Excerpt: ...ecifically, Defendant's purported evidence consists, in part, of inadmissible hearsay in the form of unauthenticated credit report documents. Defendant has failed to demonstrate how such documents might fall within a recognized hearsay exception. Moreover, even if the Court were to consider the proffered reports, the information contained therein does not definitively establish the fact asserted by Defendant, i.e. that Plaintiffs obtained the cre...

Excerpt: ... by Ms. Weese pursuant to the power of attorney executed by Ms. Kraus in 2015, the agreement does not demonstrate unanimous action by both of Ms. Kraus' designated representatives (Prob. Code §4202(b)) and Defendant submits no evidence that unanimous action was not required. (Prob. Code §4202(d).) The Court further notes Defendant's acknowledgement that, in any case, the alleged arbitration agreement does not apply to Plaintiffs' wrongful death...

Excerpt: ... review of the papers and supporting evidence submitted in conjunction with both petitions, the Court finds that no statutory grounds exist to vacate the arbitration award issued on 10-8-19. (Code Civ. Proc. §1286.2.) While the Court recognizes that the determination of the arbitrator operates to deprive Plaintiff of the ability to pursue his statutory employment claims on the merits, the Court has reviewed the arbitrator's decision and finds it...

Excerpt: ...ted by substantial evidence. Plaintiffs correctly proffer that whether the design of the accident intersection was dangerous is beyond the common lay understanding under Evidence Code §801(a) and therefore properly a matter for expert testimony. At trial, Plaintiffs' expert, Dale Dunlap, rendered his opinion that the intersection in dispute was in a dangerous condition at the time of the accident. Mr. Dunlap is a Traffic Engineer with over thirt...

Excerpt: ...0, 685.080.) Therefore, as a foundational matter, the scope of the motion is impermissibly broad to the extent it seeks recovery of fees and costs incurred prior to 11-17- 17. While Defendant does not dispute the recoverability of reasonable fees and costs in connection with Plaintiffs' post- stipulation enforcement efforts, Plaintiffs have not provided sufficient information for the Court to calculate the lodestar figure, which is fundamental to...

Excerpt: ...tion designed to protect the public, and the State remains the real party in interest. (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4 th 348, 381.) Therefore, a pre-dispute agreement to such claims to arbitration cannot be enforced without evidence of the State's consent to such terms. (Correia v. NB Baker Electric, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5 th 602 ...

Excerpt: ...can Arbitration Association, … or any other organization to conduct the arbitration subject to our approval.” Plaintiff contends that this sentence makes AAA one of her choices, and that 2WIN's approval is required only if she chooses an entity other than AAA. Defendant contends that the sentence gives it absolute veto power over any choice Plaintiff might make. The Court concludes that the sentence is ambiguous, and therefore should be const...

Excerpt: ...s Request for Judicial Notice. Defendants' Demurrers No. 1 and No. 2 are OVERRULED. Defendants' Demurrer No. 3 is SUSTAINED, with leave to amend, for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. However, it appears Plaintiff can amend this cause of action to cite to the correct Labor Code Section – which does provide her with a private right of action. (Labor Code Section 233.) Defendants' Demurrer No. 4 is SUSTAINED, with...

Excerpt: ...ing the First Cause of Action for Battery and the Fifth Cause of Action for Public Nuisance. (Code Civ. Proc. §430.10€.) With regard to the battery claim, the Court finds the allegations insufficient to support the element of intent in this context. With regard to the claim for public nuisance, the Court finds the allegations insufficient to establish the “public” nature of the claim. Plaintiff is granted 20 days leave to amend in this reg...

Excerpt: ...preliminary approval. 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 appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the proposed settlement of...

Excerpt: ...anting preliminary approval. 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 appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the proposed settle...

Excerpt: ...at are not the proper subject of court ordered fees. Additionally, the Court finds that there are some excessive amounts billed. Before setting a long cause hearing on this subject, the Court orders Plaintiff's counsel to do the following: 1. Review and consider the amounts billed; 2. Prepare a new bill for the Court's consideration and this bill shall be divided so that the tasks of each biller are listed separately, so the court may consider th...

Excerpt: ...ces, Inc. v. TAT Capital Partners, Ltd. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5 th 69, 92; Sidney v. Superior Court (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 710, 717; Trindade v. Superior Court (1973) 29 Cal.App.3d 857, 860.) Therefore, leave to amend is GRANTED as to Boer & Sons, Inc. However, there is no tolling or “relation back” to save cross-complaints against third parties brought into the action by the defendant. (Boyer v. Jensen (2005) 129 Cal.App.4 th 62, 70; Sidney v. Sup...

Excerpt: ...ing of the Court is as follows: Pursuant to the Court's Order of September 17, 2019, the Court has read and considered the supplemental briefing and affidavits submitted in response to the Court's ruling. In light of the concerns and objections raised by the Public Defender's office as to production of the records concerning Defendant Brandon Patrick Whitton, who is also a defendant in a pending criminal prosecution in this forum, and in light of...

Excerpt: ...s admissible. (Code Civ. Proc. §2015.5; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1306.) Moreover, the evidence he purports to offer in support of the motion suffers from the same defects and constitutes inadmissible hearsay. In addition, there is no indication that Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer prior to filing the motion, as is required by Code Civ. Proc. §2025.410. Plaintiff is reminded that a pro per litigant is held to the same rules of procedure ...

Excerpt: ...ing of the Court is as follows: Pursuant to the Court's Order of September 17, 2019, the Court has read and considered the supplemental briefing and affidavits submitted in response to the Court's ruling. In light of the concerns and objections raised by the Public Defender's office as to production of the records concerning Defendant Brandon Patrick Whitton, who is also a defendant in a pending criminal prosecution in this forum, and in light of...

Excerpt: ...ces, Inc. v. TAT Capital Partners, Ltd. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5 th 69, 92; Sidney v. Superior Court (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 710, 717; Trindade v. Superior Court (1973) 29 Cal.App.3d 857, 860.) Therefore, leave to amend is GRANTED as to Boer & Sons, Inc. However, there is no tolling or “relation back” to save cross-complaints against third parties brought into the action by the defendant. (Boyer v. Jensen (2005) 129 Cal.App.4 th 62, 70; Sidney v. Sup...

Excerpt: ...he licensing requirements, therefore allowing his action to proceed. (Bus. & Prof. Code §7031(e).) Specifically, the Court finds that, at a minimum, Plaintiff has demonstrated material issues of fact with regard to whether his conduct with regard to his license in 2018 was reasonable, given the totality of the alleged circumstances surrounding the interaction between the parties. (See, e.g., Plaintiff's Additional Facts 57-62, 71-75.) The partie...

Excerpt: ...s order granting preliminary approval. 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 appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the propo...

Excerpt: ...rces. As the Court found when it denied a similar motion by Defendant Leitner, “Proper voir dire will be sufficient to address issues related to the jury's ability to competently perform its duties. . . . Where liability is disputed, there is much greater reason to bifurcate the phases of the trial. A jury in this case would be presented with evidence by Plaintiffs relating to the dynamics of the collision, their injuries and other elements of ...

Excerpt: ... motion to strike the Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages is GRANTED, without leave to amend. Pursuant to Government Code section 818, public entities in California are immune from liability for punitive damages. Plaintiff has leave to amend the second cause of action of her Complaint as noted and her First Amended Complaint shall be filed not later than February 25, 2019, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(g). ...

Excerpt: ... the issue of whether the component part (i.e. the NRS cooler) constituted a separate product from the engine, such that application of the economic loss rule is barred by application of the factors articulated in KB Home v. Superior Court (Consolidated Industries Corp.) (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1076. (See Facts 2, 3 and Plaintiff's Additional Facts 17-21.) Therefore, the facts herein are not susceptible of only one legitimate inference, and the is...

Excerpt: ...s' vision of the crosswalk – is transitory and has nothing to do with the design of the crosswalk. This is insufficient to allege a dangerous condition of public property. See e.g. Erfurt v. The State of California (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 837. In Erfurt, Plaintiff alleged physical characteristics of the freeway in question were “dangerous” including: (1) the three-lane freeway split into a “Y,” (2) a concrete pillar that supported an over...

Excerpt: ...se inappropriate.” Additionally, once the Defendants' examiner identified the potential tests that he might employ, there was no requirement that he identify in advance all of the specific tests he would actually conduct, since the ultimate selection depends upon the Plaintiff's presentation of his injuries during the examination. ...

Excerpt: ...exas for them), the “non-refundable” costs might have been avoided. Equally, Defendant's counsel could have communicated his unavoidable conflict a few days earlier – which may have made a difference with regard to the Plaintiffs' “non-refundable” costs. The miscommunication related to the November 9, 2018, fax is immaterial to a consideration of sanctions – but just another example of the lack of effective communication between the p...