Excerpt: ... first must show an imminent threat of irreparable harm should the preliminary injunction not issue. ( Korean Philadelphia Presbyterian Church v. California Presbytery (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1084.) Upon such a showing, the trial court must then evaluate two interrelated factors: (1) the relative balance of harms that is likely to result from the granting or denial of interim injunctive relief; and (2) the likelihood that the plaintiff will p...

Excerpt: ...allenge based on Defendants' purported lack of standing, the Court finds that the non - signatory defendants herein have standing to assert the arbitration provisions based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel. (See, e.g., Gonzales v. Nowhere Beverly Hills LLC (2024) 107 Cal.App.5 th 111.) Moreover the Court finds insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that Defendants' delay in bringing the instant motion amounts to a waiver of the right ...

Excerpt: ...le estoppel. (See, e.g., Gonzales v. Nowhere Beverly Hills LLC (2024) 107 Cal.App.5 th 111.) Moreover the Court finds insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that Defendants' delay in bringing the instant motion amounts to a waiver of the right to assert the arbitration agreement herein. However, as to Plaintiff's challenges based on unconscionability, the Court finds that the agreement contains multiple elements of procedural unconscionabi...

Excerpt: ...close case. The Court previously noted that under both Local Rule 1.14(I) and Rule 3.1110(f)(4) of the California Rules of Court, exhibits to declarations are to be bookmarked. When there are over 6,000 pages in the declarations, such bookmarks assist the Court. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300, subdivision (b), a court may permit withdrawal or amendment of admissions if it determines that the admissions were the result of mistake, ...

Excerpt: ... responses to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories Set Two No. 17.1 are not Code compliant. More specifically Defendant does not provide complete and straightforward responses to said form interrogatory and also impermissibly refers to substantive responses to Plaintiff's Request for Admissions Set One. (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2030.220; 2030.300; Deyo v. Kilbourne, (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771). Furthermore, to the extent Defendant raises and relies on o...

Excerpt: ...l. App. 5th 266; Tatkin v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 745; Brown v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County (1949) 34 Cal.2d 559; Williams v. Superior Ct. , (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 531; Cruz v. Superior Ct., (2004)121 Cal. App. 4th 646). Taken as a whole, the discovery provisions governing depositions clearly contemplate that counsel not prevent deponents from answering a question unless it pertains to privi...

Excerpt: ...ation. Counsel for Western Surety states, and the evidence supports, a finding that they “unequivocally” informed Plaintiffs' counsel that they would not agree to arbitrate, but that they would not oppose the lawsuit being stayed pending the completion of arbitration between Three Amigos, Auto Finance and Plaintiffs. This seems appropriate given that Defendant Western Surety cannot be liable to Plaintiffs under Vehicle Code Section 11711 unle...

Excerpt: ...use defendants have no other means by which to obtain this information. [ Palay v. Sup.Ct. (County of Los Angeles) (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 919, 933 -934 (disapproved on other grounds by Williams v. Sup.Ct. (Marshalls of CA, LLC), supra, 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 & fn. 8 ).] But this does not make P's “lifetime” medical history discoverable. Plaintiff's right of privacy is protected as to physical and mental conditions unrelated to the claim or inj...

Excerpt: ...on”). Jurisdiction over a defendant, which is obtained in a civil case through service of a summons and complaint, is irrelevant to this type of probate proceeding. (See In re Hensel's Estate (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 429, 433 –434 [“The jurisdiction of the superior court sitting in probate … is a jurisdiction in rem . [Citation.] As such it is distinguished from a proceeding in personam in which the court obtains jurisdiction by personal ser...

Excerpt: ...that per Plaintiff's own pleadings, said discovery was not propounded on Defendant Zen. Therefore, no basis exists for Plaintiff to require Defendant Zen's compliance herein. Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendant Zen's compliance herein is therefore unsupported and accordingly, denied. Given that Plaintiff's Counsel engaged in meet and confer with Defendant's Counsel (though not required), but failed to bring up the issue of Defendant Zen wrongl...

Excerpt: ...otably, Plaintiff has failed to plead admissible facts establishing that Defendant had actual or constructive notice of the perpetrator's prior conduct of sexual abuse or of the perpetrator's propensities in that regard that would make said perpetrator's conduct reasonably foreseeable. (Defendant's SUMFs Nos.9,15, 18, 19, 20 – 30; Huntsman -W. Found. v. Smith , (2024) 104 Cal. App. 5th 1117; Doe v. Lawndale Elementary Sch. Dist ., (2021)72 Cal....

Excerpt: ...d are vulnerable to demurrer. The Court therefore SUSTAINS Defendant Loancare LLC's demurrer thereto. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 430.10 (e); ( Ankeny v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. , (1979) 88 Cal. App. 3d 531; Casey v. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn. , (2005) 127 Cal. App. 4th 1138). Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice is hereby granted. ( West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. , (2013) 214 Cal. App. 4th 780; Evid. Code §§ 452(c), 459(a); Ragland v. U.S. Ba...

Excerpt: ...al of liability, support the additional fifteen (15) Special Interrogatories propounded by Plaintiff herein. Notably, nine (9) of those interrogatories are duplicates of Form Interrogatories Series 13 that Plaintiff did not previously propound. (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2030.030, 040 and 090). The Court also finds that Special Interrogatories may be used to identify witnesses and their location including Persons Most Knowledgeable. ( Civ. Proc. Code ...

Excerpt: ...otes that this motion was filed June 10, 2025, only 14 court days before the hearing instead of 16 court days before, as required by Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b). However, because the motion was timely served on June 4, 2025, and because it seems improbable that the delayed filing caused any prejudice to Plaintiff, the Court will rule on the merits. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.290(b), the Court GRANTS Moving Defendants' unop...

Excerpt: ...y matter, that Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's demurrer was filed late. Opposition to the demurrer (and motion to strike discussed below) was due June 12, 2025, and was not filed until June 16, 2025. Nevertheless, the Court exercises its discretion to consider the opposition. Given the Court's ruling, it does not appear Defendant was prejudiced by the Court's doing so. The Court finds that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint fails to state ...

Excerpt: ...e of Civil Procedure 1005 (b)). The Court also finds that Plaintiff failed to timely respond to Defendant Duke's Special Interrogatories Set One, propounded on January 28, 2025, and that Defendant is entitled to responses to said discovery. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§2017.010 and 2030.290 (a)). Therefore, no meet and confer is required prior to the filing of this motion. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac....

Excerpt: ...re over 6,000 pages in the declarations, such bookmarks assist the Court. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300, subdivision (b), a court may permit withdrawal or amendment of admissions if it determines that the admissions were the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and that the party who obtained the admissions will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining their action or defense on the merits. Plaintiffs bear...

Excerpt: ... issue of personal versus commercial use to the jury. (Civ. Code § 1791 (a); P's Exh. B, 19 -21 and P's Purchase Contract, Exh. F). As to the issue of the admissibility of evidence of damages to Defendant's loaner vehicle, said evidence was irrelevant to the issue of Plaintiff's claims of Defendant's failure to conform said vehicle to warranty, failure to replace or repurchase the vehicle at issue or to Plaintiff's claim for civil damages. ( Civ...

Excerpt: ... request for clarification of its March 27, 2025 order. The two -day trial that is scheduled to begin on October 28, 2025, will only concern the issue of Respondent Michael Hall's suspension or removal as Successor Trustee. Petitioner to provide a proposed order within 10 days that conforms to this ruling. b) To the extent that the motion requests terminating sanctions, the motion is DENIED. That remedy is not justified at this stage. It is noted...

Excerpt: ...tute, rule, or case which concludes that Section 1013(a) does not apply to extend the five -day limit set forth in CCP § 529(a). Therefore, Respondents had ten (10) days from service of the Court's ruling on 5/30/25 within which to file this motion. The motion was filed on 6/9/25 – exactly ten (10) days after Respondents were served. The Court concludes that a bond is required in this case. Petitioners concede that Respondents' motion accurate...

Excerpt: ...for monetary sanctions, and unopposed ;c) Defendant Timothy Davis, M.D.'S Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) by Dr. Davis, and Request for Monetary Sanctions -– GRANTED except for monetary sanctions, and unopposed ; d) Defendant Timothy Davis, M.D.'S Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) by Dr. Davis, and Request for Monetary Sanctions – GRANTED except...

Excerpt: ... her car for repairs under the subject warranty. Therefore, Plaintiff is equitably estopped from claiming the benefits of that agreement while simultaneously attempting to avoid the burdens it imposes. With regard to Plaintiff's claims of unconscionability , the Court finds several elements of procedural unconscionability are present in the agreement within the warranty documents. However, the Court finds no indication of substantive unconscionab...

Excerpt: ...8.04.170 - These sections of the municipal code are relevant to the case and are attached to the Supporting Declaration of Maria Fatima Gioletti. All other exhibits are attached to the Declaration of Deputy City Clerk Cristina Aguilar : • Exhibit A : Affidavit of Publication - This affidavit relates to the notice of the May 2, 2022 City of Ceres Planning Commission Public Hearing. • Exhibit B : Notice of Public Hearing - This notice pertains ...

Excerpt: ... Angilbert “Bert” Sarkis (Sarkis), Phenos Collective, Inc., and Patient Care First, Inc. (collectively known as “The Premier Group” or just “Premier”), are engaging in anti - competitive practices to monopolize the cannabis market in California's Central Valley. In the First Amended Complaint filed on January 21, 2025, Levels accuses Premier (alleged to be the largest cannabis dispensary in the region) of using its market power to coe...

Excerpt: ...aus County, California, the product at issue was delivered and consumed in Stanislaus County, and the breach also occurred in Stanislaus County that sufficient contacts exist between Defendant and this forum to establish this Court's jurisdiction over Defendant. ( Van Buskirk v. Van Buskirk , (2020) 53 Cal. App. 5th 523 as modified on denial of reh'g (Sept. 9, 2020); ( ViaView, Inc. v. Retzlaff , (2016)1 Cal. App. 5th 198). For similar reasons, v...