Excerpt: ... motion to compel Plaintiff's second independent neuropsychological examination. The Motion is DENIED. 1. Underlying Facts Plaintiff has filed the Complaint based on injuries allegedly sustained from being struck by a three‐tier U‐ boat cart. Plaintiff alleges that she suffered both physical and psychological damages as a result of Defendants' negligence. The parties stipulated to Plaintiff's mental examination, which was performed by Dr. Hoo...

Excerpt: ...except as otherwise provided in section 396a: “(I)f an action or proceeding is commenced in a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter thereof, other than the court designated as the proper court for the trial thereof, under this title, the action may, notwithstanding, be tried in the court where commenced, unless the defendant, at the time he or she answers, demurs, or moves to strike, or, at his or her option, without answering, demurr...

Excerpt: ...1. Legal Standards A motion to strike lies where a pleading contains “irrelevant, false, or improper matter[s]” or is “not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” CCP § 436(b). However, “falsity,” must be demonstrated by reference to the pleading itself of judicially noticeable matters, not extraneous facts. See CCP § 437. A motion to strike is also properly directed to unau...

Excerpt: ...Defendant both as an individual, and Trustee. Request for Entry of Default ¶ (1)(c). Defendant is not named as an individual in the FAC, he is only named in his capacity as a trustee. Defendant moves the Court to set aside his default. Defendant points out on reply that Plaintiff's opposition was late. Cal. Rule of Court, Rule 8.54 is inapplicable, as it is a rule applying to appellate matters. However, per CCP § 1005, Plaintiff's opposition wa...

Excerpt: ...ction of documents (“RPODs”) against UPA under Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §§ 2030.290, 2031.300. The motion has been rendered MOOT by UPA's subsequent provision of discovery responses. Plaintiffs' request for sanctions is GRANTED. 1. Governing Law Regarding the FIs, a party responding to an interrogatory must provide a response that is “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding part...

Excerpt: ...3(b) on the basis of neglect of counsel. The Motion is DENIED. 1. Procedural History Plaintiff served SFPKOA with form interrogatories, requests for admissions, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents on April 14, 2021. After extensions, SFPKOA served responses on May 25, 2021. Plaintiff and SFPKOA met and conferred regarding Plaintiff's perceived insufficiencies of the responses. The matter went unresolved and Plaintiff...

Excerpt: ...uding possible symptoms of stroke, so they took him to SRMH where the treating physician, Defendant Daniel Laird, M.D. (“Laird”) obtained medical history and information from Plaintiff, learned of the various symptoms, and took his blood pressure, but then told Plaintiff merely to go home, relax, and eat some food without conducting any further test or examination. Despite further warning signs and the fact that he needed assistance to leave ...

Excerpt: ...isor of the PMQ who was previously deposed by plaintiffs) is not a “percipient witness” in this case and that the PMQ that was already deposed (Jennifer Pacheco) already testified regarding defendant's policies and procedures and therefore the deposition of Mr. Bogan would be duplicative and a waste of time and resources. Defendants point out that this Court already denied plaintiff's motion to compel another further PMQ deposition. Plaintiff...