Excerpt: ...ction with the Third Cause of Action for Breach of Due Process Rights arises out of protected activity, i.e. the exercise of their constitutional rights in connection with their participation in the writ proceedings previously before this Court. The burden then shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate the probability that he will prevail on the merits of the subject cause of action. The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet that burden with reg...

Excerpt: ...pproval. Having considered the unopposed motion for final approval and the supporting declarations and evidence, the Court finds that the settlement was entered into good faith, is fair, reasonable and adequate, and satisfies the standards for final approval under California law. (Civil Code §1781; Code Civ. Proc. §382; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.769.) The class is conditionally certified for purposes of settlement and this matter is therefore d...

Excerpt: ...ngh – GRANTED, and unopposed; d) Defendant's Motion for Order Establishing Admissions and Monetary Sanction to Plaintiff Bikrant Singh ‐ GRANTED, and unopposed; e) Defendant's Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories, and Monetary Sanction to Plaintiff Sati Singh ‐ GRANTED, and unopposed; f) Defendant's Motion for Order Establishing Admissions and Monetary Sanction to Plaintiff Sati Singh ‐ GRANTED, and ...

Excerpt: ... Motion to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint; e) DMC Defendants' Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; f) Hospitalists of Modesto Medical Group Inc., Arun Monoharan MD, and Li Huang, MD's Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint – After thorough review of the operative pleading in this case, the Defendants' special motions to strike, the Plaintiff's oppositions thereto, as well as the relevant statute (CCP Section 425.16) and cas...

Excerpt: ... appellate courts reaching different conclusions. Those cases, Turrieta v. Lyft and Moniz v. Adecco USA Inc., both appear carefully considered. For background, PAGA actions are a dispute between the state and the employer, with the aggrieved employee effectively deputized to pursue the case on behalf of the state. (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal. 4 th 348.) Turrieta v. Lyft (2021) 69 Cal. App. 5 th 955 (review grant...

Excerpt: ...bd. (c), against Plaintiff in the Amount of $660.00 – GRANTED, in part, and unopposed. a) Based on the information set forth in the moving and reply papers, and in the absence of opposition, the Court finds that responses to the subject discovery have now been served and the request for an order compelling the same has been rendered MOOT. However, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with ...

Excerpt: ...c)(1)(B)(ii).) Therefore, the motion is GRANTED on that basis at this juncture, without reference to Defendants' additional arguments about the sufficiency of the allegations supporting the asserted claims, and without prejudice to such arguments being asserted in connection with any future challenges to the same, if appropriate. The Court grants Plaintiffs leave to amend the pleading to attempt to assert additional facts supporting their allegat...

Excerpt: ...chael C. Kronlund is appointed as referee for all purposes related to discovery in this action. Mr. Kronlund's address and telephone number are as follows: Quinn | Kronlund, LLP, 3439 Brookside Road, Suite 207, Stockton, CA 95219; (877) 943‐3955. 2. The following exceptional circumstances require this appointment: The parties' continual pursuit of numerous, time‐consuming motions related to discovery issues throughout the pendency of the matt...

Excerpt: ...38(c)(1)(B)(ii).) Moreover, the Court does not believe that any reasonable possibility for amendment exists which would result in viable claims being asserted with regard to these issues. Therefore, the Motion is GRANTED without leave to amend as to the Second, Third, and Seventh causes of action in the Complaint. The Court also finds that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Nint...

Excerpt: ...elling Plaintiff, Thomas Monaco to (1) Respond to Demand for Production, Set No. One; and (2) Pay Costs and Sanctions in the Amount of $504.00 –GRANTED, and unopposed. a) The Court finds that Plaintiff entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections are waived. (Code Civ. Proc. §§2030.290(a).) Therefore, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objection, within 15 da...

Excerpt: ...n this matter and does not file any opposition to the Plaintiff's application for writ of possession. Additionally, Plaintiff caused the clerk to enter Defendant DTL Logistics Inc.'s default on 4/21/22. Based on its review of the Plaintiff's application, the declaration filed in support of the application and the operative complaint in this matter, the Court finds Plaintiff has established the probable validity of its claim to possession of the p...

Excerpt: ...approval and the subsequent order revising the same pursuant to the parties' stipulation. Having considered the unopposed motion for final approval and the supporting declarations and evidence, the Court finds that the settlement was entered into good faith, is fair, reasonable and adequate, and satisfies the standards for final approval under California law. (Civil Code §1781; Code Civ. Proc. §382; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.769.) Good cause ap...

Excerpt: ...nes associated with new tax liens incurred from 2018 forward. Motion to augment the judgment is DENIED without prejudice. Although the Judgment entered on 01/25/12 indicates that it “may be amended nunc pro tunc to include any and all additional [fees/fines] for the 2010/2011 and subsequent tax years” (see Para 5, emphasis added), this was a default judgment and the operative pleading does not include any claim for debts that accrued from 201...

Excerpt: ... public use and/or not necessary. Although there are instances in which a client list is proprietary, the Court finds that any such concerns are adequately protected by the stipulated protective order in place in this case. Therefore, the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatory Numbers 1, 23, 24, and 27 is GRANTED. Further responses are due within twenty (20) days of the Court signing this Order. The Burchell Nursery, Inc. see...

Excerpt: ... Court this day are two plaintiff motions for order compelling further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos 14, 25, 40‐ 45, 51‐63, 65, and further responses to Document Production Nos 1‐3, 9, 13‐16, 17, 31, 37‐78, 84‐87. The motions are GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. Regarding the Special Interrogatories, while the defendant is correct that – to some extent – these motions (like many in the lemon law field) are an exaltati...

Excerpt: ... terms of that settlement, which this Court subsequently confirmed on 12/17/21. There is a genuine concern regarding this Court's continued jurisdiction to resolve this motion in light of plaintiff's dismissal with prejudice entered 11/12/21, Victoria's failure to personally request jurisdiction reserved, and the previously pending appeals. See Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 916‐ 919; Cunningham v. Mag...

Excerpt: ...ion for final approval of the settlement. The gross settlement amount (“GSA”) is $225,000.00, which is intended to cover 149 class members. This represents an average payout of just under $800.00. This is a non‐reversionary settlement (meaning nothing goes back to the defendant). Based on the whole of the record, this Court concludes that the gross settlement amount is fair and reasonable in light of the pertinent factors to consider. See J...

Excerpt: ...ty as to the order of trials unhelpful. The U.S. Constitutional right to a jury trial and the California Constitutional right to a jury trial have been applied and interpreted differently. In California, there is a “preference for the trial of equitable issues before legal issues” which often produces a bench resolution that forecloses any legal claims. (Hoopes v. Dolan (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 146, 156‐157; see also, Raedeke v. Gibraltar Sav...

Excerpt: ... WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Although the underlying motions to compel were served upon defendant personally, notice of this Court's 12/10/21 order was only served upon defense counsel (who had just emerged from suspension). The current motion for terminating sanctions was also served only on defense counsel, despite his 11/29/21 declaration indicating that he had COVID, his secretary died from COVID, and his office was – to put it politely – in shamb...

Excerpt: ...rogatories, Set Two Propounded on Plaintiff Raven Sharp and Request for Monetary Sanctions – This is a business dispute between putative partners in a marijuana dispensary, with a sprinkling of alleged attorney self‐dealing. Before the Court this day are three defense motions seeking orders compelling further responses to special interrogatories and requests for production of documents (the motion set for 04/28/22 is included herewith). At is...

Excerpt: ...der barring defendants from selling the property before plaintiff's right to purchase can be fully vetted on the merits. Within 10 days after service of a written notice of entry of an order, an aggrieved party may make a motion to reconsider the order based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law. CCP §1008(a). The moving party must demonstrate something new or different for the court to consider, and a satisfactory explanation for n...

Excerpt: ... pay‐by date. b) GRANTED, as modified, in the total amount of $75,000. Plaintiff seeks base fees of $91,548.50 plus costs of $1,449.27 for costs and fees incurred through February 28, 2022, plus anticipated fees and costs through the date of the instant hearing. The Civ. Proc. §998 Offer, however, limited the costs and fees through the date of the Offer, which was June 11, 2021. The Motion to Enforce is not opposed by the Defendants. Defendant...

Excerpt: ...t Defendant failed to comply with his own promised deadline for service of substantive amended responses within one week of the Court's ruling denying the arbitration motion. Moreover, Defendant acknowledges that the partial amended responses he provided have not been verified. Unverified responses are tantamount to no response at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (Cook) (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Therefore, all objections have been waived a...

Excerpt: ... Request for Sanctions in the Sum of $1,050 ‐ DROPPED, at the request of the moving party. (a) Based on the Joint Status Statement submitted on 4‐15‐22, the Court recognizes that the dispute with regard to Mr. Broussard's deposition has now been resolved and only the issue of Mr. Crenshaw's deposition remains at issue in the instant motion. Plaintiff has demonstrated that the subject deposition was properly noticed pursuant to the requireme...

Excerpt: ... Before the Court this day is the hearing on plaintiff's application for final approval of the settlement. The gross settlement amount (“GSA”) is $925,000.00, which is intended to cover 2,469 class members. This is a non‐reversionary settlement (meaning nothing goes back to the defendant). Based on the whole of the record, this Court concludes that the gross settlement amount is fair and reasonable in light of the pertinent factors to consi...