Excerpt: ... timekeepers, the nature of the work performed, the customary billing rate for each timekeeper, and the prevailing rate for comparable legal services in the co mmunity. ( Serrano v Unruh (Serrano IV) (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 643; Serra no v Priest (Serra no III) (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48.) The Court itself has e xp e r ie n c e f r o m h is y e a r s in t h is c iv il la w a s s ig n m e n t r e v ie w in g a n d d e t e r m in in g attorney fee motio...

Excerpt: ...he substance of the fee request, the Court notes that Plaintiff primarily contests the reasonableness of the hours claimed by Defendant herein. The successful party is normally entitled to a fully compensatory fee, which may be reduced only where special circumstances render the same unjust. ( Se rra no v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 639. ) Regarding the lodestar fees calculation, the Court finds, on the basis of the declarations submitted by Mr....

Excerpt: ...ccessful party is normally entitled to a fully compensatory fee, which may be reduced only where special circumstances render the same unjust. ( Serra no v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 639. ) Regarding the lodestar fees calculation, the Court finds, on the basis of Ms. Spiezia's declaration, that the hours claimed herein were reasonably incurred and substantially contributed to the ultimate successful result on the subject contract c la im s . ( ...

Excerpt: ...nt to be the prevailing party under the attorneys' fees provisions contained in the subject contracts. (Civ. Code § 1717.) Since the instant lawsuit involves adjudication of claims based on multiple, independent contracts, Civ. Code § 1717 requires the determination of a prevailing party as to each contract, without reference to which party prevails in the lawsuit as a whole. (See, e.g. Arntz v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. (1996) 47 Ca...

Excerpt: ... . (a ) The Court finds that Plaintiff entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery a n d a ll o b je c t io n s a r e w a iv e d . (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).) Therefore, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without ob jection, within 14 days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b). ) The Court further finds that Defendant is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this ...

Excerpt: ...hen shifts t o Cross-Complainant to demonstrate the probability that she will prevail on the merits of the subject cause of action as it relates to the protected activity. The Court finds that the application of the litigation privilege prevents Cross- Complainant from relying on the filing of the instant action as the basis for her breach of contract claim; therefore, she is unable to meet her burden on the instant motion. As a result, the Court...

Excerpt: ...ed in the opposition, the motion is DENIED . First, there is no separate statement as required by rule 3.1345(a)(2) of the California Rules of Court. The failure to file a separate statement is in and of itself sufficient grounds to deny the motion. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409 n.14; cf. Mills v. U.S. Ba nk (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893. ) Second, the supporting decla...

Excerpt: ...int are subject to the 2 -ye ar lim it a t io n s p e r io d s e t f o r t h in Co d e Civ . P r o c . § 3 3 5 .1 . As the action was filed outside that period, it is time -barre d. Plaintiff contends that she has adequately pleaded late discovery because she did not know how she had been injured until the BBS reports and findings issued in November 2022 . “In order to rely on the discovery rule for delayed accrual of a cause of action, ‘[a]...

Excerpt: ...satisfaction of the Court, the class is certified for settlement purposes only in accordance with Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.769(c). Th e class counsel, class representative, and claims administrator are hereby p r e lim in a r ily a p p r oved and appointed as set forth in the motion. The Court sets the following deadlines relative to this matter: 3-26 - 24 Defendant shall provide Class List and Data Report to Administrator 4-5-24 Administrator s...

Excerpt: ...ll Co. v. Cit y of Ana he im ,(1994) 25 Cal. App. 4th 11, 35,); Da rr v. Lone St a r Indust ries , Inc., (1979) 94 Cal. App. 3d 895, 900) . The Court also finds that the conveyance of the dominant tenement transfers all appurtenant easements to the grantee, even though the easements are not s p e c if ic a lly m e n t io n e d in t h e d e e d . ( Moyla n v. Dyke s , (1986)181 Cal. App. 3d 561, 568) . Furthermore, an appurtenant easement is a par...

Excerpt: ...finds that the opposing parties have met their burden in this regard. With regard to the existence of a dangerous condition, the opposing evidence demonstrates material factual disputes about the nature and severity of the subject condition which prevent this issue from being adjudicated as a matter of law. (See, at a minimum, Plaintiff's response to UMF 11 and Plaintiff's Additional Facts.) With regard to the issue of notice, the opposing eviden...

Excerpt: ...iate for determination on demurrer. Moreover, the instant demurrer is not the proper procedural vehicle for a challenge to Plaintiffs' ability to claim punitive damages. (See, e.g. Grieves v. Superior Court (Leonard L. Fox) (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 163.) Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED as to the existence and contents of the subject court records. (Sosinskyv. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548.) However, the Court finds that the...

Excerpt: ... efforts to meet and confer with regard to the disputed requests. Counsel are reminded that discovery is intended to be self-executing and are instructed to continue to meet and confer in good faith, in person or by telephone, with the goal of narrowing and/or resolving the disputes herein. In addition, the Court recognizes the relevance of the requested discovery with regard to the identification of information and materials concerning other stu...

Excerpt: ...irst Amended Complaint. Therefore, the Court finds that the Second Amended Complaint fails to state facts supporting the 2nd, 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, and causes of action stated therein. With regard to the claims based on Plaintiff's alleged disability, the pleading lacks specific factual allegations establishing that Plaintiff suffered from a condition that constituted a disability, as that concept is defined by FEHA. ...

Excerpt: ...e the above-mentioned procedural deficits, the Court has reviewed the substance of the moton and finds that Plaintiff, as the moving party, has failed to meet her initial burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment herein. Specifically, expert medical testimony is required to support Plaintiff's claim for medical negligence in this context, and no such testimony has been provided. (Hanson v. Grode (1999) 76 cal.App.4± 601, 605-607.) Further,...

Excerpt: ...esentation that responses would be served no later than 12-15-23; Counsel shall appear to confirm whether this was accomplished. In addition, the Court is inclined to award sanctions against Defendant Craven Farming Company and its counsel in favor of Plaintiff in connection with the instant motion, which appears to have been necessary in order to elicit the required responses. Therefore, sanctions are awarded in the amount of $460, to be paid to...

Excerpt: ...82; Cal. Rules of rule 3.769.) Good cause appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, the Court is inclined to find that the proposed settlement and the associated fees and costs are approved as set forth in the motion and supporting papers, as follows: Fees and costs of Settlement Administrator: $9,500 Payment to Class Representatives: $17,500 PAGA allocation to LWDA (75%): $15,000 Class Counsel's attorney's fees: $325,000 Class Counsel's costs:...

Excerpt: ...scovery Act under which Plaintiff seeks relief in this instance. Moreover, while the Court presumes that Plaintiff may be attempting to obtain an order suppressing the June 2023 deposition pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. S 2025.520(g), Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the meet-and-confer efforts required by that section. Moreover, the Court questions whether Plaintiff brought the instant motion seasonably, as it appears she delayed in this regard ...

Excerpt: ...bitrate that controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that: (a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) Grounds exist for rescission of the agreement." Petitioner Central Valley — Sierra Associates ("CVSA") is correct in contending that there is an overarching lev...

Excerpt: ...law. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.) The Court also considers matters that can be judicially noticed. (Ibid.) The Court sustains the demurrer on the following grounds: (1) Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she complied with the Government Claims Act; (2) the pleading is barred by the statute of limitations; and (3) Defendant Lucas is protected by quasi-judicial immunity with regard to the allegations in the First Amended Complaint...

Excerpt: ...dant Fulmer Pursuant to California EVIDENCE Code Section 1043 - GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. a) Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs' motion to compel responsesto the three questions set forth in the notice of motion and motion is GRANTED. Any issues, questions, or "matters of first impression" arising during the meet and confer process which occurred after the Court initially heard the Plaintiffs' motion an...

Excerpt: ...tion of the application of the immunity provided in Civ. Code S 846 (UMFs 21, 24, 25 and Plaintiff's Additional Facts 33-38, 40, 43, 44), she has failed to meet her burden as to Defendant's actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition and causation (UMF 9, 26-30). Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to judgment in its favor on the grounds that Plaintiff cannot establish these elements of her cause of action...

Excerpt: ...efendant's motion argues that it is not liable to indemnify Cross-Defendant Nicklaus Rey Siguenza because it is not liable to Plaintiff, the fact that the Court concludes Defendant's motion should be denied — with regard to both primary and alternative relief — dispenses with any need to rule directly on issues raised by Defendant's motion as it pertains to Cross-Defendant Siguenza. The Court believes the Plaintiff's evidence of "substantiall...

Excerpt: ...ategories and documents specified in Plaintiff's deposition notice. To the extent that the latter issues are raised bythe instant motion, the Court finds that the motion is premature. In addition, the papers demonstrate insufficient meet-and-confer efforts on those issues. With regard to the scheduling of the deposition itself, the Court notes that the defense has indicated a willingness to produce a qualified witness at a "mutually agreeable dat...

Excerpt: ... are waived. (Code Civ. Proc. S 2031.3W(a).) Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not complied with the requirements for relief set forth in Code Civ. Prtw S 2031.3W(a). Therefore, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objection, within 14 days. (CINIe Civ. Proc. S 2031.3w(b).) In addition, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection wit...