Excerpt: ...lso, Stevens v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 594, 601.) In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint, courts accept as true all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law, or the construction of instruments pleaded, or facts impossible in law. (Rakestraw v. California Physicians' Service (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43; see also, South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 7...

Excerpt: ...mpact Fees”) but that Respondent must refund these pursuant to Gov. Code section 66001 (“section 66001”). Petitioner contends that Respondent must refund the Impact Fees because it did not make required 5-Year Nexus Study Findings (“the Findings”) and because “the funds are surplus funds not needed because the anticipated detrimental impact failed to materialize.” Petition ¶12. Originally, Plaintiff and Petitioner Norine T. Hamilto...

Excerpt: ...cts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(b).) Plaintiff's memorandum does not contain any legal authority in support of Plaintiff's requests. Nor does Plaintiff's declaration. Rather, the motion is a recitation of Plaintiff's point of view that the defendants' actions contradict the test...

Excerpt: ... forth in Plaintiff's first demand for inspection (the “RPODs”). The Motion is GRANTED. I. Governing Law Regarding RPODs, a party to whom a document demand is directed must respond to each item in the demand with an agreement to comply, a representation of inability to comply, or an objection. CCP § 2031.210(a). If only part of an item or category demanded is objectionable, the response must contain an agreement to comply with the remainder,...

Excerpt: ...Court address the issue of Plaintiff's attorneys acting in the capacity of debt collectors as described in the Fair-Debt- Collection-Practices-Act, find that their conduct is prohibited under federal law, and dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. The motion is DENIED. Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1008(b) provides: “A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part, or granted conditionally or on ...

Excerpt: ...ion against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”) §438(c)(1)(A).) “The grounds for a motion for judgment on the pleadings must appear on the face of the challenged complaint or be based on facts which the court may judicially notice.” (County of Los Angeles v. Commission on State Mandates (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 898, 911.) As relevant here, the es...

Excerpt: ...exhaust their administrative remedies. The Board also argues that it did not proceed in excess of its jurisdiction, did not abuse its discretion by failing to proceed in the manner required by law, and its issuance of the Certificate of Registration is supported by substantial evidence. The Board further argues that it has no ministerial duty to investigate the alleged misrepresentations and has not abused its discretion by failing to revoke the ...

Excerpt: ...o disrespect is intended). The Complaint contains causes of action for: 1) general negligence against Austin for Austin's alleged tortious violations of Plaintiff's privacy rights; and 2) general negligence against Kimberly Hagel as Austin's mother and Moving Defendants as Austin's grandparents for alleged failure to exercise adequate reasonable care in preventing the cause of action pled against Austin. This matter is on calendar for Moving Defe...

Excerpt: ...ntiff's deposition which shall be set on or prior to March 18, 2022. Sanctions are awarded in Pac Bell's favor against Plaintiff and his attorney of record, S. Sean Bral of Bral & Associates, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,005.00. Pac Bell served Plaintiff with a notice of deposition for July 7, 2021. (Leach decl., ¶2.) Plaintiff's counsel questioned whether sufficient notice was given and stated he would check Plaintiff's availabili...

Excerpt: ... motion is DENIED. Plaintiffs' second cause of action for unfair competition is based upon a violation of Penal Code section 396(e), which provides, in relevant part: Upon the proclamation of a state of emergency declared by the President of the United States or the Governor, or upon the declaration of a local emergency by an official, board, or other governing body vested with authority to make that declaration in any city, county, or city and c...

Excerpt: ...bitration agreement, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving any defense, such as unconscionability. (Marenco v. DirecTV LLC (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1416.) “Because arbitration is a matter of contract, generally ‘ “one must be a party to an arbitration agreement to be bound by it or invoke it.” ' (Molecular Analytical Systems v. Ciphergen Biosystems LLC (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 696, 706; See Rodriguez v. Superior...

Excerpt: ...ring the pendency of this action, defendants GSWM, Catone, and Curiel (“Defendants”) and their officers, agents, employees, independent contractors, and representatives are “enjoined and restrained from engaging in, committing, or performing, directly or indirectly, by any means whatsoever, any of the following acts: “1. Soliciting anyone who was a client of Plaintiffs as of July 1, 2020; “2. Having any further contact with anyone who w...

Excerpt: ...efendants were co-owners and tenants in common, with Plaintiff owning an undivided 1/3 interest, Defendant Nataline Buchignani (“Nataline”) an undivided 1/3 interest, and Defendants Gino Buchignani (“Gino”) and Gina Buchignani (“Gina”) together an undivided 1/3 interest. Plaintiff dismissed the entire action without prejudice on February 13, 2019. Defendants Gino and Gina move the court to compel Plaintiff, an entity named the Carli C...

Excerpt: ...'s motion pursuant to pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”) § 664.6 and the attached settlement agreement and release of claims (the “Agreement”) to order Defendants to pay Plaintiff the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, plus a motion requesting sanctions in the form of attorney's fees of two thousand one hundred and seventy-five dollars ($2,175) and costs of one hundred and twenty d...

Excerpt: ...t Jubenal Contreras (“Contreras”), sexually discriminated against her and sexually harassed assaulted, and battered, her; Luna and La Prenda failed to take reasonable steps to correct, stop, or investigate Contreras's actions or discipline him; Luna and La Prenda knew of Contreras's conduct and allowed it to occur, even endorsing the conduct, aiding and abetting him, and conspiring with him against Plaintiff; Luna and La Prenda terminated Pla...

Excerpt: ...r the Act; 3) violation of §1793.2 under the Act; and 4) fraudulent inducement-concealment. This matter is on calendar for the motion by Plaintiffs to compel further production directed at the document requests set forth in Plaintiffs' first demand for inspection (the “RPODs”) after orders were made for said production on September 16, 2021. The motion is GRANTED. The Court orders Defendant to pay sanctions in the amount of $945 within 30 da...

Excerpt: ... stated; quantum meruit; negligent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; and violation of CCP § 8800 “prompt payment.” Defendants move to compel arbitration because the contract between the parties contains a provision that any dispute under the contract shall be resolved by arbitration. A party seeking to compel arbitration pursuant to CCP § 1281.2 must “plead and prove a prior demand for arbitration under the parties' arbitr...

Excerpt: ...ong-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Civ. Code §§ 1790 et seq. (the “Act”) (against Ford); 2) failure to repair under the Act (Civ. Code § 1793.2(d)) (against Ford); 3) failure to provide required parts under the Act (against Ford); 4) breach of express written warranty under the Act, Civil Code §§ 1791.2 and 1794 (against Ford); 5) breach of implied warranty of merchantability (against Ford); 6) fraudulent inducement (against Ford); and 7...

Excerpt: ...volves claims, events, disputes, and other issues outside the scope of this action. In this lawsuit, Plaintiff is asserting claims for medical malpractice against health-care providers unrelated to the prison or his incarceration. In this motion, by contrast, Plaintiff requests counsel for claims or disputes involving guards, staff, and other inmates of the prison in which he is incarcerated, for events and with parties unrelated to the medical c...

Excerpt: ...�) but although Plaintiff has fully performed, the Bessettes have failed to pay the amount agreed. It asserts for causes of action: 1) Foreclosure of Mechanic's Lien; 2) Breach of Contract; 3) for Work, Labor, Services, and Material Rendered; and 4) Unjust Enrichment. However, Plaintiff dismissed the first cause of action, as well as claims against Umpqua Bank. The Bessettes filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff of breach of contract, breach ...

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: ...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: ... 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: ... 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: ...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...