Excerpt: ... to Code Civ. Proc. §364. Therefore, the demurrer to the First Cause of Action is OVERRULED. With regard to the Second Cause of Action, the Court finds it to be uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc. §430.10(f). To the extent that the Second Cause of Action restates Plaintiff Shabo's claim for wrongful death as a claim for “Loss of Consortium,” it involves the same primary right as that asserted in connection with the First Cause of Action and is, the...

Excerpt: ...be time-barred. However, the Court must grant leave to amend if the plaintiff demonstrates a reasonable possibility that the defect might be cured. (Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery (2005) 35 Cal.4 th 797, 810.) Here, Plaintiff's opposition has demonstrated a reasonable possibility that he may be able to state facts justifying the application of the tolling provisions of Code Civ. Proc. §352.1 and/or the delayed discovery rule to his claims in this m...

Excerpt: ... Civ. Proc. §437c(p)(2).) The Court notes that Plaintiff's response lacks admissible evidence, as it consists primarily of what purports to be testimony that is not in the form of a declaration. (Code Civ. Proc. §2015.5.) Moreover, the Court notes that Plaintiff failed to submit a response to Defendant's Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts, as is required by Code Civ. Proc. §437c and Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1350. While this failure alone ...

Excerpt: ... of the stated causes of action. The Code dictates that a motion for summary adjudication may only be granted if the issue in dispute completely disposes of an entire cause of action, affirmative defense, a claim for damages or an issue of duty. As the Court reads the motion and separate statement, Defendants set forth multiple separate issues related to the element of duty as well as additional separate issues related to the elements of breach a...

Excerpt: ...only remaining cause of action at issue. Specifically, Plaintiff admits that Defendant granted all of her requests for accommodation during her employment. (UMF11-13; Plaintiff's Additional UMF 47, 54.) The additional facts argued by Plaintiff with regard to the allegedly pretextual reasons for her discharge are irrelevant to a claim under Gov. Code §12940(m). (Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank (2000) 85 Cal.App.4 th 245.) Plaintiff's Objections to Def...

Excerpt: ...ion, to the subject discovery within 30 days of service of notice of entry of the order. Plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions is denied. A pro per litigant is not entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees in connection with a motion to compel discovery. (Kravitz v. Superior Court (Milner) (2001) 91 Cal.App.4 th 1015.) While expenses actually incurred in connection with the failure to respond to discovery may be recoverable, Plaintiff h...

Excerpt: ...in this motion with additional time and effort expended in good faith. The Court's assessment in this regard is based on the fact that both parties appear to demonstrate a willingness to compromise to some degree in order to reach an acceptable resolution of the issues presented. Therefore, the hearing is continued for this purpose and counsel are instructed to continue to meet and confer in good faith. If such efforts prove unsuccessful at resol...

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 $...