Excerpt: ...majority of the hours claimed were reasonably incurred and substantially contributed to the ultimate successful result. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132; Horsford v. Board of Trustees of Calif. State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 394.) This includes time spent to prepare this motion and to oppose Defendants' Motion to Tax Costs. In its determination of reasonable hourly rates, the Court has considered the skill and experien...

Excerpt: ... determined to rule on the merits of the demurrer, as follows: Based upon review of the moving and supporting papers, the Court SUSTAINS Defendant 7/11, Inc.'s Demurrer to the First Cause of Action in its entirety. The Complaint admits that Plaintiff was injured during the course of his employment with 7/11, Inc.; therefore, Plaintiff's exclusive remedy lies in the Worker's Compensation system. As Plaintiff has not opposed the demurrer and it doe...

Excerpt: ... testimony and has not otherwise been authenticated, making it inadmissible hearsay. Despite the above-referenced deficiencies in the moving and supporting evidence, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' counsel's declaration raises an issue with regard to his client's current ability to submit to a deposition based on events which apparently transpired after the instant motion was filed. For that reason, the hearing is continued and counsel are instr...

Excerpt: ...endant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide answers, without objection, to the subject discovery. Due to the impending trial date, Plaintiff shall serve such answers within 10 days of the date of the hearing. Further, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc. §§2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), 2023.010, 2023.030(a); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1348(a).) Plaintiff is ordered to pay $...

Excerpt: ...While a trial plan might be useful in determining whether a class should be certified in the first instance, as discussed in Duran, in this case the class was certified by Order dated June 25, 2019. Defendant's motion is thus an attempt to challenge the Court's decision to certify the class when the time to bring a motion for reconsideration has passed and there is no new evidence or new law to serve as a basis for such a motion. That said, a tri...

Excerpt: ... a judgment on equitable grounds due to lack of due process or extrinsic fraud or mistake also does not apply here. (Kulchar v. Kulchar (1969) 1 Cal.3d 467, 471-473.) ...

Excerpt: ...s. Nor is such a claim preempted by ERISA; the new cause of action is not entirely dependent upon Explanations of Benefits, but refers to other behaviors as well. Under these circumstances, Morris B. Silver M.D. Inc. v. International Longshore & Warehouse (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 793, does not require a finding of federal preemption. b) Just as it was appropriate to consolidate the first two cases brought by Plaintiff against Defendant based upon the...

Excerpt: ... requires individual class members to submit a claim form in order to obtain settlement payments, but the moving papers contain no explanation of any purpose served by this requirement other than to potentially reduce the actual amount paid by Defendant in settlement of the subject claims. Moreover, the Court notes that the amount of attorney's fees to be recovered by Class Counsel appear to be calculated based on the stated maximum settlement pa...

Excerpt: ...rtis item k, $435 for Schofield item c, $715 of the Pimentel cost (item 8, minus the statutory witness fee), and item 9 in its entirety ($2,373.85). The remainder of the motion to tax is DENIED. Petitioner to prepare proposed order hereon. b) GRANTED in part, DENIED in part Based on the breadth of the subpoenas, and the failure to specify records sought, the motion to quash all four subpoenas is GRANTED. Petitioner, as the prevailing party hereon...

Excerpt: ...n unjustified invasion of the right to privacy and the physician-patient privilege in this context. (Code Civ. Proc. §1987.1; 2017.020(a).) The Court declines to award sanctions and notes that the moving parties failed to submit a declaration regarding meet-and-confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc. §§2017.020(a); 2016.040.) ...

Excerpt: ...k of timely service may ask the court to equitably estop the defendant from asserting the three-year service window. (Code Civ. Proc, § 583.140; see also Sanchez v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1391, 1397 (Sanchez).) However, a plaintiff arguing estoppel has to show that some “act of [defendant's] prevented timely service.” (Lesko v. Superior Court (1982) 127 Cal.App.3d 476, 486 (Lesko).) Here, there is no such showing. Although ther...

Excerpt: ...are listed in Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10. Because section 430.10 does not authorize demurrer on the ground that a cause of action is “duplicative,” the court is disinclined to consider the demurrer to the first three causes of action. The court notes, however, that the opinion in Barris v. County of Los Angeles (1999) 20 Ca1.4th 101 acknowledged the existence of a cause of action for violating 42 U.S.C. section 1395dd. To the exte...

Excerpt: ...on which allegedly exacerbated Plaintiff's pain and suffering due to her inability to take certain medications prescribed for the injuries at issue herein. Therefore, the subject subpoenas shall be modified to seek records pertaining to the above-described conditions/injuries for the time period from 11-8-2008 to the present. (See, e.g. Britt v. Superior Court (San Diego Unified Port Dist.) (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844.) The Court further finds that Plai...

Excerpt: ...ntiff Karen Stephanie Jones's Motion to Compel Defendant Valley First Credit Union to Provide Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents (Set One) and Request for Monetary Sanctions – a) GRANTED, sanctions of $960 imposed against defense counsel. The kind of pre-certification discovery Plaintiff seeks is routinely allowed in California. (See, e,g., Crab Addison, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal. App. 4th 958; Puer...

Excerpt: ... in Department 22. As this Court's previous rulings have indicated, the Court is inclined to order at least some amount of production of documents in response to the two motions to compel by Cross-Defendant Doctors Medical Center (DMC). However, in light of the opposition by the County of Stanislaus to the motions that request that it respond to DMC's requests for production of documents, the Court has developed concerns that a conflict of intere...

Excerpt: ...e scope of employment is ordinarily a question of fact, unless the undisputed facts do not support such an inference. (Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 202, 213.) The fact that Defendant Miller was admittedly off-duty at the time of the subject incident does not conclusively foreclose liability on the part of Defendant City based on the employment relationship. (Inouye v. County of Los Angeles (1994) 30 Cal.App.4 th 278.) The Court...

Excerpt: ...heir authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what was said and when. (See, e.g. Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4 th 153, 157.) Here, the Complaint fails to allege facts with the degree if specificity required in this context. In addition, the Court finds that the Demurrer represents an inappropriate procedure by which to challenge the claim for punitive damages; Defendant's arguments in that regard are evaluated in conn...

Excerpt: .... (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subds. (a), (b).) Objector has failed to demonstrate that the court intended to reopen discovery when it continued trial on May 10, 2019. The declaration in support of that motion and the motion itself do not mention a need for discovery beyond that which the court had already compelled, and the court granted all of the relief objector sought with respect to the trial date. In addition, the court denies objector's...

Excerpt: ...irectly related to the merits of the causes of action alleged in the Third Amended Complaint, such that the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. §597 do not apply in this context. In addition, the Court finds that the overall “gist” of the action is legal in nature; to the extent that the 8 th Cause of Action seeks an equitable remedy, the allegations therein are so intertwined with Plaintiff's legal claims as to make a separate trial impractical i...

Excerpt: ...e court also takes judicial notice of plaintiff's answer in the UD case. (Ibid.) The court's review of these documents indicate that some of the causes of action in the FAC are barred by the UD judgment. (See, e.g., Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Company of California v. McConnell (1955) 44 Cal.2d 715, 724–725 [“While different causes of action were involved in the present proceeding and [the previous related] one, the parties were the same, and it...

Excerpt: ...tion for Protective Order – DENIED. Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. moves to quash the deposition of the manager of its Tracy facility, and plaintiff moves to compel the same deposition. The court finds this deposition is relevant to plaintiff's claim for punitive damages, even though defendant now concedes liability on compensatory damages. Defendant has failed to support its claim that having the manager sit for deposition would be unduly burdenso...

Excerpt: ...ine whether Defendant is the prevailing party under the practical approach set forth in Castro v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4 th 1010, 1022-1023. Therefore, the Court has considered the moving and opposing arguments and evidence and finds that the moving party would have prevailed on the instant motion on the basis that the Complaint does not set forth a real property claim sufficient to support the recording of a lis pendens under Code C...

Excerpt: ...s that Defendant's conduct in failing to comply with the Court's order compelling her responses to outstanding discovery and imposing monetary sanctions against her constitutes misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. §2023.010(d), (g).) The Court further finds that the prior sanctions imposed by the Court in this action have not been effective in compelling Defendant to comply with her obligations under the Discovery Act. Therefore, th...

Excerpt: ...ition, he never explicitly testified that this alleged failure was the cause of plaintiffs' injuries. D&D's only other evidence on this point is a set of discovery responses by the Huff defendants, but D&D may not use discovery responses by the Huff defendants against plaintiffs on this motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.410.) The court also questions the usefulness of discovery responses that are made in relevant part on information and belief. (...

Excerpt: ...ot support its motion with affirmative evidence negating an essential element of the plaintiff's case. Instead, the moving defendant may point to the absence of evidence to support the plaintiff's case. Defendant Open Door Services, Inc. has done so here, and thus, the burden shifted to the Plaintiff to present evidence demonstrating there is a triable issue of material fact. In opposition, and despite Defendant's objections to the evidence Plain...