Excerpt: ... the motion as being served, and only on the Plaintiff. ...

Excerpt: ... Act's requirements does not constitute excusable neglect. Instead, a claimant asserting that their failure was a result of excusable neglect bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating that the claimant's failure to timely present a claim was “objectively reasonable and occurred despite reasonable diligence on the claimant's part.” Petitioner fails to bear that burden here. Her failure to even consult an attorney until eleven (11) months...

Excerpt: ...bmits a judgment dated March 3, 2008, as the basis for its claim. However, that judgment has expired, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 683.020, and therefore, it cannot be enforced. Both Claimants may file supplemental pleadings addressing these issues not later than July 13, 2018. ...

Excerpt: ...lacks standing to appear. In addition, the opposition brief submitted on behalf of Mr. Epps was untimely. (Code Civ. Proc. §1005(b).) ...

Excerpt: ...e SUSTAINED, without leave to amend, for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Therefore, the Court is sustaining Defendant Kuhn's Demurrers No. 1, 2, and 4. Defendant's other demurrers are therefore MOOT. Plaintiff has been granted several opportunities to state a cause of action against Defendant Kuhn under any theory and has failed to do so. The facts here are not in dispute – and of course the Court assumes them...

Excerpt: ...s) and that was entered into by and between an Association (defined as “a nonprofit corporation or unincorporated association created for the purpose of managing a common interest development as defined in Civil Code section 4080) and any Developer(s) involved in the development and/or construction of the common interest development managed by the Association. Further, only settlement agreements meeting this definition and dated after 1/1/09 ar...

Excerpt: ...oes not factually dispute the first issue addressed in Defendant's motion – which the Court may therefore address as a matter of law. However, the Court remains of the opinion that “trail immunity” as set forth in Government Code section 831.4 does not apply to the dangerous condition Plaintiff alleges here – which is the “washout hole” in the lawn near the sidewalk. As in Toeppe v. City of San Diego (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 921, the Cou...