Excerpt: ...523-524; Hearn v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1206; Anderson v. Sherman (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 228, 238 [reasonableness of the misconception and justifiability of the failure to determine the correct facts or law are discretionary determinations for the trial court].) Acting pro se, moving party initiated this action by filing one suit and naming each of the defendants independently. His testimony indicated an awareness of the defendant wi...

Excerpt: ...n interest in the affected real property, may apply at any time to the court to expunge the lis pendens. (Miller & Starr California Real Estate, 4th ed., § 10:154; Code of Civil Procedure, § 405.30.) The standard of proof for expungement of a lis pendens is that “the court shall order that the notice be expunged if the court finds that the claimant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of the real proper...

Excerpt: ...and analogous to those of section 473(b). (Mannino, supra, 142 Cal.App.3d at 779.) Where, as here, the responsibility for the waiver is solely attributable to the attorneys, the mandatory relief provisions, by analogy, strongly suggests relief should be granted based on the remedial purposes of the statutes in question. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1228.) The Court finds that timely supplemental responses were made by moving party...

Excerpt: ...rmit him to impair or destroy the client's cause of action or defense. (Seacall Develop. Ltd. v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4 th201; Orange Empire Nat. Bank, (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 347.) Defendant shall file her answer within 20 days. ...

Excerpt: ...hth Causes of Action herein, to the effect that no trial of such issues shall be had until final determination of the family law action. (Code Civ. Proc. §597.) The Court notes, however, that the First Amended Complaint in the instant action asserts claims on behalf of an additional plaintiff, Behavioral & Educational Strategies & Training (“BEST”), which is not a party to the earlier action; the Court has no authority to order that the inst...

Excerpt: ...ction of privileged materials, Plaintiff is nevertheless entitled to Code- compliant responses which provides sufficient factual information to allow Plaintiff to evaluate the merits of any claims of privilege, including provision of a privilege log where necessary. The Court further finds that all responsive documents not subject to a claim of privilege should be produced. Defendant shall provide further verified responses to the subject within ...

Excerpt: ...s stated, or which could be stated” and the voluntary dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff's Complaint. Unlike the cases cited by both parties, Defendant's statutory offer contained no exemplar release or any express mention of the terms. As such, it is ambiguous as to any limitation of the “could be stated” claims to those arising out of the claim or claims actually raised in the case at bar. A section 998 offer must be reasonably certain...

Excerpt: ...or the purpose of establishing an official record or evidentiary fact by law, such as the court records and documents evincing title. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.70; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1113(l); Ross v. Creel Printing & Publishing Co., Inc. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 736, 743; Day v. Sharp (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 904, 914.) Regarding the first cause of action, for violation of Civil Code section 2937, the Court's judicial notice of the existence of th...

Excerpt: ... party's notice of intent are either not authorized statutory causes for new trial nor coherently related by moving party to an authorized statutory cause, or else moving party did not address or support such non-statutory causes in moving party's memorandum and affidavits. (Code Civ. Proc. § 659(b) [new trial motion limited to statutory grounds in notice of intent]; Code Civ. Proc. § 659a [supporting brief and affidavits required after filing ...

Excerpt: ...omplaint pleads facts which, when liberally construed, support Cross-Complainant's claim of delayed discovery. Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that the claims therein are time-barred as a matter of law at this stage. With regard to the First Cause of Action for Fraud, the Court finds that the Cross-Complaint does not allege facts with the required degree of specificity and is uncertain as to the conduct allegedly committed by these moving Cr...

Excerpt: ...ove School Dist. V. City Title Ins. Co. (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 678, 698.) The Court further finds that Defendant has offered adequate substantiation as to some of the challenged costs but not as to others. The Court acts within its discretion in determining whether costs are excessive and should be reduced. (Levy v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 807, 816-817.) The Court notes that Defendant has withdrawn its requests for co...

Excerpt: ... of Entry of Judgment. There is no extension of the deadline where service of the Notice of Entry of Judgment was by mail. (Code Civ. Proc. § 659(b).) As this is a jurisdictional requirement, the trial court has no power to entertain or act on the untimely motion; any purported grant of the new trial would be void. (Douglas v. Janis (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 931, 936.) (b) The motion is untimely. A motion to vacate judgment requires filing of Notice ...

Excerpt: ...o system. Therefore, the matter is again continued and the parties are instructed to continue their efforts to resolve such issues. The parties shall submit a Joint Status Statement detailing their efforts no later than 5 court days before the continued hearing date. Such statement shall also identify any issues remaining in dispute and shall give a brief statement of the parties' positions on the same. CV-18-002271 – LEWIS, DERRECK VS GAILLOT,...

Excerpt: ...n one year after she first ‘discovers' the injury and the negligent cause of that injury. Secondly, she must file within three years after she first experiences harm from the injury.” (Ashworth v. Memorial Hospital (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1046, 1054; italics in original; Dolan v. Borelli (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 816, 823 [discovery is defined as the point at which “the plaintiff is aware of both the physical manifestation of the injury and negli...

Excerpt: ... not provide for such a claim against a public employer. (Gov't. Code §815(a); see, e.g. Miklosy v. Regents of University of California (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876, 899.). As to the remaining causes of action, the Court will grant leave to amend in this instance despite Plaintiff's failure to oppose; however, Plaintiff is cautioned that it is his burden to demonstrate how additional factual allegations can overcome the demurrer. Therefore, future fail...

Excerpt: ...deemed to be presumptively valid, subject to any objections that may be heard at the final fairness hearing and final approval by this Court. The Court notes, however, that while fifty-percent of the residue from uncashed checks is to go to California Rural Legal Assistance, the remaining fifty-percent is left undesignated. Plaintiff is directed to designate in its Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement the organization to which the...

Excerpt: ...ntal Declaration of Mark Romano) and supporting exhibits, including time records, that the 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.) However, the Court declines to award the time claimed for hours not expended at the time of the fili...

Excerpt: ...ly, the verification provided is insufficient and of no legal effect under the circumstances described in the moving papers. Therefore, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further verified responses, without objections, and to produce responsive documents within 14 days. (Code Civ. Proc. §§2031.310(a), 2031.280.) Further, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc....

Excerpt: ...pecifically, Defendant has failed to submit admissible evidence demonstrating facts supporting the claims of oppression, undue burden, and/or expense. Based on the information submitted, the Court is not convinced that Defendant engaged in a meaningful attempt to meet and confer prior to filing the instant motion. The parties are encouraged to undertake that process in good faith with regard to further discovery disputes. The Court declines to aw...

Excerpt: ... with her obligations under the Discovery Act, and that such failure has prejudiced the defense's ability to evaluate Plaintiff's claims and to prepare for trial. Therefore, the Court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted. (Code Civ. Proc. §2023.030(d).) Plaintiff Rosalinda Palomo's Complaint shall be dismissed as against Defendant Karla Ann Ciarolla herein. No further monetary sanctions are awarded. ...

Excerpt: ...eking relief from default. (Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 233; Fasuyi v. Permatex, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 681, 696; Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 5-G, § 5:401.) The Court further finds that relief from entry of default will result in no demonstrable prejudice to Plaintiff. (Elston, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 233; Fasuyi, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 696 [“very slight evidence” required to set as...

Excerpt: ...ed that Plaintiff had alleged only the glare of the sun as a dangerous condition. Plaintiff's third amended complaint alleges additional factors, such as location, failure to warn and the creation of a trap for students and drivers. Based upon the “amalgam” of these factors, reasonable minds could come to more than one conclusion as to whether a dangerous condition existed. As such, it is the jury's role to determine the facts and whether tho...

Excerpt: ...h on Civ. Code §2100, pertaining to common carriers, as well as under Civ. Code §1714 and the common law principles articulated in Rowland v. Christian(1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 113.) While the Court notes that the existence of a statutory duty under Pen. Code §11164 et seq. is asserted in this matter, it appears that neither party was able to provide additional authority clarifying Defendant's status under that statute. Therefore, the Court looks ...

Excerpt: ...nable person on inquiry notice that EMC's diagnosis may have been incorrect. (See, e.g., Rose v. Fife (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 760, 768–769.) All evidentiary objections by either party are overruled, either on the merits or because they do not pertain to evidence that was essential to the court's analysis of MID's MSJ/MSA. (See Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 532 [encouraging parties and trial courts to focus only on “important” ob...

Excerpt: ...ormation is crucial to the defense's preparation of the case; or that the deposition would even prove useful, considering the application of the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. (Carehouse Convalescent Hospital v. Superior Court (Sims) (2007) 143 Cal.App.4 th 1558; Spectra-Physics v. Superior Court (Teledyne) (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 1487.) b) Defendant's Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Discovery – GRANTED, in...