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...

Excerpt: ...lisilda. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 [“Under the doctrine of stare decisis, all tribunals exercising inferior jurisdiction are required to follow decisions of courts exercising superior jurisdiction. Otherwise, the doctrine of stare decisis makes no sense.”].) As plaintiffs failed to show that Felisilda is meaningfully different from this case, the court finds it must grant the pe...

Excerpt: ...n to which the litigation privilege was previously raised is improper and an abuse of the discovery process for which sanctions are warranted. As to the text messages, Defendant Moody technically, albeit in the narrowest sense possible, complied with the September 1, 2021 Order by contacting Metro PCS and asking if the text messages could be retrieved. However, Plaintiff's counsel aptly noted in the further meet and confer process that the custom...

Excerpt: ...ed by the incomplete effort to meet and confer. Plaintiff is correct that this need not be dispositive, but the failure to engage in the process in a meaningful way does not comport with best practice. The Court anticipates that the parties will discuss and resolve or narrow the issues prior to any re‐filing. 2. DENIED as untimely. A party has 45 days to bring a Motion to Compel Further Responses, unless an extension has been agreed upon by the...

Excerpt: ...e extent the facts alleged in the complaint conflict with the facts contained in the exhibits attached to the complaint, the facts contained within the exhibits control. (Plastering v. Richmond Am. Homes (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 659, 665.) The facts alleged in the First Amended Complaint do not contradict those identified in Exhibit D. For example, it is not expressly stated that the permanent structures alleged in Paragraph 19 are limited to the a...

Excerpt: ... that he or she will prevail on the claim, neither that determination nor the fact of that determination shall be admissible in evidence at any later stage of the case, or in any subsequent action, and no burden of proof or degree of proof otherwise applicable shall be affected by that determination in any later stage of the case or in any subsequent proceeding. Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice in support of their motion is GRANTED in part...

Excerpt: ...v. Big Sur, Inc. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 982, 1008 [“Each element of a fraud claim must be pleaded with specificity.”]; Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 410 [elder abuse must be pled with specificity because it is a statutory cause of action.) “‘The specificity requirement means a plaintiff must allege facts showing how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were made, and, in...

Excerpt: ...Parents) only on the Fourth Cause of Action for violation of Government Code section 11135. SUSD moves for summary judgment of this cause of action on the basis that section 11135 et seq. only provides for a private right of action for equitable relief, not monetary damages, as a matter of law. (Gov't Code § 11139.) SUSD is correct. Moreover, SUSD has met its burden to demonstrate that there is no triable issue of material fact that Parents were...

Excerpt: ...posed second amended complaint (SAC) is insufficiently specific and therefore allows plaintiff to file the SAC. (See, e.g., Tarmann v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 158 [ the “requirement of specificity is relaxed when the allegations indicate that ‘the defendant must necessarily possess full information concerning the facts of the controversy' [citation] or ‘when the facts lie more in the knowledge of the ...

Excerpt: ...the merits. In either case, the motion is stricken. The merits have been thoroughly discussed in prior rulings. (The Court does not address other procedural issues, including time of service issues.) The Court seriously considered – but rejected - the request for sanctions sought by Defendant. The “safe harbor” provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 have not been met, and the Court is not eager to generate more trial-level liti...

Excerpt: ...ranted in the amount of $800 jointly and severally, to be paid within 10 days. As to the requests for production, The Court notes preliminarily that the Thompson declaration provides a substantial amount of the information the Court was seeking, and that Mr. Thompson appears qualified to provide that information. The parties should be prepared to address: 1. A description of the “time records” sought and whether there is any claimed burden to...

Excerpt: ...Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Deeming the Truth of Facts and Matters in Request for Admissions, Set One, Propounded to Defendant, Maria Islas; Request for Monetary Sanctions of $3,035 – Motions a), b), c) and d)—SANCTIONS DENIED. Pursuant to the Minute Order of August 31, 2021, motions (a.), (b.) and (c.) were granted, in part, and continued to the present with respect to monetary sanctions against Defendant Islas, only, with the opportunit...

Excerpt: ... causes of action against Doctors Medical Center[“DMC”]: i) Medical Malpractice; and ii) EMTALA violations. DMC's Cross-Complaint alleges five causes of action: i) partial indemnity; ii) full equitable indemnity; iii) contribution; iv) declaratory relief; and v) apportionment of fault against Cross-Defendants, Dr. Paulo Murrieta and CEP America. The latter two move for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, on the basi...

Excerpt: ...ourts may consider the consequences which might flow from a particular interpretation and must construe the statute with a view to promoting rather than defeating its general purpose and the policy behind it.” ' ” (Pacific Merchant Shipping Association v. Newsom (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 711, * 7.) ‘“ ‘The purpose of [Code of Civil procedure section 1030 (section 1030)] is to enable a California resident sued by an out-of-state resident “...

Excerpt: ...ttlement agreement. Therefore, the Court finds that the circumstances supporting entry of a preliminary injunction preventing Petitioner from “selling, transferring, or otherwise encumbering” the real property located at 10501 Alvarado Road, Oakdale, California no longer exist. The preliminary injunction shall therefore be dissolved. With regard to the other pertinent points made by the parties in their briefing, the Court finds as follows (a...

Excerpt: ...016) 244 Cal.App.4th 982, 1008 [“Each element of a fraud claim must be pleaded with specificity.”]; Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 410 [elder abuse must be pled with specificity because it is a statutory cause of action.) “‘The specificity requirement means a plaintiff must allege facts showing how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were made, and, in the case of a corp...

Excerpt: ... fairness and adequacy of the settlement amount, such that the Court is unable to conclude that the proposed settlement provides for relief that is genuine, meaningful, and consistent with the State's goal of benefitting the public through enforcement of its labor laws. Specifically, the motion lacks a discussion of the reasonableness of the proposed settlement as compared to the maximum potential liability on the part of Defendant herein. In fac...

Excerpt: ...ally: The Court notes that the October 2020 demurrer involved John Doe's allegations while the May 2021 and instant ruling pertains to Ms. Miramontes, who is in a different position and therefore, results in a different outcome. The Fourth Amended Complaint added allegations pertaining to what Ms. Miramontes learned about John Doe's treatment. This still does not constituted intentional infliction of emotional distress when she was not present fo...

Excerpt: ...), and neither party appears to object to this approach. (See Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1586.) Plaintiff's meet and confer efforts on this motion were adequate because counsel says he called to obtain alternate deposition dates. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, and subd. (b)(2).) The court grants the motion and compels the City of Ceres to produce its PMK for deposition within 30...

Excerpt: ...al.App.4th 873, 885. Additionally, attorneys hired by a trustee to aid the trust are entitled to reasonable fees paid from the trust assets (Kasperbauer v. Fairfield (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 229, 235) and the Court has inherent equitable authority to sanction a beneficiary when the beneficiary brings or maintains an unfounded suit against the trustee. (Emphasis the Court's.) Here Petitioner and her counsel, in failing to notify Respondents that Pet...

Excerpt: ...ive conduct, irrespective of whether such communications may be barred from imposing liability as a matter of affirmative defense. (Shade Foods v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 847, 915, 93 C.R.2d 364 [litigation privilege did not bar introduction of evidence involving settlement offers or answers to interrogatories to prove bad faith in action against insurer].)” (5 Witkin, Summary 11th Torts § 660 (2021); see al...

Excerpt: ...upported by facts and evidence, albeit disputed. Both experts stated their opinions were “within a reasonable degree of medical certainty [or probability].” Both experts cited the standard of care. The Court has discretion to consider Plaintiff's additional brief discussing the failure to address UMF 22. Plaintiff is correct that the Court has discretion to consider the overlooked issue, despite its importance to the case. (Leep v. Am. Ship M...

Excerpt: ... was a car provider which was involved in renting cars to people, inclusive of acting as a middleman between individuals who owned GM cars and persons wishing to rent them. In this case, Maven rented out a car owned by a different General Motors subsidiary, GCar Titling Limited. Maven provided a car to Logan Shapiro in exchange for a fee. Shapiro got in a collision, injuring Plaintiff, who was in another vehicle. For the purposes of this motion, ...

Excerpt: ...leadings at which they are directed, the Court is of the initial impression that the only way to streamline what remains of these complex disputes post-arbitration is to bring all of the remaining matters under one metaphorical roof in the form of a master complaint by Doan et al under the lead case 684071, with abatement via voluntarily dismissal of the other three cases as a complete merger thereof. A master complaint would relate back to the f...