Excerpt: ...ts made representative claims supporting an agency relationship after service. b) DENIED, without prejudice. The declaration has now been resubmitted with an appropriate signature block (a well‐established requirement), but the source of the underlying facts leading to belief is not provided. Complaints based on information and belief are permitted when the basis of the information and belief is clearly provided. (See Gomes v. Countrywide Home ...

Excerpt: ... part and DENIED in part. The Court DENIES Defendants' motion to the extent it requests “correction” of the arbitrator's award and GRANTS Defendants' motion in all other respects confirming the arbitrator's Final Award as follows: Arbitral finality is a core component of the parties' agreements to submit to arbitration. As a result, this Court is generally powerless to review the arbitration awards for errors of fact or law, even when those e...

Excerpt: ...opinions of counsel? 3. Does the deposition transcript of Cortnie Carmack establish whether some or all of her emails are privileged or not privileged? 4. Do lawyers review all of the items that are alleged to be prepared for the legal department? The Court may have follow‐up questions. To the extent that the privilege log and further filings do not adequately clarify the facts, the court lacks authority to order production. (See Catalina Islan...

Excerpt: ...) 162 Cal.App.4th 343, 364.) Since the existence of the verified complaint and cross‐complaint in the consolidated action is irrelevant to the demurrer to the First Amended Complaint, the Court declines to take judicial notice. The Court finds that while the First Amended Complaint alleges various medical and debilitating conditions, it fails to sufficiently allege facts that Defendant Credit Union knew or should have known of those medical or ...

Excerpt: ...selection clauses, such as the one at issue here (Smith, Valentino & Smith, Inc. v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 491, 496 (Smith)). Rather, forum selection clauses are generally enforced “in the absence of a showing that enforcement of such a clause would be unreasonable.” (Ibid..) “Although [plaintiff] relies upon the factors of inconvenience and expense of a[n Illinois] forum, both [plaintiff] and [defendants] reasonably can be held to...

Excerpt: ...o monetary sanctions and submitting to deposition. Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff has engaged in a willful pattern of deliberate non‐compliance and obfuscation with the Court's procedural orders regarding prosecution of the action with due diligence and with the Court's orders regarding discovery, resulting in a prior order to show cause re dismissal where the Court allowed Plaintiff a reprieve after admonishing that continued obstruct...

Excerpt: ...his action. This court therefore accepts the guidance from the Court of Appeal that the previous award appeared to include fees that were noncompensable, and this court accepts counsel's calculation that 20 percent of the time in this case was devoted to the claims that were determined to be noncompensable on appeal. This court thereby reduces the previous award by 20 percent and awards to the City of Patterson attorney fees in the amount of $538...

Excerpt: ... MD, Erik Lacy MD, Rex Adamson MD, Ricky Bassi MD, Rohini MD, Marney Fern, Cheryl Harless, Harvey Palitz MD, John Pfeffer MD, & Randy Winter MD's Demurrer to Complaint – SUSTAINED, with leave to amend; c) Defendant Hospitalists of Modesto Medical Group, Inc., Arun Manoharan, MD, Swapna Kamireddy, MD, Li Huange, MD, Otashe Nyoku Golden, MD, Vicoria Yehm MD, Qazi Muzaffar Mohsin MD, Patrick Wong DO, Natalie J Slowik MD, and Yan Li, MD's Motion to...

Excerpt: ...e was $6,500. There is no indication whatsoever that the amount was a total from two different sources/contributors. Nor is there a different attorney's name on the pleadings – the pleadings are signed by counsel bringing the current motion. The motion for acceptance of expenses is CONTINUED on the Court's own motion to November 18, 2021, at 8:30 a.m. On or before November 9, 2021, the guardian will provide a declaration signed under penalty of...

Excerpt: ...ty plans. See, e.g., Peterson v. Bank of America Corp. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 238, 255 [suit by hundreds of customers borrowing money from Countrywide “easily a complex case” given the number of parties and volume of documents]; Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 819, 835 n.8 [“the coordinated actions with which we are here concerned are ‘complex' within the meaning of this rule only because of the large number of repr...

Excerpt: ... Defendant Motor Parts Distributors Inc.'s Motion to Bifurcate; d) Plaintiff's Motion for Bifurcation and for Order Granting Priority Over Plaintiff's Main Case; e) Cross‐Defendant/Cross‐Complainant Express Services, Inc.'s Motion to Bifurcate Trial – Motion (a)—DENIED. While the Court is not inclined to reject or strike moving party's separate statement of undisputed facts, opposing party's objection is well‐taken in that the manner in...

Excerpt: ...to provide the contracted insurance coverage. (First Amended Cross‐Complaint [“FACC”] at ¶¶ 40, 48.) While Cross‐Complainants paid all premiums as they became due (FACC at ¶ 49), they were actually issued a “Ghost Policy,” which Cross‐Complainants define as “a term used to describe a sham insurance policy that is not backed by reserve funds as required by law.” (FACC at ¶ 39, 11:6‐7.) Cross‐Complainants allege it contrac...

Excerpt: ... Oppose Cross‐Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication on the Cross‐Complaint There are several claims in the briefing as to why Plaintiff should have standing. Doctor's Medical Center of Modesto, Inc. (DMC) argues: 1. The language of the statute permits intervention of this sort generally; and 2. Plaintiff's rights will be impaired if he is not allowed to oppose the MSJ. Plaintiff does not make the statutory construction argument...

Excerpt: ...ndant, as the moving party, has failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds to justify the Court's imposition of a stay on the instant matter under the circumstances set forth in the moving papers. Specifically, the Court notes that the actions are not substantially identical with regard to the parties or the claims asserted, as the instant matter encompasses a broader putative class and includes multiple causes of action based on Labor Code violati...

Excerpt: ...d opposing papers whether certain of the disputed discovery requests have become moot with the recent submission of the Second Amended Complaint. Therefore, the hearing is continued and counsel are directed to continue to meet and confer in good faith in an attempt to resolve or narrow the issues identified in the motion. The parties are further instructed to submit a Joint Status Statement which describes these efforts and also clearly identifie...

Excerpt: ... broad and includes matters that are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Here, moving parties sufficiently establish the relevance and discoverability of the desired information as bearing on issues related to vicarious liability, comparative fault and indemnity. Accordingly, the deponent is ordered to respond to the subject questions but any further deposition is expressly limited to the matters raised in this ...

Excerpt: ...nder the relevant agreement. Therefore, the demurrer is SUSTAINED as to the First Cause of Action with regard to both Cross- Defendants. As Cross-Complainants have not demonstrated the existence of additional facts supporting the viability of this claim, the Court denies further leave to amend in this regard. With regard to the Second and Third Causes of Action for Implied Indemnity and Equitable Indemnity, the Court notes that the previous demur...

Excerpt: ...arez v. Seaside Transportation Services LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 635, 643.) On this motion, plaintiff therefore has the burden of showing that an exception to Privette applies. (Ibid.) Gonzalez v. Mathis (2021) 12 Cal.5th 29 (Gonzalez), on which this court requested supplemental briefing, held that there are only two exceptions to Privette such that, according to the Gonzalez court “a hirer may be liable when it retains control over any part o...

Excerpt: ...ords. At the outset, the Court finds that the total amount of hours claimed in the moving papers is not consistent with the total amount of hours calculated from the information set forth for each billing attorney in Mr. Daghighian's declaration. Based on the lodestar calculations set forth for each biller by Mr. Daghighian, the Court finds that the appropriate amount of claimed hours totals only $38,620. Therefore, the Court begins its analysis ...

Excerpt: ...stments, Inc. v. Lido Preferred Ltd. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 373, 380.) The SAC and its attachments show that there was a section 1031 contingency in favor of the demurring defendants, and the SAC does not plead that this condition was satisfied, such that the SAC fails to plead that the demurring defendants ever acquired a duty to perform. The court therefore SUSTAINS the demurrer to the first cause of act. It appears plaintiff's complaints about t...

Excerpt: ...ted factual matters or hearsay assertions not within exception. (Evid. Code, §§ 452(c), 453.) The documents speak for themselves and establish matters of corporate disclosure required by law and the applicable dates thereof. Nothing more is required for purposes of the Court's tentative ruling. Regarding the merits, Plaintiff's Complaint asserts causes of action including, as pertinent here, breach of contract and breach of promissory note, aga...

Excerpt: ... (White v. Lieberman (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 210, 220.) Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant has met the initial burden of demonstrating that the claims asserted in Plaintiff's Amended Verified Claim arise out of protected activity, i.e. litigation‐related conduct. The burden then shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate the probability that she will prevail on the merits of the subject causes of action. The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed ...

Excerpt: ...v. Lieberman (2002) 103 Cal.App.4 th 210, 220.) Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant has met the initial burden of demonstrating that the claims asserted in Plaintiff's Amended Verified Claim arise out of protected activity, i.e. litigation‐related conduct. The burden then shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate the probability that she will prevail on the merits of the subject causes of action. The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet...

Excerpt: ...ts Amirfar and David arise out of protected activity, i.e. reports to law enforcement agencies. The burden then shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate the probability that he will prevail on the merits of the subject causes of action. The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden and has failed to submit any admissible evidence beyond his own self‐ serving allegations in that regard. Therefore, the Court finds that the following port...

Excerpt: ...lays in this case (Roemer v. Retail Credit Co. (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 926, 939–940 [“The law is also clear that even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may—of itself—be a valid reason for denial.”]), and that prejudice to defendants would likely occur if the amendment were allowed. (See, e.g., Melican v. Regents of University of California (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168, 176 [“[i]It would be p...