleging that he is the heir of, and successor in interest to, Decedent Robert Ritchie (“Decedent”), complains that D...